Solar System Mining

[HopDavid]

In the near future we will need lots of fuel for spacecraft leaving Earth orbit.
Shipping fuels off of earth is expensive.

I'm with you so far.

Raw materials for fuels appear to be more prevalent in the Kuiper belt than in the asteroid belt (gases versus metals)....

This is where we part ways.

A Hohmann trip to Neptune would take 30 years. Round trip 60 years.

To a Kuiper object 60 A.U. out, a Hohman trip would take 84 years, round trip 168 years.

Something falling in from the Kuiper belt would be moving close to solar escape velocity when in our neighborhood. This would be about 42 km/sec wrt the sun. Depending what inclination the orbit is, the velocity wrt the earth would be 12 to 72 km/sec.

There are icey bodies at the Sun-Jupiter L4 and L4 regions. There are recently discovered "Main Belt Comets", volatile rich bodies in the main belt.

It is even suspected that there are volatile rich NEOs.

In terms of delta V, the two closest bodies in the solar system are Phobos and Deimos. These may have volatiles.

So while I agree with you that rocket fuel parked in earth orbit is a good thing, we disagree about we should get the rocket fuel. The Kuiper Belt objects are one of the very worst sources, in my opinion.

 

[rockett]

Would be cheaper and faster to bring water up from the moon to Earth orbit. The reason for storing it as water is it's an easy way to store hydrogen and oxygen. Split it into fuel on demand when you had a need.

 

[halman]

Who needs a wrench that floats on water if it costs $1000? I can buy $3 wrenches at the cheapo store for the occasions where I work around water. That means I can afford to drop 300 of them in the lake and still have enough money left over to go out to dinner. Of course you might expect me to learn my lesson after the first 200 or so.

You will have to come up with something that the masses wants and can only come from up there.

There is nothing you can manufacture up there that can turn a profit in the next several decades.

What I was trying to get across is that manufacturing in space allows us to do things with materials that we have never been able to do before. By annealing a metal, we can assure that the majority of the bonds between the atoms are aligned into crystalline shapes with faces touching, which makes the structure far stronger than when the faces are not aligned. By reinforcing the metal with carbon filaments, and by making the metal a foam, we can produce ultra-strong, ultra-lightweight metal parts, which can be used in automobiles, aircraft, spaceships, bicycles, and tools. This may even eclipse the carbon composite as the strongest building material, at least until the fullerene is perfected, and that will probably have to be manufactured in space.

Nor am I considering the mass market, because consumers are going to be too strapped to indulge in things made in space for a long time. But business, especially the transportation business, is going to be buying anything which has the potential of reducing the costs of moving stuff around. Economic necessity is going to drive much of the next industrial revolutions, just as economic necessity forced the development of the steam engine. And, much like the impact the steam engine had on the world, much of what will come about because of space manufacturing is unforeseen at this time.

We have to learn to think in a whole new way to be able to truly understand what is possible in the natural environment of most of the Cosmos. All of our experience is geared toward what happens in a gravity field when we cannot fall, which distorts how things really work. Our expectations, our feed forward, work against us in space, because we believe that a certain outcome will be the result of some action, and we can be totally wrong. People knew that density differences would not have any effect in zero gravity, but no one thought about how that would affect an open flame.

It turns out that our primary source of energy for most of our evolution will not work in space. If a room temperature super conductor is ever discovered, it is quite likely that it will be the result of work done in zero gravity, where practically any substance can be mixed with another. Combine that with the existence of large concentrations of certain materials in clumps of mass floating around the Solar System, and conditions are ripe for innovations and developments which will alter our society.

 

[EarthlingX]

In terms of delta V, the two closest bodies in the solar system are Phobos and Deimos. These may have volatiles.

This part is very interesting, not to say others are not, in short : is there a list of NEO-s sorted by dV ?
List should, of course, include Phobos and Deimos, but Moon will be very far at end of such list, i guess.
WISE will tell us more, probably soon - it will take a while before this list settles down.

 

[Tritium]

Who needs a wrench that floats on water if it costs $1000? I can buy $3 wrenches at the cheapo store for the occasions where I work around water. That means I can afford to drop 300 of them in the lake and still have enough money left over to go out to dinner. Of course you might expect me to learn my lesson after the first 200 or so.

