Mining Asteroids

[Moonguy]

 

You seem to base your argumentation on the assumption that the USA is the only country that should be considered capable of putting people on another planet. I am not sure that is a good assumption.

 

I think that China is a far more likely candidate for a Mars colony. They have shown themselves capable of managing very large projects over the last decade. And in addition, their government funding does not suffer from the short-term problems that the Western world has. And finally, they have set their sights on a lunar colony, stating that as a long-term goal.

 

And to bring this post back on topic: no, asteroid mining is not listed among the goals... yet.

Do you want proposals that make sense to the people you expect to pay for them? Or do you want to just recycle ideas that were trashed years ago because people would not buy into them for their excessive expense? Mining asteroids to build colonies so that the colonies could. . .mine more asteroids for. . . what? No real hint of what the colonies would do to justify their initial expense much less pay their daily bills. And there will be bills. Asteroid mining is all about seeming to get something (asteroid minerals) for nothing (very low launch delta-V) and that is not the entire reality. You pay for the lower delta-V with time. Asteroids are interplanetary objects and doing interplanetary flights usually involves long flights and long waits for a return. Asteroids small enough to move around with current technology are probably to small to yield enough of the elements we would be looking for (Rare Earth's? Iron? Carbon?) to pay off by very much. If you do cost analysis - and I have - you will find that time, not delta-V, is what makes the difference between financial success or failure. This is why I initiated the Mercury Project.

 

Your comments about China are well taken. As long ago as 2001 Chinese officials were claiming they would have taikonauts on the Moon by 2010. . . now its was 2020. They were also saying they would consider the Moon a part of their economic development plan Translation: they would consider it theirs. China does not have room in their economic situation to make the kind of major blunders that are routine for us. If they do a Chinese Apollo program, they will remain committed where we didn't.

 

As for my being 'argumentive', what is the point of open forum discussion if not to engage in a spirited way? I have no personal issues with anyone here, so none of my comments should be taken on that level. But I'm not here to just tell people what they want to hear either. . .

[Moonguy]

Just an additional thought: A truly meaningful asteroid mission would be one that involves re-orbiting an asteroid to serve as a future space station orbiting Venus. It would be interesting to see what candidates there are. . .

Edited September 10, 2013 by Moonguy

[CaptainPanic]

Just an additional thought: A truly meaningful asteroid mission would be one that involves re-orbiting an asteroid to serve as a future space station orbiting Venus. It would be interesting to see what candidates there are. . .

 

Why Venus? I'd think that putting a rock in an orbit around Venus would make one very hot rock. Hardly a place to build a space station.

Personally, I would think that Mars is an easier planet to give a new (little) moon? Asteroids are a little closer, so the delta V for your space rock to go from the asteroid belt to Mars is less than to Venus. Also, if I were to build a space station, I'd rather build it in a place where it's cold than in a place where it's boiling hot. Engineering-wise, it is just easier to keep something 100 degrees above ambient temperature than below.

[EdEarl]

 

Why Venus? I'd think that putting a rock in an orbit around Venus would make one very hot rock. Hardly a place to build a space station.

Personally, I would think that Mars is an easier planet to give a new (little) moon? Asteroids are a little closer, so the delta V for your space rock to go from the asteroid belt to Mars is less than to Venus. Also, if I were to build a space station, I'd rather build it in a place where it's cold than in a place where it's boiling hot. Engineering-wise, it is just easier to keep something 100 degrees above ambient temperature than below.

Temperatures in LEO at the ISS range from 100C to -100C, averaging 0C. Orbiting Venus would be warmer, but simply shading the space craft would keep it cool. However, the solar wind and radiation damaging to people would be stronger and more dangerous.

 

There are asteroids in near Earth orbits and probably in near Venus orbits, which would not require a huge push to put them in LEO around either planet. However, I agree that Venus would be a poor choice to move an asteroid, for health reasons.

[Phi for All]

Although not for mining purposes, NASA has a couple of missions to explore some near asteroids in 2026, using the Space Launch System they're working on now. The more obstacles they figure out how to overcome, the closer we could be to having these resources for our use, and well within the next century.

 

And I still think the drone booster concept is viable. I think it might start as a way to avoid collisions with some of the bigger asteroids, simple things that just deflect them enough to miss Earth, becoming more sophisticated until we can control them to a fine enough degree to put them where we need them. System fishing for iron whales.

[Moonguy]

 

Why Venus? I'd think that putting a rock in an orbit around Venus would make one very hot rock. Hardly a place to build a space station.

