5 ms·

Two Barclays commodities analysts produced a gleefully scathing research note on this project, and the Financial Times concluded that "The space mining talk amo

by bfe 14y ago

Two Barclays commodities analysts produced a gleefully scathing research note on this project, and the Financial Times concluded that "The space mining talk amounts, however, to no more than hot air and gobbledegook", all based on laughably inadequate points of comparison. For example: "Their calculations were based on Nasa’s forthcoming OSIRIS-REx mission, which aims to launch a probe in 2016 to pluck samples from an asteroid called 1999 RQ36 and bring them to Earth. Nasa hopes it will be home by 2023, with a couple of ounces of dirt. By then, the cost will have reached $1bn – made up of $800m for the vehicle, plus another $200m for the rocket launch. Since that outlay will return just a couple of ounces of material, Barclays says it could use it as a baseline to estimate break-even prices for asteroid mining. Using the metrics proposed by Barclays, the Financial Times commodities team estimates that copper prices would need to rocket from today’s $3.81 an ounce to $476m for a similarly funded space mining project to cover its costs. Clearly, it does not look like base metals from space are likely to provide a good return on capital. So what about precious metals? Gold trades at $1,665 a troy ounce, setting a price of $518m a troy ounce for space-gold to break even." "Asteroid mining is for space cadets", The FT, April 30, 2012 - http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9387fdc4-9081-11e1-8adc-00144feab49a.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9387fdc4-9081-11e1-8adc-00144... Astonishing that anyone can take this seriously as a baseline. You don't become a commodities analyst for being able to include flexibility and imagination in your analytical capability.

seagreen 14y ago
You'd have to be pretty dumb to bring copper back the surface. It would be far more valuable in orbit around Earth. Also NASA isn't, ah, the best example of a cost conscious and frugal organization. They probably don't make a good baseline for the expense of these trips. Planetary Resources still may never come close to turning a profit, but it's possible you're dismissing them a little too quickly.
- billswift 14y ago
  Actually with his sloppy writing, I couldn't decide if he was dismissing Planetary Resources or Barclay's and the FT.
  - seagreen 14y ago
    Ah, sorry bfe, I misunderstood your post. I agree with you in disagreeing with Barclays, if that makes sense.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
I've said it before but it bears repeating. In no way is asteroid mining cost effective at the moment. However, that's not actually very relevant. Several companies are working toward bringing down launch costs, SpaceX being the farthest along. If such efforts are successful they could result in lowering launch costs by around a factor of 10 to 100. That fundamentally changes what it is possible to do in space. Which obviously has a very direct impact on the feasibility of asteroid mining. More so, it will probably spur development in Earth orbit as well, including things like inhabited orbital stations, hotels, and eventually cities. That will create a hungry market for materials in orbit, and there the advantage of mining from an asteroid vs. launching from Earth (even given the reductions in cost mentioned above) makes asteroid mining all the more competitive. Additionally, advances in robotics and automation could potentially make asteroid mining very cost effective. Consider that when mining an asteroid there is no environmental concern and the most effective mining methods can be made use of with brutal efficiency. And, of course, the development of advanced robotics to facilitate asteroid mining would of course be valuable for other uses and thus be a profitable spin-off invention. There are other points of interest but they are relatively less important. The core point is that if these developments happen then asteroid mining could quite easily become profitable. Of course, there is no guarantee that any of this will happen. So why not wait until the opportunity is ripe and then start? You certainly could, but you'd find that you're just enough steps behind Planetary Resources to be at a significant disadvantage. They'll already have experience with operating spacecraft. They'll already have developed the core technologies necessary for mining asteroids. They'll already have identified the most valuable asteroid targets. They'll already have run pilot operations and overcome several key roadblocks. And on the day that it becomes profitable to sell asteroid mined resources they'll be there with the goods. And if it turns out not to be feasible then overall they'll still have made a better use of their funding than, say, buying instagram, and they likely will not have spent nearly as much money either.
freehunter 14y ago
Using a mission designed to bring back a small amount as a baseline for bringing back a large amount is ridiculous, I agree. If I drive from Chicago to New York to pick up a piece of mail, you might say that one piece of mail is $3000/oz. But I don't have to spend much more to pick up a couple thousand piece of mail; I've already spent the money on the car. Adding maybe a trailer and the marginal increase in gas, you end up with... UPS. They don't deliver one package at a time. Assuming the launch costs are the same or slightly more, how much extra will it cost to attach a rocket to an asteroid and slowly push it back to Earth orbit? I would wager that the engineering costs would be exceedingly more than the marginal cost of hardware/fuel. Couple that with keeping the resources in orbit and building new ships off-planet, economics of scale will easily take care of the cost issue. One asteroid mentioned in Planetary's plan had more platinum than existed in the entirety of Earth. It's hard to imagine they wouldn't make money from that.

