# New venture to mine asteroids



## Harpo (Jan 26, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21144769

A new venture is joining the effort to extract mineral resources on asteroids.

The announcement of plans by Deep Space Industries to exploit the rare metals present in the space rocks turns asteroid mining into a two-horse race.

The other venture, Planetary Resources, went public with its proposals last year.

Advocates of asteroid mining hope it could turn into a trillion-dollar business, but some scientists are highly sceptical of the idea.

Deep Space Industries wants to send a fleet of asteroid-prospecting spacecraft out into the Solar System to hunt for resources. 

These spacecraft, which the company has dubbed "Fireflies", would use low-cost CubeSat components and benefit from discounted delivery to space by ride-sharing on the launch of larger communications satellites.

The Fireflies would have a mass of about 55 lb (25 kg) and be launched for the first time in 2015 on journeys of two to six months. 

The company then wants to launch bigger spacecraft - which it calls "Dragonflies" - for round-trip visits that bring back samples. 

These expeditions would take two to four years, depending on the target, and would return 60 to 150 lbs of material from target asteroids.

"Using resources harvested in space is the only way to afford permanent space development," said the company's chief executive David Gump. 

"More than 900 new asteroids that pass near Earth are discovered every year. They can be like the Iron Range of Minnesota was for the Detroit car industry last century - a key resource located near where it was needed. In this case, metals and fuel from asteroids can expand the in-space industries of this century."

Asteroids could yield precious minerals such as gold, platinum and rare-Earth metals. But some are also thought to harbour water ice, which could be used as a raw material for the manufacture of rocket propellant or even breathable air.

The other firm in the mining race, Planetary Resources, has backing from several billionaire investors, including Google's Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, software executive Charles Simonyi and filmmaker James Cameron.

That company wants to start by launching orbiting telescopes that would identify suitable asteroid targets for mineral exploitation.

However, some scientists struggle to see how cost-effective asteroid mining could be, even with the high value of gold and platinum.

They point out that an upcoming Nasa mission to return just 60g (two ounces) of material from an asteroid will cost about $1bn.


----------



## Vertigo (Jan 26, 2013)

I think the cost thing needs to be compared with the cost of launching ready made components into space from the depths of Earth's gravity well, as we do now, against obtaining, processing and manufacturing at least the heaviest components right there in space. A long term goal but one that I would have thought _might_ prove economic.

Good luck to them I say! And respect; they at least are putting their money where their mouths are.


----------



## Ursa major (Jan 26, 2013)

Good point, Vertigo.

I think the economics of this could be very problematic. For a start, there's a divide between those things that are to be delivered back to us here on Earth, and those that are delivered elsewhere (i.e. into Earth orbit or somewhere with a shallower gravity well, such as the Moon). Things made on the asteroid for use on the asteroid would, presumably, mostly lead to cost savings rather than profits; any profits would presumably come from supplying other mining ventures.

What would be delivered to Earth? And at what cost? (Helium 3 has been mentioned as something Earth needs, but I'm assuming that's not something found in great quantities on asteroids.) Companies would continue buying from Earth-bound sources until these either ran out, or the asteroid-sourced supply became cheaper. I expect that neither of these conditions would apply for a considerable time.

That leaves asteroid mining's USP: they can supply to space-based customers cheaper because they don't have a gravity well to overcome. But there's the catch: what would we be doing - for economic reasons, that is - in space other than mining? This suggests that the mining companies would be their own major customers, which will require a great deal of funding until they have something to deliver to consumers (99.999% or so of whom will be still down on Earth).


And all of that's before we see the re-emergence of flying pickets....


----------



## Vertigo (Jan 26, 2013)

Good points too, Ursa. I suspect they might end up looking to supply orbital factories producing stuff that can only be made, or is best made, in zero-g (microgravity) or hard vacuum.



> There are several unique differences between the properties of materials in space compared to the same materials on the Earth. These differences can be exploited to produce unique or improved manufacturing techniques.
> 
> The microgravity environment allows control of convection in liquids or gasses, and the elimination of sedimentation. Diffusion becomes the primary means of material mixing, allowing otherwise immiscible materials to be intermixed. The environment allows enhanced growth of larger, higher-quality crystals in solution.
> The ultraclean vacuum of space allows the creation of very pure materials and objects. The use of vapor deposition can be used to build up materials layer by layer, free from defects.
> ...