Personally, I would think that Mars is an easier planet to give a new (little) moon? Asteroids are a little closer, so the delta V for your space rock to go from the asteroid belt to Mars is less than to Venus. Also, if I were to build a space station, I'd rather build it in a place where it's cold than in a place where it's boiling hot. Engineering-wise, it is just easier to keep something 100 degrees above ambient temperature than below.

Why Venus? Mars already has two moons. Hardly seems sensible to add a third. . . Chances are any asteroid we can put into orbit around either Earth or Venus is already a 'hot rock'. . .on the surface. Dig down a meter or two and temperatures stabilize and are cooler. Dig deeper and you have a volume that can be made habitable with an inflatable module. A station installed inside an asteroid would not notice even the worst CME events. With a mass of rock on all sides tens of meters thick, the only temperature issue would be rejecting excess heat away from the station. That would only require an array radiators out on the surface. Of course I assume here that the asteroid is a coherent rock and not a 'rock pile' like Itokawa. . .

[Airbrush]

 

Why Venus? I'd think that putting a rock in an orbit around Venus would make one very hot rock. Hardly a place to build a space station.

 

 

Why can't you have the asteroid rotate at the exact rate to always have one side facing away from the Sun?

[CaptainPanic]

 

Why can't you have the asteroid rotate at the exact rate to always have one side facing away from the Sun?

 

Good point. That might work, although I wonder if eventually you would not heat that asteroid through? We'd have to make a heat balance, comparing heat transport through that asteroid with the IR radiation of the dark side. Then we can determine the temperature on the dark side. I'm not in the mood to do that now.

[EdEarl]

 

Why can't you have the asteroid rotate at the exact rate to always have one side facing away from the Sun?

The habitat would not need to be centered between sunny side and dark side, it could be placed where the temperature is closest to ideal for habitation. The dark side would not be exposed to solar radiation. One concern is to make the habitat large enough to provide about 1G force from the rotation, which would determine the size of asteroid and rotation speed needed.

 

It seems best to put the first one of these into an Earth orbit, just in case an emergency occurs that requires help from Earth. If it were parked in a geosynchronous orbit, the owners might specialize in providing communications with Earth to earn some income to offset the cost of moving an asteroid, building a habitat, and furnishing it. After the equipment necessary to build and maintain an asteroid habitat are in space, and people are living on it, making a second one should be possible with little or no help from Earth.

[Moonguy]

 

Why can't you have the asteroid rotate at the exact rate to always have one side facing away from the Sun?

You can. If it is orbiting Venus it will likely become locked in a synchronous rotation eventually, but its totally feasible to maintain a specific rotation rate with periodic thrusting. For a low Venus orbit, the asteroid will get a lot of reflected heat from Venus itself. For that matter, since Venus reflects about 60% of the sunlight and is .73 AU from the Sun, a solar panel pointed at the planet would yield about 290 watts per square meter. That could be useful. . .

The habitat would not need to be centered between sunny side and dark side, it could be placed where the temperature is closest to ideal for habitation. The dark side would not be exposed to solar radiation. One concern is to make the habitat large enough to provide about 1G force from the rotation, which would determine the size of asteroid and rotation speed needed.

 

It seems best to put the first one of these into an Earth orbit, just in case an emergency occurs that requires help from Earth. If it were parked in a geosynchronous orbit, the owners might specialize in providing communications with Earth to earn some income to offset the cost of moving an asteroid, building a habitat, and furnishing it. After the equipment necessary to build and maintain an asteroid habitat are in space, and people are living on it, making a second one should be possible with little or no help from Earth.

Moving asteroids around is a major task. A 'small' asteroid 100 meters in diameter would have a volume of 523,600 cubic meters. If it is a solid body with, say, 2.7 g/cm3 the mass is 1.43 million tons. Aircraft carriers are only 100,000 tons and we use eight nuclear reactors to move just one of those around. Suppose there is an unforeseen situation where the entry trajectory at interface is off. . . Just exactly how do you plan to stop the mass of 14 aircraft carriers travelling at better than 10 km/sec. with maybe a day or two to act? This is not the kind of thing you can afford to be wrong about. Better to try it at Venus first. . .

 

Good point. That might work, although I wonder if eventually you would not heat that asteroid through? We'd have to make a heat balance, comparing heat transport through that asteroid with the IR radiation of the dark side. Then we can determine the temperature on the dark side. I'm not in the mood to do that now.

Sorry about your mood. . .

Asteroids do not 'heat through' at the distances that make them easily accessible to Earth. They rotate. Usually with a rapid enough rotation to dissipate surface heat captured on the day side.