You will have to come up with something that the masses wants and can only come from up there.

There is nothing you can manufacture up there that can turn a profit in the next several decades.

What I was trying to get across is that manufacturing in space allows us to do things with materials that we have never been able to do before. By annealing a metal, we can assure that the majority of the bonds between the atoms are aligned into crystalline shapes with faces touching, which makes the structure far stronger than when the faces are not aligned. By reinforcing the metal with carbon filaments, and by making the metal a foam, we can produce ultra-strong, ultra-lightweight metal parts, which can be used in automobiles, aircraft, spaceships, bicycles, and tools. This may even eclipse the carbon composite as the strongest building material, at least until the fullerene is perfected, and that will probably have to be manufactured in space

Nor am I considering the mass market, because consumers are going to be too strapped to indulge in things made in space for a long time. But business, especially the transportation business, is going to be buying anything which has the potential of reducing the costs of moving stuff around. Economic necessity is going to drive much of the next industrial revolutions, just as economic necessity forced the development of the steam engine. And, much like the impact the steam engine had on the world, much of what will come about because of space manufacturing is unforeseen at this time.

We have to learn to think in a whole new way to be able to truly understand what is possible in the natural environment of most of the Cosmos. All of our experience is geared toward what happens in a gravity field when we cannot fall, which distorts how things really work. Our expectations, our feed forward, work against us in space, because we believe that a certain outcome will be the result of some action, and we can be totally wrong. People knew that density differences would not have any effect in zero gravity, but no one thought about how that would affect an open flame.

It turns out that our primary source of energy for most of our evolution will not work in space. If a room temperature super conductor is ever discovered, it is quite likely that it will be the result of work done in zero gravity, where practically any substance can be mixed with another. Combine that with the existence of large concentrations of certain materials in clumps of mass floating around the Solar System, and conditions are ripe for innovations and developments which will alter our society.

Space mining will happen.It will begin the moment we touch foot on the Lunar surface.It will begin again once we land humans on Mars and want them to establish a base station.Wherever we go,we drill,and we dig for the minerals and the ores which will make us rich.So "greed" is a driving factor.I however wish to live in a world full of hope and love.One in which we settle our disputes and move outward from our beautiful planet and colonize every available piece of real estate out there,from Mars to Pluto.

Not for "Greed"but for the the love of humanity.To preserve our species.And yes,it may take some lower form of brain,powered by greed to get us off the planet,but I keep praying for the desire of human survival to be a benevolent force which drives what humanity is left to build the ships and transport the people where they need to go.!

 

[StarRider1701]

I'm surprised that no one even mentioned the most likely first space "Mine" which probably won't be an actual mine at all. But mining is collecting raw materials to be refined and made into something useful. I think our first "mines" will actually be enterprising folk up in LEO collecting the TONS of space junk that doesn't work anymore. And our first factories in space will actually be places to recycle those materials or re-refine them so useful items can be created from the old. None of that stuff will have any use down here on Earth, it will all be utilized exclusively in space. Once we begin the industrialization of space in this small way, the time will come when someone will figure out how to get other materials, first from the moon to the industrial center.

Start small, because once there is ANY industry in space, some bright boy or girl will figure out how to expand it!

 

[neutrino78x]

Sucks that the human life span is so short, that most of us will never live to see any of this play out

But it is entertaining to talk about it

--Brian

 

[halman]

Sucks that the human life span is so short, that most of us will never live to see any of this play out

But it is entertaining to talk about it

--Brian

Decisions are being made right now about how this will play out, I believe, because policy regarding greenhouse gases, energy utilization, and several other critical areas is being written now. These will have an impact on industry on Earth, to drive up production costs, for the most part, while making acquiring raw material even more difficult and expensive. The cost of production on Earth will play a major part in bringing about the next industrial revolution, because those costs are poised to take a huge leap.

