Resources from outer space?

[El_Machinae]

The technology is needed first, I won't deny that.

I'm remembering that it will cost $30 billion for the first SE, $14 billion for the second and $9 billion for the third - assuming we can keep the unions in line.

I don't know how much red tape has been factored into those numbers.

 

[onejayhawk]

The problem seems to be that this isn't going to be economically viable when you take into account the costs of the research and construction. Take the platinum type metals, which are the most valuable given their mass. Platinum is worth about $30 a gram, so $6 trillion is going to weigh on the order of 200,000 tonnes. The shuttle has the largest payload of any existing spacecraft but even it can only carry 21.3 tonnes of cargo. It costs $300 million just to get the shuttle into geosychronous orbit and it isn't even capable of reaching the asteroid in question. Granted shifting mass down to Earth is cheaper than launching it, but it still has to be encased in a spacecraft unless you want it to arrive as a rain of molten metal across half a continent.

With existing technology you could probably build something more efficient that the shuttle, but even allowing for increasing the payload tenfold you're going to need 1000 flights. To break even you've got to make the flight for $6 billion. Now that sounds fairly feasible with existing technology, but you've got to lift your mining and extraction equipment from Earth. It costs on the order of $25 million to lift a tonne from Earth to geosynchronous orbit, and it'll be a lot more to get it to this asteroid. You've got to lift the spacecraft from Earth each time, for a cost which is probably going to be higher than that of the shuttle. You're going to have to design and build a spacecraft from scratch, since nothing existing is suitable.

The big problem seems to be the huge research and construction costs upfront. On paper if we had a spacecraft with the efficiency and reusability of the shuttle (which is lousy on the former and not great on the latter) capable of reaching this asteroid it might work. I can't see such a craft being developed for less than the cost of the shuttle or Apollo program, which were on the order of $130 billion at current rates. While that still may seem OK given the value of the cargo (and presumably the craft and mining gear could be reused for other less valuable metals), I can't see anyone investing that much upfront on what seems a risky endeavour.

In any case it is simply not economically viable to transport the less valuable metals like iron. It's only worth a few hundred dollars a tonne, so a load of it in the theoretical spacecraft is only worth maybe $100000 compared to a load of platinum at $6 billion. It's irrelevant that there's $8 trillion of it up there as it weighs about 16 billion tonnes. At a very optimistic $5 million a tonne it would cost $80000 trillion to transport it. In space mining only the most valuable materials for their mass can be transported like platinum, gold (maybe) and a few rare things like He-3. I can see the platinum becoming economically viable to mine, but the iron and nickel is far too cheap for it's mass to transport with any conceivable technology. Even if the space elevator lives up to the theory and cuts launch costs by 98% the iron is still not going to be worth shifting. I can't see how we are ever going to be able to mine a tonne of iron in orbit and land it for the $600 it's currently worth when mined on Earth.

True and not true. The unrefined metal ore is not profitable, but if a refining/manufacturing center is built in space, the metal itself could become the reentry vehicle. Also, it is not an inconsequential thing to have a metal ssupply already in orbit, since shipping them up from the bottom is cost prohibitive.

Once the Skylift is operational, and I agree with El Machinae that it will be sooner rather than later, bring refined metal down will be a power source. Anything in orbit has an enormous potential energy relative to Earthside, and the elevator can be used to convert that potential into, say, the power to run the elevator. So there is an actual benifit to bringing metals down from orbit.

Another note on the Skylift. The "Mars" books involve a disaster of a type impossible with currrent design concept. No large counterweight is needed, and the tensile strength required is found in a specialized form of carbon. Significant manufacturing and engineering problems still exist, but the project is fast approaching viability.

J

 

[jamiethearcher]

Another note on the Skylift. The "Mars" books involve a disaster of a type impossible with currrent design concept. No large counterweight is needed, and the tensile strength required is found in a specialized form of carbon. Significant manufacturing and engineering problems still exist, but the project is fast approaching viability.

J

I really enjoyed the Mars series - in his concept of the space elevator, wasnt the cable made of some sort of diamond compound?

 

[Cuivienen]

#1 most useful resource found in space?


Water. More useful than Helium-3. Why? Because it's what would allow us to terraform the Moon, Ganymede, Callisto and Venus eventually. (Obviously the Moon would be by far the easiest.)

Although I would be interested to know the prevalence of iodine and hydrogen iodide in the Solar System. Why? Because electrolyzing a solution of hydroiodic acid actually produces energy rather than wasting it. The hydrogen gas can then be reacted with omnipresent oxygen to form water in a reaction that releases much more energy than needed to electrolyze the acid.

Of course, simply grabbing some gaseous hydrogen from Jupiter might be more effective.

 

[onejayhawk]

I really enjoyed the Mars series - in his concept of the space elevator, wasnt the cable made of some sort of diamond compound?

Something like that. Its been a while.

