Replace NASA With Us

[doom_shepherd]

You need a multi-pronged marketing approach. Sell it to everybody at once as an entirely new way of doing things.

First - if you mine the asteroids, which have no environment to spoil, you don't have to mine the Earth so much. You can strip-mine a barren rock in space, and not kill any rare bugs.

Second - mine the right materials. Platinum and Iridium, especially. Usable for lots of things, and rare on Earth. I have heard it said that some "Iron" asteroids contain platinum deposits of arooud 100 parts per million. Doesn't sound like a lot... but the famous platinum mines of South Africa generally contain 5-20 parts per million. 100PPM... the folks who operate those mines might literally kill for a vein like that.

A 1 km asteroid is likely to contain about 7,500 TONS of platinum. Which is right now $1350 an ounce. I'll let you do the math.

You want to make THIS pdf file part of your presentation paper:
The Value of an Asteroid... at 2007 prices (Now, Much Higher!)

Third - See Second. Some of these rare metals are just what you need to build a large amount of solar panels, and other energy efficient items. More save-the-planet stuff. (I just read a article in Scientific American that talked about meeting all the world's energy needs with ground-based solar... by 2030...if we can think ahead.)

Also, asteroid mining is essential if we want to ever have a substantial offworld presence in our own solar system. It would, in all likelihood, be easier to hollow out an asteroid (by mining it) and make it habitable (spin for gravity, mine volatiles for O2, use conventional indoor techniques for heat and light) than it would be to live on a planet, say Mars. and LOADS of room when you can build in three dimensions. You can pack a good-sized city in a small rock.

And for colonies, mining an asteroid is a lot cheaper than mining a planetary body and having to push things up a gravity well to move them around.

Last... sell it the the military as a potential weapons system. Kinetic energy type. Break off a small chunk of the asteroid, put a thruster on one end and a little GPs, maybe a camera on the other. When the time comes, drop it through the atmosphere like a little targeted meteor. All the explosion, no radiation or nasty aftereffects...and with a lot less chance for the enemy to do anything about it. No boost phase, no cruse phase, just WHOOSH! down and boo,. And if that doesn't sell them... ask them if anybody in China is smart enough to have the same idea.

It's not just a moneymaking scheme... though there are gross riches up there... it's an evolutionary leap forward.

[Swampcat]

As much as I have enjoyed these take-off/hover/land contests I just don't see a product coming out of them in 2-3 years. Maybe I am just not imaginative enough so someone help show me the money in this kind of contest.

This is sort of off topic, but just to satisfy your curiosity, consider the Lunar Lander Challenge vehicles as reusable sounding rockets. An imaginative person might see the potential in that. Consider also that these vehicles can hover at altitude, something a sounding rocket can't do.

The most important thing these competitions have produced is small rocket engines that are reliable, reusable, easily maintained, relatively cheap, along with the control systems and software to guide them.

Within two to three years, these vehicles may be capable of flying humans to suborbital space and back completely on rocket power, then reload propellants, and fly again within hours or less...cheaply.

Not to mention the potential of providing a privately developed lunar lander to any organization trying to put together a space program.

[Bill_Wright]

Here's a thought about the "X-Prize" aspect. I don't know Paul Allen. He probably is a really decent person. But he just went out and bought the X-Prize for space. To prevent that from being the norm one would have to cap the expenditures on building a product. You might even throw in bonuses for people who win the contest at 25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent of the cost goal. It would also insure that the product or service was affordable once manufacturing starts. There should be rules about patents and or copywrites (I said I was no lawyer) as the product or service must be protectable and legally defense-able. If the country of origin won't claim originality then how could our corporation protect its profits. I know this sounds harsh but what good is a superconducting magnet in a medical imager with a price-point of $5K if the magnet costs $100k to build and instead of selling it you spend $Ms fighting lawsuits? Before you ask yourself about why I picked a medical imager remember that some space missions might take months or years and the participants would need medical care. Also remember that in an earlier post I suggested that while our goal is space if we can sell a few products or services that fall out of the space program that increases our share price and dividends. If it weren't for Apollo the IC might not have been developed. Without that no PCs or cell phones. Something to ponder...
Regards,
Bill

[HopDavid]

You need a multi-pronged marketing approach. Sell it to everybody at once as an entirely new way of doing things.

