Asteroid Mining; Is it necessary?

[RuBisCO]

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?

No I'm not assuming constant growth, I'm showing that growth must end, probably in this century. How much power will we need? Again if we continue to grow we will in 3 centuries need more energy then all the sunlight hitting the earth and by the 31st century more energy then the sun outputs, ergo we most definitely will have to slow down our growth rate!

Edited March 29, 2014 by RuBisCO

[Klingon Admiral]

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.

Time by time, the number of competitors will dwindle down, see what happened during the Age of Colonialism. The biggest fish in the pond will always try to eat anyone who is smaller than him. There are just no indigenous people this time who would really like to be independent. Furthermore, with proper in-situ ressource utilization, it might be hard to judge the true size of a asteroid mining program, as new vessels and installations are built in space and are not launched from Earth.

And while a world government is without doubt not desirable, control over space will be very useful to influence governmental policy.

[vger]

Time by time, the number of competitors will dwindle down, see what happened during the Age of Colonialism. The biggest fish in the pond will always try to eat anyone who is smaller than him. There are just no indigenous people this time who would really like to be independent. Furthermore, with proper in-situ ressource utilization, it might be hard to judge the true size of a asteroid mining program, as new vessels and installations are built in space and are not launched from Earth.

And while a world government is without doubt not desirable, control over space will be very useful to influence governmental policy.

Leave it to the Klingon to start talking about asteroid-mining from a perspective of conflict

From that standpoint, I wonder which one would actually be worse? A world government, or the world of nations as we have it today? Granted, it would take a LONG time before we had to worry about fighting each other over asteroid claims, but there was also a time when humans thought there would always be enough land.

And IF, it could be kept peaceful, I wonder what kind of a system the world might decide on for who owns an asteroid? Would it be a simple matter of registration? First there wins? And then of course the "Lunar Embassy" will probably try to get involved. Wouldn't it be fun to see how nations would sort this one out?

One thing about warring over space resources though is, if space becomes that important, we won't want to fight over it. If anything major happened in Earth orbit, all our visions of Kessler Syndrome would be laughable by comparison.

[CaptainKipard]

The Outer Space Treaty says that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means".

Now I don't know if that even applies to corporations or private citizens, but if it does it could slow the exploitation of asteroids considerably. After all capitalists aren't in the business of charity. Human civilisation has a lot of growing up to do before tech companies start working for the benefit of everyone, and not just themselves.

[Nuke]

i think resources collected in space should be used in space to build infrastructure there, not brought to earth.

[Klingon Admiral]

Now I don't know if that even applies to corporations or private citizens, but if it does it could slow the exploitation of asteroids considerably. After all capitalists aren't in the business of charity. Human civilisation has a lot of growing up to do before tech companies start working for the benefit of everyone, and not just themselves.

If I'm informed correctly, nations have responsibility for the corporations seated in them. Then again, every treaty is only as strongs as the means to enforce it, and I don't think we could regulate asteroid mining in any way.

[vger]

If I'm informed correctly, nations have responsibility for the corporations seated in them. Then again, every treaty is only as strongs as the means to enforce it, and I don't think we could regulate asteroid mining in any way.

Governments could try, but it would be expensive as all heck.

Even on this planet governments have trouble reeling their corporations in when they need to. Remember the BP oil spill?

[Klingon Admiral]

And this is why I see a scenario a la Nexus: The Jupiter Incident (that was an awesome game back in the day...) as the most likely outcome of space ressource utilisation.

[jwenting]

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

The main reason for asteroid mining is economical. It's far cheaper to bring a ton of materials back from the asteroid belt than to launch it up from earth.

Of course that only works if the volumes are high enough, so you can spread the initial investment in the equipment over a large enough volume.

And THAT means a long term large scale plan for orbital manufacturing (or just place the factories in the asteroid belt and transport only people and consumables not easily generated there, like luxury food).

[karolus10]

Water is the most valuable resource for space exploration you can get from asteroid belts... it could allow to produce propellant in space and supply it to propellant depot's on earth orbit and Lagrangian points, It could be a game changer for any future missions.

Edited March 29, 2014 by karolus10

[Seret]

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)!

That's not a realistic way to forecast future energy use.

Population wise, we're not expecting to grow continually. The growth rate has already started to slow, middle-of-the-road forecasts put us topping out at about 2100 with a population of 10 billionish.

Economically, after nations industrialise energy use substantially decouples from further economic growth, so there's no reason to assume demand will continue to grow endlessly. If the entire world stabilised at roughly current European levels of energy use we'd be looking at about 50TW.

