Space news /comments

[Winner]

James Cameron, Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin to mine resources from space

-> Now this is interesting. In case this isn't a joke, these guys are probably planning to mine asteroids or something, judging from what's known:

Space Exploration Company to Expand Earth's Resource Base

WHAT: Join visionary Peter H. Diamandis, M.D.; leading commercial space entrepreneur Eric Anderson; former NASA Mars mission manager Chris Lewicki; and planetary scientist & veteran NASA astronaut Tom Jones, Ph.D. on Tuesday, April 24 at 10:30 a.m. PDT in Seattle, or via webcast, as they unveil a new space venture with a mission to help ensure humanity's prosperity.

Supported by an impressive investor and advisor group, including Google’s Larry Page & Eric Schmidt, Ph.D.; film maker & explorer James Cameron; Chairman of Intentional Software Corporation and Microsoft’s former Chief Software Architect Charles Simonyi, Ph.D.; Founder of Sherpalo and Google Board of Directors founding member K. Ram Shriram; and Chairman of Hillwood and The Perot Group Ross Perot, Jr., the company will overlay two critical sectors – space exploration and natural resources – to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will create a new industry and a new definition of ‘natural resources’.

The news conference will be held at the Museum of Flight in Seattle on Tuesday, April 24 at 10:30 a.m. PDT and available online via webcast.

WHEN: Tuesday, April 24

According to the company's press release (below):

[...] the company will overlay two critical sectors – space exploration and natural resources – to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will create a new industry and a new definition of ‘natural resources’.

That sounds like asteroid mining. Because what else is there in space that we need here on earth? Certainly not a livable climate or a replacement for our dwindling supplies of oil.

I am sceptical, but willing to let myself be positively surprised. Also, a couple of interesting posts from bautforum.com:

Spoiler :

I wondered if anyone here was going to pick up on that. I wast thinking about posting something on it too. The big day will be April 24, when they'll say just what they are planning to do. We should be able to get a much better idea about whether they have a good idea or not.

I can see some things that could probably be moneymakers with present technology. For a space project, the most important place to have fuel or construction material today is in Earth orbit. I could see, for instance, an ion-drive robot space tug project to bring back a very small asteroid, to be processed for oxygen to breathe, hydrogen, and metals for construction material.

It wouldn't be very important if we stay at just one space station, but if there is interest in expanded space development, making some of the resources cheaper could have dramatic effects on the economics and practicality of the proposed projects.

Then there are bigger things . . . if you can make it competitive (a better choice that earth-based mining), platinum, among other things, could be very important.

Well, here's crossed fingers. I've long thought there were better ways to make money in space, but the launch capability and interest were lacking. That might be changing.

Space resource acquisition and manufacturing can also become profitable even with, and even because of, high launch costs.
Provided, of course, you make it for the local market.
If it costs 10,000 dollars to send a kilogram into orbit, and it costs even 8,000 dollars to mine a kilogram of some material and process it into a usable form, then you got a savings that just keeps building up if you use it on site.
With the right choice of orbits and rockets, high ISP, low thrust, or even solar sails, it can even become profitable to send it elsewhere.
It's probably going to be a long time until we get to the point where it is profitable to send it back to Earth, but not nearly so long for use in space.

And an opposing view which I tend to agree with at the moment:

I've been saying for years that space mining can be profitable if we both reduce launch costs with inexpensive, mass produced and unmanned launchers and increase the cost of mining in earth through better environmental practices. Once space manufacturing is occurring, then there's so much less mass to be lifted to maintain the space mining.

Mining of what? What is it that can be collected from asteroids that renders the exercise economically viable? What sort of infrastructure would you require - are you refining/smelting/processing material in space? Have you seen the engineering facilities required to do that? Now do it in zero G. Now how are you getting it home? There's not market for it in space. Or are you intending to build things with it in space? Now scale up your infrastructure a couple of orders of magnitude. Artificially inflating prices of terrestrial mining is totally untenable economically & politically. (consider the environmental impact of all the R&D and then manufacture and launch of a space based mining operation - your environmental argument has no merit that I can see)

Commercially viable mining on an asteroid? In the next quarter century?

LOLZ.

Almost as silly as space based solar power IMHO. not quite, but almost.

