Asteroid Mining

[a completely inoffensive name]

Asteroids contain a whole bunch of common metals, especially iron. That's the point of processing them in space, since Earth already has enough of iron.

Except the metallurgy is a bit more complex than just being slabs of iron. I think the main material is aluminum but I am not 100% sure about that, but I do know that trying to achieve such metallurgy in space is a great exercise in expensive distasters waiting to happen. Space only gives you one shot at survival. Our space age shuttles have blown up before they even entered space simply because they launched on a very cold day. The tolerances needed are difficult enough to engineer and test on earth, let alone a zero gravity environment.

[rvg]

Except the metallurgy is a bit more complex than just being slabs of iron.

Oh, I'm sure mistakes will be made along the way. The process does not need to involve humans though. The facility can be made fully robotic, which will also alleviate the need and the expenses of making it habitable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh, I'm sure mistakes will be made along the way. The process does not need to involve humans though. The facility can be made fully robotic, which will also alleviate the need and the expenses of making it habitable.

This sci-fi fantasy is sounding more idyllic by the minute. I'm glad when it comes to space people don't get bogged down by the practicallity of their ideas. It will make the public's disconnect with the achievements of private enterprise that much more palpable.

[rvg]

This sci-fi fantasy is sounding more idyllic by the minute. I'm glad when it comes to space people don't get bogged down by the practicallity of their ideas. It will make the public's disconnect with the achievements of private enterprise that much more palpable.

Space exploration in general has been a constant exercise in ignoring the naysayers and achieving things that supposedly "cannot be done". Nothing new really.

[Whacker]

Oh, I'm sure mistakes will be made along the way. The process does not need to involve humans though. The facility can be made fully robotic, which will also alleviate the need and the expenses of making it habitable.

Great idea in theory, really damn hard in practice. Electronics have to be extra hardened to survive space. Ironically most newer electronics probably wouldn't survive, the older stuff with larger pathways and circuitry are what lasts much longer. This is why the shuttles ran on old 486's.

Not saying it can't be done at all. But getting to something that'd probably survive the trip and function fine is going to be a real exercise.

[Strike For The South]

But....but...but SCIENCE

[Whacker]

But....but...but SCIENCE

[rvg]

Great idea in theory, really damn hard in practice. Electronics have to be extra hardened to survive space. Ironically most newer electronics probably wouldn't survive, the older stuff with larger pathways and circuitry are what lasts much longer. This is why the shuttles ran on old 486's.

Not saying it can't be done at all. But getting to something that'd probably survive the trip and function fine is going to be a real exercise.

Cold welding is pretty much tailor made for zero-g vacuum environments.

[Kadagar_AV]

Someone was on this already, but it wasn't answered..

My first thought was to "shoot" whatever material you gained down to earth. Have a set area of sea, build hauling facilities around it, and then just send down packages as they come.

But yeah, would be rubbish if they missed and hit Tokyo. However, don't we have the tech to more or less make sure we wouldn't?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Space exploration in general has been a constant exercise in ignoring the naysayers and achieving things that supposedly "cannot be done". Nothing new really.

This is really laughable. The laws of physics don't bend to humanities will. Space exploration in general has been a constant exercise in doing our best despite hard-headed people like you telling Challenger to lift off because postponing the date would "look bad".

The technology isn't there yet and everyone talking about space elevators or factories in space when the best money can buy right now for the ISS are tubes just big enough for an American and Russian astronaut to move past each other.

Honestly, what a pathetic argument.

[rvg]

This is really laughable. The laws of physics don't bend to humanities will. Space exploration in general has been a constant exercise in doing our best...

If it's left to people like you, we'd still be trying to put the man into orbit.

The technology isn't there yet

That's what you think... you do think occasionally, right?

and everyone talking about space elevators or factories in space when the best money can buy right now for the ISS are tubes just big enough for an American and Russian astronaut to move past each other.

Lack of money does not equal lack of know-how. That bit should be self-explanatory.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If it's left to people like you, we'd still be trying to put the man into orbit.

Not really considering I said from the very beginning of this thread that we should still fund ventures such as the one OP posted. Just because I want to make sure human lives and money are not wasted doesn't mean I am not as "Rah rah rah! Human race!" as you.

That's what you think... you do think occasionally, right?

That's what I know. Here's a hint. If all these wondering things you talk about are anywhere in our grasp, where's all the investors lining up for this? Why is the one investment OP showed such a big deal? Because it is so far out there as a concept. Not due to people being negative nancies but because private industry has had a hard time merely catching up to NASA let alone being pioneers in their own right. Like I said, space is unforgiving.

