Asteroid Mining

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

That won't last long though. If a mining company stakes a claim on an asteroid first, who is going to enforce any rules on them? There are no police or military forces in space.

When short distance space travel is possible, we are going to see a wild bonanza of exploitation and de facto property ownership without the approval of earth governments until that one treaty (I forget what it is called) that bans the militarization of space is repealed or ignored.

[Sarmatian]

That won't last long though. If a mining company stakes a claim on an asteroid first, who is going to enforce any rules on them? There are no police or military forces in space.

And what they're gonna do? Hold hands and sing on the asteroid? They need to sell those goods back on Earth.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And what they're gonna do? Hold hands and sing on the asteroid? They need to sell those goods back on Earth.

And what makes you think that just because governments put sanctions on the company that they won't find a buyer? What makes you think that special interests groups who could really use an Earth flush with Palladium won't lobby the government to let the wild, wild space alone?

[Sarmatian]

And what makes you think that just because governments put sanctions on the company that they won't find a buyer? What makes you think that special interests groups who could really use an Earth flush with Palladium won't lobby the government to let the wild, wild space alone?

This is very different than what you've said first. This implies that government(s) will sanction it in some way, shape or form and this...

That won't last long though. If a mining company stakes a claim on an asteroid first, who is going to enforce any rules on them? There are no police or military forces in space.

... implies that there is no way government(s) can do anything about it.


So, which is it?

Changing subjects mid-discussion just to appear right isn't a good idea.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is very different than what you've said first. This implies that government(s) will sanction it in some way, shape or form and this...

My position was that governments can't do anything to enforce rules in space, you implied that governments could just prevent operations on earth (the sale of the mining product). I am just saying that the incentive is for governments to not do that because there is too much demand for certain elements. So I am still saying that governments can't do anything, because the special interest groups that dictate US policy will stop the government from doing anything. Does that make more sense?

Changing subjects mid-discussion just to appear right isn't a good idea.

Don't be such a negative nancy, it's all part of the fun.

[Whacker]

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.

Sorry, I'll listen to my two friends who are Aerospace Engineers and work at NASA in Houston over you mate, unless you're in that group. Power isn't a problem at all, that was solved ages ago. Heat is (relatively) easily dealt with by proper design, shielding, and flight management. Radiation and electromagnetic interference are what ruin electronics, why things need to be double or triple redundant, and why newer electronics are far more fragile than the older devices based on larger process methods.

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.

Depends on what it is you want to get back. Stuff like ore wouldn't be that hard since it doesn't need to "survive" in any particular form, it just needs to get back. Doing it in bulk and with reusable containers is another story.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Radiation and electromagnetic interference are what ruin electronics, why things need to be double or triple redundant, and why newer electronics are far more fragile than the older devices based on larger process methods.

What you are overlooking here, is that your 486 contains a trivial amount of electronics compared to say your current laptop/desktop CPU. The difference is a couple of
order of magnitude. So no wonder that a modern desktop CPU is more fragile than the 486 in a high radiation environment: there's more components to "go wrong". But the modern equivalent to the 486 isn't a desktop CPU.

Instead it's something you might find in hospital machines or wafer bakers. Those have much tighter EMI requirements than the 486 ever had. So why don't we use that, then, you ask? Because software written for the 486 won't run on that kit.

EDIT: I guess the more interesting point is that 486 was made with knowledge of materials and their EMI properties of the late 1980's. We have much improved alloys and processing methods to deal with EMI now.

Depends on what it is you want to get back. Stuff like ore wouldn't be that hard since it doesn't need to "survive" in any particular form, it just needs to get back. Doing it in bulk and with reusable containers is another story.

Eh you can't just crash land the stuff on Earth. Once the amount of stuff you crash land is in any way meaningful, you won't be allowed to crash land it. Like you say: reusable containers is the hard part. Not because reusable containers themselves are so hard, but because the weight of the reusable containers and the machinery to load them is going to be hard to justify. The problem is therefore in getting the economics of rocket payloads to tip towards bigger = better, because only then can rocket investments be recouped by upscaling mining operations and amortizing costs per tonne of ore brought back.