[EdEarl]

If not in Earth orbit, then how about an L₄ or L₅ of Earth and Moon, which is slightly further than the Moon. They are extremely stable orbits and require little or no energy to maintain. That distance should be far enough for safety, and much closer than Venus in case of an emergency. It would not work well for communications, but might be a good place for an observatory on its dark side (for example a large infrared telescope and maybe a radio telescope. Although, an L₄ or L₅ of Earth and the Sun would be even better for a radio telescope, because the baseline from Earth for interferometry is greater. Unless or until electronics can operate in the 3-30THz range, infrared interferometry probably would not be possible.

[Moonguy]

If not in Earth orbit, then how about an L₄ or L₅ of Earth and Moon, which is slightly further than the Moon. They are extremely stable orbits and require little or no energy to maintain. That distance should be far enough for safety, and much closer than Venus in case of an emergency. It would not work well for communications, but might be a good place for an observatory on its dark side (for example a large infrared telescope and maybe a radio telescope. Although, an L₄ or L₅ of Earth and the Sun would be even better for a radio telescope, because the baseline from Earth for interferometry is greater. Unless or until electronics can operate in the 3-30THz range, infrared interferometry probably would not be possible.

 

If not in Earth orbit, then how about an L₄ or L₅ of Earth and Moon, which is slightly further than the Moon. They are extremely stable orbits and require little or no energy to maintain. That distance should be far enough for safety, and much closer than Venus in case of an emergency. It would not work well for communications, but might be a good place for an observatory on its dark side (for example a large infrared telescope and maybe a radio telescope. Although, an L₄ or L₅ of Earth and the Sun would be even better for a radio telescope, because the baseline from Earth for interferometry is greater. Unless or until electronics can operate in the 3-30THz range, infrared interferometry probably would not be possible.

I'm just trying to understand how an asteroid in L4/L5 is a better situation than the Moon's surface. Particularly for astronomy. An asteroid small enough to be moveable with anything we could have is not going to be large enough to provide a stable platform for the sensitive instruments being deployed even now. What would induce an astronomer to choose an asteroid over either the Moon or a much closer (more accessible) orbital location?

[EdEarl]

We are talking about an inhabited asteroid, with people to repair instruments. Because of water on the moon, they are considering a colony near a polar crater on the rim. The rim is not hidden from the Sun. Inside the crater is hidden, but also hides the sky. If you put an observatory on the dark side of the moon, a satellite at L4/L5 is needed for communications to the observatory, and they plan no colony on the dark side. I suppose there are better places than an asteroid in L4/L5, but if it is there, it might be used because putting an observatory on the moon would probably be more expensive.

 

My best answer is, I don't like Venus for an asteroid colony and am trying to suggest alternatives...personal bias.

[Moonguy]

We are talking about an inhabited asteroid, with people to repair instruments. Because of water on the moon, they are considering a colony near a polar crater on the rim. The rim is not hidden from the Sun. Inside the crater is hidden, but also hides the sky. If you put an observatory on the dark side of the moon, a satellite at L4/L5 is needed for communications to the observatory, and they plan no colony on the dark side. I suppose there are better places than an asteroid in L4/L5, but if it is there, it might be used because putting an observatory on the moon would probably be more expensive.

 

My best answer is, I don't like Venus for an asteroid colony and am trying to suggest alternatives...personal bias.

Much of this discussion has to do with the number of people needed to mine an asteroid (for profit) versus the number of people needed to staff a fully developed colony. If I understand the concept in the link posted to start the thread, the investors do not plan to build a colony right off. They also do not plan to move the asteroid, intact, to an orbit around Earth. They do plan to use robotics. I submit this means they studied the matter from a profit-making point of view, Knowing they would be spending other people's money, they opted for the least cost/highest gain option. I think those who (still) see themselves as visionary space advocates should observe their example and learn from it. . .

[Phi for All]

Much of this discussion has to do with the number of people needed to mine an asteroid (for profit) versus the number of people needed to staff a fully developed colony. If I understand the concept in the link posted to start the thread, the investors do not plan to build a colony right off. They also do not plan to move the asteroid, intact, to an orbit around Earth. They do plan to use robotics. I submit this means they studied the matter from a profit-making point of view, Knowing they would be spending other people's money, they opted for the least cost/highest gain option. I think those who (still) see themselves as visionary space advocates should observe their example and learn from it. . .

 

The problem with this stance is that we can't know what kind of discoveries we might make from the decision to mine asteroids. We can project costs, but with no exact idea of what we're going to find out there we can't base our initiatives strictly on least cost/highest gain. NASA's missions have always reaped benefits we couldn't foresee. Exploration is like that, and while cost concerns are important, if we let them alone drive our curiosity, we'll never make it offplanet.