Lack of money does not equal lack of know-how. That bit should be self-explanatory.

And michio kaku can talk on tv all he wants about warp drives going faster than light, but that doesn't mean the issue is a lack of money buddy.

[rvg]

Not really considering I said from the very beginning of this thread that we should still fund ventures such as the one OP posted. Just because I want to make sure human lives and money are not wasted doesn't mean I am not as "Rah rah rah! Human race!" as you.

I'm not at all "Rah rah rah! Human race!" as you so eloquently put it. No need to be, as we have no competition. Nor do I advocate wasting money or lives.

That's what I know.

You do? Are you a rocket scientist or a space exploration expert? Barring a revelation from Jesus, what are your sources?

Here's a hint. If all these wondering things you talk about are anywhere in our grasp, where's all the investors lining up for this?

Here's an answer. Investors invest money to make money. They don't invest for the advancement of the human race, they invest to beef up their bottomline. Example: Spirit and Opportunity. Brilliantly executed project, lots of information gained. Financially -- complete disaster. If we were to wait for investors, that project would never happen. No money in it.

Why is the one investment OP showed such a big deal? Because it is so far out there as a concept. Not due to people being negative nancies but because private industry has had a hard time merely catching up to NASA let alone being pioneers in their own right. Like I said, space is unforgiving.

Depending on private investment for space exploration is folly. That's why NASA is funded by taxpayers.

And michio kaku can talk on tv all he wants about warp drives going faster than light, but that doesn't mean the issue is a lack of money buddy.

Straw for the strawmen. Yes, more straw for the strawmen. Strawmen demand their straw.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm not at all "Rah rah rah! Human race!" as you so eloquently put it. No need to be, as we have no competition. Nor do I advocate wasting money or lives.

Then why put a factory in space made of crappy materials other than to say, we made a factory in space made of crappy materials? Space elevators for space stations that don't exist, robots working in zero gravity, all for some moon rock. If you are not doing it for the pride of the human race, then I am at a loss as to why you would want it at all?

You do? Are you a rocket scientist or a space exploration expert? Barring a revelation from Jesus, what are your sources?

This is the backroom, my ego is my source.

Here's an answer. Investors invest money to make money. They don't invest for the advancement of the human race, they invest to beef up their bottomline. Example: Spirit and Opportunity. Brilliantly executed project, lots of information gained. Financially -- complete disaster. If we were to wait for investors, that project would never happen. No money in it.

A perfect set up of an asteroid mining colony is one of the most profitable ventures ever if it is done successfully. Sending down ingots of elements that currently put choke holds on the cost of electronics would be a complete cash cow.

Depending on private investment for space exploration is folly. That's why NASA is funded by taxpayers.

Well if we want to be realistic now, I would have to point out that for the past few years NASA's budget has been taking a beating and we should not depend on public investment given our current political climate.

Straw for the strawmen. Yes, more straw for the strawmen. Strawmen demand their straw.

Highlight where I have strawman'd your argument please. I'm afraid I won't have enough money to keep this one fed with fresh straw if it isn't worthy.

[rvg]

Then why put a factory in space made of crappy materials other than to say, we made a factory in space made of crappy materials? Space elevators for space stations that don't exist, robots working in zero gravity, all for some moon rock. If you are not doing it for the pride of the human race, then I am at a loss as to why you would want it at all?

Because it is very expensive to keep hauling building materials from Earth to the orbit. The "factory in space made of crappy materials" will be there to expand the ISS far beyond what would otherwise be undertaken due to costs. It's not about proving anything to anybody.

This is the backroom, my ego is my source.

Understandable, but at the same time unacceptable in an argument.

A perfect set up of an asteroid mining colony is one of the most profitable ventures ever if it is done successfully. Sending down ingots of elements that currently put choke holds on the cost of electronics would be a complete cash cow.

The problem is that without an orbital processing facility you won't be sending down ingots. You'll be sending down tons of rock, some of which might actually be valuable. Or it might not. Kinda casts a shadow on the whole "cash cow" aspect.

Well if we want to be realistic now, I would have to point out that for the past few years NASA's budget has been taking a beating and we should not depend on public investment given our current political climate.

And I don't believe anyone was discussing specific dates in this thread. Only concepts and their feasibility.

Highlight where I have strawman'd your argument please. I'm afraid I won't have enough money to keep this one fed with fresh straw if it isn't worthy.

