How should asteroids be mined?

[DahnBoson]

I know that mining asteroids will be a real possibility in the future, but I want to know what the most efficient and safe way of doing that is. Would it be easier to bring the asteroid to earth? or mine it in the belt? etc.

 

[Drakkith]

Orbital transfer is probably out of the question, as the energy and fuel it takes to do that is phenomenal.

 

[mfb]

Well, you have to bring the material to Earth in some way (unless we talk about scenarios with extensive expansion in the solar system). Small asteroids might get disassembled completely, in this case the required energy is nearly the same in both cases.

For larger objects, I could imagine some launch system for mined material on the surface. Waste can be disposed with it, too, and over time the orbit might get modified in this way to move it closer to earth. Probably not too close, to avoid the risk of an impact.

 

[phinds]

I know that mining asteroids will be a real possibility in the future, but I want to know what the most efficient and safe way of doing that is. Would it be easier to bring the asteroid to earth? or mine it in the belt? etc.

I think that asteroid mining is so far in the future (particularly in terms of technology knowledge increases) that it is utterly pointless to speculate right now as to what will at that time be seen as the most efficient methods.

 

[DahnBoson]

Orbital transfer is probably out of the question, as the energy and fuel it takes to do that is phenomenal.

That is exactly what I was thinking which leave mining it in the belt (which I don't think is possible) and bringing it to earth.

Well, you have to bring the material to Earth in some way (unless we talk about scenarios with extensive expansion in the solar system). Small asteroids might get disassembled completely, in this case the required energy is nearly the same in both cases.

For larger objects, I could imagine some launch system for mined material on the surface. Waste can be disposed with it, too, and over time the orbit might get modified in this way to move it closer to earth. Probably not too close, to avoid the risk of an impact.

If we bring the asteroid into Earth's orbit will we be able to get to it and mine it cost effectively? The only way I can think of to get up that high enough times to mine it without burning a ridiculous amount of fuel is a space elevator, but that is a ways of itself.

I think that asteroid mining is so far in the future (particularly in terms of technology knowledge increases) that it is utterly pointless to speculate right now as to what will at that time be seen as the most efficient methods.

I don't think so I have already heard of groups trying to figure out how to do it in our life time (Planetary Resources) due to the potenial profit.

 

[phinds]

I don't think so I have already heard of groups trying to figure out how to do it in our life time (Planetary Resources) due to the potenial profit.

Yes, there was a thread here about that recently. Bottom line consensus was that the folks who seem to be planning it are either fruitcakes or are SERIOUSLY deluding themselves as to the practicality.

 

[Dale]

I don't think so I have already heard of groups trying to figure out how to do it in our life time (Planetary Resources) due to the potenial profit.

What potential profit?? Forget the transportation and fuel costs, you will have to pay and train miners to astronaut standards, plus insurance, OSHA standards, hazard pay, supplies, living quarters, etc. You won't even be able to recoup your labor expenses, let alone the transport and fuel.

 

[D H]

Forget the transportation and fuel costs, you will have to pay and train miners to astronaut standards, plus insurance, OSHA standards, hazard pay, supplies, living quarters, etc. You won't even be able to recoup your labor expenses, let alone the transport and fuel.

OSHA standards cover people, not robots, plus robots don't demand benefits, hazard pay, and the like.

Whoever said it had to be people?

 

[Dale]

Good point. Of course, I am not sure that robot miners are feasible. They would have to be able to repair themselves or produce new robots onsite. I don't think that either of those technologies have been developed.

 

[D H]

Yes, there was a thread here about that recently. Bottom line consensus was that the folks who seem to be planning it are either fruitcakes or are SERIOUSLY deluding themselves as to the practicality.

I am pretty quick to shoot down nutty space exploration / space utilization ideas. So is Astronuc. So is twofish_quant. All of us posted in that thread. None of us shot down the idea of asteroid mining per se. We did shoot down the silly notion of soft landing an asteroid on Earth, but that isn't what asteroid mining proposals intend to do. At least not any serious proposals.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

NASA is training both American and British astronauts at the bottom of the ocean to simulate the conditions of an asteroid for a future mission.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9261863/Nasa-trains-astronauts-for-asteroid-mission.html

Don't think that an article from telegraph is reliable? On NASA's very own channel, I watched an American, female astronaut training underwater in the base to better prepare for the very low gravity of asteroids, while also testing equipment that will be similar to that used on the actual mission.

