Prospecting the Solar System

[Diche Bach]

I'd like to get a discussion going about prospecting of valuable resources from extraterrestrial locations. I was prompted to do this by another recent thread here in this sub-forum.

I commented that it is amazing that Opportunity is still roaming around on Mars after 12 years, and that Hubble was still up there surveying the heavens and @ Kryten pointed out Hubble is actually 26 years old (AMAZING!).

@Augustus responded to my comparison with Opportunity that "many brand new passenger cars do not last for 12 years without repair" to point out that "passenger cars do not cost hundreds of millions of dollars" and this prompted curiosity about the economics of spacecraft, and the current status of the inevitable expansion of human economic enterprise into extraterrestrial resource extraction.

Why do items like Hubble or Opportunity cost so much? Are the materials that rare? Is the workmanship that exceptional? Is the labor that specialized? I'm curious how low costs could be pushed without overly compromising quality if there was more of a market and/or something like real competition? I think I'll start a new thread on "Prospecting Solar Resources" and use this point as the launching point.

I suppose that one way to address the question, would be to look at the sorts of spacecraft which have now become relatively 'common,' which I presume would be telecommunications satellites. If the price on those has dropped over the years then that is a pretty clear indication that, with more demand, and thus more supply, costs will necessarily be driven down?

Of course at present, there is a market for telecommunications satellites, and not so much for space telescopes. But with the supposed riches to be had in the asteroids, I would think that eventually that will change. Could a Hubble (or Hubble-lite) sort of craft not be used to prospect asteroids for valuable resources?

Anyone who knows better correct me if I'm in error but . . . e.g., rare elements such as platinum, osmium, ruthenium, rhodium, iridium. It is my understanding that these particular elements are extremely rare and large quantities of ore have to be dug up and processed to yield small quantities. We may never exhaust the 'available' supplies on Earth, but the value of these materials has generally increased over time and is likely to continue to do so, even while their historic uses are phased out in favor of less rare materials.

If it was discovered that there were some asteroids with sufficient abundance of elements like these . . . or even others which are not necessarily rare on Earth, but simply costly to get into space . . . I would think that entrepreneurs and/or nation states with the economic clout would be falling all over themselves to be the first to haul such an asteroid back to near Earth orbit where it could be efficiently mined, no?

Is that how it would be done? Hauled back and mined? or would it be mined in situ?

Or another example, a moon base. Water I would think is one of the biggest bottlenecks for setting up a moonbase of any consequence and hauling enough up there to get going would I think be quite costly. But what if a comet with enough water ice in it were hauled to a low moon orbit and then chunks of it were broken lose and sent into controlled descents? Obviously a big project, but could that actually be cheaper than hauling it up from the oceans?

Edited September 26, 2016 by Diche Bach
elaboration of the point of the thread

[Bill Phil]

Spacecraft cost a lot of money because it involves skilled workmanship for a large number of man hours.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Bill Phil

[Diche Bach]

6 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Spacecraft cost a lot of money because it involves skilled workmanship for a large number of man hours.

Well what about telecommunications satellites? Do they still cost as much as they ever did? Idea being: there is demand, thus competition, thus lower prices? No?

So, IF there were demand for something like Hubble (to prospect asteroids) wouldn't that drive down the cost of spacecraft?

Really, there are two separate topics here I'm interested in, though they are connected:

1. Space travel/exploration is very expensive . . . but then again, at present most of the money making branches of space travel comprise telecommunication satellites or data gathering satellites (I would think the petroleum industry and various other mineral prospecting industries can make a helluva lot of money from satellite data?). So presumably those sections of space industry have either dropped in cost, else increased at a rate less than other sections (things like Hubble or extraplanetary science missions).

2. Is it possible that resource prospecting and extraction from beyond Earth will in a short time-frame force prices down for sections of space industry which presently have not benefited form market dynamics?

I guess a more general question would be:

3. Are there fortunes to be had and/or revolutions in human welfare or standard of living to be gained from the extraction of resources from space?