Certainly. I made an assertion that while we might lack funds, that doesn't mean we lack the know-how.
You brought up the example of this michio kaku fellow and his warp drive idea that at a glance contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity and will thus be laughed off as nonsense (easy to see why).
You are making a link between my statement (that we don't necessarily lack the know-how) with a supposed idea of a know-how(warp drives) because kaku's theory can be easily pounded into dust. In other words, you are creating an easily defeatable straw man, tying it to my statement (even though there's zero indication in my statement that I support the guy) and passing them as analogous, while they of course are not.

[rvg]

I hate to interject in this lovely little argument, but...
No competition that you know of. There are roughly one hundred billion stars in the galaxy, and just as many galaxies in the observable universe. The odds suggest that there is competition. And if there is other life out there, we surely aren't alone in consuming more resources than our lonely planet can reasonably supply. Colonization is a long-term goal that any civilization (presumably even alien ones) would see as the best way to protect their species against the inevitabilities of limited resources and limited time.

If I don't know that something exists, I have no reason to account for its existence.

[Ronin]

deep sea exploration, space exploration....are you having problems at home James? how bad do you want time away from the missus?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Great idea in theory, really damn hard in practice. Electronics have to be extra hardened to survive space. Ironically most newer electronics probably wouldn't survive, the older stuff with larger pathways and circuitry are what lasts much longer. This is why the shuttles ran on old 486's.

Wrong, modern electronics are a lot less fragile and temperamental than ye olde rubbish. CMOS > TTL > Valves. Electronics aren't the problem, power & heat management is. At the end of the day it takes far more computing grunt to run a mediocre OS than it does to navigate space.

Not saying it can't be done at all. But getting to something that'd probably survive the trip and function fine is going to be a real exercise.

The real exercise is ever getting the economics to work. Getting stuff back to planet Earth is comparatively trivial. Getting stuff off planet Earth at affordable costs per tonne, now that's a challenge. Project Orion style rockets don't count, you know they won't be allowed.

[Kadagar_AV]

We didn't have the tech to go to the moon when we decided to go to the moon.

Humanity is ******* awesome when it comes to reaching goals.

Only problem is that we set the wrong goals - "WE ARZ GONNA HAVZ DA BIGGEZT NUKEZ" *well done, now can we explore space?*

[gaelic cowboy]

Someone was on this already, but it wasn't answered..

My first thought was to "shoot" whatever material you gained down to earth. Have a set area of sea, build hauling facilities around it, and then just send down packages as they come.

But yeah, would be rubbish if they missed and hit Tokyo. However, don't we have the tech to more or less make sure we wouldn't?

The problem as I see it for just parachuting resources down is the fact we will need to parachute vast amounts down this would require lots and lots of containers to come down. The size would be limited by the safety we require of the landing basically It would not be advisable to parachute as much ore as say a supertanker down.

Could work but it would require that resource prices rise a bit something that will happen as we eat them up.


Also few people already talked about constructing and welding in zero-g to be honest I'm not sure how you would inspect a weld in zero-g. Ultrasound is out unless performed inside a fabrication facility and in an already high radiation enviroment X-rays could be out too. You couldnt use liquid inspection as it will just float away that leave only magnetic inspection but were probably not going to be welding materials that could be inspected by this.



That means were probably stuck with riveting for now as it could be tested probably in zero-g.

[Vladimir]

We didn't have the tech to go to the moon when we decided to go to the moon.

Humanity is ******* awesome when it comes to reaching goals.

Only problem is that we set the wrong goals - "WE ARZ GONNA HAVZ DA BIGGEZT NUKEZ" *well done, now can we explore space?*

CAN I HAZ SWEDISH FISH?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

In other words: What?

[tibilicus]

Seems more like James Cameron's attempt to plug Avatar 2..

[Papewaio]

You could do sonic testing as long as the transmitter and receiver were attached to the object. The transmitter and receiver do not have to be in air to send sound waves, metal or soil will work as the medium too.

If you had 3 Olympic swimming pools full of gold you would have all the worlds gold. Some of the materials we use in modern electronics are of a similar rarity. Meaning that mining asteroids could be economically viable.

Costs for earth mines are amazing. Each tire on those giant trucks was $40k US a decade ago... So a single set of six tyres is a quarter of a million. Mines have heaps of these trucks to mine a couple of grams of gold per tonne of ore. Mining projects already run into the billions. The trucks are already being remote controlled.