First - if you mine the asteroids, which have no environment to spoil, you don't have to mine the Earth so much. You can strip-mine a barren rock in space, and not kill any rare bugs.

Second - mine the right materials. Platinum and Iridium, especially. Usable for lots of things, and rare on Earth. I have heard it said that some "Iron" asteroids contain platinum deposits of arooud 100 parts per million. Doesn't sound like a lot... but the famous platinum mines of South Africa generally contain 5-20 parts per million. 100PPM... the folks who operate those mines might literally kill for a vein like that.

A 1 km asteroid is likely to contain about 7,500 TONS of platinum. Which is right now $1350 an ounce. I'll let you do the math.

You want to make THIS pdf file part of your presentation paper:
The Value of an Asteroid... at 2007 prices (Now, Much Higher!)

Dr. J. S. Lewis is a professor of planetary science at the University of Arizona. There are a couple of things that conspired to make UofA a leader in planetary science. It is close to Kitt Peak observatory which makes the UofA attractive to astronomers. And Arizona has many copper mines, for most of the 20th century copper was a major part of Arizona's economy. Because of this UofA has a very good mining engineering program and a very good geology program.

The shared location of a first class astronomy program and a first class geology program has led to a first class planetary science program. They do leading research for NEOs and small bodies. If you surf the web looking for small body info, you will come to the UofA again and again.

There are a good number of mining engineers who are well aware of metallic asteroids. But you don't see Freeport McMoRan building space vehicles. Why is that?

It is because access to asteroids is cost prohibitive. Launching a infra structure from earth's surface to an asteroid would take around 13 to 16 km/sec for most NEOs. If there's no propellent for the return leg, toss another 4 km/sec into the exponent of the rocket equation:

Mass propellent/Mass payload = e^(20/4.46) - 1. 20 km/sec being the total delta V budget and 4.46 km/sec being the exhaust velocity of Lox/Lh2.

This is a delta V budget that mandates disposable mega rockets. The return on your investment will be negative.

To make space affordable we need non earth propellent sources and propellent depots in LEO and EML1.

One possibility for robotic propellent mining of NEOs is Kuck Mosquitoes. There may be some NEOs that are actually extinct comets with a core of volatile ices protected by an insulating mantle.



In the near term, water will be a more valuable asteroidal resource than platinum.

Third - See Second. Some of these rare metals are just what you need to build a large amount of solar panels, and other energy efficient items. More save-the-planet stuff. (I just read a article in Scientific American that talked about meeting all the world's energy needs with ground-based solar... by 2030...if we can think ahead.)

Also, asteroid mining is essential if we want to ever have a substantial offworld presence in our own solar system. It would, in all likelihood, be easier to hollow out an asteroid (by mining it) and make it habitable (spin for gravity, mine volatiles for O2, use conventional indoor techniques for heat and light) than it would be to live on a planet, say Mars. and LOADS of room when you can build in three dimensions. You can pack a good-sized city in a small rock.

And for colonies, mining an asteroid is a lot cheaper than mining a planetary body and having to push things up a gravity well to move them around.

You've done a good job listing arguments against planetary chauvinism. I am also enthusiastic about small bodies. However they have disadvantages.

One is rarity of launch windows. From LEO you don't have a NEO launch window every two weeks like you do for the moon.

The moon has abundant oxygen which is most of propellent mass in a typical chemical rocket. This lunar oxygen is only 2.5 km/sec from EML1.

Another is they lie on different orbits about the sun. It takes Delta V to match velocities with them. For many NEOs this obliterates delta V advantages conferred by their shallow gravity well.