Perceiving our world as part of something larger, with greater resources, is a giant undertaking for many people. For one thing, they unconsciously think of the Earth as being all that there is, the whole of Creation. The stars in the night sky are merely little points of light, even if the star is a planet. Because Here is all that there is, it must be infinite, in which case we can never use it up. The image of the Earth with the Moon in the foreground is one of the most, if not the most, profound images ever taken, for it shows our home in context with something else in space. Which means that Earth is not all that there is, it is not infinite, and it can very easily be used up, ruined, by our greed.

Relying on lofty sentiment will not get investment into space technology, because the people who have the money are interested in one thing: Profit. They have one motivation: Greed. Money is an addiction, which becomes more acute the more money that you have, it seems. A few people have shown themselves to be more or less immune, but for every one of them there are thousands who lust after money for the sake of money. If we can sell space as the hot place to invest, we can have all of these wonderful things come true, but not by virtue of their merit, but because they will be secondary to creating new wealth.

A better way of getting people into space will be one of the first things that will come about, and space stations that can be launched as a single payload, on a big rocket, with expandable modules. People will begin living in space to learn how to think in terms of that environment, so that they can figure out things to try. Many of the advances required for long-duration space voyages will be made on space stations, to reduce the costs of supporting them.

If we can get wealth interested in space as a place to create more wealth, than we won't have to worry about convincing the government to spend more money on space. That will have already become a priority, because the wealth invested in space will demand government spending on tough issues and thorny problems. A space station in an orbit a few degrees ahead or behind the Earth will experience the kinds of solar radiation that deep space explorers must be shielded against, on a regular basis. So spending on radiation shielding will become a priority. Moving mass around as cheaply as possible will drive the development of more efficient propulsion systems, setting the stage for a mission to Mars.

Mining the Solar System will require that we explore it. In person.

 

[HopDavid]

In terms of delta V, the two closest bodies in the solar system are Phobos and Deimos. These may have volatiles.

This part is very interesting, not to say others are not, in short : is there a list of NEO-s sorted by dV ?
List should, of course, include Phobos and Deimos, but Moon will be very far at end of such list, i guess.
WISE will tell us more, probably soon - it will take a while before this list settles down.

The closest thing I know of is JPL's NEO Earth Close Approaches page

You can sort by a number of criteria, including V infinity and V relative.

It is counter-intuitive but being in Mars' gravity well lowers the delta V needed to get to Phobos and Deimos.

At one time I thought low delta V launch windows to NEOs would be infrequent. I had imagined a near earth perihelion was needed:

Then later it occurred to me that there can be many transfer ellipses tangent to both earth orbit and a given elliptical orbit. Like Hohmann orbits, all the delta V is speed change rather than direction change.

I remain unsure how often low delta V launch windows for NEOs would occur. But now I believe they occur more frequently than my earlier mental models indicated.

 

[Couerl]

These will have an impact on industry on Earth, to drive up production costs, for the most part, while making acquiring raw material even more difficult and expensive................................................

Relying on lofty sentiment will not get investment into space technology,.............................

If we can get wealth interested in space as a place to create more wealth, than we won't have to worry about convincing the government to spend more money on space.

Mining the Solar System will require that we explore it. In person.

Hi, so far all these "decisions" have sent industry packing from the U.S. overseas. China, Russia, India and most of the rest of the planet don't care about U.S. government regulations constraining their own industries and keeping them from being profitable. If you ask me, your position is insane even if our ultimate goal for exploration and development are very much in common.

"Relying on lofty sentiment".... Well here we agree at least, but your use of the word "greed" suggests that very lofty sentiment you are trying to dispence with. I think it is lofty sentiment to artificially constrain industry here in the U.S. with phoney balogna junk-science, while the rest of the world eats us alive economically skipping merrily off to the bank. That will not help our cause.

There has to be wealth in order to invest it and that is why the primary language in the U.S. is stilll English. It could have very easily been French or Spanish or Italian, but those "greedy" British people (back when they owned half of the civilized world) beat them to the punch. I wonder what the primary language of the solar system will be in 500 years...

 

[EarthlingX]

In terms of delta V, the two closest bodies in the solar system are Phobos and Deimos. These may have volatiles.

This part is very interesting, not to say others are not, in short : is there a list of NEO-s sorted by dV ?
List should, of course, include Phobos and Deimos, but Moon will be very far at end of such list, i guess.
WISE will tell us more, probably soon - it will take a while before this list settles down.

