B Asteroid/Near Earth object mining

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter 1oldman2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth
AI Thread Summary
Asteroid mining is being discussed as a potential source of valuable resources, particularly rare earth elements (REEs) and water ice, which could be used for fuel production in space. The feasibility of using solar electric propulsion, such as ion drives, for asteroid redirection and mining is questioned, with concerns about their thrust-to-weight ratio and effectiveness for such tasks. Some participants suggest that harvesting water from asteroids could create a "gas station in space," reducing the need to launch fuel from Earth. However, skepticism remains regarding the economic viability of asteroid mining, with some arguing that the projected profits are overly optimistic and that immediate benefits may be limited to harvesting volatiles. Overall, while the concept of asteroid mining holds promise, significant technological and economic challenges remain.
Astronomy news on Phys.org
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.?
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy and 1oldman2
berkeman said:
How 'bout you start the discussion?
You bet. :thumbup:
It seems the most reliable link I posted would be the mit.edu, they seem to have the recovery process figured out and documented in a believable manner. The nss.org site mentions a lot of physics that I am ignorant in so commenting that one myself wouldn't mean much. One thing, none of them really got around to mentioning the actual in situ processing as far as method or equipment. I'm thinking any asteroids identified as rich in REE's will be the first to be snagged.
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy and berkeman
rootone said:
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 some of the links mention very high concentrations of ore compared to earth. I suspect a lot of speculation there but it could make the difference.
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy
1oldman2 said:
http://www.space.com/15405-asteroid-mining-feasibility-study.html

They say "Solar Electric Propulsion" Are they referring to Ion accelerators? If so would an Ion probe even have a high enough TWR to redirect an asteroid in the first place? From my (very basic nearly nonexistent) understanding of Ion propulsion I was under the assumption that ion drives did not have a very good TWR. Would the probe have to make several complete orbits to accomplish the maneuver? Do you think this feasibility study should have included ion drives because I did not think ion propulsion is quite up to that task yet... Please let me know if I am wrong or if you disagree. :)
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
rootone said:
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.?

I believe that a motive is to harvest water ice from asteroids placed in lunar orbit. Running water through electrolysis they could manufacture LOX/LH2 bipropellant rocket fuel in orbit so that they can more cheaply refuel stuff. Kind of like a gas station in space. I guess it is too expensive to bring up extra fuel using launch stages because so much fuel is used putting the extra fuel in orbit that they think that they may actually save money by making the fuel in space.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/tryanny.html
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
Hoophy said:
They say "Solar Electric Propulsion" Are they referring to Ion accelerators? If so would an Ion probe even have a high enough TWR to redirect an asteroid in the first place? From my (very basic nearly nonexistent) understanding of Ion propulsion I was under the assumption that ion drives did not have a very good TWR. Would the probe have to make several complete orbits to accomplish the maneuver? Do you think this feasibility study should have included ion drives because I did not think ion propulsion is quite up to that task yet... Please let me know if I am wrong or if you disagree. :)
They are are coming up with relatively much more powerful Ion engines, see http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html for info. I'm not sure which propulsion method would be best but I would bet on it being the cheapest one.
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy
  • #10
Hoophy said:
I believe that a motive is to harvest water ice from asteroids...
Water is pretty great stuff! We need it to drink, it can make oxygen to breath, and rocket fuel too! And some even say a layer of water could be used to shield astronauts from interplanetary radiation during a journey to Mars! :D
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #11
Hoophy said:
I believe that a motive is to harvest water ice from asteroids placed in lunar orbit. Running water through electrolysis they could manufacture LOX/LH2 bipropellant rocket fuel in orbit so that they can more cheaply refuel stuff. Kind of like a gas station in space. I guess it is too expensive to bring up extra fuel using launch stages because so much fuel is used putting the extra fuel in orbit that they think that they may actually save money by making the fuel in space.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/tryanny.html
There is no such thing as "extra fuel, barring solar" in space. It's very valuable once it's in orbit, so manufacturing it in space would be a popular project.
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy
  • #12
Yay for ion engines, they do what it says on the tin.
I wonder if we well ever find a way to get beyond Earth orbit using something better than a controlled explosion though.
I hope so.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2 and Hoophy
  • #13
rootone said:
Yay for ion engines, they do what it says on the tin.
I wonder if we well ever find a way to get beyond Earth orbit using something better than a controlled explosion though.
I hope so.

Didn't the Dawn already do that?

Edit* I think I was incorrect, although the Dawn does have 3 ion thrusters I believe it actually used traditional rockets to escape from Earth.

"NASA's first purely exploratory mission to use ion propulsion engines. The spacecraft also has twelve 0.9 N hydrazine thrusters for attitude control, which are designed to assist in orbital insertion."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_( spacecraft )

It is unclear to me whether or not they used the traditional thrusters to escape Earth orbit specifically. If somebody could help, I would appreciate it. We're the traditional thrusters used for propulsion or RCS?