Oddly enough, the two most accessible bodies in terms of delta V are Phobos and Deimos. This is because they're in Mars' gravity well. This is counter intuitive but it's true. These moons are between 3 and 4 km/sec from EML1. And there is some indication they may be good sources of propellent.

I am aggravated by enthusiasts who say "Let's skip the Moon and go straight to Mars" or "Let's skip the Moon and Mars and go straight to NEOs". In my opinion they are misguided and their advocacy does more harm than good. The solar system is full of resources that could help us get a foothold in space. And the planetary gravity wells are among those resources.

Last... sell it the the military as a potential weapons system.

One optimist was telling me that Tunguskas or Chicxulubs will never happen again if humankind acquired the ability to move asteroids. He got upset when I opined that asteroid impacts will become a 1000 times more likely should we gain that power.

[HopDavid]

Here's a thought about the "X-Prize" aspect. I don't know Paul Allen. He probably is a really decent person. But he just went out and bought the X-Prize for space. To prevent that from being the norm one would have to cap the expenditures on building a product.

You should team up Gaetano Marano. I bet the two of you could revolutionize human space development.

[John_with_a_B]

Wow, Bill! Stirring the pot, again, I see...

Lots of good and bad ideas so far. I would maybe comment only on a few of them.

I am not an anti NASA guy either. I think it has its place, and certainly, might be the best sort of model for interplanetary exploration (Cassini, New Horizons etc.), space telescopes (Hubble, Spitzer and others) and the likes of the Martian rovers, whether alone or in partnership with other space agencies. But it seems it is hobbled and at a great disadvantage when dealing with any sort of long term, ongoing strategy for its missions. One President proposes a "Vision" and NASA begs Congress for the money, only to find the next iteration of Congress has total amnesia when it comes to remembering what NASA needs to fulfill its mandate.

Perhaps NASA would be fine if it was reorganized or replaced by another agency that was more insulated from changing political winds. How wonderful it would be if space exploration was constitutionally allotted a fixed amount of GNP (1% perhaps?) that varied with the health and growth of the economy and not with porkbarreling and short term political whims.

As far as a corporation for space related efforts is concerned, I agree with many others that the "space business" is a hard thing to try to wedge into the conventional business plan with an expectation of profit over a specified period of time. I wonder if a better approach might be to have a non-profit foundation or an independent quasi-multi-governmental agency established to pursue space related activities. Hopefully some initial seed money could be raised from various private and governmental sources, and a properly run ongoing fund raising and merchandising operation to expand and sustain it could be started. Perhaps it would not undertake missions directly, but make funding available for others to do them. In a sense, this is already happening with the X-Prizes and the like, but maybe the concept could be expanded further. I have no idea what the ultimately best form is that it should take, but above all it should be beyond the reach of elected politicians after it is started.

As far as getting rich off asteroid mining, I see that a very long way off. To exploit asteroids and return the material to Earth is one of the farthest I can see, short of actually changing the orbit of any body beyond a few meters in size to a preferred orbit of our choosing. The best use of them with be in fabrication of things for use in space, whether that be building space craft in space or creating large space stations/colonies there and so avoiding the cost of launching large amounts of material from Earth.

Ultimately, the idea of making a buck up there in the short term is likely limited to ever cheaper contracts for launches, space tourism and commercial communication projects. It will be a long while yet before we have the technology to send a robotic mission to any body in space to have it mine and process whatever may be there into usable commodities. Even extracting water from icy asteroids or comets is not yet possible, let alone turning that into rocket fuel that is ultimately in a location and orbit that is useful to other endeavours.

Private enterprise will never be interested in landing probes on the moons of gas giants to see what may be there or trying to make money selling pictures from space telescopes of various kinds or sending missions beyond the solar system with no prospect of coming back.

I see a strong case to be made for both public and private space exploration. I am not yet sure in my own mind which will facilitate human space exploration best at this point. Neither have really accomplished much in that regard to be very proud of recently. For pure science purposes, I do believe that robots can do the job far cheaper than can be done by sending and returning people to do the same tasks. And I think many that disagree with me there often forget how young robotic technology truly is, and how far it will likely advance in the coming years and decades, while conveniently forgetting that human evolution is already a few million years into the process, and not likely to progress noticeably much in the future except one generation at a time.

