E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSX Prize creator Peter Diamandis and Eric Anderson launched a new company with lofty ambitions: mining asteroids. MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan reports.
Space entrepreneurs laid out a lot of the details for their billionaire-backed plan to extract resources from near-Earth asteroids today, but other details — such as how much they've received in investments, or exactly how they'll get their hands on precious water and precious metals — are still being held close to the vest.
If Planetary Resources is as successful as its founders hope, it could be bringing a fortune in platinum and gold back to Earth within the next decade or two, and supplying outer-space filling stations with water, fuel and air for interplanetary travelers. The company could tap into trillions of dollars' worth of space resources. But the venture could also go bust, just as some of the first European trading companies did when they came to the Americas centuries ago.
"There's a significant probability that we may fail," company co-chairman Eric Anderson acknowledged during today's big reveal at Seattle's Museum of Flight.
At least two things are certain: Planetary Resources is already bringing in income, and it's intending to launch real hardware within two years. "This company is not about paper studies. .... We're not just talking about it. We've done enough of that," Anderson said.
The company was founded in 2009 by Anderson and Peter Diamandis, but flew under the radar until last week. Both men have had long experience with space and technology ventures: Anderson heads Space Adventures, the company that has brokered eight private-passenger trips to the International Space Station. He also serves as president of Intentional Software, the company founded by billionaire space traveler Charles Simonyi. Diamandis is co-founder of the X Prize Foundation (which awarded a $10 million spaceflight prize in 2004), Zero G Corp. (which puts passengers on zero-gravity airplane flights) and the Rocket Racing League (which is currently in neutral).
Stephen Brashear / Getty Images
Planetary Resources' president and chief engineer, Chris Lewicki, shows off a full-scale mockup of the Arkyd Series 100 space telescope during a news conference at Seattle's Museum of Flight. "Good morning, everyone. I'm Chris Lewicki, and I'm an asteroid miner," he told the crowd.
This latest venture has the backing of Simonyi as well as other billionaires, ranging from Google's Larry Page and Eric Schmidt to Silicon Valley's Ram Shriram and Texas' Ross Perot Jr. (son of the former third-party presidential candidate). The company's advisers include filmmaker/adventurer James Cameron and astronaut/scientist Tom Jones.
Planetary Resources
An informational graphic explains Planetary Resources' perspective on a future "gold rush." Click on the image for a larger version.
Planetary Resources' executives declined to say how much the backers were putting into the business, but Diamandis touted them as "risk-tolerant investors" who were prepared to support the venture for decades. He also said "the company is cash-flow positive at this point," with about 20 engineers working at the company's headquarters in Bellevue, Wash. And there are still more openings to fill, which is a big reason why the company's executives decided to go public now.
Former Mars mission manager Chris Lewicki, who serves as the company's president and chief engineer, said the company had a contract with NASA to share data about the development a laser-equipped spacecraft system that combined imaging, optical communications and navigation. He hinted that there were other contracts as well, but wouldn't provide details.
Step 1: Launch space telescopes
The system will be used on Planetary Resources' first-generation spacecraft, the Arkyd Series 100 space telescope, also known as Leo. As Lewicki told me in a previous interview, the Arkyd Series 100 will serve as the company's Earth-orbiting survey telescope for identifying asteroids. It will also be sold to other parties for use as a "personal space telescope" or Earth-imaging satellite. He said the price tag for the telescope would be on the order of tens of millions of dollars, and eventually mere millions of dollars.
The Leo telescope would be built to have "multi-tool or Swiss Army knife capability," Lewicki said. Its imager would be capable of doing spectral analysis of near-Earth asteroids, to determine their chemical composition. There'd also be a camera mounted on a boom so it could take pictures of itself. The Museum of Flight's president, Doug King, said he and his institutional colleagues might someday consider becoming customers.
With a mass of 66 to 110 pounds (30 to 50 kilograms), the spacecraft would be small enough to launch as a secondary "rideshare" payload on any of a variety of launch vehicles, including the SpaceX Falcon, the Russian Dnepr or the European Ariane. The first launch is expected within two years, Anderson said.
Planetary Resources' prime targets would be among the estimated 1,500 asteroids that are energetically easier to get to than the moon. The team would be looking for water-rich or metal-rich asteroids that come close enough to Earth for a more detailed survey to be made.
Step 2: Go beyond Earth orbit
The asteroid survey effort would continue with the Arkyd Series 200 "Interceptor," which would be equipped with a propulsion system and scientific instruments as well as an imager. Such craft could be placed into geosynchronous Earth orbit as a secondary payload — then identify, track and fly past asteroids that happen to come between Earth and the moon. Lewicki told me that the interceptor craft could get "up-close and personal" with a near-Earth asteroid within five years.