[Whacker]

What you are overlooking here, is that your 486 contains a trivial amount of electronics compared to say your current laptop/desktop CPU. The difference is a couple of
order of magnitude. So no wonder that a modern desktop CPU is more fragile than the 486 in a high radiation environment: there's more components to "go wrong". But the modern equivalent to the 486 isn't a desktop CPU.

Instead it's something you might find in hospital machines or wafer bakers. Those have much tighter EMI requirements than the 486 ever had. So why don't we use that, then, you ask? Because software written for the 486 won't run on that kit.

EDIT: I guess the more interesting point is that 486 was made with knowledge of materials and their EMI properties of the late 1980's. We have much improved alloys and processing methods to deal with EMI now.

We're sort of saying the same thing, and sort of not. (Relatively) Trivial construction is one of the big(ger) reasons why older electronics have higher survivability, the other is robustness of construction. It's really annoying to hear our parents or grandparents say it all the time, but the old adage "They don't build 'em like they used to" has some level of truth in this regard. Not all modern electronics are built with that "battlefield" survivability in mind, the minimum level of compliance is that FCC standard that basically states that they MUST accept interference as well as not give it. The last thing I'd add is that I'm not disagreeing with you, in that we could put the latest and greatest into space and have it work fine, provided it's built right. The "built right" part is what I was trying, perhaps poorly, to imply is the hardest and most expensive part by a long, long shot.

Eh you can't just crash land the stuff on Earth. Once the amount of stuff you crash land is in any way meaningful, you won't be allowed to crash land it. Like you say: reusable containers is the hard part. Not because reusable containers themselves are so hard, but because the weight of the reusable containers and the machinery to load them is going to be hard to justify. The problem is therefore in getting the economics of rocket payloads to tip towards bigger = better, because only then can rocket investments be recouped by upscaling mining operations and amortizing costs per tonne of ore brought back.

I for one am looking forward to the apocalyptic hail of dump truck sized, partially molten rare earth ores raining down on heavily populated urban centers!

[HopAlongBunny]

But still you are taking from one area where you have no claim and dumping it another area where you have no claim. It's not property, at best it would be salvage and therefore a free-for-all to scoop it up.

There are just too many jurisdictional issues to make it practical w/o a huge initiative to update/refine international law in this sphere. Not to mention that dumping stuff from orbit to earth is regulated and there are penalties for endangering life/property.

[lars573]

That won't last long though. If a mining company stakes a claim on an asteroid first, who is going to enforce any rules on them? There are no police or military forces in space.

When short distance space travel is possible, we are going to see a wild bonanza of exploitation and de facto property ownership without the approval of earth governments until that one treaty (I forget what it is called) that bans the militarization of space is repealed or ignored.

The outer space treaty. But it does say that any celestial bodies are free for exploration and use by all mankind. It basically prohibits weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and off world colonies.

Also it was written when putting 3 guys in orbit for a day cost billions.

[Vladimir]

If you havin' skyrim problems I feel bad for you son.. I dodged 99 arrows but my knee took one..

That's, really, horrible.

[gaelic cowboy]

But still you are taking from one area where you have no claim and dumping it another area where you have no claim. It's not property, at best it would be salvage and therefore a free-for-all to scoop it up.

There are just too many jurisdictional issues to make it practical w/o a huge initiative to update/refine international law in this sphere. Not to mention that dumping stuff from orbit to earth is regulated and there are penalties for endangering life/property.

Once it's landed it would be property though would it not if you happened to land it on your own property.

[lars573]

That's, really, horrible.

No horrible was when "then I took an arrow in the knee" was worked into an episode of NCIS.

[HopAlongBunny]

Once it's landed it would be property though would it not if you happened to land it on your own property.

I suppose. If it never leaves your hands it would be hard for others to "claim" it; ownership would likely be a legal challenge.

The problem is developing a re-entry vehicle of sufficient volume that can be reliably landed where you want it.