So, your thoughts/ideas? Personally, I believe many people totally underestimate the difficulty of refining stuff in space. They point out things like "lunar regolith is full of aluminium!" and they're right, they just forget to mention the aluminium is bound in oxides. Getting it out as pure metal requires a pretty complicated and energetically expensive process that furthermore requires steady supply of chemicals which are simply missing on the Moon.

In other words, it's not as easy as it might seem at the first glance. The infrastructure necessary for a space mining/refining operation would be pretty substantial. I also VERY MUCH doubt this could be done fully automatically (how many fully automatic steel mills do you know here on Earth, tell me?), therefore going to asteroids to mine them would also require sending humans there to oversee and maintain the operation. This in turn means keeping them alive and well for many years in space.

Not that I am against it, I'd love to see it happen, I just don't think it's very realistic at this point. I believe that mining asteroids will only become viable once we have a robust human presence in the solar system and therefore an out-of-Earth market for these resources.

 

[suiraclaw]

If we get more news about that, it should be worth a separate topic.

By the way, Peter Diamandis, mentioned in the article as one of the people behind this, actually did a great TED talk about exploration and stuff:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/peter_diamandis_on_our_next_giant_leap.html

Either way, I'm really curious what they're planning to do. Most people seem to assume it'll be asteroid mining, but I kinda hope instead they'll try to mine hydrogen (aka gas) on the moon. After all, being able to refuel in space would greatly reduce costs and it is known that there is hydrogen on the poles of the moon (second part of this vid, after 11:15: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/bill_stone_explores_the_earth_and_space.html )

I believe that mining asteroids will only become viable once we have a robust human presence in the solar system and therefore an out-of-Earth market for these resources.

Well, being able to mine iron/resources in space would make setting up out-of-Earth bases cheaper.

 

[uppi]

So, your thoughts/ideas? Personally, I believe many people totally underestimate the difficulty of refining stuff in space. They point out things like "lunar regolith is full of aluminium!" and they're right, they just forget to mention the aluminium is bound in oxides. Getting it out as pure metal requires a pretty complicated and energetically expensive process that furthermore requires steady supply of chemicals which are simply missing on the Moon.

Wait, let me get this straight: They say they want to mine the most abundant metal in the earth's crust on the moon?


Anyway, while I would say that mining asteroids is in principle possible, I fail to see how it could be profitable without major advances in spacecraft launching.

 

[Lillefix]

Wait, let me get this straight: They say they want to mine the most abundant metal in the earth's crust on the moon?


Anyway, while I would say that mining asteroids is in principle possible, I fail to see how it could be profitable without major advances in spacecraft launching.

I think they're confusing reality with EVE Online. That's the most plausible explanation imo.

 

[Michkov]

I cant see how they are going to make a profit with this or even brake even, but the idea alone is better than anything the spacefaring nations have going on right now.

 

[suiraclaw]

They say they want to mine the most abundant metal in the earth's crust on the moon?

They didn't say anything like that. Everything is speculation until they reveal more about their business plans, which as far as I know will happen at a news conference Tuesday. All we know is that they want to combine the sectors of space exploration and natural resources and other similar vague clues that hint at asteroid mining.

 

[Winner]

Wait, let me get this straight: They say they want to mine the most abundant metal in the earth's crust on the moon?

If "they" means people whose ideas I've encountered before, then yes. Of course the reason was mostly to use it as fuel, in powder form, with the oxygen. The specific impulse would be crap, but if you could literally turn dirt into rocket fuel, it wouldn't matter especially with regard to Luna's low gravity.

Anyway, while I would say that mining asteroids is in principle possible, I fail to see how it could be profitable without major advances in spacecraft launching.

I think they're confusing reality with EVE Online. That's the most plausible explanation imo.

Yes, I do believe that all the sci-fi films, books, and computer games where "asteroids = precious resources" might have given people wrong ideas. In reality, only a small minority of asteroids are made primarily of metals. Those which are are very poor in volatiles, thus on-site refining would be a problem (unless you want to waste cargo capacity shipping unprocessed ore to other locations).