Planetary Resources
An artist's conception shows the Arkyd Series 200 spacecraft tracking an asteroid.
Planetary Resources
A swarm of Arkyd Series 300 spacecraft conducts reconnaissance on an asteroid.
Step 3: Swarm around an asteroid
The Arkyd Series 300 "Rendezvous Prospector" spacecraft would incorporate the laser-based communication system, enabling a swarm of probes to surround a distant asteroid for coordinated reconnaissance. "Within a decade, we hope to have identified our first target that we'll start extracting resources from," Diamandis told me. The Series 300 would demonstrate technologies that could be used for interplanetary missions by NASA or other entities.
Lewicki said the mission plan called for sending multiple low-cost spacecraft so that the failure of one probe wouldn't doom the mission. "When failure is not an option, success gets really expensive," he quipped.
Step 4: Get the goods
Later generations of spacecraft would have the capability to extract water from carbonaceous asteroids. If there's power available for a space processing system, the water could be broken down into hydrogen for rocket fuel and oxygen for breathable air. Such materials could be stockpiled in orbital or deep-space fuel depots, to be fed to spacecraft in need of a fill-up. Diamandis said a 165-foot-wide (50-meter-wide) asteroid with 20 percent water ice content could provide enough hydrogen and oxygen to power every space shuttle that ever blasted off.
The first goal for resource extraction would probably be a water-bearing asteroid, Diamandis told me, but eventually techniques would be developed for extracting gold and platinum-group metals from promising asteroids and returning the shipments to Earth. Platinum-group metals are particularly valued because they're used in a wide variety of high-tech devices, ranging from consumer electronics to fuel cells for electric vehicles. Platinum currently goes for more than $1,500 an ounce, which makes it almost as costly as gold.
If those valuable metals could be brought back from space at an affordable price, that could create a multitrillion-dollar shift in high-tech markets.
Hurdles to overcome
That's a big "if." In order for Step 4 to succeed, there'd have to be sufficient demand for deep-space refueling. Right now, there's zero demand, but that could change if NASA actually goes through with its current plan to send astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid by the mid-2020s and to Mars and its moons by the mid-2030s.
Planetary Resources' long-term business plan assumes that in the next few decades, there'll be enough spaceship traffic to recover its investment in asteroid-mining infrastructure. The precise shape of that infrastructure is yet to be determined: One illustration provided by Planetary Resources shows swarms of spacecraft doing strip mining, while another shows a water-bearing asteroid being enveloped by a huge inflatable shell.
One option might be to capture a small asteroid and bring it closer to Earth for processing. This month, a study prepared for the Keck Institute for Space Studies at Caltech determined it would be feasible to capture a 500-ton, 23-foot-wide (7-meter-wide) asteroid and transport it to a lunar-scale orbit. Mission cost was estimated at $2.6 billion, which is about the same cost as NASA's Mars Science Laboratory mission. The members of the study group included Lewicki and Jones as well as John Lewis, who has been studying the prospects for asteroid mining for decades and is serving as an adviser to Planetary Resources.
Mining a 23-foot-wide asteroid won't produce as much of a payoff as the 165-foot-wide asteroid that Diamandis had in mind, but the bigger the asteroid, the more difficult it would be to bring it closer to Earth. There might also be risks associated with moving space rocks or even platinum shipments around our planet's celestial neighborhood.
"The energy equivalent of a medium-sized 'ore wagon' in space, if it fell to Earth, would be on the order of a hydrogen bomb," NBC space analyst James Oberg said in an email. (That might be an exaggeration. The fireball that blazed over California and Nevada early Sunday is thought to have been caused by a meteor about the size of a minivan, with the energy equivalent of 3.8 kilotons of TNT. That's roughly a quarter of the explosive power of the Hiroshima atom bomb.)
"Carl Sagan long ago warned that building asteroid-deflecting technologies had a dark side — the same technology could be used to steer asteroids directly at Earth for military threats," Oberg wrote. "Fortunately, Sagan's fears were science-based and not spaceflight operationally based. It turns out to take far too long — years in flight — to actually drop a space rock on Earth. And the ability to deflect space objects safely away from Earth, or into commercial mining zones, is nowhere near accurate enough to do the opposite — aim for Earth itself.
"But the issue is a perfect rallying cry for environmental activists who can be counted on to rally against this looting of heaven's virginal treasures."
If Planetary Resources' long-term plan is successful, that could force nations to face the long-dormant issue of property rights in outer space. Oberg said widescale commercial exploitation of space resources could spark a diplomatic outcry, "at least until the United Nations gets some acknowledged 'tax' on any space-based profits." That issue is at least a decade away, however.