The solutions that need to be found are not just technical, they are also social/legal.

[Beskar]

Admittedly, the economics of the "reusable container" would be solved by the Space Elevator, which isn't currently in able to be created (we need stronger cord) but once that is done, then the issues of sending things up and re-entry would be "solved".

[a completely inoffensive name]

Admittedly, the economics of the "reusable container" would be solved by the Space Elevator, which isn't currently in able to be created (we need stronger cord) but once that is done, then the issues of sending things up and re-entry would be "solved".

You still have to deal with the energy usage issue.

[lars573]

Plasma rockets. Or as they're called on Star Trek, impulse engines.

[gaelic cowboy]

You still have to deal with the energy usage issue.

Never know seeing as it's reaching into orbit it might be able to power itself with some solar power

[Centurion1]

Could possibly use electro magnetic kinetic launchers when the technology advances further

[a completely inoffensive name]

Never know seeing as it's reaching into orbit it might be able to power itself with some solar power

Solar power is too inefficient at this point in time.

[Vladimir]

Solar power is too inefficient at this point in time.

I saw a while ago that the Dutch were working on a solar collector that collects energy from all visible wavelengths. Once that's done it will be a major breakthrough.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I saw a while ago that the Dutch were working on a solar collector that collects energy from all visible wavelengths. Once that's done it will be a major breakthrough.

There is already a solar collector that collects energy from all visible wavelengths.



It's not all that much more economical than other methods of energy generation. If you are talking about photo voltaic cells then you got some problems. I am not an expert in the technology, but my understanding of it is that if you want a wider range of wavelengths to be absorbed you are going to need compounds that either absorb wider ranges or you are going to need multiple different compounds to each be turning the photons into excited electrons.

Obviously this problem is evident if we are talking about a world where the rare earths are held hostage by china. Also, it says nothing of its economics simply by being able to absorb the spectrum. What will matter is how efficiently it will do the job. Off the top of my head, I think commercial solar panels are...30% efficient? If we had solar panels that were 70-80% efficient that would suit our needs just fine for many applications without trying to branch out the spectrum absorbed.

[Greyblades]

I think commercial solar panels are...30% efficient?

Currently the best achieved sunlight conversion rate (solar panel efficiency) is around 21% in commercial products,

[a completely inoffensive name]

Currently the best achieved sunlight conversion rate (solar panel efficiency) is around 21% in commercial products,

Ouch, I must have been thinking of some of the experimental stuff in labs. So obviously, we can see where the problems of solar comes in.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I feel like commenting on the subject of asteroid mining and space exploration, even though I'm a total noob and amateur fan of the subject.

Feels ranty, so I'll toss a spoiler around it. Sometimes I just feel like typing I guess.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think I will always be a video game geek, and it's warped my brain forever.

When I think of Earth, and I think of how we run it, I sort of feel like we're playing Civilization IV. While we've seemingly settled into a sort of diplomatic victory mode (by far, the best kind for real-world applications...) I've noticed that we've made not nearly enough progress turning our cities around and pushing them toward cleaner and alternative energy sources, and if we think about the great projects, our last major achievement was the internet. As great as that is, we could be doing something with our advanced and prosperous civilization besides the obvious Hit Singles for Oil trade. We make music and tv, and the world gives us other resources. Is that it? Can't we do something else with our supposedly greatest civilization in all of human history, and if you believe we're the only intelligent life in this universe, the most powerful civilization in the whole of the universe? If we're number one, why can't we do more than shoot robots at space objects?

Come on, space victory is the way to go from here. I want my grandchildren to be able to tell me about how cool it is to work on a colony ship. Even if they're just building one.

I'm going to be dead far before anything truly interesting happens, but I still vainly wish for some part of me to spread through the COSMOS, you guys. And I'd like to see some part of the rest of you join me up there.

