4 ms·

The best advocate of that I could find is Isaac Arthur on YouTube[1]. He explains it so well, including why a technology-advanced civilization (not much more th

by K0SM0S 7y ago

The best advocate of that I could find is Isaac Arthur on YouTube[1]. He explains it so well, including why a technology-advanced civilization (not much more than us) would see an asteroid coming straight to earth as a great economic opportunity to mine lots of stuff. Nowhere near a problem. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g

DuskStar 7y ago
> see an asteroid coming straight to earth as a great economic opportunity to mine lots of stuff. I hope he didn't actually say that, because it would betray a rather fundamental mistake in space travel - that of distance vs delta v.
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  Would you care to explain? His idea is simple: an asteroid is but a huge pile of resources, so instead of having to go e.g. to the belt and back (that's the major cost for space mining, especially from Earth to there — out of our gravity well), you essentially get a 'freebee' coming right to you. With enough tech, you can mine it and shrink it enough it's not even a hazard for earth, or deviate it enough to put it into orbit or slingshot it towards a handy location, whatever. It's rare enough an event (65 million years and counting?) that it would be a nice space-candy for a budding space civilization. In such a slightly more advanced civilization, you'd see news like "Space corporations get ready as major asteroid coming towards Earth is expected to yield x tons of useful materials, equivalent to n billion dollars saved compared to belt mining." Not to mention asteroids coming from beyond our system could contain exotic materials scarcely found around here.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Going to a near-earth asteroid and back takes time, but not delta v - or at least not nearly as much. There are thousands of asteroids within 8km/s of LEO [0], but the average asteroid on a collision course with earth will arrive with a velocity of ~17km/s (Or at least 10km/s from LEO). Basically, with a near earth asteroid you can make a Hohmann transfer there, mine the nice stuff, and a Hohmann transfer back home - and you can make sure to pick a platinum-iridium asteroid, or whatever it is that's most valuable. With an asteroid on a collision course, you probably won't have the years to spare to take such an efficient transfer, and you have to move the entire thing away from its collision course. A valuable asteroid with a 10,000,000km-class intercept a decade out might be really, really convenient. But most potential impactors aren't that friendly. > Not to mention asteroids coming from beyond our system could contain exotic materials scarcely found around here. Well, rare-earth minerals are called that for a reason - they're rare on Earth. Platinum-iridium asteroids are nice! But that doesn't require coming from outside our solar system. 0: https://www.asterank.com/ https://www.asterank.com/
    - K0SM0S 7y ago
      OK, I see. First of all thanks a lot for this link. Fantastic website! I genuinely had no idea the delta-v of so many asteroids was so small, compared to LEO. It fills me with 'educated hope', in regards to not-too-distant (in time) sustainable space industry — this and many other factors. Regarding Isaac Arthur (I'd link the video, but there's so many), he definitely doesn't make that kind of rookie mistake, so I assume it's more of a tongue-in-cheek remark, to address popular concerns and show solutions — drive the point that a space-faring civilization is equipped to deal with such 'problems'. About rare-Sun materials, I was more implying the possibility of finding isotopes or elements scarce in the belt and inner solar system — but you're right, even just the outer system is already full of useful stuff. You've convinced me that it does seem pretty improbable that we'd get such a good near-earth candidate during the short window of time when it would really help us a lot, though, assuming we don't take another millennia to get out there (and even then). Just curious, at the current pace (considering 1950-today) and barring any major stall/setback/boost (no WW3 etc), what would be your personal estimate for the first profitable mining operations? 10, 30, 100 years?
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        > Regarding Isaac Arthur (I'd link the video, but there's so many), he definitely doesn't make that kind of rookie mistake, so I assume it's more of a tongue-in-cheek remark, to address popular concerns and show solutions — drive the point that a space-faring civilization is equipped to deal with such 'problems'. I guess I should say that there is one other advantage of an asteroid that's already on a collision course - if you can aerocapture instead of doing that propulsively, you only really have to pay the delta v to get to the asteroid in the first place. The problem is that the asteroid might have structural issues that intense acceleration exposes, and that people might be a tad leery of having a large asteroid on a course where if you miss by 100km you kill a billion. > Just curious, at the current pace (considering 1950-today) and barring any major stall/setback/boost (no WW3 etc), what would be your personal estimate for the first profitable mining operations? 10, 30, 100 years? I'll say "10 years after we get cheap ($500/kg class) launches" - which might be within the decade, or might be never. I think asteroid mining might still be profitable at far higher launch costs, but the risk and the startup costs would be far higher to the point that it probably won't happen.

by K0SM0S 7y ago

DuskStar 7y ago

> see an asteroid coming straight to earth as a great economic opportunity to mine lots of stuff. I hope he didn't actually say that, because it would betray a rather fundamental mistake in space travel - that of distance vs delta v.

