4 ms·

What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? Can't be many of them...

kibwen 1y ago
The most compelling economic reason to pursue the technology of asteroid mining (at least as far as Earth's gravity well is concerned) is not to ever actually launch any serious asteroid mining operations, but rather to fool those who own gold into believing that you have the capability to devalue gold at your whim, and thereby accept a small ransom to not go asteroid mining.
- dash2 1y ago
  Wouldn’t work because of the collective action problem among gold owners!
  - vkou 1y ago
    And because someone shorting gold would have a financial incentive to do it himself.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? With chemical rockets, not much. With "a propellant-less propulsion propulsion system such as solar sails or electric sails," bringing water (propellant) to low-earth orbit starts making sense [1], as does mining platinum, but only if "the quantity of platinum from space would substitute an equal quantity of terrestrial platinum," i.e. moving heavy industry off the Earth's surface [1]. Given asteroid-mining profitability is dominated by "the throughput rate, which depends on the mining process," it's possibly to see a path to certain rare-earth minerals becoming profitable to mine in space if environmental controls on Earth are tightened while constant-thrust propulsion technologies advance. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03836 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03836
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Just skimmed but does this answer the question of getting to and from the surface of earth? Or are we just stockpiling platinum in LEO for some reason?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > does this answer the question of getting to and from the surface of earth? Yes. (Deöbiting from LEO is cheap, like 90 m/s for the Space Shuttle, because you can use the atmosphere.)
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      … Presumably the problem is mostly getting up…? Is the plan to just drop hunks of platinum or do we need to put reentry vehicles up there?
      - randallsquared 1y ago
        With a relatively small initial investment, you can build reentry vehicles out of the asteroid, depending on the specific composition.
        pfdietz 1y ago
        Or, just fashion the metal into ingots that are coated with an ablator (carbon, say) and allow them to enter as artificial meteorites. Suitably sized they will hit the ground at reasonable speed and can be dug up.
        Teever 1y ago
        Even better than carbon use an ablative made out of olivine that can sequester CO2 as it ablates. That way by offloading mining and refining into space to prevent the damage that these activities incur on earth you're also undoing damage to Earth from past human activities.
tejtm 1y ago
"What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? Can't be many of them..." I suggest re-framing the the question as the cost of preserving the objectively limited and to the best of our knowledge singularly unique in the Universe resource, which is the surface of Earth. Acquiring resources that do not deplete or spoil the future of life on this planet should be in everyone's best interest.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Yeah no. Unless someone can answer basic questions like “what even comes close to net positive in energy expenditure to mine elsewhere,” then this is just a cover story. The reality is that saving our environment will be a whole set of difficult and profoundly boring solutions to real, known problems. Would be cool if we could solve it with badass rockets, explosions, big noises, and adventure, but the complete lack of even remotely convincing answers to first order questions on how this actually works belies the fact that it doesn’t. It makes no sense. We need to develop better plastics, proteins, and pesticides. Not send protein blobs to other planets because it looks cool in sci fi movies.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > We need to develop better plastics, proteins, and pesticides. Not send protein blobs to other planets because it looks cool in sci fi movies The reality is more people get passsionate about working on things that look cool in sci fi movies than developing plastics, proteins and pesticides for a mediocre paycheque. This lesson--that the path to groundbreaking technologies is through inspirational moonshots, not committees prescribing what is and isn't necessary--is so thoroughly repeated throughout history that it's a wonder we keep missing it.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Nobody referenced any sort of committee. Groundbreaking technologies are not created via moonshots. They’re created by decades of slog. Moonshots can launch from an unremarkable platform of slog, but the slog had to happen. You just cannot speedrun the vast majority of questions that need to be answered to power a breakthrough. That’s why I’ll question glory-chasers who want to sit on the rocket but can’t take a few thousands of pay cut to stare for a few years at a true problem that needs solving. Our species’ actual heroes are those who powered through the slog.

