[wbeachcomber]

void of a step change in propulsion technology, take it from someone that understands the economics of mining and minerals processing, over the next 100 years there will be no commercial off world extraction of minerals.

you just need imagination and it will be possible /bc

[pavilionnotebook]

Void of a step change in propulsion technology, take it from someone that understands the economics of mining and minerals processing, over the next 100 years there will be no commercial off world extraction of minerals.

While I agree with your conclusion I'm not sure I agree that the economics of mining and minerals processing is all there is to it. The economics of space travel will probably be the largest variable. I only agree with you because I just can't see them falling that fast in 100 years, unless there is an unforeseen step change in propulsion technology before then.

[ftpsoft]

you just need imagination and it will be possible /bc

The simple point is that mining companies will look to maximize profits and minimise risk... I just can't see how any non-terrestrial mining activity could possibly satisfy these criteria.

[CHEAPCIALISFORYOU]

The simple point is that mining companies will look to maximize profits and minimise risk... I just can't see how any non-terrestrial mining activity could possibly satisfy these criteria.

Yeah, but imagination is wayh more important than expertise

[BashBeissedat]

But if past trends are anything to go by, technological advancements will mean that deposits of ever decreasing grade will continue to become economically viable to extract.

They become more economically viable because the price increases and the scale of the operation increases. There have not been too many step change type technological advancements in mining in many years. When we're digging 5km down to get at 0.1% nickel, not much is going to help you make it cheaper.

The simple point is that mining companies will look to maximize profits and minimise risk... I just can't see how any non-terrestrial mining activity could possibly satisfy these criteria.

Mining a few km underground is pretty expensive and risky too.

[Toscoropreark]

They become more economically viable because the price increases and the scale of the operation increases. There have not been too many step change type technological advancements in mining in many years. When we're digging 5km down to get at 0.1% nickel, not much is going to help you make it cheaper.

I agree there haven't been too many step changes, but there has been plenty of scale improvements. These improvements essentially lead to a lowering in operating costs and this is how many operations look to retain their margins. The price factor is largely driven by supply/demand.

Your example isn't a good one, many things could improve the margins seen by deep underground mines.
- improved roof support technologies
- improved drilling technologies
- improved blasting technologies
- changes in labour laws
- etc...

So really the only reason we would go searching off world for minerals is if they were so scarce on Earth that even the extraordinarily high prices they would achieve (due to virtual non supply) couldn't pay for their extraction. Off world mining would be unbelievably difficult, in some instances I would suggest near impossible. This accompanied with the cost of transport is going to blow out the mining of even the purist off world ore body.

It's my bet that if prices got the point we were talking about, then alternatives would be found.

Mining a few km underground is pretty expensive and risky too.

Imagine how risky it would be on an astronomical object with no atmosphere

[AndrewBoss]

I agree there haven't been too many step changes, but there has been plenty of scale improvements. These improvements essentially lead to a lowering in operating costs and this is how many operations look to retain their margins. The price factor is largely driven by supply/demand.

The scale improvement factor though will also apply to outer space mining, and since we go the high grade, followed by the largest ore bodies first, we might not have much choice one day but to look at building multiple smaller satellite mines around a central processing plant over several hundred kms to cart 0.1% ore. A freakishly high grade asteroid will start looking a lot better. And prices are based on supply and demand but supply is based largely on price economics so the producers will start setting higher prices simply to cover costs.

Your example isn't a good one, many things could improve the margins seen by deep underground mines.
- improved roof support technologies
- improved drilling technologies
- improved blasting technologies
- changes in labour laws
- etc...

Yes, but I don't see how any of those can be improved other than incrementally. However, the science of propulsion in space could still have a few tricks up its sleeve.

So really the only reason we would go searching off world for minerals is if they were so scarce on Earth that even the extraordinarily high prices they would achieve (due to virtual non supply) couldn't pay for their extraction. Off world mining would be unbelievably difficult, in some instances I would suggest near impossible. This accompanied with the cost of transport is going to blow out the mining of even the purist off world ore body.

I think to suggest it as nearly impossible is a bit odd. I could see it as possible even now, if exceptionally difficult, dangerous and expensive, and we haven't really been venturing into space all that long. Another 50-70 years and it shouldn't be too hard, just still really expensive.

It's my bet that if prices got the point we were talking about, then alternatives would be found.

Actually that's one thing I hadn't thought about and one place I'd have to agree. When steel costs $1 million/tonne it's unlikely anyone will be using it.

[JesikaFclq]

It's not that I think off world mining is impossible or even unlikely to happen (like I said I think that it's a sensible way to source raw materials for fuels or construction materials), I just think that commercial mining in outer space isn't likely to happen.

I just see no mining ship Red Dwarf is all...

[brulpcoersero]

I just see no mining ship Red Dwarf is all...

Stop crushing my dreams...

[BaselBimbooooo]

For low values of always.

