Asteroid/Near Earth object mining

[1oldman2]

Another plan "in the works". http://www.space.com/33079-turning-asteroids-into-spaceships-made-in-space.html
Here is part of the article from Space.com, I'm particularly interested in the "seed craft" aspect.

"The Seed Craft would harvest material from the space rocks, then use this
feedstock to construct propulsion, navigation, energy-storage and other key
systems onsite with the aid of 3D printing and other technologies. (Made In
Space has considerable 3D-printing expertise; the company built the two 3D
printers that were installed aboard the International Space Station in the past
year and a half.)"

 

[mfb]

So far, we don't even have a system that can make complex things from rocks on Earth. In space it is more difficult...

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

I agree, but it's not that we don't have the technology. We could probably automate a foundry, computer chips are already manufactured via automated processes. It's not that we don't have the system, we just don't have it in place... because jobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_mining

The mining industry is in the transition towards automation.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

Another plan "in the works". http://www.space.com/33079-turning-asteroids-into-spaceships-made-in-space.html
Here is part of the article from Space.com, I'm particularly interested in the "seed craft" aspect.

"The Seed Craft would harvest material from the space rocks, then use this
feedstock to construct propulsion, navigation, energy-storage and other key
systems onsite with the aid of 3D printing and other technologies. (Made In
Space has considerable 3D-printing expertise; the company built the two 3D
printers that were installed aboard the International Space Station in the past
year and a half.)"

This is actually a really neat idea, and something that I hadn't thought of. It would probably be more efficient to do it this way, just a guess. It eliminates the need for setup/tear down of the actual mining equipment. Either way we went (on site/off site mining), we would still have to transport the material somewhere outside of the asteroid belt. Also, considering the asteroid belt, it would be much safer mining "near" the asteroid belt then actually on it. This method should reduces the amount of time spent in the asteroid belt by (and also the cost/value of) the equipment, which would alleviate some of the risk of spending weeks (?) or months (?) if not longer mining one asteroid.

One thing I don't quite understand is why they went for the navigation system they did. Wouldn't it make sense to just have 3 sensors on the asteroid and triangulate a signal from wherever it's going? Perhaps that would be too complicated in space with all the stars and aliens and things. Just spitballin'.

 

[mfb]

Automated mining is very far away from full automation.

It's not that we don't have the system, we just don't have it in place... because jobs.

Jobs are expensive, if you can automate them away it nearly always saves money. A system where you just have to switch it on, and something you can sell comes out - the dream of every company.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

Jobs are expensive, if you can automate them away it nearly always saves money.

I 100% agree. However, people are afraid of it. I've had conversations with people who are. They want jobs, the more jobs the better. Not necessarily the companies, but society. I mean, we can totally automate Mcky D's, yet it hasn't happened (very much), because creating jobs makes the company look good. I don't think it would be hard to automate a foundry.
I used to work at a pattern shop, and 90% of what they did was CNC, which was probably 95% automated. Yea, you had someone standing there making sure it didn't crash, spraying the chips off the bits, swapping out tools, since it only had so many slots that it could hold a bit, but other than that, it was basically a computer and a computer program that shaved thousandths of an inch off of some hunk of metal.
I'm pretty sure we could then grab the part when it's done, and stick it in some sand. You could even use Styrofoam. Just add molten metal. It makes a mess, but I bet we could spray the machine down sort of like a car wash.

I might just be simplifying things, but in essences, these processes aren't complicated.

 

[Recycler]

All these technical approaches are really fascinating-not to spout off,but I have a comment about the theoretical Solar System's space "ecosystem."Every time humans get to a new place,they move things around,change things,and much later realize they have altered the environment.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

All these technical approaches are really fascinating-not to spout off,but I have a comment about the theoretical Solar System's space "ecosystem."Every time humans get to a new place,they move things around,change things,and much later realize they have altered the environment.