by bfe 14y ago

seagreen 14y ago

You'd have to be pretty dumb to bring copper back the surface. It would be far more valuable in orbit around Earth. Also NASA isn't, ah, the best example of a cost conscious and frugal organization. They probably don't make a good baseline for the expense of these trips. Planetary Resources still may never come close to turning a profit, but it's possible you're dismissing them a little too quickly.

billswift 14y ago
Actually with his sloppy writing, I couldn't decide if he was dismissing Planetary Resources or Barclay's and the FT.
- seagreen 14y ago
  Ah, sorry bfe, I misunderstood your post. I agree with you in disagreeing with Barclays, if that makes sense.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

I've said it before but it bears repeating. In no way is asteroid mining cost effective at the moment. However, that's not actually very relevant. Several companies are working toward bringing down launch costs, SpaceX being the farthest along. If such efforts are successful they could result in lowering launch costs by around a factor of 10 to 100. That fundamentally changes what it is possible to do in space. Which obviously has a very direct impact on the feasibility of asteroid mining. More so, it will probably spur development in Earth orbit as well, including things like inhabited orbital stations, hotels, and eventually cities. That will create a hungry market for materials in orbit, and there the advantage of mining from an asteroid vs. launching from Earth (even given the reductions in cost mentioned above) makes asteroid mining all the more competitive. Additionally, advances in robotics and automation could potentially make asteroid mining very cost effective. Consider that when mining an asteroid there is no environmental concern and the most effective mining methods can be made use of with brutal efficiency. And, of course, the development of advanced robotics to facilitate asteroid mining would of course be valuable for other uses and thus be a profitable spin-off invention. There are other points of interest but they are relatively less important. The core point is that if these developments happen then asteroid mining could quite easily become profitable. Of course, there is no guarantee that any of this will happen. So why not wait until the opportunity is ripe and then start? You certainly could, but you'd find that you're just enough steps behind Planetary Resources to be at a significant disadvantage. They'll already have experience with operating spacecraft. They'll already have developed the core technologies necessary for mining asteroids. They'll already have identified the most valuable asteroid targets. They'll already have run pilot operations and overcome several key roadblocks. And on the day that it becomes profitable to sell asteroid mined resources they'll be there with the goods. And if it turns out not to be feasible then overall they'll still have made a better use of their funding than, say, buying instagram, and they likely will not have spent nearly as much money either.

freehunter 14y ago

Using a mission designed to bring back a small amount as a baseline for bringing back a large amount is ridiculous, I agree. If I drive from Chicago to New York to pick up a piece of mail, you might say that one piece of mail is $3000/oz. But I don't have to spend much more to pick up a couple thousand piece of mail; I've already spent the money on the car. Adding maybe a trailer and the marginal increase in gas, you end up with... UPS. They don't deliver one package at a time. Assuming the launch costs are the same or slightly more, how much extra will it cost to attach a rocket to an asteroid and slowly push it back to Earth orbit? I would wager that the engineering costs would be exceedingly more than the marginal cost of hardware/fuel. Couple that with keeping the resources in orbit and building new ships off-planet, economics of scale will easily take care of the cost issue. One asteroid mentioned in Planetary's plan had more platinum than existed in the entirety of Earth. It's hard to imagine they wouldn't make money from that.