Even if Planetary Resources doesn't hit its long-term goal, the earlier phases of its business plan — the data deals and the spacecraft sales — would still give the billionaires an opportunity to recoup their investment. And it's virtually certain that other companies will eventually join the fray. For example, a venture called Moon Express is chasing after a share of the $30 million Google Lunar X Prize and making plans for mining operations on the moon. Just today, Moon Express announced the expansion of its scientific advisory board.
"We don't believe you have to wait around for a date with a near-Earth object," Bob Richards, the venture's co-founder and CEO, told me in an email. "If you want to mine asteroids, go to the moon — they have been bombarding the moon for billions of years."
How would you rate the chances for Planetary Resources, Moon Express and other would-be extraterrestrial miners? Feel free to cast your vote and/or leave a comment.
More about space resources:
- Asteroid mining venture starts with space telescopes
- Google billionaires back space resource venture
- Could legal loophole lead to extraterrestrial land claims?
- Private property in outer space? It's debatable
- To infinity and beyond: Investing in space travel
- How to make the moon pay
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
I say more power to them. We need more people daring to bring dreams boldly into reality.
For some reason, I don't mind rich people being greedy about resources on an asteroid nearly as much as when they cut down the rainforests or drill into the pristine Arctic. Besides, lets be real-- it sounds pretty cool!
Visionaries like this are the people that drive our future. Their dreams may be decades away from being realized, but without the dream and the people willing to invest in making it a reality, we would never get anywhere. I think we are decades away from being able to successfully mine an asteroid as a profitable venture but, with the rate we are using our current planetary resources, this is definitely something we will need in the future. These efforts will also result in the development of new technologies that may have uses far beyond that for which they were originally developed. I wish them all much success.
I suppose the downside is when they screw up the orbit of one and it heads for an earthly collision. Who does space or space material like asteroids belong to? Can you just stake a claim on one and call it yours? I question whether or not there could be enough valuable material on a relatively small asteroid to make it worth while. Earthbound mining operations need to be pretty large scale to be profitable and it seems like the cost associated with space mining would be far greater. I suppose that if you found the right asteroid, it could be more concentrated that earth ores, but even the, do you process the ore in space or bring it back to be processed? Bringing back large volumes of anything would be an issue. Controlling and protecting large volumes of material would require significant braking energy and a large craft. I'm not convinced this will be viable for a long time.
I suppose there are people with just far too much wealth so they will take a chance on development, but how long do they stay in without a substantial return? I guess this is a few of those "job creators" finding other things to waste money on instead of creating jobs in an earthbound business. These investors are just taking a high stakes gamble rather than investing wisely. Makes me angry to think that somebody's tax cut money is getting invested in crazy schemes like this with the ultimate goal of just getting richer. I'd rather see that money going to help people right here on earth.
Maybe some new technology could come out of it and maybe many years from now it becomes necessary because of exhausting earthly resources, but I see this more about personal gains rather than gains for mankind. Doesn't really sound like an economy booster.
umm... the problem is the reality part here.
It would be easier to build a Star Wars "death star" then do this.
get a grip on yourselves people.
Really..
B-Realistic - Did you even read the article, or just jump to the comments to troll?
Gentlemen, Do we REALLY want the UN involved in this?
No, it would not be easier to build a death star. Have you even thought about what all would be involved in building a death star?? First of all you'd need a small moon's worth of material resources, and where are you going to mine up all that material?? ... oh I'm afraid the deflector shield will be quite operational when your friends arrive.
Really.. Asteroid mining is much easier than building a space station the size of a small moon.
Hell, screw the Deathstar, lets build a Ringworld and then a Dyson sphere! That's easy! ;)
Well, it's not a full on Death Star - at least not something Alderaan needs to worry about yet - but consider this article on IEEE Spectrum: http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/backyard-star-wars/ ... the "Mosquito Shootdown" video was entertaining.
So, I'd say that although the engineering and economic challenges are numerous and daunting, this is an intriguing plan that should be taken seriously. I hope they at least get to the point of launching several satellites and doing some survey work to see if the business case can be made for next steps.
Hell, screw the Deathstar, lets build a Ringworld and then a Dyson sphere! That's easy! ;
gentlemen, might I remind you we are not, yet, a class five civilization, not even a class one civilization yet in fact!!...why on vulcan it was ten thousand years before we......
1NewDay - they are spending the money here on earth.
The money they spend on research goes into the pockets of scientists and engineers. The money they spend on hardware will go into small companies that make wire and plastic. The money they spend on catering for their meetings will go into local cafes and bakeries. Those people take they money they earn and spend it on rent, and food, and education for their kids.