Your name is a bit ironic, considering the post =P

I agree with your premise (I believe). However, in order to survive as a species, long term, we need to get off of the earth. That requires either a) finding a planet that is sustainable for us (and solar system), or b) altering the environment to make it so. a) is unlikely in my opinion, so then the question becomes: how much altering is OK? Maybe I'm just being naïve, but considering the fact that in a few billion years the sun is going to die, and no life will be possible in this solar system afterwards, and also the fact that it will take a long, looonnnggg time to find a new solar system that's young enough and with a planet in the inhabitable region of said start and also get there, I'm less than concerned about mining the asteroid belt to get us there. I highly doubt, even if we scrapped the entire earth, that we would have enough resources to get us all out of here.
(run-on sentence continues to run on, sorry)

 

[mfb]

It would be the first time the altered environment does not contain life (to our knowledge). I'm fine with altering a bunch of dead rocks, especially if the result is living rocks.

 

[Hoophy]

http://phys.org/news/2016-06-luxembourg-asteroid-law.html
Interesting...

 

[1oldman2]

http://phys.org/news/2016-06-luxembourg-asteroid-law.html
Interesting...

very... http://phys.org/news/2015-12-space-law-interplanetary-gold.html https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr5063/BILLS-113hr5063ih.pdf
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...gets_to_profit_from_outer_space_platinum.html
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/201...y-violate-international-treaty/8751448634436/

 

[1oldman2]

From http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6537
"In effect, this small asteroid is caught in a game of leap frog with Earth that will last for hundreds of years." It says the asteroid poses no threat to Earth, I'm not so sure Earth doesn't pose a threat to the asteroid though.

 

[Borrah Campbell]

My opinion on the topic is that it is OK... just as long as we're talking about asteroids that don't pose a threat to Earth or her people : )

 

[mfb]

Disassembling or redirecting asteroids that pose a threat sounds like a good idea...

 

[D H]

Redirecting asteroids that pose a threat sounds like a good idea. Merely disassembling them may not be such a good idea.

 

[Hoophy]

Redirecting asteroids that pose a threat sounds like a good idea. Merely disassembling them may not be such a good idea.

The trick is finding them well enough in advance. :)

"Asteroids have us in our sight. The dinosaurs didn't have a space program, so they're not here to talk about this problem. We are, and we have the power to do something about it. I don't want to be the embarrassment of the galaxy, to have had the power to deflect an asteroid, and then not, and end up going extinct."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[1oldman2]

This ones a little dated but relevant, http://www2.esm.vt.edu/~sdross/papers/ross-asteroid-mining-2001.pdf
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/chemclass/ree.htm
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/goodstuff/ree-chon.htm
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/05/mining-ocean-seafloor-asteroids-space-minerals

 

[jack476]

OK I might as well throw this one in.
What is there on asteroids that is so specially valuable that it cannot be found or made on Earth without the extreme risk and cost.?

Good question, actually.

I think the main appeal of asteroid mining is that it allows for in situ extraction. Even a small asteroid could provide a large supply of minerals like iron and silicon, and if the asteroid happened to be in a convenient location, for instance if we were to capture a NEO, then harvesting those minerals from that asteroid would be much more cost-effective than launching tons of those materials into orbit after extraction on Earth.

 

[Borrah Campbell]

Good question, actually.

I think the main appeal of asteroid mining is that it allows for in situ extraction. Even a small asteroid could provide a large supply of minerals like iron and silicon, and if the asteroid happened to be in a convenient location, for instance if we were to capture a NEO, then harvesting those minerals from that asteroid would be much more cost-effective than launching tons of those materials into orbit after extraction on Earth.