The closest thing I know of is JPL's NEO Earth Close Approaches page

You can sort by a number of criteria, including V infinity and V relative.

It is counter-intuitive but being in Mars' gravity well lowers the delta V needed to get to Phobos and Deimos.

At one time I thought low delta V launch windows to NEOs would be infrequent. I had imagined a near earth perihelion was needed:

Then later it occurred to me that there can be many transfer ellipses tangent to both earth orbit and a given elliptical orbit. Like Hohmann orbits, all the delta V is speed change rather than direction change.

I remain unsure how often low delta V launch windows for NEOs would occur. But now I believe they occur more frequently than my earlier mental models indicated.

Thank you, very nice post, i will just quote it in whole.

List of NEOs, sorted by V-infinity : http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_ca? ... ble&show=1

First one from this list :
2010 EE43 - V-relative=2.66 km/s - Class : AMO (Amor, probably)

IAU Minor Planet Center : MPEC 2010-E31 : 2010 DJ77

There is one, with V-infinity lower, on this list :
Near Earth Object Program : Current Impact Risks
2010 DJ77 - V-infinity=1.24 km/s, Mass : 5.2e+06 kg or puny 5 000 t, would just cover the floor on a bulk carrier (Capacity : up to 364,000 DWT)

IAU Minor Planet Center : MPEC 2010-E73 : 2010 EE43

A bit problematic part for a visit :

Incl. 18.13373

2010 DJ77 Impact Risk : http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2010dj77.html


Pretty close, i think.

 

[HopDavid]

List of NEOs, sorted by V-infinity : http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_ca? ... ble&show=1

First one from this list :
2010 EE43 - V-relative=2.66 km/s - Class : AMO (Amor, probably)

This is close approaches within the recent past or future. You can get bigger time ranges.

I hadn't realized you could post URLs where options are chosen. I will give that a shot.

Here is sorted by V infinity for the entire future:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_ca? ... ble&show=1

 

[EarthlingX]

List of NEOs, sorted by V-infinity : http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_ca? ... ble&show=1

First one from this list :
2010 EE43 - V-relative=2.66 km/s - Class : AMO (Amor, probably)

This is close approaches within the recent past or future. You can get bigger time ranges.

I hadn't realized you could post URLs where options are chosen. I will give that a shot.

Here is sorted by V infinity for the entire future:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_ca? ... ble&show=1

And i just noticed, you made a post

Sorted by V-relative (not all have V-infinity field filled) :
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_ca? ... ble&show=1

First page (20 objects) between 0.21 and 1.05 V-relative. I go search for my shovel, and .. blast, .. i have to get to LEO first

 

[MeteorWayne]

Then after you get to LEO, you've got a way to go..only 1 of those first 20 come closer than 6X Lunar Distance... and that's in 2060...

 

[halman]

These will have an impact on industry on Earth, to drive up production costs, for the most part, while making acquiring raw material even more difficult and expensive................................................

Relying on lofty sentiment will not get investment into space technology,.............................

If we can get wealth interested in space as a place to create more wealth, than we won't have to worry about convincing the government to spend more money on space.

Mining the Solar System will require that we explore it. In person.

Hi, so far all these "decisions" have sent industry packing from the U.S. overseas. China, Russia, India and most of the rest of the planet don't care about U.S. government regulations constraining their own industries and keeping them from being profitable. If you ask me, your position is insane even if our ultimate goal for exploration and development are very much in common.

"Relying on lofty sentiment".... Well here we agree at least, but your use of the word "greed" suggests that very lofty sentiment you are trying to dispence with. I think it is lofty sentiment to artificially constrain industry here in the U.S. with phoney balogna junk-science, while the rest of the world eats us alive economically skipping merrily off to the bank. That will not help our cause.

There has to be wealth in order to invest it and that is why the primary language in the U.S. is stilll English. It could have very easily been French or Spanish or Italian, but those "greedy" British people (back when they owned half of the civilized world) beat them to the punch. I wonder what the primary language of the solar system will be in 500 years...

