3 ms·

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],

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.
  - K0SM0S 7y ago
    > people might be a tad leery of having a large asteroid on a course where if you miss by 100km you kill a billion Fair point! If unsure, we'd better not play this game too close from home. > 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. Thank you for sharing that perspective. One game-changer is to build some sort of structure around or far enough from Earth's gravity (I'm partial to orbital rings); anything that can be built now using earth materials only (at least the basic stages), to kickstart a space industry. Though I suspect there are bigger political and economical challenges than technical ones on the way to cross this upward bound.

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.
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  > people might be a tad leery of having a large asteroid on a course where if you miss by 100km you kill a billion Fair point! If unsure, we'd better not play this game too close from home. > 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. Thank you for sharing that perspective. One game-changer is to build some sort of structure around or far enough from Earth's gravity (I'm partial to orbital rings); anything that can be built now using earth materials only (at least the basic stages), to kickstart a space industry. Though I suspect there are bigger political and economical challenges than technical ones on the way to cross this upward bound.