 

Private enterprise realizes that pioneering is risky business. They can mitigate those risks all they want, but eventually you have to admit that the possibilities trump the risk. Visionary space advocates do NOT need hidebound, immediate-profit-centered investors. The money that helps us explore the system will most likely come from either governments or from people who realize the long-term potential for profit versus short-term ROI.

[EdEarl]

Much of this discussion has to do with the number of people needed to mine an asteroid (for profit) versus the number of people needed to staff a fully developed colony. If I understand the concept in the link posted to start the thread, the investors do not plan to build a colony right off. They also do not plan to move the asteroid, intact, to an orbit around Earth. They do plan to use robotics. I submit this means they studied the matter from a profit-making point of view, Knowing they would be spending other people's money, they opted for the least cost/highest gain option. I think those who (still) see themselves as visionary space advocates should observe their example and learn from it. . .

Whether the company who claims they will mine asteroids will use invested money successfully, wisely or ethically is yet to be determined. I suspect there are space enthusiasts who will speculate with some of their money regardless of risks. A company has begun accepting volunteers who want to travel to Mars, one-way with no prospect of ever returning.

 

Still, the company said it has received more than 10,000 e-mails from interested would-be spacefarers.

And,

 

I'll Put Millions of People on Mars, says Elon Musk

People seem to want to go into space like people once wanted to move to the New World. Once a colony is successful, even more will want to go, IMO. One would think failure would stop such desires, but the failure of Jamestown didn't stop migration to the New World, and I doubt a few failures will quench the desire to go into space. Some people would rather die than live a simple life.

 

Whether mining asteroids to send resources to Earth is ever successful is not likely to stop the practice, because some people will want to explore beyond the confines of a planet.

[Moonguy]

What people want, what people can afford and what is healthy for people are often at odds with each other. You are right: People will always want to go into space. Perhaps the one-tenth of one percent who would actually be 'space-worthy' and useful there will make that their reality. Right now, I suspect they are too busy just trying to pay off student loans with their sub-level salaries.

[Airbrush]

The kind of people who actually WANT to live the rest of their lives in space may not be very useful types of people. The kind of people with the "right stuff" for a space colony, or a Mars colony, may not want to waste their precious lives on such danger, they are not adrenaline junkies.

 

Maybe many of those who want to "finish" their lives living in space are actually delusional, scifi freaks with unreasonable expectations (like the adventures of TV's Lost in Space) who believe a space colony will be a happy-go-lucky place. When in fact it is extremely dangerous.

 

"...The colony's budget comes in at "about $6 billion," Lansdorp said. "The $6 billion is for the first crew that goes there." By comparison, NASA's rover Curiosity, the most advanced and biggest robot to ever traverse Mars, is a $2.5 billion mission."

 

That is hard to believe. Anything with people in space has to cost 10 or 100 times what a robotic mission like Curiosity cost.

 

Here's how you move asteroids around, use a series of small atomic explosions, like project Orion.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Edited September 11, 2013 by Airbrush

[Moonguy]

The kind of people who actually WANT to live the rest of their lives in space may not be very useful types of people. The kind of people with the "right stuff" for a space colony, or a Mars colony, may not want to waste their precious lives on such danger, they are not adrenaline junkies.

 

Maybe many of those who want to "finish" their lives living in space are actually delusional, scifi freaks with unreasonable expectations (like the adventures of TV's Lost in Space) who believe a space colony will be a happy-go-lucky place. When in fact it is extremely dangerous.

 

"...The colony's budget comes in at "about $6 billion," Lansdorp said. "The $6 billion is for the first crew that goes there." By comparison, NASA's rover Curiosity, the most advanced and biggest robot to ever traverse Mars, is a $2.5 billion mission."

 

That is hard to believe. Anything with people in space has to cost 10 or 100 times what a robotic mission like Curiosity cost.

 

Here's how you move asteroids around, use a series of small atomic explosions, like project Orion.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

I completely agree, but with one caveat: it doesn't have to cost ten times. It just does because NASA prefers to keep transport costs artificially high. We could have had economical, Single-Stage Orbiters several times over the past 50 years. What happened? I suspect it will be very soon that some other country will develop something that looks suspiciously like concepts presented over the years here. I wonder if anyone here will notice. . .

[EdEarl]

NASA is government, which has no economic interest in efficiency. It isn't that they willfully keep costs high, they just do it from lack of focus. They have been hammered several times on safety after shuttle crashes; thus, their focus has been to improve safety, whatever the cost. Safety is better; costs be dammed.

 

What economical Single-Stage Orbiters have been developed? Please give references.