I see no reason to so readily dismiss asteroid mining. I don't doubt that those billionaires who were throwing out money for projects like this were overly zealous with some of their claims, but this is something that we are capable of in the relatively near future. As far as actually moving an asteroid for ease of access, I think that idea has already been suitably taken care of by others.

In regards to the human/robot situation: both are being considered and planned for. Japan is working on sending a robot to an asteroid to collect samples, while NASA is, as previously mentioned, training humans for such a mission.

EDIT:

I just re-read phinds statement though, and I think we need to realize that he used the word "practicality." There's obviously no money to be made from this, currently, due to the fact that we would be pushing our technology to the very limits to accomplish this. I do disagree though, that this is entirely unfeasible to even consider.

 

[DahnBoson]

You all make good points and I have no delusions that mining an asteroid is an easy task, but I still see it as possible within the next 100 years. Also Dalespam an asteroid can have material worth of over a trillion dollars now I can assume that the excess material would bring down price substantially but that is still a lot of money especially if you can acquire more than one asteroid at once. Do you think that any attempt to mine an asteroid would cost that much? and I am legitimately asking because I have no idea. Oh and anyone who knows the title for a thread with this topic please post it so I don't ask questions that have already been answered.

 

[mfb]

The only way I can think of to get up that high enough times to mine it without burning a ridiculous amount of fuel is a space elevator, but that is a ways of itself.

Unless it is brought into an Earth (or moon) orbit somehow, the key point would be to send as few material as possible to the asteroid, and try to build something in place.

While there are some ideas how to launch stuff cheaper than now, taking the material back to the surface is another issue, too. As far as I know, a space elevator and maybe tethers are the only structures which can do this without requiring a spacecraft every time. Of course, if launching costs are low, you can use a lot of heat-resistant shields for descent.


As far as I can see, we now have several different concepts here:

1) leave it in its orbit, use robots
2) leave it in its orbit, use humans
3) use robots to bring it into Earth orbit, use robots to mine it
4) use robots to bring it into Earth orbit, use humans to mine it
5) use humans to bring it into Earth orbit and mine it there

2 looks quite impractical in the next decades, and 5 would require expensive and long manned missions, too. 4 might be an interesting concept, if robotic mining is too tricky, but a simple mass driver can be installed without humans.

 

[Pkruse]

I’ve spent a lot of years working in aerospace, and recognize many of the top people in Planetary Resources as top in their field with a long history of top performance in the space business. They are very smart people. They have the understanding of what it will take to get the job done, and they have the funding. Even though it is a new company and they have many years of work before them, they are already operating in the black. This is not a high dollar charity.

We don’t have to develop much new technology to mine the asteroids, and there are many side projects the company can take on that will pay good money.

But why is everyone assuming that we need to take the material home to Earth? I’m expecting that most of it will be mined, processed, converted into manufactured products, sold, delivered, and used entirely in space without any part of that happening on Earth. One of the most valuable products will be rocket fuel. That would save a huge amount of money not having to transport it from Earth to space. That would also greatly reduce the cost of many space projects over the next five or six decades.

But small amounts of very high value products could very easily come back to Earth. It is a whole lot easier getting them down than transporting them in the opposite direction.

But the idea of transporting whole asteroids to Earth, or even large amounts of raw material to be processed on Earth? That sounds rather silly and very dangerous.

 

[phinds]

I just re-read phinds statement though, and I think we need to realize that he used the word "practicality." There's obviously no money to be made from this, currently, due to the fact that we would be pushing our technology to the very limits to accomplish this. I do disagree though, that this is entirely unfeasible to even consider.

Yes, I do not argue that the technology doesn't exist (I'm not convinced it IS but that's not an argument I want to get into). My point is, as you noticed, that it is just ridiculous to think that this is practical in any economic sense in anything like the near future.

I worked for NASA from 1962 to 1978 and somewhere in there I made a prediction that a particular program would exceed the budget submitted to congress by a factor of 10. Everyone I talked to about it thought I was nuts. A factor of 2 or at a real stretch, even 3 was conceivable to them but a factor of 10 was just lunacy. Just a few years ago I read a thorough study of the program and the conclusion was that to everyone's surprise it had exceeded the original budget but a factor of 10. The program was the Space Shuttle.