Diamond is carbon, like graphite, and the candidate material is also carbon, a substance called nanotubes. Commercial production is still in the future, but demand for it by engineers is growing, and there are dirtside applications when it becomes available.

The important thing is that the top is NOT a counterweight swung to keep the line (ribbon) tight, so there is no danger of an asteroid crashing to ground. The actual material would be in ribbons a few incheswide and thinner than paper, which would flutter to the ground if broken.

J

 

[GinandTonic]

Pure carbon has a uber-stable pure forn known as C-60, carbon molicules arranged in a manner like the pannels that make up a football. These can be joined togeather - like adding another row of pannels to the center of the football - to make tubes with theoretical strength/ weight ratios around the bottom end of those projected for a space elivator.

However at the mo we can make miniscule quantities of the stuff and even with enough we are still scratching at the bottom of the required ratios.

My old uni (Sussex) got a nobel for c60 while I was there, and even those of us in the Arts departments were dam proud of our geeks.

 

[Sidhe]

Well I Think personally space will only become a viable source of material with the advent of cheap and reliable spaceflight. Which would require something far better than the currently expensive and inefficient method of getting into space and travelling to places. Fusion drives/anti matter drives. Anything cheap and sustainable would do. Till then it's all just pie in the sky.

The moon is made of cheese? Why bother mining that hunk of cheese when we can make our own much more cheaply?

This is an analogy btw

 

[MrCynical]

True and not true. The unrefined metal ore is not profitable, but if a refining/manufacturing center is built in space, the metal itself could become the reentry vehicle. Also, it is not an inconsequential thing to have a metal ssupply already in orbit, since shipping them up from the bottom is cost prohibitive.

I was allowing for refining it in orbit, iron ore would be worth even less. I'm not at all convinced by building a reentry vehicle with the sole purpose of dismantling it for the metal again when it lands. It seems like something which is going to be extremely expensive to do, and many of the metals (including I think iron) would be unsuitable for the purpose anyway.

It's true that refining the metal in orbit would be useful for orbital construction since it will certainly be cheaper than lifting it from Earth. I'm just pointing out that the metal can't really be sold at a profit on Earth itself, and in the absence of an orbital construction industry that's the only market for it at the moment. Once such an industry got going then yes there'd be a demand for metal in orbit which an orbital mine could supply.

Water. More useful than Helium-3. Why? Because it's what would allow us to terraform the Moon, Ganymede, Callisto and Venus eventually. (Obviously the Moon would be by far the easiest.)

Wouldn't it be easier to terraform a planet or moon that has an atmosphere to start with? I was under the impression that Mars would be much easier since it already has an atmosphere, and carbon dioxide and water available (amounts uncertain). The moon may be closer, but it seems a lot harder to actually terraform.

Although I would be interested to know the prevalence of iodine and hydrogen iodide in the Solar System. Why? Because electrolyzing a solution of hydroiodic acid actually produces energy rather than wasting it. The hydrogen gas can then be reacted with omnipresent oxygen to form water in a reaction that releases much more energy than needed to electrolyze the acid.

Iodine isn't a very abundant element in the solar system. It's about a million times less abundant than iron which is about 100000 times less abundant than hydrogen. Only things like gold, silver and some of the f-block elements are significantly less abundant. I can't turn up information specifically on hydrogen iodide, but since the overall abundance of an element takes into account any compounds containing it then it can't be that high either.

 

[Kozmos]

Nanotech and the space elevator will make thing such as space mining much more viable.We have to crack nanotech first though.

 

[Sidhe]

Nanotech and the space elevator will make thing such as space mining much more viable.We have to crack nanotech first though.

try typing nanotech into google. We're getting there

http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html

There's a very basic view of nanotech but it has lead to an insane number of potential areas of study, from medicine to robotics to chemistry to physics to biophysics to ai design to the list is basically endless.

 

[Hakim]

@MrCynical: perhaps iron isn't profitable to get down to earth, but how about platinum?

I think a major obstacle will be the risks associated with it, ppl will require a 0% risk of the asteroid crashing into earth instead of orbit. Virtually 0% wont be good enough.

 

[Xenocrates]

There's too much junk down here already...

I wouldn't back He3 particularly. Even if fusion reactors become possible, the environmental effect of having free (even non-polluting) energy would be devastating. This may sound paradoxical, but free energy just means more factories, more pollution and more junk. Maybe if we fill the world with so much shite that we can move we'll finally have the desire to colonise elsewhwere.....

I am also concerned about 'space bugs' if the pan-spermists (the 'life is very common throughout the universe' guys) are right, we could be in for a big surprise!

 

[Shaihulud]

When launch and retrieval of materiels from space becomes so cheap that platinum becomes profitable.... Why stay on Earth? Why even think of shipping it back to Earth? I say screw Earth! We build a Space Nation and hold Earth hostage, by holding the "ultimate high ground". We can get everything on Earth with this system, money? Ppfaghhh!!

 

[Sidhe]

There's too much junk down here already...