It's not like they are taking several million dollar bills up into space and burning it...
Does anyone know just what is the specific impulse of American currency combusted with liquid oxygen assuming ideal expansion?
Seriously though, I don't think the big money is in transporting these raw materials down to earth. They would be much more valuable converted into space technology that doesn't need to be pushed out of earth's gravity well, at least the relatively small quantities that would be possible in the near future. Think gigawatt solar power stations beaming energy back to earth, or fleets of interplanetary probes and spacecraft.
An interesting prospect, but why assume that conservationists would complain about an alternative source of resources, one that would not denude are own enviroment... Do i sniff prejudice?
because that is what conservationist live for? Og course you will hear screams about messing with the space "environment"
Oh please. The point of environmentalism is not to safeguard some kind of sacred holy posessions, it is to protect and preserve the habitat in which we live because when that's ruined there's no spare planet we can just pack up and move to. The exploration of space is an excellent pursuit. If it does turn out to be feasable (and these guys admit over and over that it may not work out in the end yet they're still going to try), but if it does, it may provide the means of helping to clean up the environment down here by replacing dependance on fossil fuels with cheaper solar/electric options, as well as a tidy profit for the venture. This is environmentalism in action. Gaia-speed to ya, boys! And good luck!
Dennis,
You have a pretty distorted view of what conservationists are about. Just because we want to conserve precious resources here on Earth does not mean we want to conserve all those sterile, dead Asteroids. They are a resource we should fee free to exploit, since we will not be harming any species or ecosystem by doing so.
That is a very big assumption!
Environmentalists are worried about life on Earth and how it also keeps humanity alive. It takes a certain amount of it being operational for the whole of life to survive. It's also the right of life on this planet to continue living. I suppose there could be some bacteria and viruses living on some of those asteroids but I would be very surprised if the handful of astro-environmentalists that would try to make the case for said extraterrestrial bugs would get much support. Mining space will protect our planet from further exploitation.
dogma, there are some that ardently demand that we don't go into space "to pollute the universe with our waste" or some idiotic nonesense like that.
I am all for extracting our resources from places where we won't be ruining our ecosystem, places like space.
i can't wait for space pirates and the india dutch company in space!
It would usher in a new era, if we could access these resources profitably. Good luck!
And here's a promise that his particular tree-hugging environmentalist won't protest the wholesale plunder of the asteroid belt one bit. If there's no life there, any resources there are free for the taking as far as I'm concerned.
"Free" of course being metaphorical in the given context.
Extraction of hydrogen and oxygen, sure...water and air would most definitely be a commodity at any of our celestial destinations. However, it is my understanding the most economical means of extracting hydrogen and oxygen would be in situ - rather than bringing it in from an asteroid or, most definitely, than shipping it off world from Earth. Besides, nitrogen makes up the majority of any breathable atmosphere...what about that element? Extractable from asteroids? On the other hand, rocket fuel? Will we really need to rely on such chemical propulsion in ten years? Chemical propulsion seems to be the only way to get us off of Earth for the foreseeable future, but how necessary will it be as a means of deep space propulsion in ten years - especially with the recent advances in ion propulsion and the near-future potential for VASIMIR and nuclear engine alternatives? Weren't these developed to eliminate our reliance on cumbersome chemical propulsion to ferry ourselves/robotic spacecraft through deep space?
I could be wrong, but I do believe hydrogen can be used in VASIMR. We could also is it for fuel cells on the space craft if needed. And we'll still need chemical rockets if we want to put boots on Mars, and we'll need even more of it if we want to get those boots back OFF Mars afterwards. I would also bet that chemical rockets would make better precision maneuvering thrusters than the ion and VASIMR engines. So while hopefully the new engines will replace chemical for the long term flights, chemical rockets will still have a use until we can find some other high thrust device to boost out of a grav-well.
I thought VASIMR used electro-magnetism for propulsion. I love this stuff!!
Concerned citizen - It uses radio waves to ionize and heat propellant, and also a magnetic field to shield itself from the extreme heat of the plasma it produces. More details at the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR#Design_and_operation
Brokinarrow - we would most definitely need hydrogen to get out of a Martian gravity well (at least for the foreseeable future). I simply think this would be better served extracted in situ on the surface of Mars itself. Just seems to be reinventing the wheel a little to extract it from an asteroid, process it, and then ship it to Mars - when we could simply do it all on the Red Planet all along...
The first fuel sources will have to be shipped to Mars. We will not be able to process fuel from resources there until the infrastructure is established. You need mining or gathering equipment, processing plant, equipment to fill tanks and store until needed, etc.
The first folks there will be doing all they can just to get in and out of a ship.