It's not really a problem that calls for asteroid mining. Personally I don't think asteroid mining will ever be economical with any current or near-future technology. We'd either have to develop much cheaper access to space or in-space manufacturing (which is NOT a trivial challenge) to make it attractive.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Seret

[jwenting]

Time by time, the number of competitors will dwindle down, see what happened during the Age of Colonialism. The biggest fish in the pond will always try to eat anyone who is smaller than him. There are just no indigenous people this time who would really like to be independent. Furthermore, with proper in-situ ressource utilization, it might be hard to judge the true size of a asteroid mining program, as new vessels and installations are built in space and are not launched from Earth.

And while a world government is without doubt not desirable, control over space will be very useful to influence governmental policy.

yup. Either the space colonies will break off and hold earth hostage, or earth will find a way to hold them hostage with the biggest bully down on earth taking control of all launch assets by simply taking potshots at anything unauthorised that gets launched (and then throwing down a few big rocks on the launch site for good measure).

That's human nature, no amount of hippie style wishful thinking and rose coloured glasses is going to change that in any way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water is the most valuable resource for space exploration you can get from asteroid belts... it could allow to produce propellant in space and supply it to propellant depot's on earth orbit and Lagrangian points, It could be a game changer for any future missions.

heck, why make propellant? Use it as moderator and reaction mass both in NTRs, with the tanks acting as radiation shielding and water supply for the crew as well.

Edited March 29, 2014 by karolus10
double post merge

[Langkard]

Rare earths. We find more uses for them every day and they are much harder to find and mine than just about anything else. And mining the rare earths can be dangerous as well. The Chinese have perhaps the largest deposits so far discovered and they use leeching to extract the rare earths. Leeching is dangerous, highly polluting and expensive. Basically they poison an entire mountain side with sulfuric acid and other acids and then use further hazardous chemicals to extract the rare earths from the pools formed at the bottom of the hill. If we can find rare earths in asteroids, the costs (both monetary and ecological) will go down drastically, even including the cost of getting to the asteroids. Cheaper and more abundant rare earths means more uses discovered for them. It is amazing what rare earth metals can already accomplish and we're just scratching the surface.

We could have been mining the asteroids decades ago. I remember reading an article by Jerry Pournelle suggesting so back in the late 70's or early 80's in a sci-fi periodical. I don't remember which one. Perhaps it was Asimov or maybe earlier in the lost and lamented Galaxy magazine. That article was the first time I ever encountered the term Delta-V. Pournelle suggested in the article that we could reasonably setup an asteroid mining program for about the cost that we spend in the USA on pizza delivery each year. That was 30 years or more ago.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Langkard

[Nuke]

rare earths aren't as rare as you think they are. pretty much every rock on the planet has them. its just a matter of at which concentrations are most valuable (most material for the least cost). when the rich deposits are gone we will just move along to the less rich ones, start reclaiming landfills, employ extreme recycling means. all this stuff will happen long before getting them from asteroids becomes cheaper.

[RuBisCO]

That's not a realistic way to forecast future energy use.

Population wise, we're not expecting to grow continually.

THAT WHAT I'M SAYING!!!

The growth rate has already started to slow, middle-of-the-road forecasts put us topping out at about 2100 with a population of 10 billionish.

Economically, after nations industrialise energy use substantially decouples from further economic growth, so there's no reason to assume demand will continue to grow endlessly. If the entire world stabilised at roughly current European levels of energy use we'd be looking at about 50TW.

It's not really a problem that calls for asteroid mining. Personally I don't think asteroid mining will ever be economical with any current or near-future technology. We'd either have to develop much cheaper access to space or in-space manufacturing (which is NOT a trivial challenge) to make it attractive.

And I totally agree, but do you know what the social and political repercussions of a stagnant economy will be? For one technological progress has not slowed, automation keeps improving the amount of economic output possible per worker, yet demand is not growing enough anymore to match.

Anyways image we can create a Von Neumann machine to mine asteroids for us, much cheaper to launch, self replicating, in a few centuries all the processed and purified asteroid metals that come raining down would out-compete territorial mining as it would be technically free stuff.

[jwenting]

Governments could try, but it would be expensive as all heck.

Even on this planet governments have trouble reeling their corporations in when they need to. Remember the BP oil spill?

Which BP was handing just fine on its own until the government stepped in and started making it impossible for them to do so by introducing all kind of regulations that prevented them from letting their ships get out to clean up the spill, block the well, and do other needed things.

Regulations like blocking the Gulf ports for all but US crewed vessels, requiring all ships going out to be staffed by members of US labour unions, etc. etc. etc.