 
Of course we are a long way from this yet, but I guess we've got to start somewhere.


----------



## Ursa major (Jan 26, 2013)

Vertigo said:


> ...but I guess we've got to start somewhere.


Indeed.

It seems to me (and I've mentioned this before) that a lot of infrastructure advances never give a positive financial return to their investors, but have benefited the wider community. I'm not sure how the finances of railways worked in the UK, but the US had plenty of railroads that went bust, sometimes two or three times; bad if you owned the shares (or lent the money), but the benefit to the development of the US must have been enormous. Similarly, I seem to recall Irwin Stelzer saying that over their combined history, airlines have not yet broken even. (He may or may not have included the cost of all those airports they need, but I don't think he did.) But again, the form of the modern world is partly a result of the ability to easily travel round the world (if you can afford the fare). And just look at all those telecoms and infrastructure companies that went bust, leaving us with an awful lot of fibre network.

So best wishes to those taking this next step. They may or may not money - I won't be investing o) -  but they will, eventually, change our civilisation(s).


----------



## Lenny (Jan 26, 2013)

Harpo said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21144769
> 
> However, some scientists struggle to see how cost-effective asteroid mining could be, even with the high value of gold and platinum.
> 
> They point out that an upcoming Nasa mission to return just 60g (two ounces) of material from an asteroid will cost about $1bn.



This is where I disagree with the article. Whilst, I get that a lot of the resources to be found on the asteroids will only be useful for entities already in space (a ship on its way to Mars, for example, can be supplied with things like water and oxygen at the asteroid, drastically reducing the fuel needed to launch it into space) - which shouldn't be too far away if Elon Musk gets his way - comparing the cost to a similar NASA mission is plain wrong.

NASA and SpaceX are independently developing heavy launch vehicles - respectively the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Falcon Heavy. To Low Earth Orbit, the SLS can carry a payload of 70,000-130,000kg (depending on the configuration). The FH can carry a payload of 53,000kg.

The big difference between the two rockets is price. NASA officials have said they'd be happy to get the cost per launch of the SLS to $500 million. In comparison, SpaceX say that the cost per launch of a Falcon Heavy is $80-120 million.

Another comparison - Europe's Ariane 5 can carry 21,000kg into LEO, at a cost per launch of $220 million.

If we look at rockets that have actually flown: 

* NASA's Space Shuttle could carry a payload (inside the vehicle itself, not counting the weight of the spaceplane) of 24,400kg to LEO and had a cost per launch of $300 million.
* SpaceX's Falcon 9 can carry 10,450kg to LEO at a cost per launch of $56 million (this is the rocket that carries the Dragon capsule which docked with the ISS last year).
* And of course, the Ariane 5 - 21,000kg at $220 million per launch.

NASA in particular have the attitude of only flying components that have flown before - whether it's red tape or simply playing it safe, NASA are flying things that were literally made in the 1960s, and what was state of the art in the 1960s is a long way from state of the art in 2013.

My point: commercial rockets, which are developed and built with modern technology, are a lot cheaper to launch than those used by the space agencies (they are reported to be cheaper to develop, too - SpaceX estimate the development costs of the Falcon 9 to be around $300 million. NASA, however, initially evaluated the Falcon 9 at a cost-plus contract price of $3.6 billion).

Payload and launch costs from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems (yes, I know it's Wikipedia, but there are sources for everything. Quick Googles also come up with the same figures)

---

As a side note, SpaceX develop and build all of their rockets from the ground up in-house, which is what allows them to keep the cost down.

Planetary Resources Inc., the asteroid mining company backed by James Cameron, Eric Schmidt, and Larry Page (amongst others), that was announced a year ago, are taking a similar approach to the design of their equipment, which should also keep cost down.

EDIT: Video from PRI that explains some of their technology - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xkM80kdXkg


----------



## Abernovo (Jan 26, 2013)

I quite agree, Lenny. With the research now being put into rockets for commercial return, I can see more new technologies being used to reduce the cost per kilo, and safety.

Ursa, your analogy of railways is, I would say, accurate even for Britain. There were several rail companies that did not last. Some of them were in the service of the old coal companies, with their private rail lines. However, they paid engineers to build new engines to transport coal, always looking to be quicker, cheaper, better. The steps taken by successive engineers built the foundations for the big passenger railways a century later.

Hmm, who would have thought that I would be one to defend corporate enterprise as a road to progress? 