Well it is 2012 and we are still doing OK I reckon.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We can be hopeful... not confident, not by a long stretch. Our technological advance has been steady in the past, but for it to continue into the future depends on a lot of things continuing to go right. Climate, politics, economics, disease. Any of them, and plenty more, I'm sure, can cause a major setback to society at any time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well again history has shown that we always overcome these "trials" that beset us.
That's life.
None of it will see humanity stagnate I'm sure.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Void of a step change in propulsion technology, take it from someone that understands the economics of mining and minerals processing, over the next 100 years there will be no commercial off world extraction of minerals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Yes, and we'll never have flying machines either.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
Yeah, but imagination is way more important than expertise
I'll put something smart here.............one day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Best of luck! )



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just think that commercial mining in outer space isn't likely to happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>


Therein lies the problem with some.
Human history has always had those that see there own generation and time, as the epitome of progress.
I bet even some in the old Roman Empire also thought their achievements were state of the art, never to be surpassed.
It appears to be a trait throughout human history, and sometimes even attributed to otherwise great men.
I see it as an ego driven geo-centric malady from the days when we thought the Earth/Sun/MW galaxy was the center of creation.

But we know differently now.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe in intuition and inspiration. … At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason. When the eclipse of 1919 confirmed my intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been astonished had it turned out otherwise. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.

Albert Einstein:

Science without Imagination is Stagnation:

B.C.

[nicegirlflor]

Therein lies the problem with some.
Human history has always had those that see there own generation and time, as the epitome of progress.
I bet even some in the old Roman Empire also thought their achievements were state of the art, never to be surpassed.
It appears to be a trait throughout human history, and sometimes even attributed to otherwise great men.
I see it as an ego driven geo-centric malady from the days when we thought the Earth/Sun/MW galaxy was the center of creation.

But we know differently now.

do you have any proper counter arguments to the points I've laid out or is it just 'blah blah blah human destiny'?

[rollseyes]

[SawbasyWrab]

do you have any proper counter arguments to the points I've laid out or is it just 'blah blah blah human destiny'?

[rollseyes]

Other then the usual that times change and your opinion in general always leans towards the "we're all doomed" type scenario, and of course I believe you are wrong, then no.

But that is elegantly sufficient.

[Annevecenqp]

Other then the usual that times change and your opinion in general always leans towards the "we're all doomed" type scenario, and of course I believe you are wrong, then no.

But that is elegantly sufficient.

B.C, see that read writing under Diddly's name - that means he's an _expert_ in rocks, and things to do with rocks, like how much it costs to turn them into other things, and how much it costs to get them out of the ground...

So philosophical arguments are not going to cut it in this debate. It doesn't matter what his attitude is, he knows the facts, so in order to continue the debate, you need to present more facts, not philosophical dalliances which just show that you haven't taken your hands out of your pajamas yet...

[Sheefeadalfuh]

Other then the usual that times change and your opinion in general always leans towards the "we're all doomed" type scenario, and of course I believe you are wrong, then no.

I've never suggested that "we're all doomed" and I'm not sure why you would think that I believe this to be so?... and does your belief in me being wrong have any substantial argument behind it, or is it just "the vibe"?

I've thought long and hard about this particular topic and the more I ponder the realities of how mineral markets work the more I believe that commercial off world mining is unlikely to happen.

[slimfifa]

B.C, see that read writing under Diddly's name - that means he's an _expert_ in rocks, and things to do with rocks, like how much it costs to turn them into other things, and how much it costs to get them out of the ground...

So philosophical arguments are not going to cut it in this debate. It doesn't matter what his attitude is, he knows the facts, so in order to continue the debate, you need to present more facts, not philosophical dalliances which just show that you haven't taken your hands out of your pajamas yet...

Strange that you should bring that up....You see many scenarios in science have more then one interpretation.
I myself have been lambasted for raising comments by off-line experts...particularly when they disagree with "online experts" ...
The great Fred Hoyle, wouldn't have a bar of the BB.
Like I said, diddly from my perspective has been shown to be somewhat pessimistic and a doomsayer.
And like I also said, in absence of expertise opinion other then diddly and the article, I'll wait and see how it all pans out, and then go along with the evidence, which may or may not be what diddly is expressing.

[qilmuz6v]

Like I said, diddly from my perspective has been shown to be somewhat pessimistic and a doomsayer.

Care to share an example of where I've been "pessimistic and a doomsayer".

[Reatclaplen]

Any post where you've disagreed with B.C, diddly I thought it was obvious.

[markbila]

Any post where you've disagreed with B.C, diddly I thought it was obvious.

The silliness and pedant on issues in the other forum, was always present due to agenda driven individuals and sarcastic remarks.

But I for one won't carry that on here...

and like I said, in absence of expertise opinion other then diddly's and the article opinion, I'll wait and see how it all pans out, and then go along with the evidence, which may or may not be what diddly is expressing.
Worth remembering, "NO ONE" is above peer review.

But in the mean time, I'll try and make an effort to get some "offline" expertise on the article and peer review.

[xgnuwdd]

Agenda driven? What agenda?

[bF8CCmmr]

To realise that businesses and space agencies around the world are already considering asteroid mining, along with many other "futuristic endeavours", is heartening to say the least.
I'm sure they'll look at all facets of it, including technological, economic and safety issues before eventually commencing such an effort.
Time frame...Maybe 50 years...We'll surely be on Mars by then and will have reestablished our presence on the Moon.