[Honealals]

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.

I would have thought that mining companies would be better placed to assess the viability of mining projects... but hey, I could be wrong.

[Piemonedmow]

Mining Asteroids - A New Industry
by Launchspace Staff
Bethesda MD (SPX) May 02, 2012

File image.


This past Wednesday a new company, Planetary Resources (PRI), announced it is serious about searching the cosmos for the first mineable asteroid. Within two years PRI hopes to identify that historic near-Earth object (NEO), presumably soon to be mined for its valuable minerals.

Within minutes of the public announcement media reporters were speculating that such asteroids contain precise metals such as gold and platinum. This kind of reaction is what Hollywood thrives on.

In fact, film Director James Cameron is one of the PRI backers, along with former Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, and current CEO Larry Page. Add to this list Ross Perot Jr. and other heavy hitters and you have a well-funded privately-owned start up.

PRI Co-Founder, Peter Diamandis, of X-Prize fame, said, "Since my early teenage years, I've wanted to be an asteroid miner. I always viewed it as a glamorous vision of where we could go." Many of us have had childhood fantasies such as being an ASTEROID BUSTER, but few of being an asteroid miner.

This begs the question, "Is it easier to mine asteroids than bust them?" In the former case the objective is to create a new source of minerals, and in the latter the objective is to divert large NEOs from destroying life on Earth.

We have already seen several Hollywood variations on how to bust asteroids, but few about mining them. All of these are somewhat dated. So, other than revitalizing a movie genre, how realistic is asteroid mining in terms of commercial viability?

According to PRI, there are over 1,500 asteroids that are as "easy" to get to as the surface of the moon. As a matter of fact, getting to the moon is not easy.

In the 1960s, NASA spent the equivalent of tens of billions in 2012 dollars just to fly three astronauts to the moon, and all we got in minerals was a few pounds of moon rocks with little or no real market value in terms of creating new products.

Even if we sent only robots to the moon, the cost would far exceed the market value of any minerals found there. Getting to a near Earth asteroid is easier than landing on the moon, and in fact, the NASA NEAR mission did just that.

However, getting to an asteroid, "landing' on it, mining it and moving the ore to a space station or to the Earth represents a very complex and expensive space mission.

Once we have succeeded in creating an operational fusion reactor, the moon may become a very valuable source of Helium 3, but until that time, no private endeavor will be able to expend the needed resources on this scale before proving profitability without government funding.

On the other hand, PRI may at least become a motivational tool to generate more interest in US science and technology education. And, that would be much more valuable than actually mining the asteroids.





http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mi...ustry_999.html


Quite a readable article giving both sides of the equation.

[Abofedrorobox]

I agree with the article, they conclude that commercial mining is essentially a pipedream and that companies like PRI are simply marketing vehicles

[markshome23]

Well is there anyone in that PRI with any serious mining knowledge or experience?

[VardyCodarexyz]

just think of the lovely mars base they could build with this sort of money. be easier to mine the asteroids from there too.

[AnneseeKels]

Well is there anyone in that PRI with any serious mining knowledge or experience?

I just had a look at their website and there isn't one person on their board that has any mining industry experience. They seem to be mostly aerospace and robotic scientists with a background in govt funded space exploration.

It seems to me that is is about selling sizzle and not the sausage... They seem to be trying to actively encourage investment so they can build robots to find a suitable asteroid... at this point they then try to onsell the 'discovery'. It's a model that exploration and small mining companies use all the time.

[MauroDarudo]

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.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


)


Others obviously have too...and they form an opposite opinion of yours....but *shrug*, your entitled to that belief.

[Kneedycrype]

I agree with the article, they conclude that commercial mining is essentially a pipedream and that companies like PRI are simply marketing vehicles
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


You have answered your own question of me...Picking the more pessimistic outlook from an article that covers both...* shrug* again.

[favwebbb]

I agree with the article, they conclude that commercial mining is essentially a pipedream and that companies like PRI are simply marketing vehicles
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


You have answered your own question of me...Picking the more pessimistic outlook from an article that covers both...* shrug* again.

I think you are misunderstanding diddly. He is not saying that no one will ever mine the moon or asteroids, he is saying that it will not, in the foreseeable future, be done commercially, that is making a profit out of it.

I agree that any talk of this venture happening now is, as he says, a marketing vehicle, and I also agree it won't be commercially viable for a long time, I just happen to disagree with the conclusion that it's completely unforeseeable that space mining will ever be economically on par with mining in extreme situation on Earth, although I don't think it will happen for decades.

[TEFSADDERFISA]

I just happen to disagree with the conclusion that it's completely unforeseeable that space mining will ever be economically on par with mining in extreme situation on Earth, although I don't think it will happen for decades.
--------------
Althougt it may be possible to draw paralleles between the complexity of space mining with extreme mining on earth, the transport costs are where it will never happen. Fuel cost are going to increase for both, but the increase will always be larger for space mining.

[Yartonbler]

Even if we can get an Asteroid and put it somewhere , there is still a lot of work to do before you can use the raw material . crushing, gading, smelting, refining, extruding all require a lot of energy but more importantly a lot of plant and inferstructure.
The cost in $, man hours and energy implies that we would need to do that on Earth and on Earth for many years (how long is many.....?).

Whilst I dont doubt one day we could in all probability it seems like going to the next suburb to get some sugar you have in the Kitchen because you have a flash motorbike.