The NASA space program is not why we're broke. Not even token respect for the simplest budgeting practices is why. What NASA and similar projects have given us is a far greater understanding of the universe, and the possibility for formulating a defense against life-obliterating asteroid collisions with Earth. Now there is even the possibility of altering such a fate. How about the useful technology we got from all the research?

Asteroid mining, for some people, means finding gold and stuff that is precious in the asteroids and bringing it down to Earth.

I think that's a line to sell to the gullible masses. Finding a thousand tons of gold in space isn't going to make it any more valuable here on earth, it will make it less scarce and less valuable. The point of mining in asteroids is likely to get things that will be useful IN SPACE, like water. And oxygen.

Water will be about a billion times more valuable than gold in space, because it sustains life and can be turned into fuel. Gold is not even close to as useful. It will be one of the more forgettable, somewhat useful things we get up there. We don't value water because it falls out of the sky here on Earth. But it's stupid to make rockets to shoot our water into space. It's much smarter to look for ice out there. How about building materials for space stations, vehicles, cargo containers, infrastructure.... we going to shoot it up into space at the cost of how much per rocket, which can only carry so much weight, or taking it from asteroids where we don't have to worry so much about escape velocity.

You will never get anywhere in space until you develop a spaceborne infrastructure and a spaceborne economy. You cannot build a civilization without an economy, and when you're in space, you need to self-sustain. Everything's a hundred times more expensive getting it from Earth. Earth's resources will also be needed on Earth by the people who live there.

Asteroid mining is how you make everything else possible in the first place. Asteroid mining makes it realistic to build a colony ship, because you have a hope of making it go somewhere. You cannot build a colony from space shuttles. They take a few people and some materials. You need to have something hundreds of times bigger, and you're not going to take off from Florida in that thing if you've got any sense. You build it in space, from materials you found in space. Which means you need miners, processing centers, construction centers, living quarters....

Let me tell you guys something. It's all pie in the sky science fiction stuff. But so was human flight, and although there was never a pressing need for people to be able to fly, once it was possible, all of a sudden everyone wanted to be able to fly. Now our economy would die without it.

There's presently no demand and no need for building an economy in space. But once we do it, there will suddenly be a very big demand for building an economy in space. This is one of those things were supply creates demand. Nobody needed a computer before there were computers. Now, if you don't have a hundred different kinds of computers in your life, you're WEIRD. They're in every single bleepin' thing.

You know how the government, in a down economy, might create projects where people dig ditches just so they've got a job? Busy work?

How about instead of digging holes and filling them up, you invest in paying very, very well-educated people to create the ability to be spacefaring, as a society. Because once you do, humanity will never be the same.

The up-front cost is intimidating, but you know, we spend a lot on coming up with ways of obliterating people we don't like from miles and miles away. We spend billions of dollars on making absolutely sure that we can make fart noises come out of our cell phones, and that it is now possible to tell the entire world precisely what mood we're in and what we're doing at all times and the color of our bowel movements, because someone out there might be bored enough to read that really important information.

Asteroid mining: Really really rich people might spend lots of their own money, to probably end up losing money on the deal. Why? Because as much as they think they matter here on Earth, they don't matter. Imagine having their name in the history books during the pivotal moments on making humanity truly spacefaring. But the again, I am not sure I want the history books written by Donald Trump, nor do I want the future of humanity riding on how generous the Coca-Cola corporation feels like being. Can't we do better and fund it ourselves, like the NASA program? We're spending a lot of money doing far stupider things, let me tell you.

I think we could spend some money on stuff that might matter more than two days from now, or at all. And given what a tiny pittance it is compared with some of the rest of the silly things we spend our money on, and the exceedingly well-paying and well-educated jobs it creates, I have to wonder what politicians are smoking to abandon space.

We spent how much money so that we could plant a flag on a rock before the Russians? Is that all that was?

Because if so, that's going to make our other government expenditures seem reasonable. Ten thousand dollars on a hammer, twenty thousand dollars on a toilet seat. Trillions spent developing weapons, ordering weapons to be built, then realizing we're broke and stupid and ordered too many, sold the weapons, then had to start wars to clean up the mess we made arming people who intended to use those weapons in a way that we would have to use our weapons to solve. Also, lives.