If I substitute the phrase "insatiable desire for wealth" in place of "greed", will that make it better? What I am driving at is that the desire to increase one's wealth motivates huge amounts of money to be invested in stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. Somehow, we need to get a tiny portion of that wealth invested in learning how to make money in space. Mining bodies in space is certain to play a part, because the raw materials that we need are already moving about the Solar System, and perturbing the orbits of small pieces of what we need is not going to be energy intensive, if we do it right.

The majority of people who have any conception of space at all probably think of space as a place where we spend lots of money learning about stuff that will never have anything to do with life here on Earth. We need to share with them a vision of a future that is positive in nature because of the impact of industry in space. We need to let people know that there are alternatives to doing without refined metals, distilled hydrocarbons, and anything else that requires very much energy. We need to let them know that there are ways to make the pie bigger, so that everyone can get a bigger slice without taking some from each other.

China is experiencing social revolt as the result of environmental degradation, and people all over the planet are becoming aware of climate change. Reminding people that this is the only place that we can really call 'home' right now might help our cause and bring about some moderation in the war on the environment. As long as people believe that the Earth is the only place where industrial operations can be performed, there will be little support for severe restrictions on industrial activities, because people want to enjoy the benefits of our technology, even if it kills them.

 

[Couerl]

Hi Halman, Ya that makes it better.
I think you have a good take on all of this, but I also think it is critical to leave out any hint of hyperbole, sentimentality et. al. even the tiniest shreds because it only serves to weaken the argument to invest in space and mining and all that great stuff that everyone here wishes to see happen some day. The "exploitation" of the solar system and its resources need not be sold as a path to riches in the likeness of El Dorado, nor an insurance policy from extinction aka Sagan, Hawking et. al. but, rather a good, solid, old-fashioned ROI driven investment. Like you, I think that first step comes with having a cheap and easy way up there and I like your ideas, but I also think it will evolve with better hardware and software and those developing technologies that are happening here and now. Forget about nano this and nano that and think about the first kind of space Bob-Cat we can make and run it from a console like a predator drone, except for purposes like mining, building, manufacturing etc.. If it were simply a matter of greed and money we could always be the first to make a space-porn movie. :lol:

 

[HopDavid]

Then after you get to LEO, you've got a way to go..only 1 of those first 20 come closer than 6X Lunar Distance... and that's in 2060...

I think it goes without saying that you would have to achieve earth escape velocity, at the very least.

Here is a memory device for velocity needed for insertion into a hyperbolic orbit:

In the case of many of these asteroids, V infinity (the lighter purple line segment) would be very small.

So the darker purple hypotenuse would be very close to the same length as the escape velocity. From LEO, the burn need would be just a tad more than Vesc - Vc.

At 300 km altitude, Vesc - Vc would be 10.9 - 7.7 or about 3.2 km/sec.

 

[halman]

It occurred to me that one of the first raw material sources for orbital factories might be Worn-out Automobile Tires, or WATs as someone called them. They are a major waste product of the United States with 290 million being generated in 2003, and China will begin generating their own tire mountains soon. There is a tremendous amount of energy bound up in tires, between the steel belts used in most tires, and the rubber. One method of recovering some of that energy is tire pyrolysis, a process where tires are heated in an oxygen-free chamber, and the gasses recovered, which are convertible to various hydrocarbons. The steel is recovered as well, and the waste product is a low-grade carbon black.

Heating tires with solar energy would allow for fuel to be extracted, as well as steel for construction purposes. Shredded tire material can be packed very densely, so that large payloads could be carried on existing rockets. People may think such a thing as launching WATs into space is ridiculous, but resources for the early stages of space manufacturing will come from Earth, at least until we can get some mines on the Moon up and running. Getting rid of WATs is so environmentally challenging that sending them into space may turn out to be cheaper than getting rid of them down here.

We also must bear in mind that our concepts about launch costs are skewed by the lack of any mass-produced launch vehicles, the development of which will lower launch costs significantly.

 

[HopDavid]

There is a tremendous amount of energy bound up in tires, between the steel belts used in most tires, and the rubber. One method of recovering some of that energy is tire pyrolysis, a process where tires are heated in an oxygen-free chamber, and the gasses recovered, which are convertible to various hydrocarbons. The steel is recovered as well, and the waste product is a low-grade carbon black.