I gather that not everyone agrees w/ me, but I am utterly unconvinced that asteroid mining will be commercially viable any time soon and without commercial viability it will not happen.

Even rich people get tired of throwing money at a lost cause after a while and investors get tired of it WAY quicker.

 

[Vanadium 50]

an asteroid can have material worth of over a trillion dollars

Doubtful. The market cap of the entire mining industry - that includes coal - is just under a trillion dollars. That, in a real sense, is what what we have valued the world's total mining resources to be worth - i.e. what people are willing to pay.

It's true that I can sell one ounce of gold for $1500. I can't sell a million ounces at $1500, though. There just isn't that much demand - and that's the problem with doing these kinds of extrapolations.

 

[D H]

an asteroid can have material worth of over a trillion dollars

That's false economics. It's a simple computation to multiply the mass of iron and nickel in an M-type asteroid by the market value of iron and nickel. It ignores the immense cost of developing the infrastructure to mine the asteroids, and much more importantly, it ignores the astronomical expense of bringing that material from solar orbit to Earth orbit and then down to Earth. It's a bogus number.

To make a profit by bringing materials mined in space down to Earth you need to be targeting items that are valued in many tens of dollars or more per gram. Precious metals are at the low end of this scale. Iron (hundreds of dollars per metric ton) and nickel (tens of thousand per metric ton) just don't cut it.

Even though it is a new company and they have many years of work before them, they are already operating in the black.

That isn't false economics. It's worse. If they are claiming to be running in the black, this is the kind of voodoo economics used in the late 1990s when .coms were coming out left and right and making a killing with but the vaguest idea for a product. That bubble burst.

But why is everyone assuming that we need to take the material home to Earth?

Now were getting somewhere.

The first thing that will produce a profit isn't precious metals. Precious metals require extensive space mining, refining, and transportation infrastructures. What's needed is something that is very valuable in space but is at the same time commonplace.

That something is ordinary water. Very abundant, yet very expensive because every drop needs to be launched from Earth.

 

[DahnBoson]

I’ve spent a lot of years working in aerospace, and recognize many of the top people in Planetary Resources as top in their field with a long history of top performance in the space business. They are very smart people. They have the understanding of what it will take to get the job done, and they have the funding. Even though it is a new company and they have many years of work before them, they are already operating in the black. This is not a high dollar charity.

We don’t have to develop much new technology to mine the asteroids, and there are many side projects the company can take on that will pay good money.

But why is everyone assuming that we need to take the material home to Earth? I’m expecting that most of it will be mined, processed, converted into manufactured products, sold, delivered, and used entirely in space without any part of that happening on Earth. One of the most valuable products will be rocket fuel. That would save a huge amount of money not having to transport it from Earth to space. That would also greatly reduce the cost of many space projects over the next five or six decades.

But small amounts of very high value products could very easily come back to Earth. It is a whole lot easier getting them down than transporting them in the opposite direction.

But the idea of transporting whole asteroids to Earth, or even large amounts of raw material to be processed on Earth? That sounds rather silly and very dangerous.

I see what you are saying and it is a good idea that could be very useful for future deep space mission, but do we have the equipment that it would take to mine and convert the asteroid's material into something useful while it is in space and so far away? And also I don't see it being useful for space missions closer to home I am sure we don't want to go to the asteroid belt to get to Mars granted there may be a few closer I'm not sure how many.

Doubtful. The market cap of the entire mining industry - that includes coal - is just under a trillion dollars. That, in a real sense, is what what we have valued the world's total mining resources to be worth - i.e. what people are willing to pay.

It's true that I can sell one ounce of gold for $1500. I can't sell a million ounces at $1500, though. There just isn't that much demand - and that's the problem with doing these kinds of extrapolations.

I understand that and I agree which is why I posted right after that that the excess material would bring prices down substantially, however with that much material you could potentially monopolize a market, sell to your competetors or even make money off of the fact it came from space. If I was going to buy one gold necklace between two and one came from Earth and the other came from space and if they cost the same give me the space necklace :) My point being you could still become insanely rich.

 

[DaveC426913]

...an asteroid can have material worth of over a trillion dollars ...

That figure doesn't live in a vacuum. There are two issues, gross value and net value:
1] gross value: how much potential valuables are actually present,
2] net value gross value minus the cost of extracting those materials.