[lajoswinkler]

I think the cost is mostly because the probability of failure has been engineered to be extremely low. Bunch of certificates that require a crapton of testing. The vessels themselves aren't that sophisticated at all.

[DerekL1963]

On 9/25/2016 at 6:53 PM, Diche Bach said:

Well what about telecommunications satellites? Do they still cost as much as they ever did? Idea being: there is demand, thus competition, thus lower prices? No?

That's like comparing the cost of a 1960's car to the cost of a 2010's car...  at a gross level, they're both cars - but in detail they're very different animals.  It's simply not a straightforward comparison that can be judged solely on price.  That being said, there's not much in the way of competition.  And even if there were, these are complex machines turned out by the dozens per annum, not toothpaste that's rolled out to the tune of a hundreds of thousands of tubes a day.   So again, not something that can be simply and easily compared.

[CSE]

I think it'll be a long time until in-space mining and processing is anything more than proof-of-concept experiments carried along as minor elements of another mission.

The fundamental problem is the low amount of human activity in space, compared to on Earth. Servicing (most) things in space isn't practical because the few satellites are widely spread out, in the travel time or dV between them, and so any significant failure is final. How viable would a tow-truck business be if there were only three to four thousand motor vehicles total, spread out over the surface of the earth? Likewise, because Earth-based experience often isn't a reliable guide, many activities in space are effectively brand new without much precedent and thus require extensive testing with expensive facilities. I don't see any of these factors changing because this is the common experience of any new activity, and until we reach an 'alien earth', everything in the space environment is new.

A secondary problem is that spaceflight is a low-importance activity for most people, most of the time. In certain cases of higher immediate importance - the superpowers' space race, or current day telecommunications - the sponsors do budget for more spacecraft than the bare minimum needed to perform the mission, and do accept the occasional failure as part of the overall program. However, for typical exploration missions at the current time, wider humanity will fund the bare minimum number of craft even when the per-person taxation cost is not enormous (not big enough for voters to take the time to learn how much/little spaceflight is costing them personally). The mission team, for whom the mission is a vitally important thing, will then reasonably say that if there's only one attempt at the mission during their career, then that attempt must have the highest chance of success humanly possible.

Maybe the secondary problem could be addressed by some change of heart, some insight or aspiration. I don't think there's any way round the fundamental problem of new-ness. What I expect for mining and processing in space is that you could build one or two demonstration ISRU processors of some kind and get them onto, for example, Mars, for not that much more than the budget of current mission types. What I expect you'd learn is something new and interesting about how the hardships of space travel and/or the Martian environment have broken your ISRU.

If you wanted the ISRU experiment to have high confidence of being usable to do something real (liquid sounding rocket launch from Mars?), then you'd need an extended R&D program on Earth and in LEO, given a decent budget without interruption each and every year that the program runs. And I think we won't see ISRU making a contribution to missions - as opposed to an ISRU experiment being the mission - until the economy-of-scale benefits are enough to more than pay for that R&D program, not just for the ISRU processor itself.

[magnemoe]

8 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

That's like comparing the cost of a 1960's car to the cost of a 2010's car...  at a gross level, they're both cars - but in detail they're very different animals.  It's simply not a straightforward comparison that can be judged solely on price.  That being said, there's not much in the way of competition.  And even if there were, these are complex machines turned out by the dozens per annum, not toothpaste that's rolled out to the tune of a hundreds of thousands of tubes a day.   So again, not something that can be simply and easily compared.

Communication satellites has become more powerful and capable rather than cheaper. 
not sure about prices on irdium or gps ones who are used in larger numbers, are smaller and simpler. 

 An interesting issue would be how the communication satellite marked would react on heavy lifters on an budget price.
I think they would want larger and more capable satellites. 

