Project to mine asteroids for water (and precious metals) has begun.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Even then they have a limited life owing to the need to make regular positional adjustments.

Of course, if you happened to have a source of on-orbit fuel for refuelingthe satellites, then that life wouldn't be limited, at least not due to limited fuel supply, would it?


Say....can't rocket fuel be manufactured from water....collected from asteroids?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by GlennB

I agree. But why Newton Trino suggests that our very survival depends on these elements escapes me, and he certainly hasn't explained.

I don't know about our "very survival", but I have grown accustomed to on demand light, heat, water, and climate control. Our food supply is vastly larger today than it was even when I was a child. I appreciate medicine that keeps me much healthier than my ancestors were. I like the communication that allows me to know what' going on in China, and to play Chess against people in the Phillipines.

All of that stuff requires a continuous supply of raw materials and of energy. Sooner or later we will run out of fossil fuels. It probably won't be in 30 years, but it might be within 100 years, and there is no doubt that 1000 years from now, our descendants will not be heating their homes by burning petroleum, because the petroleum isn't going to last. I've always been somewhat dubious of solar power satellites as a source of terrestrial energy, but I don't think the idea can be dismissed out of hand.


Meanwhile, elements like platinum also play a role in maintaining that technology, and there are only a handful of platinum mines. Perhaps platinum based fuel cells really will play a role in major energy production in the 23rd century, but if so, there has to be an extraterrestial source.

In short, our current method of maintaining our technological status requires us to pull raw materials out of the ground. It's unsustainable. There's only a limited amount of ground. I don't think our very survival depends on exploiting space, but I think our lifestyle does.

[quarky]

At the risk of being labelled a Luddite, I must suggest that a more efficient approach to these 'shortages' could come from better technology down here, on planet.

Imagine getting the asteroid mining thing all set up, and then we figure out a way to basically not need these precious metals in the first place?
What aspect of our present technology relies on these metals, that couldn't be re-engineered to not require them?

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't know about our "very survival", but I have grown accustomed to on demand light, heat, water, and climate control. Our food supply is vastly larger today than it was even when I was a child. I appreciate medicine that keeps me much healthier than my ancestors were. I like the communication that allows me to know what' going on in China, and to play Chess against people in the Phillipines.

All of that stuff requires a continuous supply of raw materials and of energy. Sooner or later we will run out of fossil fuels. It probably won't be in 30 years, but it might be within 100 years, and there is no doubt that 1000 years from now, our descendants will not be heating their homes by burning petroleum, because the petroleum isn't going to last. I've always been somewhat dubious of solar power satellites as a source of terrestrial energy, but I don't think the idea can be dismissed out of hand.


Meanwhile, elements like platinum also play a role in maintaining that technology, and there are only a handful of platinum mines. Perhaps platinum based fuel cells really will play a role in major energy production in the 23rd century, but if so, there has to be an extraterrestial source.

In short, our current method of maintaining our technological status requires us to pull raw materials out of the ground. It's unsustainable. There's only a limited amount of ground. I don't think our very survival depends on exploiting space, but I think our lifestyle does.

This. Everyone needs to quit thinking short term.

Are we going to have an industrial civilization in 1000 years? Where are the resources going to come from? We are already at the point where many materials are going to become scarcer. Sure we can recycle and do other things but ultimately the solar system is filled with VAST almost hard to imagine levels of resources that we could use to maintain our civilization indefinitely. Based on our usage of earth based resources we need to get on this now.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

Glenn, I think you've adequately established that you haven't kept your knowlege current with the state of the art. There are many ways now for space stations and satellites to do station-keeping besides rocketry. Oh, and I'm not going to list them just so you can disbelieve each one individually.

Bingo. I'm done with Glenn. Have fun making buggy whips and let the adults talk now please.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Damn little, because you wouldn't be able to use them.

They'd need to be in geostatonary orbit in order to focus on a terrestrial collector, and there's already competition for slots up there. There just isn't the room. Even then they have a limited life owing to the need to make regular positional adjustments. More to the point, if your reflector is pointed at some terrestrial collecting station, then for how much of every day will it also be suitably aligned with the sun to do any useful focussed reflecting? If you aim to constantly adjust its attitude for 12 hrs a day then you're burning fuel and also, much of the time, getting a smeared out-of-focus beam. Building a terrestrial solar power station, however, allows you to follow the sun for increased efficiency if you wish, or you can take a cruder approach and just have a damn lot of collectors. And any movement can itself be solar powered. Any satellite manoeuvering has to be fuel-powered.

Or is your plan just to haphazardly increase the sunlight hitting the Earth? I hope not.

You haven't thought this through, have you? Some of the points above are part of the reason why Andrew's scheme for extraction of metals from asteroids falls at the first hurdle, by the way.

That's funny, NASA seems to disagree.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/25365..._to_earth.html

Of course NASA aren't the only ones looking into this.

In fact space based solar is probably our best long term power source from a lot of perspectives.

Anyway don't bother responding as I don't think you care about this and are just being a negative nancy.

It's the ole "GlennB can't figure it out right now on a forum so it must be impossible".

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

That's funny, NASA seems to disagree.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/25365..._to_earth.html

No, they don't.

That proposal has nothing to do with robotically manufacturing convex passive reflectors from asteroid materials and beaming focussed sunlight to Earth. It doesn't even beam sunlight to Earth.

Quote:

"The array will feature a modular, tulip shaped satellite equipped with thin-film mirrors to reflect sunlight into photovoltaic cells. The collected solar energy will be converted into microwaves that will then be transmitted back to a receiving station on Earth at a low frequency and intensity."

Quote:

"Instead of building a gigantic array on Earth and launching into space, scientists could send parts up into space on current cargo spacecraft so they could be assembled in orbit (much like a space station)."

Any mention of robotic manufacture or mining near-Earth asteroids? Nope. Strictly terrestrial manufacture and launch. No asteroids involved.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by quarky

At the risk of being labelled a Luddite, I must suggest that a more efficient approach to these 'shortages' could come from better technology down here, on planet.

Never was a truer word said (though, I did mention it upthread, in a little detail )

On the subject of solar power alone (which is where we've drifted), one estimate of orbitally-gathered solar power vs. the Arizona Desert was 5 orders of magnitude more expensive. That would be 100,000x

Meanwhile 20% of current platinum production goes into jewelry Go figure.

[quarky]

The vitriol in this thread still baffles me. Should it be in 'politics'?
It is politics, ultimately.

If it works (asteroid mining) some people will get very wealthy; others, much poorer.
Other nations, of course will get on board. There will be disputes about ownership; possibly our first space battle. There will be accidents. I don't suppose we'd accidentally kick a big rock out of orbit, but if frequent trips were happening, the ozone layer might suffer, and there would be more debris in orbit, due to inevitable failures.

If a payload of precious metals fell in the wrong country, who would own it?
If the success was great, how would that affect the markets?
Has anyone calculated our sum-total need of rare metals?
Assuming a burgeoning population, and increased need for these metals, what size crisis are we in?
Is their likelihood in finding new deposits on Earth, or better techniques in extracting it?

These questions aren't nay-saying.
They are legitimate.
And, there are lots more of them.

Sell me on the idea?

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by quarky

The vitriol in this thread still baffles me. Should it be in 'politics'?
It is politics, ultimately.

I honestly don't see how it's political at all. At least it shouldn't be. If people want to risk their necks by going after space resources why wouldn't we cheer them on?

Quote:

If it works (asteroid mining) some people will get very wealthy; others, much poorer.

Please explain how other will get "much poorer" if we bring in resources from space.

Cheap solar energy in space + space materials + robotic manufacturing = abundant goods and wealth for humanity. Sure we'll have the usual political problems that prevent some people from benefiting (North Korea) but it will make everyone better off in the long run.

Quote:

Other nations, of course will get on board. There will be disputes about ownership; possibly our first space battle.

Just out of curiosity how many of these asteroid resources do you think there are? Sure there could be particularly choice ones that we may fight over but in general there is just so much that we could barely scratch it in time measured in centuries. Do you understand the vast amount of material we are talking about here? In near earth orbit we track 10,000 known objects. We think there are close to a million in existence based on what we can see so there is a lot of room for growth.

Then once we use them up we can go to the source which is the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter. Think of a planet blown up and scattered as a ring around the sun. On earth we get to scrap around in the dirt but a lot of the heavy metals and other interesting matter are trapped down in the core and we can't get to them. Everything that has been mined on earth so far is equivalent to a few good size asteroids. And there is an entire belt full of them. Of course we probably won't need to go out there for a long long time since there are so many near earth ones.

Quote:

There will be accidents. I don't suppose we'd accidentally kick a big rock out of orbit, but if frequent trips were happening, the ozone layer might suffer, and there would be more debris in orbit, due to inevitable failures.

It's doubtful that we'll modify their paths too much anyway. At least in the near time. By the time we try something like that I would expect us to have quite a bit more space infrastructure.

Quote:

If a payload of precious metals fell in the wrong country, who would own it?

First off I envision finished products coming down as the more likely scenario. Use the free solar energy and do all of the dirty stuff in space.

Secondly I'm sure treaties would be developed. As space develops so will our political processes to deal with the implications.

Quote:

If the success was great, how would that affect the markets?

It would happen over a long time and be folded into our general growth rate. I wouldn't expect any sudden "shock" from this.

Quote:

Has anyone calculated our sum-total need of rare metals?

Yes. I suggest you check out their website. Bottom line, we don't have that much of these rare metals available on earth.

Quote:

Assuming a burgeoning population, and increased need for these metals, what size crisis are we in?

Today we don't have a crisis. But a lot of things could be improved and made cheaper. Also getting rid of environmental damage should be a long term human goal. To me this involves moving dirty stuff off planet as much as practical.

Quote:

Is their likelihood in finding new deposits on Earth, or better techniques in extracting it?

Most of the earth deposits are from these things hitting us. Again check out their website. http://www.planetaryresources.com/as...s/composition/

Originally Posted by from website

n space, a single platinum-rich 500 meter wide asteroid contains about 174 times the yearly world output of platinum, and 1.5 times the known world-reserves of platinum group metals (ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum). This amount is enough to fill a basketball court to four times the height of the rim. By contrast, all of the platinum group metals mined to date in history would not reach waist-high on that same basketball court.

Quote:

These questions aren't nay-saying.
They are legitimate.

Some people are simply complaing it won't work. That's really not the point. The point is whether it's worth trying to work it out or not. Based on the vast wealth available it seems very much like a worthwhile investment.

Quote:

And, there are lots more of them.

Read the planetary resources website please!
http://www.planetaryresources.com

Quote:

Sell me on the idea?

Hopefully I gave you something to chew on.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by GlennB

No, they don't.

That proposal has nothing to do with robotically manufacturing convex passive reflectors from asteroid materials and beaming focussed sunlight to Earth. It doesn't even beam sunlight to Earth.

Quote:

"The array will feature a modular, tulip shaped satellite equipped with thin-film mirrors to reflect sunlight into photovoltaic cells. The collected solar energy will be converted into microwaves that will then be transmitted back to a receiving station on Earth at a low frequency and intensity."

Quote:

"Instead of building a gigantic array on Earth and launching into space, scientists could send parts up into space on current cargo spacecraft so they could be assembled in orbit (much like a space station)."

Any mention of robotic manufacture or mining near-Earth asteroids? Nope. Strictly terrestrial manufacture and launch. No asteroids involved.

We have to start somewhere with this stuff, no? You claimed it was a bad idea. Apparently space based solar makes sense to someone.

I don't see why we can't eventually build them out of resources that are already in space Glenn. Are you really truly arguing that this is impossible? Do you know what kind of company that puts you in?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

That's funny, NASA seems to disagree.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/25365..._to_earth.html

Of course NASA aren't the only ones looking into this.

In fact space based solar is probably our best long term power source from a lot of perspectives.

Anyway don't bother responding as I don't think you care about this and are just being a negative nancy.

It's the ole "GlennB can't figure it out right now on a forum so it must be impossible".

Actually it's people weaving rainbows.

There will be no salvation from the skies.


When you get a Model T that can go seven miles a second you can start casting aspersions about buggy whip makers.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by tsig

Actually it's people weaving rainbows.

There will be no salvation from the skies.


When you get a Model T that can go seven miles a second you can start casting aspersions about buggy whip makers.

If we left it up to people like you we'd still be scratching around in the dirt.

Luckily we aren't leaving it up to you. Let's the adults do the necessary work and go put your head back in the sand.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by quarky

The vitriol in this thread still baffles me. Should it be in 'politics'?
It is politics, ultimately.

If it works (asteroid mining) some people will get very wealthy; others, much poorer.
Other nations, of course will get on board. There will be disputes about ownership; possibly our first space battle. There will be accidents. I don't suppose we'd accidentally kick a big rock out of orbit, but if frequent trips were happening, the ozone layer might suffer, and there would be more debris in orbit, due to inevitable failures.

If a payload of precious metals fell in the wrong country, who would own it?
If the success was great, how would that affect the markets?
Has anyone calculated our sum-total need of rare metals?
Assuming a burgeoning population, and increased need for these metals, what size crisis are we in?
Is their likelihood in finding new deposits on Earth, or better techniques in extracting it?

These questions aren't nay-saying.
They are legitimate.
And, there are lots more of them.

Sell me on the idea?

Troglodyte! Luddite! buggy whip maker! Convinced now?

[mike3]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

If we left it up to people like you we'd still be scratching around in the dirt.

Luckily we aren't leaving it up to you. Let's the adults do the necessary work and go put your head back in the sand.

So you recommend he ersist in his views instead of changing. Odd.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I honestly don't see how it's political at all. At least it shouldn't be. If people want to risk their necks by going after space resources why wouldn't we cheer them on?



Please explain how other will get "much poorer" if we bring in resources from space.

Cheap solar energy in space + space materials + robotic manufacturing = abundant goods and wealth for humanity. Sure we'll have the usual political problems that prevent some people from benefiting (North Korea) but it will make everyone better off in the long run.



Just out of curiosity how many of these asteroid resources do you think there are? Sure there could be particularly choice ones that we may fight over but in general there is just so much that we could barely scratch it in time measured in centuries. Do you understand the vast amount of material we are talking about here? In near earth orbit we track 10,000 known objects. We think there are close to a million in existence based on what we can see so there is a lot of room for growth.

Then once we use them up we can go to the source which is the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter. Think of a planet blown up and scattered as a ring around the sun. On earth we get to scrap around in the dirt but a lot of the heavy metals and other interesting matter are trapped down in the core and we can't get to them. Everything that has been mined on earth so far is equivalent to a few good size asteroids. And there is an entire belt full of them. Of course we probably won't need to go out there for a long long time since there are so many near earth ones.



It's doubtful that we'll modify their paths too much anyway. At least in the near time. By the time we try something like that I would expect us to have quite a bit more space infrastructure.



First off I envision finished products coming down as the more likely scenario. Use the free solar energy and do all of the dirty stuff in space.

Secondly I'm sure treaties would be developed. As space develops so will our political processes to deal with the implications.



It would happen over a long time and be folded into our general growth rate. I wouldn't expect any sudden "shock" from this.



Yes. I suggest you check out their website. Bottom line, we don't have that much of these rare metals available on earth.



Today we don't have a crisis. But a lot of things could be improved and made cheaper. Also getting rid of environmental damage should be a long term human goal. To me this involves moving dirty stuff off planet as much as practical.



Most of the earth deposits are from these things hitting us. Again check out their website. http://www.planetaryresources.com/as...s/composition/





Some people are simply complaing it won't work. That's really not the point. The point is whether it's worth trying to work it out or not. Based on the vast wealth available it seems very much like a worthwhile investment.



Read the planetary resources website please!
http://www.planetaryresources.com



Hopefully I gave you something to chew on.

Yes, something to chew on, and thanks for addressing my concerns.

As per the potential to add misery and poverty, I'd point you to the history of gold and diamonds. We are still scratching around in the dirt. This could be more scratching. Maybe not.
Your point about moving toxic industry off-planet has obvious appeal...yet, the effort involved will have its own negatives.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by quarky

There will be disputes about ownership; possibly our first space battle.

Our first space battle! How cool is that? Another sci-fi element turned real!

Ok, well, that's not so good, I guess, but, really, it's not so bad, either. There's plenty of wars to go around with or without space.

Quote:

Has anyone calculated our sum-total need of rare metals?

It's a little bit like calculating the sum total needs for petroleum in 1880. Oh, yeah, sure, the stuff is useful, but what would you do with it, and it costs so much to get it out of the ground. The stuff is so expensive that we don't even know what we could do with it if the cost were to drop.

Quote:

Is their likelihood in finding new deposits on Earth, or better techniques in extracting it?

Better extraction techniques are a possibility, but finding new deposits is highly unlikely. There's a reason heavy metals are rare in the Earth's crust. Over the course of 4 billion years, most of it has sunk into the mantle and core. That's not a problem with asteroids. The gravity isn't enough to pull it into their non-existent core.

The places where platinum group metals are mined significantly are places where there have been ancient asteroid impacts. Now that we know such things exist, it's not likely that we're going to stumble upon such features unnoticed.

Is it really going to be cost effective in my lifetime, or my son's lifetime? I have no idea. I know that I don't have enough money to make it happen, but I'm still excited by the fact that a few people with a whole lot of money are willing to spend some of it to bring us a bit closer, even if the don't make it all the way.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

We have to start somewhere with this stuff, no? You claimed it was a bad idea. Apparently space based solar makes sense to someone.

I don't see why we can't eventually build them out of resources that are already in space Glenn. Are you really truly arguing that this is impossible? Do you know what kind of company that puts you in?

That's not how the discussion developed. Read back.

You began by suggesting that asteroid mining would be absolutely vital to secure mankind's future. When asked to justify that you leapt straight from passive solar reflectors to suggesting that highly complex microwave systems could be built in space, in robotic factories, from raw asteroid materials.

The 'company I'm in' is the company of those who laughed at the idea that flying cars would solve all our traffic problems. Were they Luddites or simply not gullible head-in-the-clouds SF fans chasing rainbows? We all know what Sagan said about keeping an open mind ....

Meanwhile the Arizona desert (to name but one) is ~100,000 sq.m. Why compete with that with orbital systems when the near-surface of the Earth is loaded with the very minerals you need to gather solar power.

[rjh01]

Some of the materials for the Solar Powered satellites could be mined on the moon. Though some of you have said there is no need.

There would be no need to place them in geostationary orbit. It just needs to be in a high orbit so the atmosphere does not drag it down. If you have several places around the world that can accept the energy the satellites could beam the energy to one of those places that it can see.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Meanwhile the Arizona desert (to name but one) is ~100,000 sq.m. Why compete with that with orbital systems when the near-surface of the Earth is loaded with the very minerals you need to gather solar power.

I suspect you are right that we'll make use of those earth based resources before we start sending off-earth gathered power down to the surface. It's likely to remain much cheaper to do so for a long time.

On the other hand for space-based applications solar power collection "up there" makes sense. Hell we already do it (on a very small scale).

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I honestly don't see how it's political at all. At least it shouldn't be. If people want to risk their necks by going after space resources why wouldn't we cheer them on?

It becomes political because this sort of naysaying is also called 'conservatism'. It's the attempt to end the discussion by bringing in the concepts of 'it was good enough in my day', 'things used to be better in ye goode olde days' and 'I would have gotten away with it if not for you meddling kids'.

Times change. Science marches onward. Get over it.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

It becomes political because this sort of naysaying is also called 'conservatism'. It's the attempt to end the discussion by bringing in the concepts of 'it was good enough in my day', 'things used to be better in ye goode olde days' and 'I would have gotten away with it if not for you meddling kids'.

Times change. Science marches onward. Get over it.

It sure is odd for me to be lumped into the 'conservative' crowd.
If anything, I'd like to believe that my input has raised the level of conversation, not tried to end it.

In my 'day', things were clearly not good enough. The same not good enoughs have yet to be addressed, and i think they should be, prior to distractions of this nature.

[Meadmaker]

I was googling this topic when I ran across an interesting article about electric vehicles. The authors were noting they were not a reasonable alternative to gasoline because in order to become a reasonable alternative, battery production would have to soar, and there weren't enough strategic metals mined on Earth to produce the required number of batteries.

They didn't endorse asteroid mining, but they did mention the recent announcement by Planetary Resources as evidence that some people had noticed that the availability of rare metals was a bottleneck in certain industrial processes, and that it would be a really big deal if the supply of those metals could be increased.

[Ferguson]

Originally Posted by quarky

It sure is odd for me to be lumped into the 'conservative' crowd.
If anything, I'd like to believe that my input has raised the level of conversation, not tried to end it.

In my 'day', things were clearly not good enough. The same not good enoughs have yet to be addressed, and i think they should be, prior to distractions of this nature.

I think part of the reaction comes from the similarity your comments had to a common objection heard against research projects: "Why is [group] wasting money on [science/enterprise] when [there are people still hungry/other problem]?"

The problems with that objection are that, one, it's an argument that could be used to retard any research or development until all people in the world are sound/happy/prosperous (which is likely impossible), and two, most of the time the money being spent on the project has little or no hope to do anything about the social/political conflicts that lead to people suffering or being starved.

There are people researching more efficient uses of energy on Earth. That there are also people researching potential extra-earthly energy sources is a good thing, because it's impossible to know which will be more important fifty or a hundred years from now, especially considering the potential for serendipitous discoveries which could have unexpected applications.

Also, regarding gold and diamonds, virtually all of the suffering caused from those resources are the result of the social and political structures either located on the resources or attempting to exploit them. I have difficulty forseeing the circumstances that would result in astronautical warlords and child slaves digging into asteroids at gunpoint.
I don't see how spending billions of dollars to research accessing more resources would make anyone poorer except a few billionaires.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Ferguson

I think part of the reaction comes from the similarity your comments had to a common objection heard against research projects: "Why is [group] wasting money on [science/enterprise] when [there are people still hungry/other problem]?"

The problems with that objection are that, one, it's an argument that could be used to retard any research or development until all people in the world are sound/happy/prosperous (which is likely impossible), and two, most of the time the money being spent on the project has little or no hope to do anything about the social/political conflicts that lead to people suffering or being starved.

There are people researching more efficient uses of energy on Earth. That there are also people researching potential extra-earthly energy sources is a good thing, because it's impossible to know which will be more important fifty or a hundred years from now, especially considering the potential for serendipitous discoveries which could have unexpected applications.

Also, regarding gold and diamonds, virtually all of the suffering caused from those resources are the result of the social and political structures either located on the resources or attempting to exploit them. I have difficulty forseeing the circumstances that would result in astronautical warlords and child slaves digging into asteroids at gunpoint.
I don't see how spending billions of dollars to research accessing more resources would make anyone poorer except a few billionaires.

You certainly make a decent point, though I have less difficulty in imagining the downside of this. Curmudgeon, i suppose.

By the way, you can stay on my lawn.

[Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

It becomes political because this sort of naysaying is also called 'conservatism'. It's the attempt to end the discussion by bringing in the concepts of 'it was good enough in my day', 'things used to be better in ye goode olde days' and 'I would have gotten away with it if not for you meddling kids'.

I don't really see quarky taking a conservative angle here, except maybe in a very broad cultural use of the word. Usually conservatives complain about the "waste" of taxes going to science when it should be given as tax cuts, and liberals complain about the "waste" of taxes going to military when it could go to health care/human services.

Without the tax angle it's hard to divide this topic politically. I think, arguing potential better uses for private money you'd probably find as much disagreement within political groups as between them.

Originally Posted by quarky

By the way, you can stay on my lawn.

[GlennB]

Interesting to note that the Japanese Hayabusa 2^WP mission is targetting a ~1000m NEA, with a current mission cost of $200M minimum (excluding launch costs, I believe. The NS website is currently down). It hopes to bring home a handful of dust by 2020, after hiding behind the asteroid while an explosive impactor liberates some material.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Interesting to note that the Japanese Hayabusa 2^WP mission is targetting a ~1000m NEA, with a current mission cost of $200M minimum (excluding launch costs, I believe. The NS website is currently down). It hopes to bring home a handful of dust by 2020, after hiding behind the asteroid while an explosive impactor liberates some material.

Government missions make me laugh.

The commercial guys are going to run circles around what the government has been able to accomplish since they quit trying (1969 or so).

[quarky]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Government missions make me laugh.

The commercial guys are going to run circles around what the government has been able to accomplish since they quit trying (1969 or so).

The commercial guys are the new government. The old government decided to give them all the money, so it isn't surprising.

[JDC]

In Deep Future (2001), Stephen Baxter proposes mining near earth asteroids (NEAs) not for their metal riches but their construction capabilities.

Get to a C-type NEA on close approach (easier than getting to the moon). Create methane-oxygen bi-propellant by cracking the water with electrolysis using solar power and sandwiched elect. units like in nuclear subs or the ISS. Extract naturally occurring methane from the C-type asteroid material or by processing its carbon dioxide using a Sabatier reactor (need a ruthenium catalyst).

Now rocket back bagged permafrost water from the asteroid and a bit of unprocessed material into highly eccentric Earth orbit (HEEO). No more expensive water from Earth. Now extract carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulfur, ammonia, phosphates ... for a life support system. Further process the dirt for metals: 90% iron, 7% nickel, 1% cobalt and other traces (including platinum).

Next construct a solar power plant in orbit by bringing up the high-tech components from earth (guidance, control, communications, power conversion and microwave transmission systems). Manufacture the massive low-tech components (wires, cables, girders, bolts, fixtures, station-keeping propellants, solar cells) in space from asteroid material. Send/sell the power back to Earth.

Within a few years, asteroid volatiles could support Earth-orbital habitats, missions to the Moon and Mars and supply raw materials and power for Earth.

Hmmm ...

[quarky]

Sounds cool.

hey, anyone seen all the new 1000hp muscle cars coming out this year?
The engines have gotten smaller per hp/cu.in.

These breakthroughs can lay a serious patch of rubber, doing 0-60 in 3 seconds.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by quarky

Sounds cool.

hey, anyone seen all the new 1000hp muscle cars coming out this year?
The engines have gotten smaller per hp/cu.in.

These breakthroughs can lay a serious patch of rubber, doing 0-60 in 3 seconds.

You mean like the new Ferrari F12 Berlinetta? Yes, I'm well aware, and yes it's on my Christmas list. Well ok it's only 740bhp.

A friend of mine has a 1000+ hp Ford GT (twin turbo). Does that count?

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by JDC

In Deep Future (2001), Stephen Baxter proposes mining near earth asteroids (NEAs) not for their metal riches but their construction capabilities.

Get to a C-type NEA on close approach (easier than getting to the moon). Create methane-oxygen bi-propellant by cracking the water with electrolysis using solar power and sandwiched elect. units like in nuclear subs or the ISS. Extract naturally occurring methane from the C-type asteroid material or by processing its carbon dioxide using a Sabatier reactor (need a ruthenium catalyst).

Now rocket back bagged permafrost water from the asteroid and a bit of unprocessed material into highly eccentric Earth orbit (HEEO). No more expensive water from Earth. Now extract carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulfur, ammonia, phosphates ... for a life support system. Further process the dirt for metals: 90% iron, 7% nickel, 1% cobalt and other traces (including platinum).

Next construct a solar power plant in orbit by bringing up the high-tech components from earth (guidance, control, communications, power conversion and microwave transmission systems). Manufacture the massive low-tech components (wires, cables, girders, bolts, fixtures, station-keeping propellants, solar cells) in space from asteroid material. Send/sell the power back to Earth.

Within a few years, asteroid volatiles could support Earth-orbital habitats, missions to the Moon and Mars and supply raw materials and power for Earth.

Hmmm ...

Come on JDC, there's no way they'll get all that fancy technology stuff working. Bolting things in space? Ridiculous!!!

[quarky]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

You mean like the new Ferrari F12 Berlinetta? Yes, I'm well aware, and yes it's on my Christmas list. Well ok it's only 740bhp.

A friend of mine has a 1000+ hp Ford GT (twin turbo). Does that count?

of course it counts.

it counts for me, and my issues.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by JDC

Manufacture the massive low-tech components (wires, cables, girders, bolts, fixtures, station-keeping propellants, solar cells) in space from asteroid material.

After manufacturing the manufacturing equipment itself. No doubt from asteroid materials. Ah, but the manufacturing equipment to make the manufacturing equipment to make the massive components? That needs a little more thought ....

eta: I missed a level of recursion, I think

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by GlennB

After manufacturing the manufacturing equipment itself. No doubt from asteroid materials. Ah, but the manufacturing equipment to make the manufacturing equipment to make the massive components? That needs a little more thought ....

eta: I missed a level of recursion, I think

Really great points here Glenn. How are we going to make the equipment that makes the equipment that makes the equipment. Yup, must be impossible.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Really great points here Glenn. How are we going to make the equipment that makes the equipment that makes the equipment. Yup, must be impossible.

Starting from raw asteroid materials, in orbit, as per JDC's post above?

I do believe you're correct. I also suspect JDC was laying on the ol' irony a bit thick there.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't know about our "very survival", but I have grown accustomed to on demand light, heat, water, and climate control. Our food supply is vastly larger today than it was even when I was a child. I appreciate medicine that keeps me much healthier than my ancestors were. I like the communication that allows me to know what' going on in China, and to play Chess against people in the Phillipines.

Isn't it marvellous? I was born in 1954 in a home without a TV and now I give the internet as much consideration as I do running water - which is damn' all until it's interrupted.

That said, still no jetpacks.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by JDC

In Deep Future (2001), Stephen Baxter proposes mining near earth asteroids (NEAs) not for their metal riches but their construction capabilities.

Get to a C-type NEA on close approach (easier than getting to the moon). Create methane-oxygen bi-propellant by cracking the water with electrolysis using solar power and sandwiched elect. units like in nuclear subs or the ISS. Extract naturally occurring methane from the C-type asteroid material or by processing its carbon dioxide using a Sabatier reactor (need a ruthenium catalyst).

Now rocket back bagged permafrost water from the asteroid and a bit of unprocessed material into highly eccentric Earth orbit (HEEO). No more expensive water from Earth. Now extract carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulfur, ammonia, phosphates ... for a life support system. Further process the dirt for metals: 90% iron, 7% nickel, 1% cobalt and other traces (including platinum).

Next construct a solar power plant in orbit by bringing up the high-tech components from earth (guidance, control, communications, power conversion and microwave transmission systems). Manufacture the massive low-tech components (wires, cables, girders, bolts, fixtures, station-keeping propellants, solar cells) in space from asteroid material. Send/sell the power back to Earth.

Within a few years, asteroid volatiles could support Earth-orbital habitats, missions to the Moon and Mars and supply raw materials and power for Earth.

Hmmm ...

Within more than a few years of getting all the other stuff set up, which will take a while. This is deep future, where a few years don't really signify.

In the long-term I suggest a system where selected asteroids are dropped out of the Belt into near-Mars orbit and then slammed into the surface as required. Miners could then drive out and get the good stuff while it's hot, with benefit of gravity.

In my opinion, what we should be doing in space that's new is learning how to manipulate asteroids. Before we get given a short deadline.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Isn't it marvellous? I was born in 1954 in a home without a TV and now I give the internet as much consideration as I do running water - which is damn' all until it's interrupted.

That said, still no jetpacks.

Actually, the jet-packs are sort-of happening.

Its the world peace and end to starvation stuff that's really dragging its feet.