Besides, hydrogen might not be feasible. It still needs oxygen to burn. Even if there is enough water on Mars to separate the hydrogen and oxygen, you get 2 hydrogens for ever Oxygen atom, and it takes two Os to make an Oxygen molecule available for burning. Still might not be practical.
Good point Mark, i suppose a further reason to mine the asteroids for hydrogen would be so that we could fuel the craft going to Mars in orbit instead of having to fuel it on Earth and increase the weight that much more. I know hydrogen is the lightest of the elements, but everything adds up when trying to launch things into orbit :-)
Hey, yeah, what a great idea! We've pillaged our planet to death, so now it's time to spread our disease into space! Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but it'll never happen. If you're among the many who have decided to deny the existence of an almighty Creator, get ready, because He's about to make his presence known to you, coming up very soon. Our greed will almost completely destroy us all. Almost!
I'll be waiting. In the mean time, since you aren't going to need your earthly possessions after this December, you can go ahead and send all your money over to me, I'll make sure it goes to a good cause ;-)
Charlie, you may want to carefully consider the implications of this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
Oh, and Charlie, quit bitting your brother's finger.
Charlie you ignorant slut!
I consulted with the Flying Spaghetti Monster this morning, and he assured me that all this talk about the end of the world is utter nonsense, now lighten up Francis!
Big air al, watch it. I referenced that skit before and was banned for a day by Sally. She is either too young to know about the original SNL cast, or she does not appreciate the greats.
Thanks, was just getting ready to sign off and read your post, gave me a good laugh to go to sleep on.
I like the comment just below about the flying Spaghetti Monster to! I feel muchhhhhhh safer now! Oh and like brokinarrow mentioned, you obviously don't need your earthly goods being one of the chosen few and all, how about donating them to a good cause...say space exploration!!
In all seriousness, you have yourself a good end of the world come December or whenever, we will continue to move ahead in the real world
Religion - because it's easier to blindly believe one simple book than understand lots of difficult ones.
@ SolveForX
HAHAHAH, oh man I need that as a poster!
Reminds me of climate "science" and the massive waste of money going to various "alternatives" for energy: the proponents don't seem to have any sense of scale. The air is free, the sunlight is free the asteroids are free....so producing "something" must be cost effective. Wrong. A 500 ton asteroid might be made orbital....so what. Asteroids aren't made of gold and 500 tons is a paltry sum in the mining game. Rich man's folly.
Do you know how I know you don't know anything about the composition of asteroids?
GEllis,
I'm curious if you have a sense of scale regarding the finite amount of energy sources left on Earth, and why "alternatives" are necessary now. You don't wait until the last of the oil runs out, and the last wilderness is covered in black tar, before looking into alternate ways to accomplish the same thing (and cleaner too).
Also, climate "science" is a fact. We know a lot about how are planet works, and what we are doing to change how it works, in both large and small ways. If you refer to climate change/global warming, I suggest you do some research on sea level and melting glaciers in the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland (Discovery Channel's recent Frozen Planet series did an awesome job looking at these). If you still don't believe something is happening to change Earth's climate (man made or natural), I have a nice patch of dirt for you to stick your head in.
Gellis="jealous of those that have an education"
I wouldn't say never...but I figure this will not happen for a few centuries.
Fortunately the people in charge of this company have the vision and drive to make it happen, unlike some people -_-
Imagine if Columbus had said the same thing.
Then maybe the Aztecs would have discovered Europe?
@ TonyInDallas
Oh sweet irony that alternate world would be:
XD Nice one!
Thanks, but I think Fox is still better at rewriting history
But wouldn't there be a land rush as all the Tribes Moved and Settled the New World of Europe? Possibly for religious (non-sacrificing) reasons? Or to spread the word of the second coming of Quetzalcoatl?
I'm going to go with blood sacrifices. Everyone knows that the gods favor most the brave warriors adorned with the teeth and pelts of the pale Britons.
Quetzalcoatl returns every year, so that's inconsequential so long as the blood rite is made and the requisite ears of corn are provided. The flying snake god is ornery and demands his tribute in a timely fashion if we are to be bestowed with his gifts!
^_^
:) well said!
^_^
Taking away the fun, I thought Quetzalcoatl was a legendary king that died and was going to come back and rule after so many thousands of years.
This is one reason that the natives readily accepted the Christian religion (similar premis) until the natives noticed that the preachers did not practice what they preached. (I've heard this somewhere, but I'm at a loss as to where. Could be BS)
Nothing turns the converts off like not following your own rules.
We're both right
Quetzalcoatl is both a flying, feathered serpent and basically Aztec-Jesus
Yeah, I knew about the feathered snake, kind of the Jesus-dove thing.