How large are these pyrolysis facilities? What the energy requirements?

 

[Valcan]

@halman

"We also must bear in mind that our concepts about launch costs are skewed by the lack of any mass-produced launch vehicles, the development of which will lower launch costs significantly."

Amen was just thinking that. Whatever we use in the future for launches needs to be MASS produceable. SpaceX to my knowledge is trying to accomplish this feat with its falcon series. Maybe we should consentrate on refineing a system to great reliability and ease of production than always making the next big thing. Im not saying this on everything but on a launch system? Oh yes.

 

[EarthlingX]

It has to be made around the open standards, agreed upon through the industry.
I think it can work similar to object programming, where you build a complex system out of black boxes, showing only needed functionality through the standard interface, and hiding complexity in lower levels.

Let say you need a component, with specified, and static requirements :
- open competition;
- get at least two providers;
- test interchangeability of the component from each provider and refine standards in the process, if possible;
- relate purchases to requirements achievement and reliability record.

Selection process should be based on as much as possible objective criteria, of course.

 

[Tritium]

I myself have been interested in designing deep ocean floor mining vehicles.Manganese nodules litter the ocean floor.These alone could propel a business proposition to great levels of income.Once a prototype harvester ,robotic or manned,was developed,with the appropriate tank tread,wheels,or crawler arm design,and a method of retrieval was perfected ,we would be mining some solar system goodies right here,on Earth.And no doubt that something which could endure the hostile environment of the deep oceans could probably handle the conditions of the Moon or Mars with modifications.Bulldozers,drill rigs,tunnel bores,backhoes,excavators,etc.In the deep sea,a cargo sub could be loaded to carry the product to port.In space,I still see most of the product being used to build and equip the new colonies/outposts at first,and then later,being shuttled to Earth in capsule-type landing cargo vessels.

Money money money.Get the money going and everything else will follow.Damn it.I hate our greedy,what's in it for me society,but that's where we are at. :evil:

 

[Jazman1985]

Interesting idea Tritium, any good links for deep sea mining? I'm currently working with deep ocean currents and bedforms, so this concept is pretty interesting. If we can learn to mine on the ocean floor, I don't see any reason we couldn't mine on the surface of any planet in the solar system.

I think one key to being able to mine in space is learning to minimize the mass needed to move for mining. If we are mining oxygen or water, we will need to learn to resist from the same methods used on earth to mine minerals. Why we would excavate tons of rocks to a centralized location I don't know. In situ resource utilization really needs to be IN SITU, meaning the water/oxygen is extracted on location as much as possible. For instance, if we're vaporizing rocks for oxygen(for either fuel, breathing, or later combination with hydrogen for water), we do not need to move the rocks, we can move the refinement chamber to encompass the area of concern, and pump the resultant material to a centralized source. Even if the centralized source is up to several miles away, I don't see why we couldn't utilize this method. Weight is the largest factor, and generally, machines made to move alot of weight weigh alot. In situ extraction of hydrogen and oxygen from liquid/solid H2O for instance, can be conducted with an extremely small machine, I'm talking several pounds, not several hundred or thousand. Even if this is only for a test of the technology, I'm wondering if we would seriously send humans to another planet or NEO without bringing something like this along, it would be incredibly stupid not too.

On another note, the thought that our ideas of launch costs have been greatly skewed seems very realistic. People will generally assume that the lowest provided launch system will be engaging the market share of launches, but what if the launch costs drop even slightly? The first to come might secure the cheapest launches, while the rest of the market must rely on the more expensive launchers. I've briefly taken another look at launch systems in the past, and I haven't noticed a launch system that has not been in demand.(if anyone knows of one, please inform me) I don't believe we've ever seen more launchers available than payloads wanting to be launched. For instance, if I wanted to send a new satellite into orbit within the next two months, and money was no option, could I find a ride? Rockets appear to be booked years in advance. If this is true, this is a clear indication of more demand than the current market can fill. Quick launch capabiliies should be pricier, and later dates cheaper, this is only logical.