 

[todofwar]

I think the economics of such an enterprise will be very different from normal space exploration. You will want a refinery in space, to minimize material you're trying to bring back, and mining equipment. That's all very heavy, thus expensive to launch, but you only need to launch it once. Then you leave it up in outer space, going to different asteroids and gathering resources. Once it's done it comes back to earth orbit, maybe not even necessarily LEO, and shoots off a capsule that re-enters with the partially refined ore. You would then use big dumb boosters to send up more hydrogen or kerosene to refuel your ship (oxygen will be a primary byproduct of refining the ore) along with another capsule for re-entry of more material. Since the fuel is dirt cheap, and the capsule itself need not be very sophisticated (you could even shoot for a re-usable return capsule, its fuel tank becomes the payload bay and it uses engines for a short deorbit burn) you can get away with BDB because losing the occasional payload won't be a financial disaster. The crew would need to rotate in and out, and of course you'll want them on a better rocket, so they will likely end up being your largest expense overall. 

[YNM]

IMHO the most expensive of all long term projects (projects that shall lasts soo long) will always be maintenance. Infrastructure is a good example of such things - while they can be cheap to build initially, it might be expensive in the long run to maintain. I mean, even if the thing won't break, it'll be outdated soon.

Space... what, no separate repair stations up there ! So the cost of maintenance can, and should, be incorporated to the cost of building, because it has to lasts soo long, and having them over-engineered is better than nothing. Even all the individual maintenance is going to cost a few times usual maintenance down here. I'm not very sure though.

[todofwar]

4 minutes ago, YNM said:

IMHO the most expensive of all long term projects (projects that shall lasts soo long) will always be maintenance. Infrastructure is a good example of such things - while they can be cheap to build initially, it might be expensive in the long run to maintain. I mean, even if the thing won't break, it'll be outdated soon.

Space... what, no separate repair stations up there ! So the cost of maintenance can, and should, be incorporated to the cost of building, because it has to lasts soo long, and having them over-engineered is better than nothing. Even all the individual maintenance is going to cost a few times usual maintenance down here. I'm not very sure though.

If prospecting becomes a thing, it would become economical to have an orbital repair station. Hell, I would argue an orbital scrap yard to take all the inoperative satellites wouldn't be a bad idea. Plenty of the components still work, maybe a bit outdated. But you could rip em apart and reassemble the good parts into a new satellite or probe. 

[YNM]

2 minutes ago, todofwar said:

If prospecting becomes a thing, it would become economical to have an orbital repair station. Hell, I would argue an orbital scrap yard to take all the inoperative satellites wouldn't be a bad idea. Plenty of the components still work, maybe a bit outdated. But you could rip em apart and reassemble the good parts into a new satellite or probe. 

But moving them around still needs some dV, unless one thoroughly plan how to make a "conveyor belt" trajectories of to-be-processed and to-be-released satellites.

Then, unless space elevator becomes a real thing (which it won't), all things launched to space has to be able to withstand the G forces.

Edited September 27, 2016 by YNM

[todofwar]

2 minutes ago, YNM said:

But moving them around still needs some dV, unless one thoroughly plan how to make a "conveyor belt" trajectories of to-be-processed and to-be-released satellites.

Then, unless space elevator becomes a real thing (which it won't), all things launched to space has to be able to withstand the G forces.

Yeah, but fuel is cheap, so just use a big dumb booster to send a years worth at a time. The main argument against BDBs is that the payload is too expensive to risk on a less reliable rocket. If you're just launching fuel, you can cut back reliability and go for cheap. 

[YNM]

Just now, todofwar said:

Yeah, but fuel is cheap, so just use a big dumb booster to send a years worth at a time. The main argument against BDBs is that the payload is too expensive to risk on a less reliable rocket. If you're just launching fuel, you can cut back reliability and go for cheap. 

Hmm... Well, maybe it could go, but as usual, chicken-egg problems.

[Kryten]

On 9/26/2016 at 2:53 AM, Diche Bach said:

Well what about telecommunications satellites? Do they still cost as much as they ever did? Idea being: there is demand, thus competition, thus lower prices? No?