[vger]

yup. Either the space colonies will break off and hold earth hostage, or earth will find a way to hold them hostage with the biggest bully down on earth taking control of all launch assets by simply taking potshots at anything unauthorised that gets launched (and then throwing down a few big rocks on the launch site for good measure).

That's human nature, no amount of hippie style wishful thinking and rose coloured glasses is going to change that in any way.

Greed can only go so far though. Unlike Earth, where resources are limited, space is infinite. If the technology is there to propel us outward fast enough, using a reasonable amount of energy, "supply and demand" stands a chance at becoming an obsolete concept. Without that being a driving force in humanity, there won't be much point in being greedy. Everyone will be rich, and consequently, nobody will.

As far as the hippie outlook, I dunno... I think every human needs to go into high orbit and look back at the Earth one time. That might help shift a few perspectives far more effectively than an LSD trip.

[Stargate525]

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...

*snip*

...Wouldn't it be awesome to watch what happens?

I never knew that about the aluminum plates. Consider myself historied.

But considering:

-Iridium is stupidly strong at very high temperatures.

-Osmium is the densest metal that isn't going to decay on you

-Palladium is essential in the newer fuel cells and batteries

-Beryllium seems God-given as an aerospace metal (light, strong, conducts heat, etc.)

Bringing those prices down could very well change the world. 0.o But, the people who have investments in their portfolios of a kilo of Osmium or Platinum probably won't care about that, unless they're actually IN the industry.

The Outer Space Treaty says that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means".

And that treaty will last EXACTLY as long as it is in the best interests of whomever secretly arms (or has armed) space first.

Greed can only go so far though. Unlike Earth, where resources are limited, space is infinite. If the technology is there to propel us outward fast enough, using a reasonable amount of energy, "supply and demand" stands a chance at becoming an obsolete concept. Without that being a driving force in humanity, there won't be much point in being greedy. Everyone will be rich, and consequently, nobody will.

Misconception. Energy is practically limited, as are a large number of intangibles. There will only ever be so many Picassos, or apartments with a view over Central Park. Only one original Mona Lisa, Sistine Chapel, and Tiger I.

So unless we become a lot less appreciative of art and novelty, supply and demand would never die. It'll just become the realm of luxury, art dealerships, and museum collections.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Stargate525

[vger]

Bringing those prices down could very well change the world. 0.o But, the people who have investments in their portfolios of a kilo of Osmium or Platinum probably won't care about that, unless they're actually IN the industry.

And that's when lobbyists start jumping in, throwing around false propaganda about asteroid mining being too dangerous, unethical, etc.

Similar to how cannabis has been kept illegal for so long.

[Klingon Admiral]

The last time I checked, asteroids were excellent at killing stuff. Whoever thinks they could disrupt extraterrestrial ressource procurement, will incur the wrath of the guys who procure extraterrestial ressources. And as there are a lot of asteroids, letting one or two or two dozen impact the earth wouldn't make too much of a difference. Or, if one is more the fan of conventional weapons, how much fissible material is in a asteroid? Just break a vessel with a few nuclear-tipped reentry vehicles into orbit and declare the Outer Space Treaty defunct.

[Stargate525]

The last time I checked, asteroids were excellent at killing stuff. Whoever thinks they could disrupt extraterrestrial ressource procurement, will incur the wrath of the guys who procure extraterrestial ressources. And as there are a lot of asteroids, letting one or two or two dozen impact the earth wouldn't make too much of a difference. Or, if one is more the fan of conventional weapons, how much fissible material is in a asteroid? Just break a vessel with a few nuclear-tipped reentry vehicles into orbit and declare the Outer Space Treaty defunct.

Somehow, I don't think the 'buy our stuff or burn in nuclear hellfire' advertising campaign would be the best course of action for a company...

[Rakaydos]

Actually, I'd be more worries about an asteroid miner being hit with anti-monopoly laws. Never mind that they're intended to lower consumer prices by competition, the price difference will effectively MAKE it a monopoly, which has legal implications.

[jwenting]

Somehow, I don't think the 'buy our stuff or burn in nuclear hellfire' advertising campaign would be the best course of action for a company...

Seems to be working for Putin's Russia right now...

[vger]

If you're evil enough to threaten someone with raining death in order to get them to buy your product, why bother pretending to be a business anymore? Just change your name to Ming the Merciless and enslave the planet.

[Seret]

but do you know what the social and political repercussions of a stagnant economy will be?

I don't agree that the choice is either asteroid mining or a stagnant economy, if that's what you're saying.