Let's say your trillion dollar asteroid is a 1km³ cube. What is the gross value in a 1km³ cube of Earth's crust?

It is not by any means a given that an asteroid has any more valuable materials in it than a comparable volume of Earth. (Though I'll entertain arguments that it does).

So the issue may come down to expenses. Is it less expensive to fly out to the asteroid belt and mine those materials than it is to simply dig a 1km³ pit here on Earth?

 

[DahnBoson]

That figure doesn't live in a vacuum. There are two issues, gross value and net value:
1] gross value: how much potential valuables are actually present,
2] net value gross value minus the cost of extracting those materials.

Let's say your trillion dollar asteroid is a 1km³ cube. What is the gross value in a 1km³ cube of Earth's crust?

It is not by any means a given that an asteroid has any more valuable materials in it than a comparable volume of Earth. (Though I'll entertain arguments that it does).

So the issue may come down to expenses. Is it less expensive to fly out to the asteroid belt and mine those materials than it is to simply dig a 1km³ pit here on Earth?

I understand that which is why I asked in my earlier post if any attempt to mine an asteroid would cost as much as the value you would get from it I'm not sure but do you think it would cost more? Also they don't have to guess at which asteroids will have the highest worth; asteroids with the materials desired can be targeted with spectroscopy.

 

[russ_watters]

I understand that which is why I asked in my earlier post if any attempt to mine an asteroid would cost as much as the value you would get from it I'm not sure but do you think it would cost more? Also they don't have to guess at which asteroids will have the highest worth; asteroids with the materials desired can be targeted with spectroscopy.

Well...last I heard, it costs on the order of $10,000/lb to bring an object back from low Earth orbit. I figure if we add an order of magnitude to that that would probably put us in the ballpark of what it would cost to mine an asteroid and recover some material from it. Gold currently costs $23,000/lb.

And that's of course assuming that mining an asteroid won't flush the market with excess gold and make the value crash.

 

[mfb]

Let's say your trillion dollar asteroid is a 1km³ cube. What is the gross value in a 1km³ cube of Earth's crust?

It is not by any means a given that an asteroid has any more valuable materials in it than a comparable volume of Earth. (Though I'll entertain arguments that it does).

On earth, most heavy elements sunk to the core, they are quite rare in the crust now. On asteroids, this did not happen. What is the gross value of 1km^3 of representative material of earth? More than 1km^3 of the crust, simply by the fact that the composition is different and the main components of the crust are cheap because they are available in large amounts.

It is hard to find reliable numbers, but to show the order of magnitude:

Platinum, rhodium, iridium, palladium and gold are found in significant concentrations (total PGM content exceeds 50 grams per ton) in meteorite samples attributed to the LL Chondrites

http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/RoleOfNearEarthAsteroidsInLongTermPlatinumSupply.pdf (PGM=Platinum group)
In the Earth's crust, their combined fraction is ~0.04 ppm, adding Wikipedia numbers, which is lower by a factor of 1000. Of course, Earth tends to concentrate them in some spots via chemistry, this would require more numbers to compare.

Well...last I heard, it costs on the order of $10,000/lb to bring an object back from low Earth orbit.

If you launch everything to do so from earth? That is expensive, sure. But mining asteroids would mean to have a lot of material available in space. If some of this can be used for heat shields / other infrastructure, it should lower the costs. The factor for the increased distance to the asteroid remains, of course.

And that's of course assuming that mining an asteroid won't flush the market with excess gold and make the value crash.

Gold is mined at >2000tons/year, giving a market of ~$100 billion/year. Let the price go down by 90% to cut most production, and you can sell the same amount to get ~10 billion/year. Platinum with ~180 tons gives additional ~1 billion/year (do they really have a similar price? Wow). The other PGM metals have a smaller market. However, this assumes that demand stays constant, which is unlikely here. It is possible to get tens of billions, if you can manage to get enough material down on earth. If this is not the case, you don't risk crashing the market :D.

 

[DaveC426913]

You misquoted that.

Platinum, rhodium, iridium, palladium
strontium technetium, einsteinium, titanium
All these things make up our world both animal and mineral
And all of them are facts known to the modern Major General!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let's see where we are so far:

• Hayabusa (if it worked properly): $170B/kg
• Luna: $68B/kg
• Apollo: $0.33B/kg

Gold is presently the most expensive element at $50K/kg.