I don't think it's iron & silicon we're after... Those are abundant "useless" minerals. What we want are the moon-sized diamonds floating around out there & the asteroids made of solid platinum... Well worth a trip to space & back and then some... just as long as it doesn't endanger the freaking Earth.

https://www.rt.com/news/310170-platinum-asteroid-2011-uw-158/
http://www.universetoday.com/9295/astronomers-find-a-huge-diamond-in-space/

 

[russ_watters]

Hey, hey, we have a little, baby asteroid-moon! Don't even have to capture it, all we have to do is spend a trillion dollars and invent a bunch of robotics technology to go mine it!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/us/nasa-asteroid-circles-earth/

 

[1oldman2]

Hey, hey, we have a little, baby asteroid-moon! Don't even have to capture it, all we have to do is spend a trillion dollars and invent a bunch of robotics technology to go mine it!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/us/nasa-asteroid-circles-earth/

I like JPL's write up on it, although CNN quoted heavily from it. See post #47, since the one mentioned never approaches closer than 38 times the distance from Earth to moon this might be a good test of the "break even point" for feasible distances to go for a space rock. All in all this will be an interesting industry to follow.

 

[anorlunda]

I think the main appeal of asteroid mining is that it allows for in situ extraction. Even a small asteroid could provide a large supply of minerals like iron and silicon, and if the asteroid happened to be in a convenient location, for instance if we were to capture a NEO, then harvesting those minerals from that asteroid would be much more cost-effective than launching tons of those materials into orbit after extraction on Earth.

Useful for what? Are you proposing that we make spacecraft factories in space? , Electronic chip foundries in space? Suppose you had 100 tons of iron ore in lunar orbit. How would you refine it? What would you do with the refined steel?

There is also the issue of radiation. As I understand it, propulsion mass, or materials are not the most limiting things to long-term human habitation in space, it is exposure to cosmic radiation.

I suppose that you could mine for water to make a 10 meter thick water filled radiation shield around each spacecraft , but what are your propulsion needs then?

IMO Projects like asteroid mining must await development of very capable autonomous robotic machines. The missions will be unmanned.

 

[lpetrich]

I looked for some numbers, and I found this:

Abundance in Meteorites for all the elements in the Periodic Table
Abundance in Earth's Crust for all the elements in the Periodic Table
Abundance in the Sun for all the elements in the Periodic Table

Source: ElementData—Wolfram Langauge Documentation, working from ElementData Source Information—Wolfram Langauge Documentation

For platinum:
The Sun: 9.*10^(-7)%
Meteorites: 9.8*10^(-5)%
The Earth's crust: 3.7×10^(-6)%
Apparently by weight; the Sun is listed as having 75% hydrogen and 23% helium.

Though meteorites contain about 30 times more platinum per unit mass than the Earth's crust does, it's still a tiny amount: 1 part per million. So to get 1 kg of platinum, one needs to mine 1000 tons of meteorite material. Checking on Platinum Price | Platinum Price Chart History | Price of Platinum Today | APMEX, I find that platinum's typical price as I write this to be around $31,000 / kg. So it will be hard to justify the expense of sending mining machines off of the Earth and to the asteroids.

 

[Hoophy]

I looked for some numbers, and I found this:

Abundance in Meteorites for all the elements in the Periodic Table
Abundance in Earth's Crust for all the elements in the Periodic Table
Abundance in the Sun for all the elements in the Periodic Table

Source: ElementData—Wolfram Langauge Documentation, working from ElementData Source Information—Wolfram Langauge Documentation

For platinum:
The Sun: 9.*10^(-7)%
Meteorites: 9.8*10^(-5)%
The Earth's crust: 3.7×10^(-6)%
Apparently by weight; the Sun is listed as having 75% hydrogen and 23% helium.

Though meteorites contain about 30 times more platinum per unit mass than the Earth's crust does, it's still a tiny amount: 1 part per million. So to get 1 kg of platinum, one needs to mine 1000 tons of meteorite material. Checking on Platinum Price | Platinum Price Chart History | Price of Platinum Today | APMEX, I find that platinum's typical price as I write this to be around $31,000 / kg. So it will be hard to justify the expense of sending mining machines off of the Earth and to the asteroids.

Is this an average of the platinum per unit of mass, of all asteroids? It is (was) my understanding that some asteroids are more abundant in some materials than others. Thanks. :)

 

[russ_watters]

Is this an average of the platinum per unit of mass, of all asteroids? It is (was) my understanding that some asteroids are more abundant in some materials than others. Thanks. :)

I would assume that is true...which means someone will also need to invent prospector robots and fund their activities.

