4 ms·

I agree that cheaper launches will not do much to directly change the business of astroid mining. The majority of the cost, even today, are not related to rock

by max76 8y ago

I agree that cheaper launches will not do much to directly change the business of astroid mining. The majority of the cost, even today, are not related to rockets.

avmich 8y ago
> The majority of the cost, even today, are not related to rockets. "Even today". There is an opinion that payloads are so expensive because the launchers are expensive. I.e., you can't send replacements easily, because a launch is expensive, so you have to design the payload so that it wouldn't break, and last 9-s of reliability cost additional 0-s in price. In other words, if launchers would become cheaper, that would encourage sending more payloads which isn't designed to be as reliable and serve as long. If something happens, just send a replacement. The issue of space junk comes to mind, but if launches are cheaper you can include into the launched mass the active means of dealing with space junk, like fuel for deorbiting.
- max76 8y ago
  Asteroid mining would require brand new technology. We cannot crash an entire asteroid into Earth's surface, we would need to do zero g mineral processing, regardless of how the minerals are ultimately used. This is a task no one has ever done before. How do you estimate the cost of doing something like this? I'm not qualified, but I do know if a traditional mining organization decided to mine an asteroid the launch costs would be a small line item in their budget.
  - avmich 8y ago
    The traditional NASA ideology is risk averse. It's way easier for them to spend billions doing all kinds of tests and modelling to ensure mission success on the first try. This looks suspiciously related to unwillingness to do multiple similar missions on the side of the customer - i.e. Congress in this case. Once in 1990-s there was an attempt to do things "faster, better, cheaper", which today could be named "move fast and break things", but with some inevitable failures the approach fell out of favor. As for asteroid mining, Caterpillar was considering lunar base operation equipment on a previous iteration (G.W.Bush program). You probably right, they'd present a hefty bill, but I somehow doubt they'd offer something truly innovative. Maybe with new scrappy startups we can drastically slash those non-launch costs - then we'll come back again to the question of launch prices.
    - max76 8y ago
      > Maybe with new scrappy startups we can drastically slash those non-launch costs - then we'll come back again to the question of launch prices. Over time asteroid/moon mining is inevitable. Technology will develop (costs fall), and we'll exhaust the mineral supply of Earth (prices increase). I'm sure, among many other types of organizations, scrappy startups will help us get there.

by max76 8y ago

I agree that cheaper launches will not do much to directly change the business of astroid mining. The majority of the cost, even today, are not related to rockets.

avmich 8y ago

> The majority of the cost, even today, are not related to rockets. "Even today". There is an opinion that payloads are so expensive because the launchers are expensive. I.e., you can't send replacements easily, because a launch is expensive, so you have to design the payload so that it wouldn't break, and last 9-s of reliability cost additional 0-s in price. In other words, if launchers would become cheaper, that would encourage sending more payloads which isn't designed to be as reliable and serve as long. If something happens, just send a replacement. The issue of space junk comes to mind, but if launches are cheaper you can include into the launched mass the active means of dealing with space junk, like fuel for deorbiting.

max76 8y ago
Asteroid mining would require brand new technology. We cannot crash an entire asteroid into Earth's surface, we would need to do zero g mineral processing, regardless of how the minerals are ultimately used. This is a task no one has ever done before. How do you estimate the cost of doing something like this? I'm not qualified, but I do know if a traditional mining organization decided to mine an asteroid the launch costs would be a small line item in their budget.
- avmich 8y ago
  The traditional NASA ideology is risk averse. It's way easier for them to spend billions doing all kinds of tests and modelling to ensure mission success on the first try. This looks suspiciously related to unwillingness to do multiple similar missions on the side of the customer - i.e. Congress in this case. Once in 1990-s there was an attempt to do things "faster, better, cheaper", which today could be named "move fast and break things", but with some inevitable failures the approach fell out of favor. As for asteroid mining, Caterpillar was considering lunar base operation equipment on a previous iteration (G.W.Bush program). You probably right, they'd present a hefty bill, but I somehow doubt they'd offer something truly innovative. Maybe with new scrappy startups we can drastically slash those non-launch costs - then we'll come back again to the question of launch prices.
  - max76 8y ago
    > Maybe with new scrappy startups we can drastically slash those non-launch costs - then we'll come back again to the question of launch prices. Over time asteroid/moon mining is inevitable. Technology will develop (costs fall), and we'll exhaust the mineral supply of Earth (prices increase). I'm sure, among many other types of organizations, scrappy startups will help us get there.