But I would still like to see the revisionist history.
ROFLMAO, preachers not practicing what they preach? then they must have been "saved, not perfect" LOL
Most of this is science fiction, which we all know is mostly impracticable. The first step is to get back up to the moon, somehow emulating the rubber bands and chewing gum which composed 1960's tech.
Actually, it was duct tape which turned out to be the handiest.
I thought elbow grease was also important? But that stuff can't be bottled! Always gotta keep making that $*(@ fresh!
Isaac Asimov and geostationary communications satellites
for an example of "impracticable"
Wouldn't it be easier to just mine the moon? We already have some pretty well tested technology.
You'd use a lot more fuel getting to and getting back off of the moon than a near Earth asteroid.
What I'd like to understand is why you want to put mines on the moon in the first place. It's not like the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea...the harsh environment of space alone should be more than enough to deter most would-be attackers...and don't forget the hungry moon-spiders
But with all the craters, you wouldn't have to dig foxholes.
.
Loose your train of thought?
Just on my period
LOL
Nah...I started on about this diatribe of the limitations of trench warfare in a near vacuum and low gravity environment as the concept of digging in sold regolith is fruitless given the cost in oxygen for actual astronauts and having robots dig ditches to shoot from is equally pointless as robots don't mind spending an eternity on their bellies in the dirt unlike humans.
Then I went all peacenik hoping that war would be outdated by the time we make it into deep space, and then cynically said stated that we probably just need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to killing each other in space.
I figured it was all a waste...thus ."
Ah, too many trains. Which one to jump on?
I was just adding to the "mining the Moon" humor you started.
Unfortunately, if we go into space, we will eventually go to war in space. It seems inevitable for our species. Unless we have a common threat, like hungry moon-spiders.
I really should be working instead of talking about moon-spiders, but I would rather my work WAS hunting moon-spiders.
My work IS hunting moon spiders
/Do what you love and you never work a day in your life
//LOL...my real job is a lot more boring
Mine, too.
Would need better sensing equipment then we have now. There is a lot of just plain worthless rock out there, and not all ice is water. They could spend a lot of time and money chasing junk and plain iron. May take a good shot of just plain luck, but who knows what they may find? 'luck, fellas.
That's why the first stage of the plan, as detailed in the article, is to build and launch a telescope with the primary mission of spectrographically scanning candidate asteroids to see which ones are worth pursuing.
science fiction, this is not, but "Pie in the Sky" it is.
Just imagine the probability that there really is significant amounts of "gold and platinum" up there ! How many pieces of space dirt will have to be located and scanned, not to mention probed for mining.
Yes, we certainly have the technology to make the next step in that direction, but it will be a century or more, not decades,, before this kind of leap will be truly "cash positive", not just mining the dream-dollars from wealthy contributors.
There are plenty, more important and beneficial programs that their money could be spent on, such as curing orphan diseases, bringing water and electricity to third world societies, eliminating diseases like alzheimers, ALS, cancer, MS, AIDS, etc. etc..... These are NOW, not a century away.
Oh ye of little faith...
There's other people already working on all of those things. I'm just glad to see that these guys who have made bazillions in their various businesses are willing to go out on a limb and risk a substantial portion of it to try and accomplish something never attempted and barely even dreamed of by most of the rest of us.
imagine?
Platinum group metals are typically 100s to 1,000s of times more abundant in stony and iron meteorites. This is because platinum group metals 'love' iron and are mostly bound up in our planets' iron core, and the crustal rocks we see are massively depleted as a result.
Not to mention all of the exotic minerals floating around in abundance in space.
Heck, I read an article recently that stated that Bucky Balls were discovered just floating around a giant nebula! WTF, it's amazing that what was once just a theory and then a fleeting particle crafted in an accelerator, is now found in natural form in space
I can't even imagine what sort of other fascinating things we can find and also manufacture in space!
they made a mistake, they were really a bunch of really tiny dyson spheres
Around really tiny stars?
you mean you don't know about nano-stars?
LOL
I can see a problem, which is this.
Any mining operation is likely to involve drilling, and drilling will produce crud. On earth, crud falls handily to the ground, but space crud will presumably behave in three different ways, according to the velocity with which it leaves the surface.
Crud with a really low velocity will (very gently) settle back down, and be retained on the surface by the asteroid's miserably low gravity. Crud with a higher velocity will fly off into space. Crud with an intermediate velocity will likely hang around in a cloud around the asteroid.
As ships come in, they will presumably have to match their velocity to the asteroid, so therefore accelerate/decelerate. At a far distance, they will have a high velocity relative to the asteroid, and therefore relative to the crud. Crud B will therefore hit ships very occasionally, but with disastrous consequences.