Which leads me to a thought I had in another thread , about what we could use re metal and manufacturing on the Moon say.
Would it be a crazy idea if we were to ship ingots of what ever (Thinking ally here) and extrude different sections somehow with a variable press , sheet , pipe etc .... walls doors something semi universal but adaptable without holding stock ?

Just a thought

Brett

[Klorissana]

I think you are misunderstanding diddly. He is not saying that no one will ever mine the moon or asteroids, he is saying that it will not, in the foreseeable future, be done commercially, that is making a profit out of it.

I agree that any talk of this venture happening now is, as he says, a marketing vehicle, and I also agree it won't be commercially viable for a long time, I just happen to disagree with the conclusion that it's completely unforeseeable that space mining will ever be economically on par with mining in extreme situation on Earth, although I don't think it will happen for decades.

I asked the question up there a bit...what do we class as the forseeable future...
For me I give asteroid/Off Earth mining 50 years and I have also said that up there somewhere.
I'm sure I have also mentioned the difficulty of such a venture as is the case with any venture to do with space.
It's all going to be difficult....But what we see as difficult now might be common place in 50 years.

So it seems we, you and me agree?
Not sure about the others...too many red herrings about.

[Blotassefesek]

Most asteroids have low mass, and hence very low gravity.

Linear momentum is conserved, so it would be very difficult to perform any mining operations on most asteroids: even a person using a crowbar to make a hole would, unless somehow restrained, fy off into space.

[Emalodoulouts]

*pop*

I don't think it'll ever really be economical to mine asteroids for raw material on Earth, but it would be for bases/colonies further out in the solar system.

[Lvnufcdc]

I just happen to disagree with the conclusion that it's completely unforeseeable that space mining will ever be economically on par with mining in extreme situation on Earth, although I don't think it will happen for decades.
--------------
Althougt it may be possible to draw paralleles between the complexity of space mining with extreme mining on earth, the transport costs are where it will never happen. Fuel cost are going to increase for both, but the increase will always be larger for space mining.

See this is the one place I think a step change in technology can still exist and, probably not for the sake of mining but for space exploration in general or, more likely, war, will be found. You're not going to put a fusion reactor on a haul truck on Earth, but you might put one on a huge payload from space. The economies of scale will become very important, but there'll be 10-12 billion Apple customers by then paying for it...

[LeslieMoran]

For me I give asteroid/Off Earth mining 50 years and I have also said that up there somewhere. 50 years is highly unlikely. just developing the mining techniques to be used let alone the actually equipment will take longer than that. then there is the human facto to be considered, "how safe will this venture be?", as if it is going to be a commercial operation then killing their staff is not a good pr exercise.

[megasprut]

I asked the question up there a bit...what do we class as the forseeable future...
For me I give asteroid/Off Earth mining 50 years and I have also said that up there somewhere.
I'm sure I have also mentioned the difficulty of such a venture as is the case with any venture to do with space.
It's all going to be difficult....But what we see as difficult now might be common place in 50 years.

I think the general consensus was that the "foreseeable future" is not a defined timeframe, but when referring to technological development, is the point up until which the changes are so great that all of our predictions are just crap. It's generally agreed that anything beyond 100 years is ridiculous to think about. I'm taking a stab in the dark and saying in 50-70 years time we will have built upon today's technology with a few huge leaps, enough to make this quite possibly economically feasible, but not enough to change the world so much it's impossible to predict. It's a bold claim but it's just where I see the likely breakthroughs occurring.

So it seems we, you and me agree?
Not sure about the others...too many red herrings about.

Don't think that because they don't agree with us they are red herrings or have an agenda. We are talking about predictions here BC, everyone is entitled to their opinion and diddly has made me think about this topic much more than I ever have before. And in the end, you and I are essentially disagreeing about the state of Earth mining in 50 years with the person with "Earth Science" under his name. Some humility would go a long way.

[zdlupikkkdi]

See this is the one place I think a step change in technology can still exist and, probably not for the sake of mining but for space exploration in general or, more likely, war, will be found. You're not going to put a fusion reactor on a haul truck on Earth, but you might put one on a huge payload from space. The economies of scale will become very important, but there'll be 10-12 billion Apple customers by then paying for it...

------------
OK, I estimate that the transport problems for commercial space mining will be solved and affordable, once fusion power is proven and commercialised. But it will take the same amount of time as fusion power has, from idea to commercially proven.

[GooogleGuy]

*pop*

I don't think it'll ever really be economical to mine asteroids for raw material on Earth, but it would be for bases/colonies further out in the solar system.

I think, at least initially, any "off-world" mining would be done by the colonies, for the colonies. No point bringing it all the way back here to make a metal beam to send back there to make a structure. In that respect the mining would not be done for profit but for necessity - any profit would be a long way off. Because of this, a private company is less likely to be the first and initially all of the set-up will have to be done by a government type agancy...

[Wmshyrga]

50 years is highly unlikely. just developing the mining techniques to be used let alone the actually equipment will take longer than that. then there is the human facto to be considered, "how safe will this venture be?", as if it is going to be a commercial operation then killing their staff is not a good pr exercise.

Took 9 years to get to the Moon once they decided to give it a go.
50 years for asteroid/Moon mining would be highly likely once they decide to make an effort...and that may well be the case before we all know it.