I believe it could make sense if you had colonies in the outer solar system, which is as far as I know very metal-poor. Until then, it just makes little sense. If we colonize Mars, then we can mine it - Mars has the advantage of being exposed to some of the same geological processes that shaped Earth, so mining there should be a lot easier than in space.

---

I said it before, but if we are going to mine something in space in the next +- 25 years, it's water on lunar poles.

 

[suiraclaw]

In reality, only a small minority of asteroids are made primarily of metals.

I don't think that's a problem, as there are enough asteroids that we can be picky. For example, a prime candidate for an asteroid for mining right now would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(6178)_1986_DA . Quote from that wikipedia article: Asteroid 1986 DA achieved its most notable recognition when scientists revealed that it contained over "10,000 tons of gold and 100,000 tons of platinum", or an approximate value at the time of its discovery of "$90 billion for the gold and a cool trillion dollars for the platinum, plus loose change for the asteroid's 10 billion tons of iron and a billion tons of nickel."[3].

 

[Winner]

I don't think that's a problem, as there are enough asteroids that we can be picky. For example, a prime candidate for an asteroid for mining right now would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(6178)_1986_DA . Quote from that wikipedia article: Asteroid 1986 DA achieved its most notable recognition when scientists revealed that it contained over "10,000 tons of gold and 100,000 tons of platinum", or an approximate value at the time of its discovery of "$90 billion for the gold and a cool trillion dollars for the platinum, plus loose change for the asteroid's 10 billion tons of iron and a billion tons of nickel."[3].

Yeah, I was just commenting on the incorrect view a lot of people have that all asteroids are metallic. In reality, only a few percent are. They are probably fragments of cores of differentiated bodies (dwarf planets and bigger) that were blown to pieces during the formation of the Solar system.

Platinum mining on asteroids could be viable one day, especially if we continue to use it in fuel cells.

 

[Winner]

So, it really is asteroid mining:

BBC: Plans for asteroid mining emerge

(I'll comment on it later)

 

[Crezth]

So, it really is asteroid mining:

BBC: Plans for asteroid mining emerge

(I'll comment on it later)

This was brought up on #nes earlier today, and as we discussed it I pointed out some problems that the scientists agreed with. Specifically:

However, several scientists have responded with scepticism, calling the plan daring, difficult and highly expensive.

They struggle to see how it could be cost-effective, even with platinum and gold worth nearly £35 per gram ($1,600 an ounce). An upcoming Nasa mission to return just 60g (two ounces) of material from an asteroid to Earth will cost about $1bn.

But I must admit that if billionaires want to blow billions on an investment that won't be realized for decades - and I mean decades - then I guess government intervention isn't all that necessary (on a fundamental level, anyway, as NASA advisers are certainly involved in the project). Once the ball gets rolling, there will be a certain inertial effect that even a zomg-communist like myself must admit is conducive to progress.

In my opinion, it'll just be a lot slower. But it'll happen. So long as the involved parties are happy with being in the red for as many as 20 to 30 years.

 

[Winner]

Here's a video from the press conference:


Link to video.

(You can skip the first 8 minutes or so)

 

[tokala]

A nice in-depth background article:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...to-mine-asteroids-and-i-think-they-can-do-it/

Most interesting tidbit (in my opinion):

“The investors aren’t making decisions based on a business plan or a return on investment,” he told me. “They’re basing their decisions on our vision.”

 

[GinandTonic]

Key tests for Skylon spaceplane project

UK engineers have begun critical tests on a new engine technology designed to lift a spaceplane into orbit.

The proposed Skylon vehicle would operate like an airliner, taking off and landing at a conventional runway.

Its major innovation is the Sabre engine, which can breathe air like a jet at lower speeds but switch to a rocket mode in the high atmosphere.

Reaction Engines Limited (REL) believes the test campaign will prove the readiness of Sabre's key elements.

This being so, the firm would then approach investors to raise the £250m needed to take the project into the final design phase.

"We intend to go to the Farnborough International Air Show in July with a clear message," explained REL managing director Alan Bond.


"The message is that Britain has the next step beyond the jet engine; that we can reduce the world to four hours - the maximum time it would take to go anywhere. And that it also gives us aircraft that can go into space, replacing all the expendable rockets we use today."