So essentially, we need to make space travel at least 6500 times cheaper before this even starts to be competitive. Not 10x cheaper, not 100x cheaper, not even 1000x cheaper. 6500.

 

[Pkruse]

DahnBoson: When I first saw the idea of mining asteroids I figured it was either a bunch of stupid idiots or a practical joke. Then I saw the list of people who were doing it. They all have a reputation of being serious business men and engineers, and they all have a long history of doing things that were previously believed to be impossible. So I thought I’d have to be something of a fool to judge them prematurely without at least reading their business plan. When I read it, it was posted on their web site. It probably still is since it is a powerful marketing tool.

All parts of it were reasonable. If I were hired as a program manager to do it, then I’d know how to put the program together, what needed to be done, how to do it, and what technical and people resource I’d have to put together. All I’d need is a big bucket of money to get started, and they have it. And I’d judge all of them to be more capable than me.

There are a number of programs, projects, and ideas that are currently in some stage of getting started. All of them are going to have troubles finding the resources they need. That will delay implementation for decades and cost billions. But these guys are positioning themselves very nicely to be a low cost provider to get all these other programs started. Think of our currently very vague and poorly planned mission to Mars. Think of what we are going to do when we have to shut down Hubble. That was so popular that it simply must be replaced with the next generation space telescope, which will be placed at a Lagrange point four lunar distances from Earth. We will need the ability to make regular trips to it.

Bush put together an excellent team of scientists to tell him what they needed to do whatever science they would like to do in space. They published an excellent report that is well reasoned and well thought out. The cost is no more than the historical NASA budget. The last I checked, NASA had posted it to their Ames site; but if not I’m sure Google would find it very quickly for you. Read it and let me know if you still have doubts about this becoming a practical and profitable reality. Bush based his NASA plan on that report. Obama threw it out and put together his own team of bean counters. That resulted in the Bush plan being scrapped, and it really has not been replaced with anything recognizable as a real plan. But the Bush team’s report is so very reasonable that it will be resurrected in some form. He even put political scientists on the team to make sure that whatever proposal resulted would be popular with the voting public. They did a good job of doing that. It details how we can develop the ability to get to Mars in many small steps, each one likely to be both profitable to science and popular to the public. Planetary Resources is positioning themselves to make money at every step.

One major concern slowly boiling to a head in the public’s consciousness is the fear that an asteroid might impact the earth. We currently have no way of preventing that. Once Planetary Resources gets their system operational, it will be a small thing to deflect or break up an asteroid. Maybe we will never have a need to do that; but once the fear comes to a head in the public’s collective mind, we will pay a huge amount to maintain the ability to do that—especially if the amount is not so huge because Planetary Resources is making dual use of the resources. But it will be put to many other uses as well, all of them making money for the equipment owners.

 

[Drakkith]

All parts of it were reasonable. If I were hired as a program manager to do it, then I’d know how to put the program together, what needed to be done, how to do it, and what technical and people resource I’d have to put together. All I’d need is a big bucket of money to get started, and they have it. And I’d judge all of them to be more capable than me.

None of this is correct. No one on Earth knows how to achieve this profitably. We simply don't have the technology to mine asteroids profitably at this time, and more to the point, we don't have any reason to try. Mining on Earth is far easier and quicker and we already know how to do it very well. If we set up outposts or colonies elsewhere in the solar system, then we might have a reason to mine asteroids. The other way I can think of is if we suddenly ran out of resources here on Earth. Either way, it will not happen for a considerable amount of time.

There are a number of programs, projects, and ideas that are currently in some stage of getting started. All of them are going to have troubles finding the resources they need. That will delay implementation for decades and cost billions. But these guys are positioning themselves very nicely to be a low cost provider to get all these other programs started.

I think this is a key point. They are positioning themselves for future work in the industry. This starts with things like private launch vehicles capable of boosting satellites or spacecraft into low Earth orbit. From there it is a long process of working up to wherever the market allows.

Think of our currently very vague and poorly planned mission to Mars. Think of what we are going to do when we have to shut down Hubble. That was so popular that it simply must be replaced with the next generation space telescope, which will be placed at a Lagrange point four lunar distances from Earth. We will need the ability to make regular trips to it.

I don't believe the JWST is going to have any trips to it. It will be nearly 4 times further from the Earth than the Moon is.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

... I don't believe the JWST is going to have any trips to it. It will be nearly 4 times further from the Earth than the Moon is.