The usual next objection I expect to hear is from the die hard "space must be quickly colonized at any cost" crowd to me not joining into their specious chants is that we simply have no options in our solar system with our technology, nor will we in our grandchildren's lifetimes to establish and support a colony of this planet. We could, conceivably, establish a base on either the Moon or Mars at great expense much like a smaller version of what we have on Antarctica. We have been there over 50 years and still few have stayed there longer than a few years. Most go for the summer and leave again within 6 months. The total human population there varies from about 1000 - 5000 people. I realize there are many things about the two situations that are totally different, but the similarities are worth noting. Antarctica is both easy to go to and easy to get off of if needed than an extra terrestrial colony would be. Human settlement is restricted by international treaty, so that those there are primarily there for scientific research, without colonization being an option. There are many other differences.

But the similarities are also there. To be independently sustainable both would need to grow a food supply to sustain themselves. Antarctica can get by on semi annual care packages so crop growing and animal raising is not necessary. I would say it will take a long time to produce a local food supply on the Moon or Mars without it taking all the human effort available to do so. Most initial materials for shelter will be sent from here before manufacturing more from local materials is feasible. It will be a very long time until there is a surplus of ANYTHING that is needed to help support an expanded population beyond the initial people, without all their needs coming from Earth as well. How long that will take is anyone's guess, but it won't happen overnight.

The usual prattle goes on and on about how if we don't get a colony established on Mars soon an asteroid will come along and wipe us all out, and so civilization will end. Get a grip! That is the most specious of all! To say that all mankind would be wiped out like the dinosaurs if an asteroid hit is like saying we are only as smart as they were and our technology is is no better than theirs was. If 99.9% of humanity was wiped out, that would still leave several million survivors. That is far more than what is likely to be on Mars for several centuries, if ever.

But, suppose that ALL human life was extinguished on the Earth. Do you think for a minute that several thousand people living on Mars would have all the elements that make up human civilization to carry on with? Gone are all the libraries, universities, museums and all the architecture, plus all the scientific, engineering and medical research facilities, as well as all the art and musicians and all the other things that make up a civilization. I seriously doubt a fraction of a percent of human knowledge will be on Mars at that time, if ever. There may be a vast collection of DVD's or the equivalent such thing of the day, and some sample Earth artifacts hanging on the walls of Martian habitats, but I doubt very many, considering the cost of sending them there.

I think that even a well established Martian colony will still need the Earth to trade with to survive, if not to send them vital supplies on a regular basis. Perhaps they would survive and carry on, eventually being able to build return rockets to come back to repopulate Earth years later. My personal feeling is that we will set up a base on Mars, spend years proving it could be done, then something will come along which will mean for a while Earth is unable or unwilling to support the colony. Either the people there will be told to abandon it and return, or be abandoned there without support. It may be that after a couple decades we say it was fun but decide to call it quits, or we maintain a few dozen people in a scaled down version of Antarctica.

To really be able to say humans will not just survive, but thrive in a colony off the Earth will likely be possible in the VERY distant future when we have identified suitable exo-planets and send some very brave people on a very long one way trip.

Whatever the reasons we try to set up bases or colonies off the Earth I just hope we do it for honest ones. To hear people constantly say: It must be done! (especially MY way) We must must do it to save humanity! (MY research grant) We will all die if we don't! (but not ME, I won't be here if you fund ME like I want) To get up on a soap box and preach that this is imperative is the BEST way to begin a massive waste of money and talent that leads to the sort of backlash that gets the possibility of it ever happening canceled indefinitely.

I also don't see that going to live on Mars will be very lucrative for a private venture for a very long time.

[Booban]

I'm not going to write as much as he did, I promise.