Asteroids have several main types mainly carbon types and iron. Biggest issue would be water.

[Tellos Athenaios]

If you had 3 Olympic swimming pools full of gold you would have all the worlds gold.

Mined, perhaps. As you'll know there's lot's of gold in the ocean water. It's just not worth it to extract it.

Some of the materials we use in modern electronics are of a similar rarity. Meaning that mining asteroids could be economically viable.

Nope: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11...igh_tech_gear/

It'll be economically viable to mine the landfill sites before* it'll be viable to send tonnes of stuff into space and expect actual profits at anywhere near consumer level market prices.

* Depending on whether or not we find a new "magic" energy/power source to deliver both raw power and efficiency aplenty for broad industry applications, not just government research.

[HopAlongBunny]

The question that keeps coming up for me is: Why return anything to Earth?

If you can solve the problems surrounding processing and fabrication in space, the possibilities are staggering.

If you can construct something, you side-step the cost getting the damn thing "off" the Earth. This overcomes a lot of limitations on what can realistically be accomplished in space. I think it would be the first "baby-step" on actually using space for more than photo-ops and bragging rights.

[Beskar]

There is not as much need for a reusable ship as you might think lads if humanity got serious about it we might build a space elevator.

It would be an enourmous project but the benefits would be massive if we could make it work, it will probably use some kind of carbon nanotube or the like and the killer app is the ability to send the ore down safely and cheaply from earth orbit.

Without it I would say asteroid mining is a pipe dream unless we can create some kind of cheap less polluting rocket, I would say though that a cheap less polluting rocket is even less likely than the space elevator.

The problem is the requirements of the cable. They pretty much have everything except for having a cable strong enough to support it. The most promising is nano-tubes, but I cannot remember the precise figure, it was 2.1 (something) and the current strength at the time of filming was like 1.8 (something).

This was a while ago, but I am sure Brian Cox was involved.

[Papewaio]

The biggest problem I see with NASA is risk aversion. Take a look at the death rates in:
Setting up railways in the US ie Chinamans chance
Number of scientists & explorers who have died in extreme earth environments (mountains, poles etc)
Mining nowadays
Geophysicists death rate in low altitude aerial surveys... Altitude of 60m above ground in forested environments gives no room for error
General construction death rates
Car racing
Etc etc etc

Why have we set up a scientific and exploration group for space that's primary risk to astronauts not going into space is old age. Why do they have such a risk aversion that they are less risky then other areas of more mundane profit motivated earth bound exploration.

I'm not saying we should kill our astronauts, but I don't believe in risk free scenarios. I also believe you need to look at the total cost of a space program. How many non astronauts die due to normal accidents, add that to the cost per mission to figure out if going quicker may in fact save the overall human toll. End of the day inactivity means your staff will still die of old age, heart attacks, cancer or boredom. If they mean to achieve something than do so.

[gaelic cowboy]

You could do sonic testing as long as the transmitter and receiver were attached to the object. The transmitter and receiver do not have to be in air to send sound waves, metal or soil will work as the medium too.

Gah of course how did I miss that

but still I wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy cos the jury is out on welding in low to no gravity enviroments as far as I am aware.

One thing though if we mined for metals in asteroids then we may have to look at new pricing for resources. If resources become obviously not infinite but at least extremely plentiful then our economic model of trying to price the scarity of resources is gone.

In effect what does the idea of plenty have on the price of anything it's likely we would only use gold for electronics if we could all have it.

[gaelic cowboy]

The question that keeps coming up for me is: Why return anything to Earth?

If you can solve the problems surrounding processing and fabrication in space, the possibilities are staggering.

If you can construct something, you side-step the cost getting the damn thing "off" the Earth. This overcomes a lot of limitations on what can realistically be accomplished in space. I think it would be the first "baby-step" on actually using space for more than photo-ops and bragging rights.

because for the moment only the earth is a suitable enviroment for us at the current and projected population levels providing we can obtain these extra resources.

Mars and the Moon are not suitbale enviroments for long term human habitation and space stations dont fill the gap either.

[HopAlongBunny]

because for the moment only the earth is a suitable enviroment for us at the current and projected population levels providing we can obtain these extra resources.

Mars and the Moon are not suitbale enviroments for long term human habitation and space stations dont fill the gap either.

All true, but...

Bringing materials to Earth raises the question of ownership; I believe asteroid material would come under the same (or a similar) arrangement granted to Antarctica. As such, it is and remains, essentially international property.