Should NASA return to the Moon instead of doing ARM?

[Mr Shifty]

Returning unrefined ore from orbit so it can be processed on the ground presents its own problems. Even returning refined rare earth metals and their oxides from orbit isn't easy, as you'd have to send up empty "re-entry hoppers" to bring it down.

Indeed, there was a thread several months ago which touched on this. Dragon is probably the cheapest option right now for return cargo from orbit at about $20 million per metric ton. A metric ton of the most expensive rare earth metals (99.9% scandium) would be worth about $18 million. (Though, of course, you'd flood the market and make it much less valuable.) That is just launch costs, which are probably a drop in the bucket for total cost of an orbital refining operation. And most rare earths are an order of magnitude or more less expensive than scandium. It's hard to imagine any scenario where space mining for terrestrial use could possibly be lucrative.

[SeaDog]

The answer may be obvious to you, but I suspect you're oversimplifying the problem. A pile of ore isn't worth much. You need to refine it to get the valuable stuff out. Then you need to get it to market where someone will buy it. Refining ore in space is far beyond our current technological capability (here's a link to a brief explanation on how rare earth metals are currently refined). There is currently no market for rare earth metals in space. Returning unrefined ore from orbit so it can be processed on the ground presents its own problems. Even returning refined rare earth metals and their oxides from orbit isn't easy, as you'd have to send up empty "re-entry hoppers" to bring it down.

Sure, but water and fuel alone could be a big market. I'm not going to stick my head out too far here, but it seems to me that 1 billion turnover should be possible on that basis alone, even if launch costs drop somewhat and even if lower costs do not lead to more space exploration. For example I think the SLS Block 2 will have an upper stage with room for 100 tons of fuel. If you had a system that could completely refuel that once a year, it would be incredibly valuable, possibly on the scale of a billion dollars, even though it's hard to put a figure on it. And then there are smaller, commercial satellites that might be launched to LEO, refuelled and then pushed on to GEO with fuel left to spare for deorbiting.

So yeah, you don't even have to look at rare earth metals to see there's a business here... Even if that's what you talk about when investors are around, if you're planning to go there. As for making it profitable - I think you can only figure that out by trying it on a small scale. First step is controlling a small asteroid though. How is that done? No one knows for sure right now.

[mardlamock]

Indeed, there was a thread several months ago which touched on this. Dragon is probably the cheapest option right now for return cargo from orbit at about $20 million per metric ton. A metric ton of the most expensive rare earth metals (99.9% scandium) would be worth about $18 million. (Though, of course, you'd flood the market and make it much less valuable.) That is just launch costs, which are probably a drop in the bucket for total cost of an orbital refining operation. And most rare earths are an order of magnitude or more less expensive than scandium. It's hard to imagine any scenario where space mining for terrestrial use could possibly be lucrative.

Im afraid your numbers are wrong, a metric ton of scandium is $270 millon. And if you are the only supplier, then flooding the market isnt an issue, you will never sell it below your operational costs+what you are willing to compromise.

[Mr Shifty]

Its not easy, but it can still be profitable. Even with the current prices, it only costs around 33K/kg to return cargo from orbit, the current price of gold is at 38k, of course you have to mine it and stuff, but you only need to launch once. If we assume that within the next decade or so the price per kg to launch into orbit gets cut in half, we re looking at a very profitable business (but you'd need a decent chunk of capital to get even remotely started). The price of gold could also go up a lot, as some people are predicting, which would also help boost the profitability. The most important part about the whole process is getting space ore processing and manufacturing working, there are many challenges to be overcome but its not unreasonable to think that within the next few decades it can be solved.

Even current gold mining operations are unprofitable for the first couple of years, and they also require millons of dollars to set up.

A geologist ran through a typical gold mining operation cost here. To recover a gram, a mining operation might have to strip mine, process and refine 2 tons of ore. A terrestrial mining operation makes its money by mining and processing millions of tons of ore per year. Assuming the numbers reflect actual typical values, it looks like costs are about $15 per recovered gram of refined gold. Gold currently is selling for about $50/gram, which means the mine makes, say $35 in profit on every recovered gram. But a space-based operation would have to ship that gold back to the ground, which by your cost quote above is something like $33 per gram. So, assuming you could set up an operation in space, with no gravity, in vacuum, far far far from any power/water/personnel infrastructure to operate at the same cost as a terrestrial facility with nearby infrastructure, you might be able to make $1 per ton of mined ore. Good luck.