About mining asteroids, in space (not bringing them home through the atmosphere), I don't really see why it should be so impossibly expensive as some people say. The way I see it, most of it is a one time cost. A 'mining ship' that is sent up to perch on a roid and gobble it up until it is done. This ship jettisons its ore in capsules back to earth. After this roid is done, the ship goes to the next, then next, until there is not an asteroid left in the known universe ( ). All self autonomously. The only costs is building and a lofting the ship itself, then propellants to send the stuff back through the atmosphere in capsules.

Now you can't tell me that whatever the one time cost of this mining ship, it is more than the worth of all the asteroids in the asteroid belt!

[Shpaget]

Asteroid belt is too far away to be mined. But there are more than enough NEOs to provide (certain) materials for tens of thousands of years.

I don't think you can have your mining ship (lets be cool and from now on call it an outpost) unmanned and automated. Mining is very stressful on equipment and it wears it down quickly, so constant maintenance and part replacing is required. I'm not sure it can be done remotely.

Sending mined (and preferably somewhat refined) material back to Earth's orbit is also an issue. Unless you can move around massive amounts of it, entire project is doomed, and I'm pretty sure current propulsion systems are not capable of doing it in reasonable amount of time.
What is needed (IMO) is a new engine capable of burning whatever is found in those asteroids (mainly various types of rocks), because sending enough propellant to the asteroid to be able to get back the material is not practical.
I guess it should be some kind of electric system (a cousin of an ion engine or VASIMR), but not too picky about the propellant.

I'm pretty sure that dropping the mined resources in bulk to the Earth's surface won't be possible for a long time, but that's ok. Metals are needed up there, down here we have enough for our needs. Besides 1 tonne of steel down here is worth $500. Up there it's worth about $10 000 000, and higher you go bigger the price tag you can stick on it (and it's actually cheaper for you to deliver it).

So if you want to make money, you'll make more up there since I'm not sure if you can compete with $500/t (after you calculate in all the costs of the mission and losses during the reentry), but you sure can compete with 10M/t, and you don't even have all the losses and complications of reentry and nuclear bomb sized explosions.

[kelvinzero]

Here's a thought about the "X-Prize" aspect. I don't know Paul Allen. He probably is a really decent person. But he just went out and bought the X-Prize for space. To prevent that from being the norm one would have to cap the expenditures on building a product...
Bill

I havent been following the details.. I have never even heard of the guy (just googled it)

but yeah, future prizes could be about demonstrating something within a certain cost..

On the other hand though, this is one of the big advantages of the x-prize. For every million that the x-prize people put up, private investors typically put in twenty or so times as much money. The real prize is not the money but the prestige of winning an award with a valuable name behind it.

Im thrilled that a co founder of microsoft would bring his financial clout to winning a prize.. I wonder if he expects to make this money back (which is great if he has a financial plan that works ) or just has too much money and wants to be an astronaut (which is also fine by me )

[Booban]

Asteroid belt is too far away to be mined. But there are more than enough NEOs to provide (certain) materials for tens of thousands of years.

I don't think you can have your mining ship (lets be cool and from now on call it an outpost) unmanned and automated. Mining is very stressful on equipment and it wears it down quickly, so constant maintenance and part replacing is required. I'm not sure it can be done remotely.

Sending mined (and preferably somewhat refined) material back to Earth's orbit is also an issue. Unless you can move around massive amounts of it, entire project is doomed, and I'm pretty sure current propulsion systems are not capable of doing it in reasonable amount of time.
What is needed (IMO) is a new engine capable of burning whatever is found in those asteroids (mainly various types of rocks), because sending enough propellant to the asteroid to be able to get back the material is not practical.
I guess it should be some kind of electric system (a cousin of an ion engine or VASIMR), but not too picky about the propellant.

I'm pretty sure that dropping the mined resources in bulk to the Earth's surface won't be possible for a long time, but that's ok. Metals are needed up there, down here we have enough for our needs. Besides 1 tonne of steel down here is worth $500. Up there it's worth about $10 000 000, and higher you go bigger the price tag you can stick on it (and it's actually cheaper for you to deliver it).