kibwen 1y ago

The most compelling economic reason to pursue the technology of asteroid mining (at least as far as Earth's gravity well is concerned) is not to ever actually launch any serious asteroid mining operations, but rather to fool those who own gold into believing that you have the capability to devalue gold at your whim, and thereby accept a small ransom to not go asteroid mining.

dash2 1y ago
Wouldn’t work because of the collective action problem among gold owners!
- vkou 1y ago
  And because someone shorting gold would have a financial incentive to do it himself.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? With chemical rockets, not much. With "a propellant-less propulsion propulsion system such as solar sails or electric sails," bringing water (propellant) to low-earth orbit starts making sense [1], as does mining platinum, but only if "the quantity of platinum from space would substitute an equal quantity of terrestrial platinum," i.e. moving heavy industry off the Earth's surface [1]. Given asteroid-mining profitability is dominated by "the throughput rate, which depends on the mining process," it's possibly to see a path to certain rare-earth minerals becoming profitable to mine in space if environmental controls on Earth are tightened while constant-thrust propulsion technologies advance. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03836 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03836

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Just skimmed but does this answer the question of getting to and from the surface of earth? Or are we just stockpiling platinum in LEO for some reason?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > does this answer the question of getting to and from the surface of earth? Yes. (Deöbiting from LEO is cheap, like 90 m/s for the Space Shuttle, because you can use the atmosphere.)
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    … Presumably the problem is mostly getting up…? Is the plan to just drop hunks of platinum or do we need to put reentry vehicles up there?
    - randallsquared 1y ago
      With a relatively small initial investment, you can build reentry vehicles out of the asteroid, depending on the specific composition.
      - pfdietz 1y ago
        Or, just fashion the metal into ingots that are coated with an ablator (carbon, say) and allow them to enter as artificial meteorites. Suitably sized they will hit the ground at reasonable speed and can be dug up.
        Teever 1y ago
        Even better than carbon use an ablative made out of olivine that can sequester CO2 as it ablates. That way by offloading mining and refining into space to prevent the damage that these activities incur on earth you're also undoing damage to Earth from past human activities.

tejtm 1y ago

"What resources are on asteroids that justify the energy expenditure to get from space and back? Can't be many of them..." I suggest re-framing the the question as the cost of preserving the objectively limited and to the best of our knowledge singularly unique in the Universe resource, which is the surface of Earth. Acquiring resources that do not deplete or spoil the future of life on this planet should be in everyone's best interest.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Yeah no. Unless someone can answer basic questions like “what even comes close to net positive in energy expenditure to mine elsewhere,” then this is just a cover story. The reality is that saving our environment will be a whole set of difficult and profoundly boring solutions to real, known problems. Would be cool if we could solve it with badass rockets, explosions, big noises, and adventure, but the complete lack of even remotely convincing answers to first order questions on how this actually works belies the fact that it doesn’t. It makes no sense. We need to develop better plastics, proteins, and pesticides. Not send protein blobs to other planets because it looks cool in sci fi movies.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > We need to develop better plastics, proteins, and pesticides. Not send protein blobs to other planets because it looks cool in sci fi movies The reality is more people get passsionate about working on things that look cool in sci fi movies than developing plastics, proteins and pesticides for a mediocre paycheque. This lesson--that the path to groundbreaking technologies is through inspirational moonshots, not committees prescribing what is and isn't necessary--is so thoroughly repeated throughout history that it's a wonder we keep missing it.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Nobody referenced any sort of committee. Groundbreaking technologies are not created via moonshots. They’re created by decades of slog. Moonshots can launch from an unremarkable platform of slog, but the slog had to happen. You just cannot speedrun the vast majority of questions that need to be answered to power a breakthrough. That’s why I’ll question glory-chasers who want to sit on the rocket but can’t take a few thousands of pay cut to stare for a few years at a true problem that needs solving. Our species’ actual heroes are those who powered through the slog.