[mardlamock]

A geologist ran through a typical gold mining operation cost here. To recover a gram, a mining operation might have to strip mine, process and refine 2 tons of ore. A terrestrial mining operation makes its money by mining and processing millions of tons of ore per year. Assuming the numbers reflect actual typical values, it looks like costs are about $15 per recovered gram of refined gold. Gold currently is selling for about $50/gram, which means the mine makes, say $35 in profit on every recovered gram. But a space-based operation would have to ship that gold back to the ground, which by your cost quote above is something like $33 per gram. So, assuming you could set up an operation in space, with no gravity, in vacuum, far far far from any power/water/personnel infrastructure to operate at the same cost as a terrestrial facility with nearby infrastructure, you might be able to make $1 per ton of mined ore. Good luck.

With current technology and prices its impossible, in the future with cheaper launch vehicles it may become a reality. Im just saying its not as far fetched as you think. Return on investment would not be that high though, probably around 10%. I'll leave it to DSI and Planetary Resources to find out

[Mr Shifty]

Im afraid your numbers are wrong, a metric ton of scandium is $270 millon. And if you are the only supplier, then flooding the market isnt an issue, you will never sell it below your operational costs+what you are willing to compromise.

It's possible I'm not seeing the right prices, but here's my source, which quotes $18,000 per kg of Scandium. Wikipedia tells me that scandium is present in most uranium and rare-earth ores, but it's not usually worth extracting because demand is so low. Currently less than 500 kg (kg, not tons) of scandium oxide is produced per year, and it's always produced as a by-product of other operations. It doesn't matter if you're the sole supplier if no-one is buying. My point was to take the most optimistic, totally unrealistic, scenario and show that even that doesn't work economically.

[mardlamock]

It's possible I'm not seeing the right prices, but here's my source, which quotes $18,000 per kg of Scandium. Wikipedia tells me that scandium is present in most uranium and rare-earth ores, but it's not usually worth extracting because demand is so low. Currently less than 500 kg (kg, not tons) of scandium oxide is produced per year, and it's always produced as a by-product of other operations. It doesn't matter if you're the sole supplier if no-one is buying. My point was to take the most optimistic, totally unrealistic, scenario and show that even that doesn't work economically.

That price must be way off, that is 1/3 of the price of gold per kg. Demand would also rise with lower prices, demand for computers rose when they became more affordable, same with pretty much any other useful product. I think gold is a safer bet for mining, and I believe its a lot more common in asteroids.

[Kryten]

That price must be way off, that is 1/3 of the price of gold per kg.

Yes, and? Gold prices are kept high artificially due to speculation, and Scandium has few actual uses and so little demand.

[mardlamock]

Yes, and? Gold prices are kept high artificially due to speculation, and Scandium has few actual uses and so little demand.

Gold prices kept high artificially? If anything they are being kept low due to speculation, there is an overall fear of gold, every major investment and banking firm is pulling the price down with bearish long term views. We'll see what they say in the next recession.

[Kryten]

The fact that gold is used for speculation at all drives the prices up relative to what they would otherwise be.

[mardlamock]

The fact that gold is used for speculation at all drives the prices up relative to what they would otherwise be.

Gold is not really used for speculation by people who know its value, its valuable because it is useful for the industries, does not depend on a central bank for its creation and is a great way of storing value, it lasts thousands of years without losing its properties. Gold is the underdog of investments in the modern world, people would much rather fool around with stocks and cheap central bank money than actually mine gold.

[Kryten]

Any demand for speculation will cause the price to rise, and use of gold by industry is only a small part of the demand. In Q2 2014 (the most recent figures I could find) is was about an 1/8th.

[michaelsteele3]

We already know more about the moon than the oceans.

[musicpenguin]

[Heart Under the Mountain]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55226207.jpg

Agreed. There's still plenty to be learned about the moon still. But of course the efforts of ARM are no less important. But the ESA has really been stepping up in huge leaps and bounds over the past decade. So where NASA doesn't go, ESA most surely will take up the slack. Not to mention the privatization of space. More and more corporate interests are pointing to the stars. This is the way it will eventually go anyway, it's just a matter of supply and demand before space becomes primarily a corporate/industrial endeavor, with the gov agencies only serving administrative and regulatory needs... probably not in our lifetimes, but eventually. Weyland Industries lol, except hopefully without the homicidal cybernetics and xenomorphs.

The many direct and indirect benefits of ARM:

https://www.nasa.gov/content/how-will-nasas-asteroid-redirect-mission-help-humans-reach-mars

[SpacePsilo]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55226207.jpg

Completly agree !

But it's true that a travel to the moon, with live conference online with the astronauts on the mun, on youtube, would allow a major improvement on how people react to space travel financing.

It would also shut down all we didn't get to the moon theory.

On a science only goal however it's pretty useless.

Or why not change the use of the iss to allow it to go orbit the moon?