I generally agree with the rest of your points, but his point here is that, (I'm presuming some of this) in the case of it being damaged or malfunctioning in any way, we need to be able to reach it efficiently in order to repair it. (Which these entrepreneurial space programs, like SpaceX, would be able to help with).

I don't agree with his use of the word "regularly" though, seeing as how regularly visiting something that far away is entirely unfeasible.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The other way I can think of is if we suddenly ran out of resources here on Earth.

But one never really "runs out" - what happens is that costs blow up, and people who can do without do without. Also, when costs go up, sources that were formerly not viable become so: we are drilling for oil in places where it is profitable at $100/barrel that were passed over at $10/barrel.

Metals can be extracted from seawater. It's about 10x as expensive to extract gold from seawater than to mine it. But 10 is not 6500.

 

[Drakkith]

I generally agree with the rest of your points, but his point here is that, (I'm presuming some of this) in the case of it being damaged or malfunctioning in any way, we need to be able to reach it efficiently in order to repair it. (Which these entrepreneurial space programs, like SpaceX, would be able to help with).

I don't agree with his use of the word "regularly" though, seeing as how regularly visiting something that far away is entirely unfeasible.

If it is damaged it will probably stay that way, as a repair mission would cost far more than the ones for Hubble did. And that is only one of the many issues.

 

[DahnBoson]

Thank you guys for posting some numbers I see now that it is not so much the technology that makes this impossible but simple economics and Vanadium how did you get the figure 6500, because I don't quite see how you did.

 

[Vanadium 50]

See message #24.

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you guys for posting some numbers I see now that it is not so much the technology that makes this impossible but simple economics and Vanadium how did you get the figure 6500, because I don't quite see how you did.

No. The economics are a result of the launch technology and try as we might, it has been very difficult to bring the costs down.

In addition to that, some here have suggested we build robotic spacecraft manufacturing plants in space, neither of which have been done and both would present technological challenges.

 

[mfb]

Let's see where we are so far:

• Hayabusa (if it worked properly): $170B/kg
• Luna: $68B/kg
• Apollo: $0.33B/kg

Gold is presently the most expensive element at $50K/kg.

So essentially, we need to make space travel at least 6500 times cheaper before this even starts to be competitive. Not 10x cheaper, not 100x cheaper, not even 1000x cheaper. 6500.

None of these missions was designed to bring large quantities of materials back. If twice the amount of sample returns would have doubled the value of the missions, they would have had a better ratio.
Here is an example of http://pics.nase-bohren.de/ibm3300-vs-3microsd.jpg (more, if you include inflation. And a factor of 4 million for the weight). I do not expect the same for rockets, but as I said, the quoted numbers are misleading.

Just out of curiosity, which number do you get if you include the full life support systems for all successful Apollo missions in the mass?

 

[DahnBoson]

No. The economics are a result of the launch technology and try as we might, it has been very difficult to bring the costs down.

In addition to that, some here have suggested we build robotic spacecraft manufacturing plants in space, neither of which have been done and both would present technological challenges.

I agree bad choice of words on my part I should have said that I realize that the cost of these missions with current technology is a primary inhibitor

 

[bahamagreen]

It is pretty much a techno/medical race between robots and humans...

The mining of the asteroids (and space activities in general) depends on lots of things, but there are two things that need to be developed before any progress comes:

robots
DNA repair

The hard radiation of space is the primary problem with manned space activities. The lifetime maximum exposure is exceeded on just a one-way trip to Mars. This is why all manned missions have been restricted to low Earth orbit and quick missions to the Moon.

The kind of shielding required to be adequate for long term inter-planetary manned missions is on the order of a few meters of lead... kind of heavy for space missions. This means until the exposure problem is mitigated, robots will be used almost exclusively.

If it became possible to successfully and continuously treat and repair exposure damaged DNA and other tissue, then much of the shielding problem is solved. The Human Genome Project and similar are way ahead of schedule...

So, along with the politics, economic/finance, engineering, logistics and all the rest, the actual picture of what this will look like is going to come down to whether it is robots first, then later "hard" humans with self repairing genetic tissue; or "hard" humans first and robots following...

The implications of both are important:
-robots advanced enough to approach "human-like" operations
-humans that self repair with total fidelity