 

[mfb]

For platinum:
The Sun: 9.*10^(-7)%
Meteorites: 9.8*10^(-5)%
The Earth's crust: 3.7×10^(-6)%
Apparently by weight; the Sun is listed as having 75% hydrogen and 23% helium.

Though meteorites contain about 30 times more platinum per unit mass than the Earth's crust does, it's still a tiny amount: 1 part per million. So to get 1 kg of platinum, one needs to mine 1000 tons of meteorite material. Checking on Platinum Price | Platinum Price Chart History | Price of Platinum Today | APMEX, I find that platinum's typical price as I write this to be around $31,000 / kg. So it will be hard to justify the expense of sending mining machines off of the Earth and to the asteroids.

It gets worse. On Earth, chemical processes tend to enrich elements. You don't need to take a representative sample, you can build your mines at places with the highest concentrations. For platinum, that is in the multiple ppm range (example: 6 g per ton), or x*10^-4% - better than the meteorites.

 

[anorlunda]

I don't think it's iron & silicon we're after... Those are abundant "useless" minerals. What we want are the moon-sized diamonds floating around out there

There was scientific speculation that the entire core of Jupiter might be a single crystal diamond with mass more than Earth. All you have to do is to figure out how to get it out of that gravity well, then to calculate the new price per carat of diamonds after that hits the market. The semi-serious point is that some rare things are valuable only because of their scarcity. If you find an abundant supply, then their high value vanishes.

redirecting asteroids that pose a threat sounds like a good idea

Indeed it would sound good except that any such capability has intrinsic potential use as a weapon.

 

[lpetrich]

Is this an average of the platinum per unit of mass, of all asteroids? It is (was) my understanding that some asteroids are more abundant in some materials than others. Thanks. :)

That's indeed an average over asteroids, yes. But I've found some numbers on platinum concentrations in individual meteorites:

The distribution of platinum and palladium metals in iron meteorites and in the metal phase of ordinary chondrites - jgr4710.pdf
The platinum group metals in iron meteorites - 02_whole.pdf -- Appendix 2c gives a list of Pt concentration measurements in micrograms per gram.

Most meteoritic platinum is concentrated in iron meteorites and the iron parts of stony-iron ones. I looked over the numbers in the second paper, and the Pt concentrations vary between around 1 and around 30 micrograms/gram of meteorite. The rough average of 10 μg/g is about 10^(-5). That means that you need to mine only 100 mt of meteorite to get a kg of platinum, and sometimes only 30 mt -- still a lot.

 

[lpetrich]

So the best meteorites are at 30 grams/ton.

Let's look at launch costs. SpaceX has a page on Falcon 9's http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities. Here are the numbers that that company states:

• Low Earth Orbit: 22.8 mt
• Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit: 8.3 mt
• Escape to Mars: 4.02 mt

with a stated cost of $62 million per launch, for up to 5.5 metric tons to GTO. Here's the cost per kg:

• LEO: $2700
• GTO: $7500
• Mars: $15400

So to launch from the Earth to the asteroids is at somewhere around 1/2 the current price of platinum.

 

[D H]

There was scientific speculation that the entire core of Jupiter might be a single crystal diamond with mass more than Earth.

Much closer to home, there's a huge reservoir of gold, platinum, and other special metals that is a mere 6000 or so kilometers away. All one has to do is develop the technology to dive down to, extract the resources, and then come back from the Earth's core. Even closer to home, there is huge (but not quite as huge) reservoir of gold, platinum, and other special metals in the Earth's oceans. This too is utterly worthless.

With the possible exception of helium 3 and unobtainium, mining materials from space and bringing them down to Earth currently does not make sense economically, and will not make sense economically for a long, long time. What might make sense is to mine materials in space and use most of that material in space. Sending a bit back to Earth might then make sense.

