5 ms·

On one hand a 500-ton asteroid is way too small to make a difference if the smelted iron and nickel could be safely landed on Earth. Nickel ore is quoted at abo

On one hand a 500-ton asteroid is way too small to make a difference if the smelted iron and nickel could be safely landed on Earth. Nickel ore is quoted at about 30 USD per ton in Indonesia, so the asteroid's material might only be worth 15,000 USD on the Earth's surface. But on the other hand, the smelted ore is much more valuable if used for earth-orbit construction, especially high orbit construction. SpaceX charges about 2,000,000 USD per ton to launch a payload into low earth orbit. The cost to put 500 tons of ore into space from earth would thus be 1 billion USD. By comparision, the mass of the International Space Station is about 500 tons. This rough analysis shows that the most cost-effective mission would be the construction of large space facilities using material smelted from a well-chosen asteroid. Maybe the investors have in mind something like the Stanford Torus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_torus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_torus

daniel-cussen 15y ago
First off, not all ore is created equal. Meteors have an incredibly high concentration of the better metals, so this might not be a terrible idea. On the other hand, you're right: it's worth more money in space.
Symmetry 15y ago
Maybe that method of construction where you heat up the ore with mirrors, then blow air into it to inflate it, then let it cool would be easier, given how little industry we have in space at the moment. Anyways, I think its good that we're starting with something 500 tons. Big enough to be interesting, not big enough to cause a huge catastrophe if it ends up colliding with Earth. When we're better at it we can go for larger asteroids.
run4yourlives 15y ago
Excuse my ignorance here, but wouldn't the easiest solution of all just be both mining minerals and performing construction on the moon? Once you are established there, you pretty much have the space construction port you're looking for, do you not?
- SlipperySlope 15y ago
  Low earth orbit might be where the investors are interested in. If so, it has been proposed for decades that an electric mass driver be constructed on the Moon for delivery of lunar ores to Earth orbit - or to a nearby Lagrange point. A lunar base would be very expensive in terms of initial construction because it costs so much to climb from the Earth's surface through the Earth's gravity well, and then to descend safely on to the Moon's surface. An interesting solution that I've followed has been the proposal to send tiny self-replicating robots to the Moon and have them construct everything else from Lunar materials. See for example: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ This good idea was most recently promoted by Newt Gingrich during his US presidential primary campaign. My own opinion is that private investment, not government money, should be used for space-based economic projects.
  - cpeterso 15y ago
    "Lunarcrete" is an example of a (proposed) construction material that could be manufactured on the moon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunarcrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunarcrete
- aqme28 15y ago
  It is much much much cheaper to get to low-earth orbit than it is to get to (and from) the moon. See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalaltitudes.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalal...
  - read_wharf 15y ago
    I know nothing, but I would think gravity smelting and related operations would be much more technically difficult and risky than gravity based operations on the moon.
    - read_wharf 15y ago
      no gravity smelting would be difficult
fennecfoxen 15y ago
I think the only real investment proposition here is to build and develop institutional knowledge and technology know-how so that at such a time that it is profitable and practical to extract resources however they may be extracted, that knowledge is worth the billions they spent on acquiring it (plus ~4% annual real opportunity costs, plus risk exposure).

daniel-cussen 15y ago

First off, not all ore is created equal. Meteors have an incredibly high concentration of the better metals, so this might not be a terrible idea. On the other hand, you're right: it's worth more money in space.

Symmetry 15y ago

Maybe that method of construction where you heat up the ore with mirrors, then blow air into it to inflate it, then let it cool would be easier, given how little industry we have in space at the moment. Anyways, I think its good that we're starting with something 500 tons. Big enough to be interesting, not big enough to cause a huge catastrophe if it ends up colliding with Earth. When we're better at it we can go for larger asteroids.

run4yourlives 15y ago

Excuse my ignorance here, but wouldn't the easiest solution of all just be both mining minerals and performing construction on the moon? Once you are established there, you pretty much have the space construction port you're looking for, do you not?

SlipperySlope 15y ago
Low earth orbit might be where the investors are interested in. If so, it has been proposed for decades that an electric mass driver be constructed on the Moon for delivery of lunar ores to Earth orbit - or to a nearby Lagrange point. A lunar base would be very expensive in terms of initial construction because it costs so much to climb from the Earth's surface through the Earth's gravity well, and then to descend safely on to the Moon's surface. An interesting solution that I've followed has been the proposal to send tiny self-replicating robots to the Moon and have them construct everything else from Lunar materials. See for example: http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ This good idea was most recently promoted by Newt Gingrich during his US presidential primary campaign. My own opinion is that private investment, not government money, should be used for space-based economic projects.
- cpeterso 15y ago
  "Lunarcrete" is an example of a (proposed) construction material that could be manufactured on the moon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunarcrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunarcrete
aqme28 15y ago
It is much much much cheaper to get to low-earth orbit than it is to get to (and from) the moon. See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalaltitudes.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalal...
- read_wharf 15y ago
  I know nothing, but I would think gravity smelting and related operations would be much more technically difficult and risky than gravity based operations on the moon.
  - read_wharf 15y ago
    no gravity smelting would be difficult

fennecfoxen 15y ago

I think the only real investment proposition here is to build and develop institutional knowledge and technology know-how so that at such a time that it is profitable and practical to extract resources however they may be extracted, that knowledge is worth the billions they spent on acquiring it (plus ~4% annual real opportunity costs, plus risk exposure).