Asteroid Mining; Is it necessary?

[CaptainKipard]

Are we actually running out of any elements or compounds which are abundant in asteroids?

[toadicus]

To say that we are, on Earth, "running out" of any naturally-occurring minerals seems, to me, presumptuous. That said, there may come a break-even point where it is cheaper to go into space, grab a giant spacerock, tear it to pieces, and then bring those pieces back to Earth, than to continue finding / mining those minerals here.

If we were there yet, though, I think we would see asteroid mining already.

[Awaras]

It's not so much that we are running out of resources on Earth, it is about how much more cost effective it would be to provide space-based facilities with resources (such as water for example) from a captured asteroid than launching those same resources from Earth atop very expensive fireworks.

[shynung]

In the sense of running out of natural resources abundant in asteroids, no, not yet.

Asteroid mining would boom right after space commercialization, when people start to build spacecrafts in orbit. At that point, mining an asteroid is much cheaper than bringing materials from Earth, since an expensive rocket to get it out of the Earth's gravity well would no longer be needed.

[TechnicalK3rbal]

It's like having the kethane mod in kerbal space program.

It's not necessarilyy cheaper, but you are already getting the ores and minerals from something that's in space.

[sgt_flyer]

Gathering minerals / gases from asteroid could be useful for space exploration - if associated with in orbit processing / 3d printing. Then, the only thing you'd need to send up is the stuff you cannot build in orbit (like electronics) - which will require a much smaller rocket - ex once you built a transfer stage hull and engines, you send the actual probe up with the control electronics, dock with the stage, and fuel it with the gases you had been gathering too - and hop, you can send your probe far away with only a small launcher

[SargeRho]

Neccesary for what, exactly? To build space infrastructure? Absolutely. For surface stuff...perhaps platinum, if you have a cheap way to recover it from space.

[Doozler]

What they said ^^^

Just to add, water is the most obvious thing to mine from an asteroid. Drinking water, reaction mass, shielding, plus H2 and O2....

[shynung]

Just to add, water is the most obvious thing to mine from an asteroid. Drinking water, reaction mass, shielding, plus H2 and O2....

If water's the main objective, might as well mine a comet. They are big chunks of ice flying around the Solar system, after all.

[CaptainKipard]

I guess water electrolysis would give us a cheap source of fuel.

What does everyone think of orbital smelters? Is that even feasible?

[Mazon Del]

Of course it is feasible. It is an engineering problem to be sure, but certainly solvable. Orbital refineries and smelters are going to be quite necessary to work that ore into useful alloys and shapes. Check out Planetary Resources, they are a company trying to be the first to mine an asteroid.

[Idobox]

Well, smelters use gravity to separate stuff (for example steel, iron oxide and CO2, or aluminium, cryolite and O2), so an orbital smelter will have to find other ways to do it. The most obvious is centrifuges, but there might be others.

That being said, there's a lot of fun chemistry and metallurgy that can be done in 0g for the exact same reason. For example, metal foam is extremely difficult to make on Earth because bubbles float, and we have a lot of trouble when mixing powders.

The biggest problem to any such industry in orbit would be heat dissipation, and there aren't any easy workaround for this one. You will need either very large radiators, or something to vent into space.

[Stargate525]

The biggest ones would be the rarer metals; platinum, palladium, Osmium, Beryllium... There are estimations that there are asteroids out there with literally trillions of dollars-worth of these metals. The problem isn't making it worth it (a company that snags one of those will be made), it's engineering and economics. That much of these metals (we're talking tons, in a metal industry that produces, worldwide, only double-digit tons per year) would utterly crash that market. And since some of these metals are used for investing...

[CaptainKipard]

It's a shame that this broken economic system we enjoy right now is an excuse for halting progress.

[going-to-the-MOON]

I would hope that if it were to come to asteroid mining, that the governments would form some rule or something so that mining wouldn't damage the market in anyway, or at least to a degree where it doesn't crash.