If all we ever achieve is that flag up there, that will be a mind-numbing embarrassment, to let the flag be our legacy. Our until-the-sun-explodes monument to how dumb we are. So dumb that we're smart enough to have possibly been the species on this planet that actually escaped its own extinction, but too stupid to have done anything about it once we made ourselves capable of doing so. What happened? Jersey Shore was on?

That was too important so we couldn't be bothered I guess.

There had better be an attempt at some kind of orbital processing facility before we kill ourselves in a giant nuclear cluster-something, so that passing aliens might laugh, but say hey, at least some of them tried to do something positive before idiocy killed em all. If we can't even end up mining a danged asteroid before we succumb to medieval fanatics armed with modern weapons, I don't want my name associated with this civilization. I will hold up a sign that says "Originally from Nebular IV. Ran out of dilithium, crash landed on under-developed planet with no hope of escape. Natives seem obsessed with nacho flavoring, fake tans, and making each other die. It's obvious I am doomed. Farewell, universe."

[gaelic cowboy]

Solar power is too inefficient at this point in time.

yes but the suns rays are free and that is the only saving grace, plus we would be takling thousands of collectors positioned to to give 24hr powersupply.

[gaelic cowboy]

Currently the best achieved sunlight conversion rate (solar panel efficiency) is around 21% in commercial products,

obviously the efficiency would be poor to middling but with clever positioning of say 2-3 different solar farms in orbit one could have power 24hr a day.

Space-based solar power

[a completely inoffensive name]

obviously the efficiency would be poor to middling but with clever positioning of say 2-3 different solar farms in orbit one could have power 24hr a day.

Space-based solar power

These are terrible ideas.

1. Relying on less than 12 power "plants" to provide our energy is the height is naivety in our dangerous world.
2. The solar beams have to be perfectly positioned, pointing at the target as they are flying around the earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Any deviation would cook the earth and any humans standing there very quickly.
3. Low earth orbit has a metric ****-ton of debris that is mostly untrackable due to the small sizes. A micrometeorite or piece of space debris the size of a quarter going a couple hundred miles faster than the solar station would bring it down.

Just to give you an idea of how dangerous space debris is: Columbia was compromised not by a piece of metals breaking off and striking the ship....but by a piece of foam. And this wasn't even in space but during the shuttles ascent.

[gaelic cowboy]

These are terrible ideas.

1. Relying on less than 12 power "plants" to provide our energy is the height is naivety in our dangerous world.
2. The solar beams have to be perfectly positioned, pointing at the target as they are flying around the earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour. Any deviation would cook the earth and any humans standing there very quickly.
3. Low earth orbit has a metric ****-ton of debris that is mostly untrackable due to the small sizes. A micrometeorite or piece of space debris the size of a quarter going a couple hundred miles faster than the solar station would bring it down.

Just to give you an idea of how dangerous space debris is: Columbia was compromised not by a piece of metals breaking off and striking the ship....but by a piece of foam. And this wasn't even in space but during the shuttles ascent.

eh in reply I would have to say

1: Who said anything about power for the earth?? remember I was talking about powering one piece of equipment

2: the collectors merely harvest energy there are a number of ways that could later be used to power equipment.

3: low earth orbit is hardly where we would place such equipment now is it

[a completely inoffensive name]

1: Who said anything about power for the earth?? remember I was talking about powering one piece of equipment

Then you don't even need the collector. Just attach solar panels to the equipment in question.

2: the collectors merely harvest energy there are a number of ways that could later be used to power equipment.

Not feasible. You are now talking about putting giant batteries in space. Battery technology is woefully lacking as well, otherwise a lot of issues regarding power consumption would not exist today. Plus they would be very heavy and cost a ton to ship up there along with the solar panels.

3: low earth orbit is hardly where we would place such equipment now is it

Then you have higher transportation cost and the efficiency of transporting such energy through a beam would go down, because the inverse square law will apply.