Edit** No apparently the ion drives were used to propel the probe out of Earth orbit. The ion drives each have a thrust of 92 mN but the traditional rockets each have a thrust of 0.9 N. And I missed the part mentioning "attitude control"

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/ spacecraft Display.do?id=2007-043A
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Hoophy said:
Didn't the Dawn already do that?
No, it was launched by a conventional rocket, the ion engines are used to make precise adjustments now that it is orbiting Ceres.
Dawn also visited Vesta before going to Ceres, and the ion engines were enough to get that job done.
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy
  • #15
rootone said:
No, it was launched by a conventional rocket, the ion engines are used to make precise adjustments now that it is orbiting Ceres.
Dawn also visited Vesta before going to Ceres, and the ion engines were enough to get that job done.

Wait are you sure? Did the launch vessel decouple after the probe was on an escape trajectory?
 
  • #17
rootone said:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/dawn/launch/#.V0-ZzL7EuUk

I don't think that contains the information I need, that tells me the Delta 2 propelled the probe out of the atmosphere and decoupled. It does not tell me if the the probe was on an escape trajectory from Earths gravity well, we're you suggesting that you can't wait until the day ion drives can propel probes out of the atmosphere or out of Earth's gravity well? I thought you meant Earths gravity well. Am I mistaken?
 
  • #18
I cannot imagine an ion drive that would be powerful enough to escape the gravity of Earth, (and the atmosphere problem)
Maybe somebody else can though.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #19
I THINK: An ion drive could be used to bring a probe from low Earth orbit to interplanetary space given time. All you need is sufficient potential for delta V, as it happens, for their weight ion engines have more potential for delta V than chemical rockets. After many fly-bys and prograde 'burns' at a probes perigee you could escape Earth's gravity well. I don't think it matters how high your thrusters thrust to weight ratio is in this case because given TIME you could escape from Earth by burning low thrust over a longer period of time. Ion thrusters are highly efficient and given TIME they could be used to bring a probe to interplanetary orbit. In any rate I think it is indeed possible to bring a probe using solely ion propulsion from low Earth orbit to interplanetary orbit. It is not so much how fast you can complete a maneuver, but if you have the potential to sufficiently change your velocity enough to escape. Maybe I'm wrong and I just play too much KSP, If I am wrong please let me know why.
Edit: I am not suggesting in this post specifically that this was the case for Dawn.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #21
The first link talks about the KECK Institute study, but doesn't directly link to it. It's a fun read, and very thorough. Propulsion system analysis is included. Check it out:
http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/Asteroid_Retrieval_Feasibility_Study_2012.pdf

There's also this site that seems relevant to the discussion:
http://www.asterank.com/
From their own description:
Asterank is a scientific and economic database of over 600,000 asteroids.

We've collected, computed, or inferred important data such as asteroid mass and composition from multiple scientific sources. With this information, we estimate the costs and rewards of mining asteroids.

Details on orbits and basic physical parameters are sourced from the Minor Planet Center and NASA JPL. Composition data is based on spectral classification and size. Our calculations incorporate conclusions from multiple scientific publications in addition to cross-referencing known meteorite data.

(...)
Value estimates are based on the mass of a given asteroid and its spectral type. Asteroid spectra is used to infer composition, which, in conjunction with current market prices, determine potential value.

Accessibility estimates are based primarily on delta-v, but it also incorporate orbital characteristics such as perihelion, aphelion, eccentricity, and period. The formula is biased toward low delta-v with orbits that maintain a generally consistent distance from the sun (ie., no objects that swing far into the belt).

Profit and ROI calculations are a combination of accessibility and value. The formula strikes a balance between high value and high distance and energy expenditure. Mining costs are factored in as a flat percentage of potential value.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2 and Hoophy
  • #22
Rootone it turns out we were talking about two different regions of gravity! We are both right, it was just a misunderstanding! :D
 
  • Like
Likes rootone
  • #23
rootone said:
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.?
Nothing.
 
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #24
russ_watters said:
rootone said:
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.?
Nothing.
That's close to the mark, but it's not quite true.

The supposed trillions of dollars to be made by plucking the low hanging solar orbiting fruit are pure science fiction science fantasy for the foreseeable future, where "foreseeable" means within the next 25 to 50 years or so. What might be viable in the near-term future is harvesting volatiles such as water and methane from those asteroids and then finding a way to use those volatiles in space. But that's not worth trillions of dollars.
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy, russ_watters and Hoophy
  • #25
Bandersnatch said:
The first link talks about the KECK Institute study, but doesn't directly link to it. It's a fun read, and very thorough. Propulsion system analysis is included. Check it out:
http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/Asteroid_Retrieval_Feasibility_Study_2012.pdf

KISS is an impressive collaboration of resources, that is an interesting "read"

Bandersnatch said:
http://www.asterank.com/
This will be interesting to watch in the future as far as the projections go, thanks for the links.
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy
  • #28
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy, Hoophy and 1oldman2
  • #29
Bandersnatch said:
There must be a position at NASA whose job description consists solely of coming up with new acronyms for their projects.
I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a dept. dedicated to that pursuit. :wink:
 