Vertigo, one of the other manufacturing opportunities being talked of for an orbital environment is carbon nanotubes. Again, we're still off from producing large amounts of this, but one of the potential problems with them at the manufacturing stage is inhalation and ingestion. In space, with sealed vessels, it means that the risks of it escaping into the Earth's environment are almost nil. Added to that, there is a great deal of interest in carbon nanotubes for construction purposes in space, anyway.


----------



## Southern Geologist (Jan 26, 2013)

This is a fascinating subject, not only from the economic angle but from the environmental one.  Barring issues that can come from mining (run off into water bodies that are used for drinking water, that kind of thing) mining can do some terrible damage to otherwise pristine scenery.  It would be wonderful if the economics would eventually allow for mining from asteroids and reclamation of some of the natural areas that have been (or will be) wrecked by mining.


----------



## Vertigo (Jan 26, 2013)

Don't forget, as well, that this discussion has focused mainly on the cost of lifting cargo _*up*_ to orbit. Once you have got such a mining enterprise underway, and supposing that you do want to get the material, whatever it may be, back to Earth rather than just orbit, then getting that produce back to ground level, whilst not trivial, would certainly be massively less costly than lifting it up.

The mining operation would, I imagine, be largely or even completely, automated. This would allow it, once set up, to be almost completely self sustaining; sunlight and/or hydrogen and oxygen from water for energy, new parts made from materials mined from the asteroids themselves, all the smelting could be performed using focused sunlight. If you can fully automate then you're not having to ship up people with all the problems of periodic 'shift' changes and the need for medicine and food. In fact you should rarely need to have anyone or anything actually travel to the asteroids once a mine is established. The mine produce could be fired back to Earth orbit using a rail gun powered by the sun.

What's not to like about the economics of that?

And before you knock it, stop and think about the progress in robotic space missions made in just the last couple of decades, culminating (for now) in the Curiosity on Mars. An enterprise like this is going to take another decade or two to come fully to fruition so think how much better the robotics will be by then.

I see this as being a bit like doubling your bet on a single colour in roulette; so long as you can afford to keep doubling your bet everytime you lose, eventually you will win. The problem is whether you have enough money to start with.

As an aside, Abernovo, the first railway 'bubble' in Britain (the world for that matter) did indeed burst quite spectacularly, with many a company bust and a number of 'Railway Kings' ending up in jail.


----------



## Galacticdefender (Jan 30, 2013)

I'm studying to be an aerospace engineer, I can't wait to work in this industry


----------



## Vertigo (Jan 30, 2013)

GD I envy you your future - or at least I hope I do, if you get my meaning.


----------



## allmywires (Jan 31, 2013)

The thing with asteroid mining is, as has been mentioned, the astronomical (quite literally) startup costs. To make it financially viable we really would either a) be down to seriously low reserves on earth or b) the concentrations of minerals on the asteroid would be very high, enough to warrant the huge expenditure (which I guess is the case). We're currently mining gold at around 2 ppm, that being a resoanbly economic reserve. However in the average crust gold occurs at about 2 ppb and can be found pretty much anywhere in minor quantities. So the question is: is it more economic to keep mining here, increasing the amount of rock we have to process in order to get anything more than sub-economic, or go into space for perhaps a few kgs of gold on a $10bn mission. It all depends on how much we consume in the future.

However, I would have said the deep sea is somewhere to go first - nodules on the sea floor, harvesting chemicals from black smoker sites, things like that. I had a lecture yesterday that reminded me that we know more about space than we do about our own ocean floor. The problem with mining that, I guess, is the tremendous pressures at depth, a problem you don't have in space.

I'll quote my lecturer actually: 'Sending rockets into space is easier than exploring the sea floor.' Make of that what you will  

Perhaps the oceanographers at NOCS have a very high inflated opinion of themselves.


----------



## Vertigo (Feb 1, 2013)

I think your lecturer is probably right because the pressure difference between normal atmospheric pressure and the deep sea floor is massively higher than that between normal atmospheric and vacuum. Consequently it is much harder and more expensive to build something that will take those pressures safely.

I think as well that you are forgetting the idea of using the mined minerals in Earth orbit, where they would not have to overcome the Earth's gravity well. I suspect that once running there will be a *lot* more maufacturing done in orbit rather than on the ground.


----------



## Harpo (Feb 1, 2013)

I agree - I think the produce derived from asteroid mining will mostly remain off-planet.


----------