[Scotius]

If water's the main objective, might as well mine a comet. They are big chunks of ice flying around the Solar system, after all.

Flying, yes. But usually on very eccentric and/or inclined orbits. Asteroids are much easier to reach.

[Prime flux]

There is no reason why we would not be able to mine asteroids for ore and other resources. It will ofc require alot of space infrastructures and other investments. The question is if it will make sense economical to do it. It is basically a question about how much spacecraft we planing to produce, as long we "only" are doing space exploration in a limited scale it will most likely not be a economical sound investment.

But also a working space resource harvesting and manufacturing infrastructure will act as a springboard for further space utilisation, as it will bring down the cost of spacecraft.

[RuBisCO]

It's very simple, just assume 3% growth per year, and take a look at world energy consumotion. Right now it is at 15×10^12 watts (15 Terawatts), at 3% growth it would be at 150 TW by 2091,10 times as much in 78 years. By 2345 our energy consumption would be equal to ALL the energy in sunlight hitting the earth (2.7×10^17 W)! Even if we could produce all that power by nuclear fusion or something the waste heat would exceed solar heating of the planet!

And that is why we are going to eventually need to make space colonies that mine asteriods... either that or economic stagnation. Actually we will have to stagnate economically eventually, as is world population growth is slowing down, but more to the point if you keep going onwards with the above exponentially by the year 3058 humanities energy consumption will exceed the energy output of the sun, THE SUN! So clearly we have got to slow down.

Edited March 28, 2014 by RuBisCO

[Streetwind]

That much of these metals (we're talking tons, in a metal industry that produces, worldwide, only double-digit tons per year) would utterly crash that market.

It's actually worse than that. One moderately sized near-earth asteroid contains more platinum group metals than have ever been mined, in the entire history of mankind. This is because these heavy elements have the annoying tendency to "follow their weight" and simply sink deep into the Earth's core instead of staying near the surface where we can conveniently grab them. However, on an asteroid there's nowhere to sink to. It's the purest, richest heavy metal ore you can find anywhere. Purer than on the Moon, on Mars... no planet can compete. That's why there's so freaking much of it.

As for crashing the market though - remember that sometimes, breaking something old makes way for something new. Planetary Resources likes to pull the Aluminium comparison. Back in Napoleon's times, nobody had any idea how to efficiently extract Aluminium, and thus it was so rare that nobles would serve only their most honored guests from plates of Aluminium - instead of gold, which was considered the lesser metal. Then new techniques were discovered, and the Aluminium value crashed through the floor. And yet, only because Aluminium suddenly was so cheap, we discovered that it had a myriad of uses. It's ultra-light yet strong, forms useful alloys and is 100% recycleable (which by far not all metals are) with minimum effort. Today, it's unthinkable for our society to exist without Aluminium everywhere. Aircraft, cars, construction, handheld devices and electronics... you name it, it's there.

So what then will happen if the price of platinum group metals crashes through the floor? What uses of these formerly ultra-expensive elements will suddenly become economically viable, and what new applications previously unthinkable would be discovered?

That's the opportunity in asteroid mining - an abundant supply of something that is not easily attainable on our planet, which can potentially usher in a new age of metalworking.

...And the hilarious part is that some companies routinely spend up to two billion dollars on constructing offshore oil platforms. With that kind of money, you can easily afford your own space program in today's age of private spacefaring enterprises. Convince investors to put forth the value of just one offshore oil rig towards asteroid mining instead, and you have capital for the entire venture. That is what Planetary Resources is aiming to do right now. And you know what, I totally want to see them succeed. Wouldn't it be awesome to watch what happens?

[vger]

It's very simple, just assume 3% growth per year, and take a look at world energy consumotion. Right now it is at 15×10^12 watts (15 Terawatts), at 3% growth it would be at 150 TW by 2091,10 times as much in 78 years. By 2345 our energy consumption would be equal to ALL the energy in sunlight hitting the earth (2.7×10^17 W)! Even if we could produce all that power by nuclear fusion or something the waste heat would exceed solar heating of the planet!