  • #30
Ion rockets use extreme exhaust velocity of tiny mass particles [like ions] to achieve thrust. A conventional rocket utilizes low exhaust velocity, high mass particles [like gas molecules] to achieve thrust. Thrust remains mass times acceleration in both cases. An ion rocket is useful in the vacuum of space because a relatively small propulsion mass goes a long way. They are not so good in Earth's atmosphere because the engine would have to burn so hot to deveop sufficient thrust to overcome frictional losses it would be incinerated. For a brief discussion, see http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/propulsion/1-could-this-work-on-earth.html
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy, Hoophy and 1oldman2
  • #31
Chronos said:
Ion rockets use extreme exhaust velocity of tiny mass particles [like ions] to achieve thrust. A conventional rocket utilizes low exhaust velocity, high mass particles [like gas molecules] to achieve thrust.

Actually you have the masses of the exhaust gasses the wrong way around. Ion engines usually use rather heavy Xenon ions (atomic weight 131). Thermal rockets however get the highest exhaust velocity by having light molecules in the exhaust. Common exhaust gases are water, CO, CO2, HF, excess H2 and similar.

For any interested parties a recommend IGNITION! An Informal History of. Liquid Rocket Propellants by John D. Clark (available at http://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf )
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy
  • #32
glappkaeft said:
Actually you have the masses of the exhaust gasses the wrong way around. Ion engines usually use rather heavy Xenon ions (atomic weight 131). Thermal rockets however get the highest exhaust velocity by having light molecules in the exhaust. Common exhaust gases are water, CO, CO2, HF, excess H2 and similar.

For any interested parties a recommend IGNITION! An Informal History of. Liquid Rocket Propellants by John D. Clark (available at http://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf )
From the link I posted:
"...Ion rocket:
Force = little tiny mass x BIG ACCELERATION
Normal rocket:
Force = HUGE MASS x less acceleration..."
 
  • #33
Yes, that is correct, it about mass flow not the mass of the exhaust particles. The stuff from your previous post I quoted is not (in bold below).

Chronos said:
Ion rockets use extreme exhaust velocity of tiny mass particles [like ions] to achieve thrust. A conventional rocket utilizes low exhaust velocity, high mass particles [like gas molecules] to achieve thrust.
 
  • #34
Agreed. Thrust is proportionate to the aggregate mass discharged, not the mass of individual particles discharged.Thrust of a chemical rocket is limited by propellent mass payload, whereas thrust of an ion rocket is limited by the energy payload available to discharge ions.
 
  • #35
Being curious about the actual processing of the raw materials once the asteroid has been returned to Earth or lunar orbit, (I can imagine there will be considerable hand wringing over asteroids purposely brought into near Earth orbit), I did some searching and came up with a few links, should be good discussion material here.
First off there seems to be a lot of "Start up" interest in the field of Astro-mining. Deep Space Industries is partnering with Ames research of NASA affiliation, Their site https://deepspaceindustries.com/mining/ contains a lot of info on the companies plans and technology.

I found this one to be particularly interesting as it discusses aspects of Astro-mining I hadn't considered. http://www.permanent.com/asteroid-mining.html
This would likely fall in the R&D department. (Once again leaning heavily towards Mechanical Engineering)
http://info.heylpatterson.com/blog/heyl-patterson-develops-equipment-for-asteroid-mining
And then I thought I'd throw in another video (Which links to many other videos concerning the subject)

Also the video Greg has posted is an excellent take on this up and coming industry, highly recommended viewing.
I wouldn't be surprised to find E. Musk getting involved before long. :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy, BiGyElLoWhAt and Hoophy
  • #36
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.)"
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy and BiGyElLoWhAt
  • #37
So far, we don't even have a system that can make complex things from rocks on Earth. In space it is more difficult...
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2, russ_watters and BiGyElLoWhAt
  • #38
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
Wikipedia said:
The mining industry is in the transition towards automation.
 
  • #39
1oldman2 said:
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'.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #40
Automated mining is very far away from full automation.
BiGyElLoWhAt said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #41
mfb said:
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.
 
  • #42
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.
 
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt
  • #43
Recycler said:
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)
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2
  • #44
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.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2, russ_watters and Hoophy
  • #46
  • Like
Likes Hoophy
  • #47
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. :wink:

 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy and mfb
  • #48
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 : )
 
  • #49
Disassembling or redirecting asteroids that pose a threat sounds like a good idea...
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2 and Hoophy
  • #50
Redirecting asteroids that pose a threat sounds like a good idea. Merely disassembling them may not be such a good idea.
 
  • Like
Likes 1oldman2 and Hoophy

Similar threads

B Asteroid 2024 RW1 - entered Earth's atmosphere over Luzon, Philippines
Replies
14
Views
3K
How Can We Harness the Power of Space Elevators and Atmospheric Electricity?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Experts Call on Senate for Support for Near-Earth Object Search
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top