 

[halman]

There is a tremendous amount of energy bound up in tires, between the steel belts used in most tires, and the rubber. One method of recovering some of that energy is tire pyrolysis, a process where tires are heated in an oxygen-free chamber, and the gasses recovered, which are convertible to various hydrocarbons. The steel is recovered as well, and the waste product is a low-grade carbon black.

How large are these pyrolysis facilities? What the energy requirements?

I am not sure of the size, but I know that a company wants to build a plant near where I live, which would occupy an unused warehouse/manufacturing facility of some 100,000 square feet, I believe. From what I have read, the energy requirements can be met by using the fuel derived from the tires, but I am not sure. This process offers about the only hope of reclaiming even a part of the resources that go into making automobile tires, which end up being hard to dispose of. The only other process to reclaim any of the energy is to burn tires for fuel, which does not work very well, as the exhaust is very dirty.

 

[halman]

Interesting idea Tritium, any good links for deep sea mining? I'm currently working with deep ocean currents and bedforms, so this concept is pretty interesting. If we can learn to mine on the ocean floor, I don't see any reason we couldn't mine on the surface of any planet in the solar system.

I think one key to being able to mine in space is learning to minimize the mass needed to move for mining. If we are mining oxygen or water, we will need to learn to resist from the same methods used on earth to mine minerals. Why we would excavate tons of rocks to a centralized location I don't know. In situ resource utilization really needs to be IN SITU, meaning the water/oxygen is extracted on location as much as possible. For instance, if we're vaporizing rocks for oxygen(for either fuel, breathing, or later combination with hydrogen for water), we do not need to move the rocks, we can move the refinement chamber to encompass the area of concern, and pump the resultant material to a centralized source. Even if the centralized source is up to several miles away, I don't see why we couldn't utilize this method. Weight is the largest factor, and generally, machines made to move alot of weight weigh alot. In situ extraction of hydrogen and oxygen from liquid/solid H2O for instance, can be conducted with an extremely small machine, I'm talking several pounds, not several hundred or thousand. Even if this is only for a test of the technology, I'm wondering if we would seriously send humans to another planet or NEO without bringing something like this along, it would be incredibly stupid not too.

On another note, the thought that our ideas of launch costs have been greatly skewed seems very realistic. People will generally assume that the lowest provided launch system will be engaging the market share of launches, but what if the launch costs drop even slightly? The first to come might secure the cheapest launches, while the rest of the market must rely on the more expensive launchers. I've briefly taken another look at launch systems in the past, and I haven't noticed a launch system that has not been in demand.(if anyone knows of one, please inform me) I don't believe we've ever seen more launchers available than payloads wanting to be launched. For instance, if I wanted to send a new satellite into orbit within the next two months, and money was no option, could I find a ride? Rockets appear to be booked years in advance. If this is true, this is a clear indication of more demand than the current market can fill. Quick launch capabiliies should be pricier, and later dates cheaper, this is only logical.

Often times, the material being mined is present in very small quantities in the soil, so large amounts must be removed for processing. Having a central processing facility avoids wasteful duplication of equipment. To utilize a resource where it is being extracted means that the resource must be needed locally, and that the resources needed to isolate the desired material are available. Most ISRU is proposed in conjunction with refueling schemes for returning from Mars, as I recall. More typically, a resource is found in great concentrations, such as ice at the lunar poles, and harvested to be shipped somewhere that the material is scarce. When we discover a lode of copper, or silver, we begin to extract it for refinement, which takes place on- or near-site. The final user may be far away, but shipping the unprocessed ore to them is out of the question.

In space, this might require that an orbital factory receive regular shipments of aluminum and carbon fiber, which are used to make structural components in aircraft, for instance. The bauxite is mined on the Moon, refined into aluminum there using solar power, launched into a transfer orbit using solar power, and then collected at the factory. The factory cannot be on the Moon, because it must operate in a zero-gravity environment. So in-situ resource utilization doesn't work in that instance.

We must bear in mind that moving stuff around in the Solar System can be fairly cheap, if we are willing to wait for it to arrive at its destination for a year or more. As long as chunks keep coming down the pipeline, though, it doesn't matter how long the pipeline is.