I wouldn't back He3 particularly. Even if fusion reactors become possible, the environmental effect of having free (even non-polluting) energy would be devastating. This may sound paradoxical, but free energy just means more factories, more pollution and more junk. Maybe if we fill the world with so much shite that we can move we'll finally have the desire to colonise elsewhwere.....

I am also concerned about 'space bugs' if the pan-spermists (the 'life is very common throughout the universe' guys) are right, we could be in for a big surprise!

That's nonsense if you can harness fuision engines and then make the small enough to use in vehicles, then the saving on polution from no CO2 emissions from coal oil etc would dramatically decrease polution. YOu can also use the fusion to travel to the moon or Mars and build colonies since. A fusion drive wouldn't require carrying huge supplies of fuel. As one component of the fule itself is actually produced by the reaction and the other is simply Deuterium. Which would probably be stored as highly pressurised heavy steam or D2O(g).

 

[Xenocrates]

I mean the free energy would simply drive more factories, and produce more pollution generally, not necessary pollution that has been connected to climate change.

 

[Sidhe]

That doesn't make sense actually, having more energy will not lead to more factories, people build factories whether they have the energy for them or not, factories numbers are about supply and demand not about producing superfluous crap, there are exactly as many factories in my country as economics and supply demands. We have 100% of our energy requirements. Having 200% or whatever is not going to make a blind bit of difference to how much crap we need to live. Population might. But then having free energy might increase population by reducing polution and the resultant health risks, but not much, not in my country at least? It's a false premise which ever way you look at it. Fusion power would bring about nothing but benefits.

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean the free energy would simply drive more factories, and produce more pollution generally,

I see your logic. I can expect the amount of garbage we produce to increase if products become cheaper. That's on the user side.

On the production side, however, I'd expect that most of the pollution from industry is from the energy production. Especially industry that doesn't produce a material good (like a law office) - that company has lights/heat that pollute, and getting rid of that pollution would drop the overall pollution. In addition, as we move to a more service-oriented society, that 'type' of pollution will increase.

Why stay on Earth? Why even think of shipping it back to Earth?

In the long run, you are correct, space colonies will become more independent. In the short term, however, space industry will be awfully dependant upon Earth. In addition, the people funding the projects will want returns, i.e., the ability to sell metals down here.

MrCynical: there might be a push to make the iron more desirable. First off, iron should get more expensive on Earth as pollution controls become more prevalent and as the difficulty of mining increases (which, I admit, might not happen for a long time). With the possibility of space-mining iron, though, there might be pressure to increase environmental rigour down here. By analogy, the people are currently demanding more bio-diesel and are willing to pay more for it due to other elements. In fact, I believe that some areas are legislating bio-diesel addatives, despite its increased cost.

 

[MrCynical]

MrCynical: there might be a push to make the iron more desirable. First off, iron should get more expensive on Earth as pollution controls become more prevalent and as the difficulty of mining increases (which, I admit, might not happen for a long time).

I think that it'll be quite a while before iron mining on Earth becomes more expensive than orbital mining, but the orbital mines could still be of use before that for orbital construction work. With cheaper space flight and resource depletion/pollution on earth I could see orbital iron mining becoming practical, but not for centuries. For a space elevator it all depends on how cheaply you could drop something down it without it being dangerous, and I really can't find any numbers for that. Presumably the climber carrying the material will need to use some fuel or power to prevent it accelerating to the point where it will burn up or damage the base station during descent. I have no idea of what order of magnitude the cost of this would be though.

@Hakim. The platinum would possibly be worth mining even now, though the high risk (plus whatever it'll do to the price of platinum if you drop thousands of tons of it into the market) would probably put any buisness off trying. There are a few other metals like palladium and rhodium which might also be valuable enough. With an elevator vastly more metals would be profitable, such as gold silver and quite a few others. It's just that iron is common and dirt cheap down here at the moment.

 

[El_Machinae]

With Iron, there might be a possibility of refining it such that there are bubbles in it. Then just drop it into the ocean (in the middle, where there isn't much life to kill), and then tugboat it to port. As well, dropping it into places like the Sahara might be a possibility.

The losses might be negligible, depending upon ablation.

With platinum, I expect that some type of market control would occur (it would be bled down to maintain market price) - but the world benefits from having more platinum, except for people who don't like their jewelry being devalued (serves them right for hogging medically useful material, anyway).

 

[Xenocrates]

In many countries, such as China, where they are manufacturing (even now) at a very small percentage of their capacity, energy is the main limiting factor followed by raw materials.

I worked on a 'fusion prize' project a couple of years ago; we thought that offering a 10 billion dollar prize to the first group to produce power by fusion (or equivalent way) would be beneficial. The Chinese rejected the proposal for many reasons.

More offices and more lighting etc. would require more manufacturing and exponentially increase the amount of raw materials required and destabilise every market. It would make capitalism redundant with an accompanying political revolution.

I think that energy shortages might change people's behaviour, but free energy would simply encourage even more consumption and therefore more pollution.