By the time ships encounter Crud C their velocity will be more closely matched to the asteroid, but it will still damage sensors and whatnot on the ship's surface, and so on. Individual collisions would be less damaging, but the incidence would be greater.
Has the question of crud been considered?
In one part of their concept video it shows them enclosing the asteroid, presumably with a fabric that would be similar to Bigelow Aerospace's expandable space stations. So that's one solution, and I'm sure they're looking into more.
/facepalm
Catch it, squeeze it, heat it. You have lots of sunlight out there = heat and electrical power. Turn the dust into handy pre-fabricated building material that is porous and therefore light and a good insulator.
The major problem is propulsion. It takes 2 - 3 *years* to get just to Mars. The asteroid belt of our solar system is further out, between Mars and Jupiter. Just getting there in a reasonable time span will require a new and better form of propulsion, which in turn will require a new and better form of energy generation. And NO, nuclear propulsion is NOT going to do. Nobody wants the Russian Roulette scenario of a failed craft crashing back to a random spot on Earth and spreading nuclear fallout over wide areas of land. People will want public executions - or outright war, failing executions - of the people responsible for such permanently polluting fallout - not worth the risk.
In short, we will need a Manhattan Project on energy generation prior to any feasible space travel, colonization or exploitation. We need quantum-level energy generation, free of the environmental and social problems of current energy generation technology (nuclear, fossil fuels, etc). Given the myopia of our corporate research on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, I doubt we'll see any profitable space exploration for the next 25 years or so. Only when a crisis point occurs will our scientists be listened to, and a desperate search for new energy generation will occur. The government has failed to sponsor open research on new energy generation techniques, so it's up to the risk-averse corporate and independently wealthy sectors to foot the bill for the research. Or, in other words, only when the wealthy are in fear of their lives will we be able to leave this planet.
Unless the US government steps up, that is. However, our nearly-police-state government, paranoid about keeping secrets to itself, won't do it until it rules the world (and no one will be able to use the new technology against it - they remember the Soviet Union getting nuclear technology through leaks). Don't hold your breath on this one.
The_Answer_Is_Simple: Please read the article before commenting, kthxbai! Also, when Mars and Earth orbits are closest it takes about 9 months to get to Mars, not 2 or 3 years.
Indeed, Hohmann transfer to Mars is roughly 8.5 months, not 2-3 years. That's completely irrelevant to this company, though, as they're going after near-earth asteroids, some of which have a lower delta-v requirement than landing on the moon, let alone getting to Mars.
There's no need for magical zero point energy or any of the rest of the stuff you're talking about.
Simple Answers, also read up on "trojan asteroids" which will be fairly easy to reach at the L4 and L5 Lagrange points within our own orbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_asteroid#Trojan_asteroids
2010 TK7 was confirmed as the first known Earth trojan in 2011. It is located in the L4 Lagrangian point, which lies ahead of Earth.[12] If there's one, there's gotta be more.
Trip time to Mars is about 8 months, not 3 years. Going to Mars, waiting for launch window to earth, going back to earth is what takes 3 years.
The are a multitude of asteroids closer to us than the main belt. Try Googling "Near Earth Asteroids"
/redundant
The reason it takes so long is that it's very hard to get large qualtities of propellant up into orbit. They use Hohmann transfers precisely because they are the most fuel efficient.
Imagine instead if fuel wasn't an issue, if you could launch your rocket up into orbit leaving just enough fuel to make it to where someone has parked all the liquid oxygen and hydrogen you could suck into your tanks. Better still, where you could attach some extra large tanks that have been manufactured out in space. No need for a Hohmann transfer anymore, just aim at Mars and let rip.
And of course, more oxygen and hydrogen in orbit around Mars for your return trip.
Now, if we could just figure out where to get the water to make the oxygen and hydrogen, the sunlight to power electrolysis to split it and some metal ores to make the extra tanks...
@ SolveForX
If we were crazy and daring enough to launch a reactor the size of a nuclear submarine's into orbit and had it power a massive VASSIMR or some other energy drive-array, fuel would be far less of an issue.
I'm hoping that with space-mining, we'll be able to collect the radioactive materials up there, and maybe with space-fabrication, craft our own fuel rods and a reactor assembly that we could use to power a spacecraft, and thus entirely forgo the risk associated with an airburst of radioactive materials in the event of catastrophic failure during launch.
Oh, and one more thing. Lots and lots of new platinum and gold = lots of platinum and gold on market = overload of rare metals on market = NO LONGER RARE metals on market = NO PROFIT.