K0SM0S 7y ago
Would you care to explain? His idea is simple: an asteroid is but a huge pile of resources, so instead of having to go e.g. to the belt and back (that's the major cost for space mining, especially from Earth to there — out of our gravity well), you essentially get a 'freebee' coming right to you. With enough tech, you can mine it and shrink it enough it's not even a hazard for earth, or deviate it enough to put it into orbit or slingshot it towards a handy location, whatever. It's rare enough an event (65 million years and counting?) that it would be a nice space-candy for a budding space civilization. In such a slightly more advanced civilization, you'd see news like "Space corporations get ready as major asteroid coming towards Earth is expected to yield x tons of useful materials, equivalent to n billion dollars saved compared to belt mining." Not to mention asteroids coming from beyond our system could contain exotic materials scarcely found around here.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Going to a near-earth asteroid and back takes time, but not delta v - or at least not nearly as much. There are thousands of asteroids within 8km/s of LEO [0], but the average asteroid on a collision course with earth will arrive with a velocity of ~17km/s (Or at least 10km/s from LEO). Basically, with a near earth asteroid you can make a Hohmann transfer there, mine the nice stuff, and a Hohmann transfer back home - and you can make sure to pick a platinum-iridium asteroid, or whatever it is that's most valuable. With an asteroid on a collision course, you probably won't have the years to spare to take such an efficient transfer, and you have to move the entire thing away from its collision course. A valuable asteroid with a 10,000,000km-class intercept a decade out might be really, really convenient. But most potential impactors aren't that friendly. > Not to mention asteroids coming from beyond our system could contain exotic materials scarcely found around here. Well, rare-earth minerals are called that for a reason - they're rare on Earth. Platinum-iridium asteroids are nice! But that doesn't require coming from outside our solar system. 0: https://www.asterank.com/ https://www.asterank.com/
  - K0SM0S 7y ago
    OK, I see. First of all thanks a lot for this link. Fantastic website! I genuinely had no idea the delta-v of so many asteroids was so small, compared to LEO. It fills me with 'educated hope', in regards to not-too-distant (in time) sustainable space industry — this and many other factors. Regarding Isaac Arthur (I'd link the video, but there's so many), he definitely doesn't make that kind of rookie mistake, so I assume it's more of a tongue-in-cheek remark, to address popular concerns and show solutions — drive the point that a space-faring civilization is equipped to deal with such 'problems'. About rare-Sun materials, I was more implying the possibility of finding isotopes or elements scarce in the belt and inner solar system — but you're right, even just the outer system is already full of useful stuff. You've convinced me that it does seem pretty improbable that we'd get such a good near-earth candidate during the short window of time when it would really help us a lot, though, assuming we don't take another millennia to get out there (and even then). Just curious, at the current pace (considering 1950-today) and barring any major stall/setback/boost (no WW3 etc), what would be your personal estimate for the first profitable mining operations? 10, 30, 100 years?
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > Regarding Isaac Arthur (I'd link the video, but there's so many), he definitely doesn't make that kind of rookie mistake, so I assume it's more of a tongue-in-cheek remark, to address popular concerns and show solutions — drive the point that a space-faring civilization is equipped to deal with such 'problems'. I guess I should say that there is one other advantage of an asteroid that's already on a collision course - if you can aerocapture instead of doing that propulsively, you only really have to pay the delta v to get to the asteroid in the first place. The problem is that the asteroid might have structural issues that intense acceleration exposes, and that people might be a tad leery of having a large asteroid on a course where if you miss by 100km you kill a billion. > Just curious, at the current pace (considering 1950-today) and barring any major stall/setback/boost (no WW3 etc), what would be your personal estimate for the first profitable mining operations? 10, 30, 100 years? I'll say "10 years after we get cheap ($500/kg class) launches" - which might be within the decade, or might be never. I think asteroid mining might still be profitable at far higher launch costs, but the risk and the startup costs would be far higher to the point that it probably won't happen.