And that is why we are going to eventually need to make space colonies that mine asteriods... either that or economic stagnation. Actually we will have to stagnate economically eventually, as is world population growth is slowing down, but more to the point if you keep going onwards with the above exponentially by the year 3058 humanities energy consumption will exceed the energy output of the sun, THE SUN! So clearly we have got to slow down.

One of the discussions I'd love to be able to have around here amongst folks who actually get it. The "brick wall" that humanity's car is speeding towards, that almost nobody even acknowledges. And I don't mean something specific like global warming. That's just one slice of the disaster cake. Space is our only shot at a future (without forming a nasty world government that restricts every aspect of our lives in order to ensure balance).

Anyway, of course asteroid mining is possible, and it will end up being necessary eventually, if we live that long. Either

1. Space travel becomes really cheap and drives down the cost of it

2. We reach a point where the remaining pockets of resources on Earth are so inaccessible that it becomes TOO costly

Likely it will be some varying combination of the two.

The trouble with getting such things started is, most corporations hate taking risks. High-risk is almost always viewed as bad, and shareholders don't think highly of the idea of spending tons of money just for a CHANCE at getting more of it back. This is probably why SpaceX has decided to stay private until they've had success with Mars.

And unlike other "financial" investments, space comes with more risks than more Earthly endeavors. You can plan out the cost and weigh it against the profit gained from the asteroids. But after all of that research has been done, there's still the danger that something will go horribly wrong with the mission. Plus no matter how much research we do with probes and telescopes, there's still bound to be some surprises when we actually go to mine one.

[Mechjeb2346]

If comets were SO vital for water some meteors may have ice.but meteors would be good for getting materials meanwhile comets are for life support ice contains H2o and O2.

Comets would be perfect for life support, meteors would be good for getting materials.

p.s From Mechjeb2346

[CaptainKipard]

It's very simple, just assume 3% growth per year....

I understand your larger point, but you shouldn't assume constant growth. It took nitrogen fertilisers to support a growing population, but (correct me if I'm wrong) we're running out of farming space.

Additionally, isn't it true that covering the Sahara with solar panels would supply orders of magnitude more power than we need?

The trouble with getting such things started is, most corporations hate taking risks. High-risk is almost always viewed as bad, and shareholders don't think highly of the idea of spending tons of money just for a CHANCE at getting more of it back.

Which is why governments always take the lead. Once they develop technologies, capitalists move in....

Edited March 29, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Klingon Admiral]

One of the discussions I'd love to be able to have around here amongst folks who actually get it. The "brick wall" that humanity's car is speeding towards, that almost nobody even acknowledges. And I don't mean something specific like global warming. That's just one slice of the disaster cake. Space is our only shot at a future (without forming a nasty world government that restricts every aspect of our lives in order to ensure balance).

Space will lead to a world government, the huge ressources there will give whoever goes there first such a massive advantage that any other party might just as well concede und subjugate. We will not go into space because space is cool, we will go into space to increase our power on Earth.

[CaptainKipard]

Space will lead to a world government, the huge ressources there will give whoever goes there first such a massive advantage that any other party might just as well concede und subjugate. We will not go into space because space is cool, we will go into space to increase our power on Earth.

There's so much wrong with that post....

Leaving aside that a centralised global government would be a terrible idea, I don't think any government or corporation is going to just sit there twiddling their thumbs while someone does the smart thing and goes after those resources. New frontiers are always established in parallel with multiple competitors.

[magnemoe]

I would hope that if it were to come to asteroid mining, that the governments would form some rule or something so that mining wouldn't damage the market in anyway, or at least to a degree where it doesn't crash.

How/ why? All minerals is traded on the world marked anyway so any new mine everywhere changes it.