To have a chance of delivering this message, REL's engineers will need a flawless performance in the experiments now being run on a rig at their headquarters in Culham, Oxfordshire.

The test stand will not validate the full Sabre propulsion system, but simply its enabling technology - a special type of pre-cooler heat exchanger.

Sabre is part jet engine, part rocket engine. It burns hydrogen and oxygen to provide thrust - but in the lower atmosphere this oxygen is taken from the atmosphere.

The approach should save weight and allow Skylon to go straight to orbit without the need for the multiple propellant stages seen in today's throw-away rockets.


But it is a challenging prospect. At high speeds, the Sabre engines must cope with 1,000-degree gases entering their intakes. These need to be cooled prior to being compressed and burnt with the hydrogen.

Reaction Engines' breakthrough is a module containing arrays of extremely fine piping that can extract the heat and plunge the intake gases to minus 140C in just 1/100th of a second.

Ordinarily, the moisture in the air would be expected to freeze out rapidly, covering the pre-cooler's pipes in a blanket of frost and compromising their operation.

But the REL team has also devised a means to stop this happening, permitting Sabre to run in jet mode for as long as is needed before making the transition to a booster rocket.

I thought this project was one of those silly concept jobs where nothing really happens, but it looks like it could be the real deal.

 

[Winner]

I thought this project was one of those silly concept jobs where nothing really happens, but it looks like it could be the real deal.

Nope, they're pretty serious about it. I've been following it with GREAT INTEREST (capital letters for emphasis) for the last couple of years and it looks very good on paper.

The problem is, the company behind this is very small, and they see their part in the whole enterprise only as a minor subcontractor (they want to manufacture pre-coolers for the Sabre engines). This means someone else needs to actually make the decision to build SKYLON.

I guess a giant aerospace consortium such as Airbus could do it, if European governments were willing to endorse the project, provide subsidies, and in general reduce the risks related to its development. Sadly, I don't see that happening any time soon, even though ESA made a feasibility study that basically says "Yes, this is doable."

Anyway, this quote needs to be highlighted:

"What we have learned is that a little bit of government money goes a long way," said Mr Bond.

"It gives people confidence that what we're doing is meaningful and real - that it's not science fiction. So, government money is a very powerful tool to lever private investment."

 

[Benefactor]

The British Government could fun the damn thing on it's own, but they won't. ESA could also afford to get the whole thing tested, built and flying as well, but I have doubts about that as well.

Maybe Planetary Resources, Inc. could fund it .

 

[Winner]

The British Government could fun the damn thing on it's own, but they won't. ESA could also afford to get the whole thing tested, built and flying as well, but I have doubts about that as well.

Maybe Planetary Resources, Inc. could fund it .

REL doesn't even want to rely fully on public funding, knowing well that it can go away at any moment, especially when a new government is elected. They want SKYLON to be in large part a private venture.

This isn't that far fetched - let's say Airbus or some other European consortium picks up the project (sorry, no Americans, too many ITAR-related issues) and, after the usual delays and budget overshoots succeeds in producing this vehicle.

This consortium won't actually operate it (like, say, SpaceX which builds and operates everything), it will sell it to interested customers, be it private companies who just want to make money launching satellites or selling tickets to space tourists, or governments who want independent access to space. The latter would probably be more important in the short term - if Japan buys a SKYLON to launch its payloads, you can bet India and South Korea will do it as well. Given the price of a single vehicle, basically any developed country could afford to buy one and thus launch its own space programme without having to develop everything from scratch. There could then be an independent Canadian space programme, Brazilian space programme, Australian space programme, even South African or Indonesian space programme. Space would be opened to dozens and dozens of countries and the American-Russian-Chinese oligopoly would forever be history.

I hope to see this happening, eventually.

 

[innonimatu]

So that's what the 2010s will be known for: the asteroid bubble economy!

 

[GinandTonic]

Perhaps the gov / ESA subsidy could go to a joint venture between REL and Rolls Royce to full-scale the engine then an ESA / Airbus venture could get onto the whole airframe. While it seems sensible for REL to realise they are way out of their depth when it comes to trying to develop a spaceship it would be sad if the industry heavy hitters let the concept wither on the vine.

 

[Winner]

Asteroid mining infographic from Space.com: