A need for asteroid mining?

[halman]

Why we need asteroid mining!

The Solar System cooled over millions of years, which means that the denser materials tended to end up closer to the Sun, while the lighter stuff is further out. The Asteroid Belt is probably a nice mix of just about everything, from water ice to uranium. Anyone who claims one of those chunks of rock had better be able to identify it, because there are millions of them out there. By building a large, parabolic mirror, we can generate temperatures high enough to vaporize metals, let alone smelt them down. We know next to nothing about the composition of most of the rocks floating around out there, partly because heavy, rocky bodies, such as nickel-iron stones, are more likely to survive the entry into the atmosphere, but other, lighter bodies probably burn up.

Mining ore out of the ground is only the beginning of the process to having refined metal. Most metals require exposure to high temperatures for several hours to separate them from the impurities in the ore, which means burning large amounts of coal, usually. So the energy costs must include mining the ore, transporting the ore to a smelter, mining coal, hauling the coal to the smelter, and burning the coal. If we are going to burn the coal cleanly, the price goes way up. And all of this does not even consider the waste rock that must be dug out of the ground to get to the ore, which people usually don't put back. If we are going to be serious about avoiding global warming, we are going to have to avoid such activities as smelting metals down. It will just be too expensive carbon wise.

At the moment, only a small portion of the world's population is consuming these rare metals. But what will happen when more and more people begin enjoying higher standards of living? The US population is still under, or right at, 400 million, yet they (we) are producing 25 percent of the greenhouse gasses. Extrapolate how much of those gasses will be produced when 1 billion people are enjoying the same living standards as the US. Or 2 billion. If we don't start doing this kind of stuff off planet, we are going end up not doing it all.

 

[neutrino78x]

hmm, I don't see how asteroid mining could get so cheap that it is cheaper than simply extracting the stuff out of the Earth, if it is something which is abundant on Earth. It would have to be materials which are rare on Earth. Precious metals like gold.

Plus, it is easy to get heat in a green way through either ceramic heaters, or solar thermal. There are solar thermal arrays which can generate enough heat to melt steel.

 

[scottb50]

Re: Why we need asteroid mining!

The Solar System cooled over millions of years, which means that the denser materials tended to end up closer to the Sun, while the lighter stuff is further out. The Asteroid Belt is probably a nice mix of just about everything, from water ice to uranium....

I would think most of the Uranium, and other heavy metals would be closer to the Sun. Mars seems to have less then we have and Venus and Mercury are denser then the Earth and probably have way more heavy Elements then we have way out here. Since most of the asteroids formed from material outward from Mars it seems only logical they aren't a huge resource. Comets, on the other hand, might be another story. Substantial chunks of heavy material from the inner Solar system sent into orbits far removed from those the planets and asteroids maintain.

We know next to nothing about the composition of most of the rocks floating around out there, partly because heavy, rocky bodies, such as nickel-iron stones, are more likely to survive the entry into the atmosphere, but other, lighter bodies probably burn up.....

That's very true, though I doubt asteroids have much Nickle-Iron.

 

[Shpaget]

As far as I know, Earth is the planet with highest density (higher than Mercury or Venus).

From wiki:

In 2004, the world production of iron ore exceeded a billion metric tons.[1] In comparison, a comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron-nickel ore,[2] or two to three times the annual production for 2004. The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of nickel-iron, which could supply the 2004 world production requirement for several million years.

It sounds enough.

 

[EarthlingX]

hmm, I don't see how asteroid mining could get so cheap that it is cheaper than simply extracting the stuff out of the Earth, if it is something which is abundant on Earth. It would have to be materials which are rare on Earth. Precious metals like gold.

Plus, it is easy to get heat in a green way through either ceramic heaters, or solar thermal. There are solar thermal arrays which can generate enough heat to melt steel.

1 liter of water is worth $50 000, if it's in LEO, by COTS prices. 1 m3 (1000 l, 1t) is then $ 50 000 000. That enough ? Of course, it's only 1 tenth of that, if ferried there by Zenit 3SL for example, but still at least $5 000 000.
Water on planet surface is not water in LEO, or higher, there's 9,5 km/s delta V difference, at least, more for different orbits and orbital planes.
Material from NEO-s is cheaper, because it allows engines with higher Isp, that is less total mass, and has in lot's of cases lower delta V distance.
Some solid data about the closest NEO-s would definitely help.
Artificial gravitation made by rotation is not exactly news, if you need it for some of the processes, and such factory could be mostly operated from Earth surface, with least possible on-site human interaction. Robotic factories are not news either, and could be made modular, allowing added capacity as need grows.
Ask Bigelow how much would that cost, you'll also get a decent lease offer.

 

[MeteorWayne]

As far as I know, Earth is the planet with highest density (higher than Mercury or Venus).

Also from Wiki (so I haven't verified)

All measures in grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3):

•Mercury - 5.427
•Venus - 5.204
•Earth - 5.515
•Mars - 3.934
•Jupiter - 1.326
•Saturn - 0.687
•Uranus - 1.27
•Neptune - 1.638

 

[MeteorWayne]

For comparison:

Ordinary Chondrites:

LL 3.21 (± 0.22)
L 3.35 (± 0.16)
H 3.40 (± 0.18)


Enstatite Chondrites:

EL 3.55 (± 0.1)
EH 3.72 (± 0.02)


Carbonaceous Chondrites:
CI 2.11
CM 2.12 (± 0.26)
CR 3.1
CO 2.95 (± 0.11)
CV 2.95 (± 0.26)
CK 3.47 (± 0.02)*



Achondrites:
Aubrites 3.12 (± 0.15)
Diogenites 3.26 (± 0.17)
Eucrites 2.86 (± 0.07)
Howardites 3.02 (± 0.19)
Ureilites 3.05 (± 0.22)
Shergottites 3.10 (± 0.04)
Chassignite 3.32*
Nakhlites 3.15 (± 0.07)



Stony/Irons:

Mesosiderites 4.25 (± 0.02)
Pallasites 4.76 (± 0.10)


Irons:

Iron meteorites are composed primarily of an Iron/Nickel blend which will often have a density of approximately 7g/cm3 - 8g/cm3.

 

[neutrino78x]

asteroid minining will definitely be a big industry once we start manufacturing ships in orbit/space, and when we get colonies on Mars and gas giant moons, and in orbit. You'll need a way to get raw materials for making steel etc., and the best place would probably be asteroids.

In the meantime, though, we need something profitable to mine on an asteroid.

Gold is 1,000 USD an ounce right now, which I think means 35,000 USD per kg of gold.

So, if we can get a robotic device or ship to somehow get off the Earth, go to an asteroid, mine out a kilogram of gold, and bring it back to Earth, all for less than $35,000, that's profitable asteroid mining

I think I saw on SpaceDev's web site that would be at least 10 to 15 years before we have the automated mining technology.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Do you have any evidence there are recoverable quantities and concentrations of gold to make such a venture worthwhile?

 

[neutrino78x]

Do you have any evidence there are recoverable quantities and concentrations of gold to make such a venture worthwhile?

Well, I tend to think it is not worthwhile with present technology, but the asteroid Eros supposedly has trillions of dollars in gold.

Gold on Eros (BBC)

Of course, the key word is "recoverable". It has to be possible to go up there, remove some of the gold, and bring it back to Earth, all for less than 35,000 us dollars per kilogram (current value of gold).

So the short answer to your question is, unfortunately, no. However, as I said, I think there is a rich future in asteroid mining, but it is largely for the medium-term future. Things will change for it, of course, as soon as there is cheap access to space.

--Brian

 

[Shpaget]

Let me just correct you on one thing.
Gold is not so expensive because there is lack of it. It's expensive because twice a day five people in London decide to change its price (it usually ends up being more expensive than before the meeting).
It is also so expensive because pretty much all of it is locked up behind the bars of various vaults. There are tens of thousands of tons of it around the world, and none of it will ever see the daylight.
If it was released to the public, prices would plummet to their realistic values.

The value of asteroid mining is the fact that you don't need to haul all the material up from the Earth, not in hope to find materials that are rare down here. Earth is rich enough in all the elements and quantities we'll ever need down here.

 

[nimbus]

Shpaget - What about the economics of getting it back down to earth?

 

[EarthlingX]

Shpaget - What about the economics of getting it back down to earth?

Why ? :? There's plenty of things down the well, not in LEO .. Why would you do this ?

 

[Shpaget]

nimbus, I'm not sure what you mean.
Economics of binging what down to Earth? I'm not talking about bringing anything from asteroids down here. I'm saying that everything should stay up there and be refined and used up there.
Of course, there could be some exception with some extremely expensive elements (gold is not one of them).

 

[halman]

Shpaget,

Do you have any idea how gold is currently being mined in the US? Gold mines are now giant pits, where material is processed by the ton to extract fractions of a gram. The gold is leached out of waste rock by cyanide, which is dumped after use. Gold behind bars is not an example of abundance, merely value. And bringing a large quantity of it to Earth would destroy the market value.

But gold is not an industrial metal, so it is a poor example to use in justifying asteroid mining. Titanium is far more valuable than gold in terms of industrial uses, and it is very rare on Earth. But it is not merely the relative abundance of something on Earth that establishes its cost, it is the extraction and purification as well. Those costs are subject to factors having nothing to do with the mineral and its uses. Environmental costs are now coming to the fore in projections of availability, after years of being ignored or avoided. Moving iron smelters to Thailand does not change their carbon footprint, even though the Thai government does not have strict anti-pollution laws.

Those mills were moved from the US because the environmental costs in the US were becoming prohibitive. Cleaning up the foundries and smelters would have made the product much more expensive. To maintain a comfortable profit margin, production was moved to a place where there were no emissions regulations. That same process is going to come into play for many minerals and products, as we deal with the threat of our extinction at our own hands.

That is one of the economic drivers of expanding our sphere of activity off planet. Another is the ability to make things out there that simply cannot be made here, like metal foams. If we mined iron and nickel from an asteroid, turned them into stainless steel, and then injected gas into the molten steel, we could create objects made of steel foam. Properly annealed over several months, these objects would have many times the strength of a similar object made of solid steel on Earth.

Now, we could get that iron and nickel from the Moon, but that would probably mean sending people to the Moon to look for the stuff, and to extract it. To do that, we have to develop an entirely new kind of space craft, which will only be of use in going to the Moon and returning, as well as habitats and transportation vehicles. Going to an asteroid will require the same kind of space craft we will need for voyaging to Mars, for instance, a deep space vehicle capable of extended missions. We don't have to worry about having specialized vehicles to land on an asteroid, because their gravity is minuscule. So we could identify new resources without having to invest sizable amounts of money into one destination.

This is an example of thinking about space as 'space', not just as other planets and moons, surfaces that we could walk upon. Space is a medium which contains those planets and moons, as well as asteroids, comets, dust, and who knows what else. Space is a place where we can gather large amounts of energy without disrupting our own environment, where we can extract minerals without having to burrow deep beneath the surface. Probably we will extract minerals from the planets and moons, as our technology of surviving in space improves, and the money to do so increases. But our picture of the Solar System has been changing considerably in the last 20 years or so, as we discover that there is a lot of matter in it not associated with a planet or a moon.

The delta v requirements of meeting up with an asteroid or Near Earth Object are still fairly considerable, and such missions will likely be central to the development of more advanced propulsion systems than today's chemical rockets. Changing the orbit of a body even a few hundred meters in diameter is going to be very difficult, and we may opt to carve out pieces and haul them back, or we may start a 'pipeline', which consists of small quantities of the asteroid being shipped at frequent intervals.

On a related note, we still have a huge gap in our knowledge of what is in our neighborhood, because we are not able to view things to sunward of us. A number of rocks which have orbits that cross the Earth's have been detected, but we will not be able to establish a precise inventory of our immediate vicinity until we can look from a different perspective. Putting a satellite capable of detecting the infrared signature of matter against empty space in orbit around the Sun at about the same distance from the Sun as Venus would give us the complete inventory of NEOs in a matter of months, at the most.

This infrared satellite would also help to protect us from rocks that we cannot detect from Earth, and so could be partially funded as part of SPACEGAURD.

 

[MeteorWayne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_ ... %27s_crust

 

[tanstaafl76]

A real trick would be to mine ore from an asteroid and then use the heat of re-entry to smelt and refine the material so it was ready for use in purified form by the time it splashed down.

 

[nimbus]

Just the way I interpreted your post Shpaget. I don't think there'll be any change in need for asteroid mining till we're building stuff out there. We "need" it right now, we just can't get to it. Arguing that there's a need for asteroid mining that'd justify going out there isn't enough to break the catch-22 we're in right now. Arguing that there'll be one in a future we're not near enough to make any plans for right now kinda escaped my POV when I read your post.

 

[EarthlingX]

I thought that there is a plan to start commercializing space with things that are needed in LEO, like oxygen and hydrogen. If someone could get it from NEOs, would it make a difference ? 50 M$ for 1m3 of water, that you can push with a low thrust for a long time, would probably be cheaper than getting it up the well.

 

[Shpaget]

I'm not saying we need it now. We can be perfectly happy with the resources we have here on Earth, but if we're ever to build a space station with permanent population of more than 5, we'll need new ways of obtaining construction materials. Hauling it from here is too expensive. Lifting mining, refining and processing equipment would also be expensive, but if done in small steps (basic mining, and small scale semi-industrial processing capacities) it can be done.

 

[neutrino78x]

That same process is going to come into play for many minerals and products, as we deal with the threat of our extinction at our own hands.

That is one of the economic drivers of expanding our sphere of activity off planet.

As long as we are talking about expanding, as opposed to moving. In my opinion, it will always be more energy efficient (and therefore cheaper) to mine things on the Earth, if they are going to be used on the Earth.

Expand the human prescense to space, absolutely!! Mine asteroids, absolutely!! But move heavy industry into space, as in, don't do any of it on Earth, that part I can't imagine. At least, not in the near future.

Another is the ability to make things out there that simply cannot be made here, like metal foams.

Definitely, I agree.

Going to an asteroid will require the same kind of space craft we will need for voyaging to Mars, for instance, a deep space vehicle capable of extended missions.

I agree that the same craft which goes to Mars would be able to go to an asteroid, but are you suggesting here that we not go to Mars or an asteroid until we can build the Battlestar Galactica or USS Enterprise NCC-1701? If so, we will be stuck in LEO for 100 years! This is the craft we should use to go to Mars (Mars Direct capsules):

I think that Mars Direct capsules should be built in a modular fashion so that they can have things snapped off and on (so to speak) to reconfigure a given mission to go an asteroid instead of Mars.

However, I certainly don't think we should wait until we can build this:

or this

Because that just puts the whole thing off for another 5 generations in the future!

Changing the orbit of a body even a few hundred meters in diameter is going to be very difficult, and we may opt to carve out pieces and haul them back, or we may start a 'pipeline', which consists of small quantities of the asteroid being shipped at frequent intervals.

Well I think it would make more sense to extract the minerals there and bring the extracted minerals to wherever they are being used?

--Brian

 

[halman]

Neutrino78x,

For a number of reasons, I am convinced that, eventually, all heavy, energy intensive, dirty industries will be based off planet. However, I envision the process taking a minimum of 100 years to completion, possibly longer. Right now, the cost of making something in space is nearly beyond measure. Our methods of accessing space are primitive, our technologies for surviving there in their infancy. But all of that will change, I am certain, as industry discovers the cost benefits of working outside our ecosystem.

If we reach a point where we are collecting solar energy in terawatt quantities, we are mining hundreds of tons a month of raw materials from the Moon and various asteroids, and we have established orbital factories to process those raw materials with that solar power, the costs of products made in space will drop drastically. And, during this same time, the costs of running heavy industries on Earth will steadily rise. Consider this example; It is still possible to make steel in the US, the ore is readily available, we have lots of coal, and there is some demand for good steel still. But building a steel mill in the US will be far more expensive than building one in Cambodia, let’s say, because Cambodia has no pollution regulations. (For the sake of argument, we’ll pretend so, anyway.)

Eventually, it will be prohibitively expensive to perform environmentally damaging operations here on Earth, because every country will have pollution laws and carbon caps. Energy is going rise in cost, as pollution laws, extraction costs, and transmission costs take their toll. The work involved in heating our homes and workplaces, and transporting people between their homes and work or school will soak up a great deal of the carbon allowances everyone will have to deal with if a sizable portion of the world's population achieves a standard of living anywhere near that of the United States. Dropping finished, or ready to assemble, goods into the atmosphere is almost free, apart from the container, heat shield, and parachutes, and that is importing energy into the ecosystem in the form of products which need no more energy intensive processing.

If we are going to be able to lift heavy industry off planet someday, we have to start learning a lot of stuff now. How to assemble space stations quickly, how to lift large payloads into orbit cheaply, how to handle waste heat in an environment where we can’t just dump it into the water or the atmosphere, how to transport personnel to and from space safely, these all have to be addressed.

If we want to develop a deep space vehicle, we are going to have to spend a fair amount of money. Industry spends huge sums on drill ships, refineries, chip plants, and the like. For the same reasons, they will invest heavily into deep space vehicles for exploring and mining asteroids. Once those vehicle are being built on a regular basis, then purchasing one or two for exploring Mars will be far cheaper than if those vehicles were strictly developed for Mars expeditions. Of course I am not suggesting that we skip Mars in our explorations. But I want to be very sure that, when we do go to Mars, it is with commitment and backing sufficient to ensure a continued presence there.

The two examples of ships you used are actually appropriate. The Enterprise is a starship, with Faster Than Light drive, power generation potential in the terawatt range, I would imagine, and capable of traveling from Earth to Jupiter in minutes. The Discovery is a primitive, fission powered vehicle, which requires several months to travel from Earth to Jupiter. But it is advanced enough to provide its crew with quarters under spin, to avoid muscle atrophy.

I realize that there are people who are more than willing to travel to Mars in an Apollo capsule, just as there have been people willing to travel from Cuba to the US on open rafts. But just because something can be done does not mean that it should be done. A mission to Mars resulting in the loss of the crew could have very negative effects on our entire space exploration program at this early stage. Once we have established ourselves in space in terms of industry, there will be no turning back, And industrial development offers the greatest opportunity for the investment needed to develop and perfect our technology for existing outside of our fragile ecosphere.

Mars isn’t going anywhere soon. It can wait while we develop a truly space-based technology, as a laboratory for advanced robotics, artificial intelligence, and remote sensing. What we learn while preparing for the manned exploration of Mars will pave the way for developing other bodies, such as Mercury, the moons of Jupiter, and Titan. We are toddlers, crawling over the railing of our cradle, unsure of everything. To expect that toddler to make a bee line to the toy box is a little unrealistic, but you can put your last dime on that toddler finding it eventually.

 

[Booban]

The US never signed Kyoto, neither did China or...hmmm, was it just the europeans?

We already know that planetary pollution damage has been done, and if we stop all pollution now, we can't reverse it. There is no talk of zero pollution, merely reducing emissions to 1990's level.

1990's!

And China, even if they had the most stringent environmental levels it still leads to a massive jump in pollution as they industrialized. And then what about the rest of the world? What if Africa industrializes like China?

There is plenty of room left to keep on polluting the planet and even if we get space mining going, I don't think that will stop African from polluting their countries as they industrialized and look for profits.

I actually do think the human species is so stupid that our short sighted selfishness will eventually kill us. I wonder if its very wise waiting for pollution regulations to send us to space.

 

[EarthlingX]

Here is an article that saves me from many very long posts : A Space Program for the Rest of Us

 

[nux]

Gold is expensive because twice a day five people
and pretty much all of it is locked up.

If the gold mined off-planet is kept in an orbiting vault, the same five people can go on doing what they are doing. If the vault contains a little amount of gold, Nasa can use it to finance future expeditions. If a medium amount, it can go towards the Public Budget, or to be the reserve of a currency. If a large amount, many years into the future, it can finance the next global economy, ie. the economy of the next globe.

Opt to carve out pieces and haul them back,
or start a 'pipeline'

If the asteroid and its pieces are inside Mars orbit, part of the pipeline could be the Aldrin Mars Cycler. Outward bound, the cycler carries hardware for Mars; inward bound, ore for manufacturing. It makes good business sense. And astronauts, working in comfort in another module bolted to the same cycler, tele-operate mining robots as a way to break the boredom.

If the asteroid-pieces are beyond Mars orbit, then a Jupiter Cycler could be employed, if such a cycler is mathematically and orbital-mechanically possible. Failing that, then a Mars-Saturn Cycler as one stage of a two-stage operation.

In both scenarios, the primary difficulty remains, namely, the piece has to be accelerated or decelerated to cycler velocity, but its velocity had to be changed anyway.

heavy, dirty, off planet, minimum of 100 years to completion, possibly longer.

Elsewhere you mention using atmospheric lift to get to an initial height, then a second craft goes beyond. Maybe the cyclers come third in the hundred-year minimum process, with a fourth craft at the far end. Where, if anywhere, do they fit?

Extract the minerals there
and bring the extracted minerals to wherever they are being used?

There seem to be four options:
Bring the whole asteroid back to earth;
Break it into smaller pieces and process far away;
Break and process nearby;
Send the asteroid-pieces to some fixed point well away from the ecliptic where they would smash into a factory and mining operation placed there specifically for the purpose.

I wonder if it is very wise waiting for pollution regulations to send us to space.

It might be worse than that. Before the oil runs out, the Oil Companies might make an Earth-Titan Cycler, bring hydrocarbons from there to here, and burn them. They might see the Carbon Tax as just another business expense.

David C