Unless they cartel the new metals, and meter out the stuff like the diamond market (there's tons of diamonds on Earth, but the market keeps the price artificially high). So much for "free trade".
It's not "pie in the sky", it's a waste of time at this point. Once the new propulsion technology is there, you can mine entire planets - why bother with free-floating asteroids in a hazard-rich asteroid belt?
Damn editing problem inherent in the site screwed up my edit to this post.
Anyway, you can see the problem at its core here. Would any company trading in these rare things (diamonds, rare earth metals, fossil fuels) risk allowing space travel, knowing that there might be a new "gold rush" by everyone with a little cash, and possibly finding new supplies so vast that the prices for those rare things would bottom out completely?
The answer is simple: NO. Who would bite the hand that feeds them? If our politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) would risk revolution to keep the wealthy in power, why would we expect the wealthy to do anything that would risk their own fortunes and necks?
They won't, not until a global crisis occurs. Only then will the effort be exerted to get us off this planet, and even then, only in ways that are strictly controlled by the dominant corporate and wealthy interests of the planet. You need only look at our US government's treasure trove of military secrets for proof. If our government gets any more paranoid about our military secrets, it will turn our country into a police state.
If you like this arrangement, fine. If you don't, start your own research into new energy generation, and once you achieve it, give it away freely, to everyone (like Jonas Salk with the polio vaccine). That way, everyone will share in the new wealth that is to come. Otherwise, enjoy your lot in life - you've earned it.
I can see the smile on Ben Bova's face right now. Bring on the "Asteroid Wars". :-)
The asteroid belt is not hazardous. It is very sparse. It is nothing like portrayed in Star Wars and other sci-fi movies.
Also, there are a lot of uses for gold and platinum in manufacturing and technology. Demand = profit. Gold and platinum are not just for jewelry.
The idea is that you would have so MUCH of the rare metals that even at reduced prices you'd make multiple tons of money.
Oh man! That's literally thousands of £'s!
/me thinks metric'd ya with this Yuan, if ¥-o what I mean
Answer is Simple-
You are a bit all over the place with your comments - and somewhat melodramatic. But I do agree with one point you consistently make in your posts - that is that truly meaningful exploration (and exploitation??) of the solar system will require far more powerful and efficient propulsion systems than we currrently possess. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't use the best technology available to acheive a goal. I applaud the daring and vision displayed by these people and will be the first to congratulate them if they are successful.
Brokinarrow-
Thanks for the info on VASIMR
Very interesting ... though as the market is saturated with the metals they will be mining, I see the price of them going down of course. At this point would it still be as profitable as it is now? I could see the primary objectives being scrapped when there just is no profit to be made anymore. But, hopefully by then there will be many outposts and stations set up permanently so that regardless of the profit or lack there-of at that point there will still be the ability to carry on with other activities in space in a much easier capacity (fill stations, outposts, etc).
This is exciting. I remember reading a sci fi story about 25 years ago about mining the asteroids, may have been by Bova. Sounds like they're taking Brooks' "fast, cheap and out of control" approach to space exploration into account also.
Sure it won't be profitable right away but the advancement in hydrogen technology alone will be beneficial. I look forward to following the progress of this and other similar ventures.
Hopefully our great grandchildren (or earlier) will reap the fruits of such investments today.
This is just the beginning! It is a fact that the mineral riches of our solar system are vast and available...in time human engineering will figure out how to obtain and make use of the potential.The most significant importance, to me, re this latest 'Dreamliner', is that an NGO consortium has been formed with the specific intent to mine an exTer object. However, at this date it seems an overreach to try and mine a NearEarth asteroid. Finding one suitable is hard enough but then you have to catch it! They are in motion, travel at high speed and are on orbits that arc way out into space. The object is 'near earth' only for a very short time. It seems far more reasonable and more at hand to prospect on The Moon, which is so very convenient. The Moon travels with us and isn't going anywhere without us. NEA mining efforts will have all kinds of problematic situations to overcome, many of which have been noted in this blog. And of course there is the matter of return on investment. If it takes billions to make milions, the efforts will be shortlived.
See my link to Trojan Asteroids in post #14.3
So doesn't that make this post of yours a trojan post to your prior at 14.3?
Remember when we went to the Moon, it was said we'd not be able to do it as there was too much weight required, too much this and too much that. We made it, right?
We NEED that spirit of innovation again, we need that level of testicular fortitude that no matter the obstacle we will prevail.
What do we have today? A collection of corporate technologists whose only pursuit is extending the existing technology as long as possible to squeeze as much profit from that existing technology w/o innovating. Why do you think that we're still running the world on 19th century technology and fossil fuels.
Quoting Teddy Roosevelt:
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat"
We need that again.