They cost far, far more than they used to, because they steadily got bigger and more sophisticated to meet increased demand. The first commercial communications sat weighted 68kg, now we have some that are above 6 metric tons. Supply and demand doesn't really apply to sats directly, because the sats aren't in demand; the services they provide are.

[Nibb31]

On 26/09/2016 at 3:53 AM, Diche Bach said:

Well what about telecommunications satellites? Do they still cost as much as they ever did? Idea being: there is demand, thus competition, thus lower prices? No?

Actually, they do cost a lot. The budget for typical GSO comsat is around $500 million. Then add the other costs (launch, insurance, ground stations...). You won't be far from a billion.

On 26/09/2016 at 3:53 AM, Diche Bach said:

So, IF there were demand for something like Hubble (to prospect asteroids) wouldn't that drive down the cost of spacecraft?

Not below the threshold that would make the venture worthwhile.

On 26/09/2016 at 3:53 AM, Diche Bach said:

3. Are there fortunes to be had and/or revolutions in human welfare or standard of living to be gained from the extraction of resources from space?

You're not the first person to think about asteroid mining. If there was an actual business case, someone would be working on it.

Space is hard and expensive. Even rare minerals are cheaper to extract from traces in seawater than to bring back from space.

[todofwar]

29 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Actually, they do cost a lot. The budget for typical GSO comsat is around $500 million. Then add the other costs (launch, insurance, ground stations...). You won't be far from a billion.

Not below the threshold that would make the venture worthwhile.

You're not the first person to think about asteroid mining. If there was an actual business case, someone would be working on it.

Space is hard and expensive. Even rare minerals are cheaper to extract from traces in seawater than to bring back from space.

That depends really. Not sure of how much seawater you'd need to process to get iridium out in profitable quantities, but it would be alot. Space mining has high up front costs, like the telescope to find targets, the mining/refining craft, and the fuel and capsule for the initial run. But the operational costs could be low enough to yield a profit. The telescope could probably map enough targets to last 20 years of mining. The miner itself would need replacing after a while, but probably could be made to last long enough to pay back its construction costs. Granted, it would be a long time before you managed to pay back the startup costs. 

[Diche Bach]

I don't know enough about the remote-sensing capabilities of these days. I was a bit surprised that they had remotely detected carbon in the comet that Stardust flew by and collected samples of glycine from.

Well if carbon can be detected by remote spectrometry on a comet, then surely the capacity exists to systematically survey asteroids?

If I were Marcus Perrson, this would be plan to become an even richer billionaire former-game designer: convince Elon or any other competent entrepreneur with lots of technological ability to put a prospecting satellite out there (wherever it would need to be) and kep the data proprietary and as secure as humanly possible. Enlist the aid of a neutral third party to act as "broker" and auction off the data. Doesn't sound as idealistic and touchy feely as Elon's typical rhetoric, but I think it is a more realistic plan for a thoughtful mogul to do what he/she can do in one lifetime to "kickstart" human advance into a "multi-planet-species phase." Get the capitalist and the nation states scrambling for their piece of the solar mineral pie by (a) gathering the data; (b) having it vetted by a competent third party (with precise coordinates removed); (c) sell it off to the highest bidders; and thus (d) propel a whole avalanche of capital into racing to do the fieldwork and extract the minerals that are there to be had.

 . . . or, you spend a billion bucks on your prospector satellite and after 25 years it hasn't found anything except chunks of iron and silicates with the occasional trace of lead and as you move on into your twilight years, resign yourself to having given it a good try but just didn't luck out.

[Montieth]

On September 27, 2016 at 10:25 AM, todofwar said:

I think the economics of such an enterprise will be very different from normal space exploration. You will want a refinery in space, to minimize material you're trying to bring back, and mining equipment. That's all very heavy, thus expensive to launch, but you only need to launch it once. Then you leave it up in outer space, going to different asteroids and gathering resources. Once it's done it comes back to earth orbit, maybe not even necessarily LEO, and shoots off a capsule that re-enters with the partially refined ore. You would then use big dumb boosters to send up more hydrogen or kerosene to refuel your ship (oxygen will be a primary byproduct of refining the ore) along with another capsule for re-entry of more material. Since the fuel is dirt cheap, and the capsule itself need not be very sophisticated (you could even shoot for a re-usable return capsule, its fuel tank becomes the payload bay and it uses engines for a short deorbit burn) you can get away with BDB because losing the occasional payload won't be a financial disaster. The crew would need to rotate in and out, and of course you'll want them on a better rocket, so they will likely end up being your largest expense overall. 