 

Elon Musk seems to have the best program for developing reusable-thus-inexpensive rockets. And, he hopes to cut the cost of Earth-to-LEO by 100. If he comes anywhere close to that 1:100 reduction, it will be good. SpaceX already uses a two stage system to deliver supplies to the ISS, not a single-stage to orbit system. They already claim lower costs; although, they have not perfected their reusable booster.

[CaptainPanic]

The problem with this stance is that we can't know what kind of discoveries we might make from the decision to mine asteroids. We can project costs, but with no exact idea of what we're going to find out there we can't base our initiatives strictly on least cost/highest gain. NASA's missions have always reaped benefits we couldn't foresee. Exploration is like that, and while cost concerns are important, if we let them alone drive our curiosity, we'll never make it offplanet.

I disagree. Profit has always been a huge motivator for exploration. The conquisatores of Spain were not out there to chart land and study culture. They were in America to find gold and silver, and to get rich. Likewise, a lot of arctic exploration was done to find a northern route to the East from Europe, or nowadays to find oil.

 

Private enterprise realizes that pioneering is risky business. They can mitigate those risks all they want, but eventually you have to admit that the possibilities trump the risk. Visionary space advocates do NOT need hidebound, immediate-profit-centered investors. The money that helps us explore the system will most likely come from either governments or from people who realize the long-term potential for profit versus short-term ROI.

Large established corporations do not like risks... but smaller enterprises (who can still have sufficient funds) typically take larger risks. It is all a matter of finding the right investors.

 

That is hard to believe. Anything with people in space has to cost 10 or 100 times what a robotic mission like Curiosity cost.

It is possible to calculate the bare minimum cost of the mission, which is simply the fuel cost to bring all the weight of the materials and people to Mars.

I believe NASA spent much more than that, on all kinds of things. But arguably, they also just spend a lot on their internal bureaucracy. I don't doubt that Elon Musk can do things a lot cheaper than NASA. However, he may not have mentioned that the chance of failure is also a lot higher.

 

If NASA launch people to Mars, they must be nearly 100% certain that those astronauts will survive, and make it back to Earth.

Elon Musk accepts failure as an option (and then he'll just try again), and may eventually not bring people back to Earth. That makes a mission a LOT cheaper.

[Moonguy]

NASA is government, which has no economic interest in efficiency. It isn't that they willfully keep costs high, they just do it from lack of focus. They have been hammered several times on safety after shuttle crashes; thus, their focus has been to improve safety, whatever the cost. Safety is better; costs be dammed.

 

What economical Single-Stage Orbiters have been developed? Please give references.

 

Elon Musk seems to have the best program for developing reusable-thus-inexpensive rockets. And, he hopes to cut the cost of Earth-to-LEO by 100. If he comes anywhere close to that 1:100 reduction, it will be good. SpaceX already uses a two stage system to deliver supplies to the ISS, not a single-stage to orbit system. They already claim lower costs; although, they have not perfected their reusable booster.

 

NASA is government, which has no economic interest in efficiency. It isn't that they willfully keep costs high, they just do it from lack of focus. They have been hammered several times on safety after shuttle crashes; thus, their focus has been to improve safety, whatever the cost. Safety is better; costs be dammed.

 

What economical Single-Stage Orbiters have been developed? Please give references.

 

Elon Musk seems to have the best program for developing reusable-thus-inexpensive rockets. And, he hopes to cut the cost of Earth-to-LEO by 100. If he comes anywhere close to that 1:100 reduction, it will be good. SpaceX already uses a two stage system to deliver supplies to the ISS, not a single-stage to orbit system. They already claim lower costs; although, they have not perfected their reusable booster.

My point was the we don't have any SSO's developed. You are asking me to document evidence that we don't have SSO's. . . ? As for documenting WHY we don't, I strongly encourage you to read G. Harry Stine's 'Halfway To Anywhere'. It is a 1996 publication so it is a bit dated, but it is an excellent read on the history of all SSO efforts in this country up to that time. Stine was an insider to the NASA/Industry system. He had both the technical and experiential knowledge to speak on the subject He was not an outside reporter-wannabe. If you can't find a library copy or one on eBay message me and I'll see what I can do. . .

 

As for Musk's plans, I don't think he will achieve the 100:1 cost reduction stated, but he doesn't have to. Any significant fraction below the competition's cost (actually price) will get him the sales he needs to keep going. Were it up to me, I would not bother man-rating any of the Falcons. I would develop a small shuttle vehicle for a half-dozen passengers, not including pilots, and mount it on a large solid booster. If it is a ballistic up and down thing it would be very inexpensive to both develop and operate.