 

[Hoophy]

I would assume that is true...which means someone will also need to invent prospector robots and fund their activities.

http://www.space.com/29975-asteroid-mining-planetary-resources-satellite-launch.html
A small start, but a start nonetheless.

Also I found this interesting: http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/asteroids.html

What might make sense is to mine materials in space and use most of that material in space. Sending a bit back to Earth might then make sense.

I agree, it would be nice to refuel spacecraft in space with LOX/LH bipropellant. But as earlier mentioned, it is only feasible if it is cheaper to manufacture fuel once in space than to bring it from Earth.

 

[mfb]

Also I found this interesting: http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/asteroids.html

I wonder if they do that on purpose (my guess: yes):

According to the KISS study, the cost for a future mission to identify and return a 500 ton asteroid to low Earth orbit is ~$2.6 billion USD, ignoring the costs to develop the infrastructure necessary to process the materials in the asteroid ("Asteroid usage", 2012). However, Planetary Resources estimates that a single 30 meter long platinum-rich asteroid could contain $25 to $50 billion USD worth of platinum at today's prices (Klotz, 2012). Clearly, once the proper infrastructure is in place, there is potential for significant profit.

Want to compare the two USD values? Well, a (spherical) 30 meter asteroid will have a mass of about 20,000+ tons, not 500 tons. Also, $25 billion in platinum would be 700 tons. A 3% platinum concentration sounds unrealistic.

 

[Hoophy]

Want to compare the two USD values? Well, a (spherical) 30 meter asteroid will have a mass of about 20,000+ tons, not 500 tons. Also, $25 billion in platinum would be 700 tons.

I honestly can not tell whether or not they are referring to the same size asteroid in the two estimates. If not why did they not standardize the predictions? Odd...

A 3% platinum concentration sounds unrealistic.

I agree.

 

[D H]

I wonder if they do that on purpose (my guess: yes):

It was from two very different sources. One was a somewhat realistic study on what it would cost to bring a 7 meter diameter asteroid massing about 500 metric tons to high lunar orbit. Another was a statement based on unrealistic assumptions intended to garner investors.

Well, a (spherical) 30 meter asteroid will have a mass of about 20,000+ tons, not 500 tons. Also, $25 billion in platinum would be 700 tons. A 3% platinum concentration sounds unrealistic.

Your 700 tons for $25 billion in platinum uses current prices, which are less than half of what they were in 2008 (~$2400 per troy ounce in 2008, about $1600 in 2012, versus versus about $1000 today). Precious metal prices are extremely volatile. Bringing back 3.5 times the 200 metric tons of platinum mined worldwide in 2015 would add a tiny bit of volatility to the markets (written with tongue in cheek). That volatility would of course make that asteroid worth even less.

Assuming the first study's $2.6 billion to retrieve a 500 metric ton asteroid was roughly correct and assuming that costs scale linearly with mass, bringing back a 20,000 ton object would cost about $100 billion. (Note: This is a bad assumption. There are significant diseconomies of scale when it comes to large-scale space exploration.) Receiving a ridiculously optimistic $50 billion as a result of that investment is a way to quickly turn the richest of investors into paupers.

Regarding your last figure, it's not just unrealistic. It's beyond ridiculous.

 

[mfb]

Your 700 tons for $25 billion in platinum uses current prices, which are less than half of what they were in 2008 (~$2400 per troy ounce in 2008, about $1600 in 2012, versus versus about $1000 today).

I took the lower USD estimate, so a factor of 2 in the platinum price is still within the given range.

Bringing back 3.5 times the 200 metric tons of platinum mined worldwide in 2015 would add a tiny bit of volatility to the markets (written with tongue in cheek). That volatility would of course make that asteroid worth even less.

Well, if you are the only one doing it you can spread the mining over several years (if you are not the only one doing it, it is profitable anyway). But just the announcement that you have 700 tons of platinum in Earth orbit will probably make the price drop.

There is not just platinum, of course, but with the current cost estimates and market prices it is still too expensive.