I think it's arguable that you don't need to build the MASSIVE thing on the ground. You build smaller units that can build the parts to make the larger components needed. A factory to build the factories as it were. 

Power is available. Arc Furnaces are the way to go. Where you have elemental metals and not oxides, you have ready access to the materials and easy smelting/forging. I don't know where we are for printing PV cells though with materials printers yet...

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

On September 27, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Nibb31 said:

Actually, they do cost a lot. The budget for typical GSO comsat is around $500 million. Then add the other costs (launch, insurance, ground stations...). You won't be far from a billion.

Not below the threshold that would make the venture worthwhile.

You're not the first person to think about asteroid mining. If there was an actual business case, someone would be working on it.

Space is hard and expensive. Even rare minerals are cheaper to extract from traces in seawater than to bring back from space.

People are working on asteroid mining.

[DerekL1963]

6 hours ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

People are working on asteroid mining.

People are working on perpetual motion too.

[Bill Phil]

47 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

People are working on perpetual motion too.

Except asteroid mining is something that physics actually allows you to do (btw, that's unrelated to the argument). And yes, there is a business case, more than one in fact. Are they valid? I can't answer that. And the return on investment will certainly take time, but it'll happen eventually. Would I be optimistic? No, there are still too many unknowns. Revolutions are rarely fast.

[DerekL1963]

24 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

And yes, there is a business case, more than one in fact. Are they valid? I can't answer that.

That's kinda my point, these ventures are beyond extremely speculative at this point - something like investing in He3 mining futures back in the early 1900's.  Simply announcing "people are working on asteroid mining" is essentially meaningless, as people have worked on a lot of things that came to naught or took lifetimes before the "killer app" was found.

[Bill Phil]

10 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

That's kinda my point, these ventures are beyond extremely speculative at this point - something like investing in He3 mining futures back in the early 1900's.  Simply announcing "people are working on asteroid mining" is essentially meaningless, as people have worked on a lot of things that came to naught or took lifetimes before the "killer app" was found.

Well, He3 isn't that valid (it takes energy to mine it, and we haven't even perfected fusion). The issue is getting to the asteroids and actually having the proper tools to mine the different types.

I wouldn't say "extremely speculative", rather I would say "testing the waters," trying to see exactly what business can be done, and then moving on from there. They've got more than just ideas at this point, though. They have actual engineers working on it, good money behind them, and are working on various test spacecraft (which they hope to launch Soon^TM). If I recall correctly, they already have some ground testing hardware, between the two companies, that is.

(They in this context is the two companies)

[Diche Bach]

On 10/5/2016 at 1:15 AM, Bill Phil said:

Well, He3 isn't that valid (it takes energy to mine it, and we haven't even perfected fusion). The issue is getting to the asteroids and actually having the proper tools to mine the different types.

I wouldn't say "extremely speculative", rather I would say "testing the waters," trying to see exactly what business can be done, and then moving on from there. They've got more than just ideas at this point, though. They have actual engineers working on it, good money behind them, and are working on various test spacecraft (which they hope to launch Soon^TM). If I recall correctly, they already have some ground testing hardware, between the two companies, that is.

(They in this context is the two companies)

So what are these two companies? Just curious.

[Bill Phil]

16 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

So what are these two companies? Just curious.

Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries. Both are at varying stages (and I wouldn't be optimistic about them), but Planetary Resources, if I recall correctly, put a cubesat payload onto an Antares rocket and, lucky for them, it exploded. Then they had to try again by launching it on a Falcon 9 (which was more successful, I think).