So if you want to make money, you'll make more up there since I'm not sure if you can compete with $500/t (after you calculate in all the costs of the mission and losses during the reentry), but you sure can compete with 10M/t, and you don't even have all the losses and complications of reentry and nuclear bomb sized explosions.

In 2007 Dawn was launched to to reach Ceres in 2015, before that Vesta in 2011. Vesta is the size of Arizona and Ceres is a 'dwarf' planet. I don't see the time scale as being a big deal, not even for humans if they get to retire after their 'shift'.

What NEO are you talking about? The moon? Can't be mining the moon forever you know. Don't forget its gravity affects our tides, I'd prefer mining the moon just be a spring board to something else.

Why is propulsion such an issue? It's frictionless space, isn't it ways easier to move things about there? Yeah, its a time issue, but my time frame is ok if it takes 20 years before the first metal filled pod parachutes to earth, because after that, my mining 'outpost' is send 'em once a day. Whats so hard about that? We know very well how to send things in capsules back down to earth.

But no, its not ok to use the space resources in space. The whole point is trying to get into space in the first place. There is no space industry that want's to buy my asteroid ore in space, therefore steel is worth zero dollars in space.

Why are you using steel for 500 bucks a ton for? That is a silly number, surely there is something more valuable than that in an asteroid.

[Shpaget]

You can't seriously think that materials from which some very large space station would be built are going to be mined on asteroid, bombarded the Earth with and then blasted back to space?
I mentioned steel since it's probably the best candidate for building structural components of a space station because it's fairly simple to produce it from ore and because there so much iron in asteroids.

No I don't suggest mining Moon. There are lots of asteroids in lower orbit than Earth, and there are even asteroids whose orbit crosses Earth's.

Dawn is 1,250 kg probe.
Something that could carry human workforce and heavy machinery will surely be much slower than a probe.

Propulsion is an issue because investors won't like the idea of their investment starting to return money after 30-50 years. Why? None of them will live long enough to see it.
Besides, a lot of things can change in that time period. Just look what happened in last 30-50 years.

There is no space industry that want's to buy my asteroid ore in space, therefore steel is worth zero dollars in space.

Actually I think if you could offer steel at $5000/kg in orbit, customers would be standing in line, and you'd be struggling to meet the demand.

[HopDavid]

About mining asteroids, in space (not bringing them home through the atmosphere), I don't really see why it should be so impossibly expensive as some people say. The way I see it, most of it is a one time cost. A 'mining ship' that is sent up to perch on a roid and gobble it up until it is done.

What's the mass of your mining ship? Delta V budget for getting there?

Is the mining ship autonomous robots or will there be humans aboard? If humans - life support complicates mission considerably.

Robots might be possible. But presently autonomous or teleoperated robots for mining are in their infancy. Most miners are still human.

This ship jettisons its ore in capsules back to earth.

What's delta V budget for capsule's trip back to earth? Where you getting the propellent? Rocket engines for the capsules? Electronics for navigation, communication? Will there be a spacecraft for each capsule?

After this roid is done, the ship goes to the next, then next, until there is not an asteroid left in the known universe ( ). All self autonomously.

Ah. This answers some of my earlier questions. You're using Harry Potter's wand.

Will Harry's wand also create the propellent for the needed delta V?

The only costs is building and a lofting the ship itself, then propellants to send the stuff back through the atmosphere in capsules.

For most of the best NEOs, delta V budget would be nearly the same as exhaust velocity for a typical chemical rocket (around 4 km/sec). That means your propellent mass would be around double that of the asteroid.

Now you can't tell me that whatever the one time cost of this mining ship, it is more than the worth of all the asteroids in the asteroid belt!

Asteroid belt! Okay, here the delta V budget is substantially more than an NEO. You're going to have to triple or quadruple the mass of the belt by send lots of propellent out there.

And your magical mining ship doesn't exist and won't exist for the foreseeable future.

[HopDavid]

Asteroid belt is too far away to be mined. But there are more than enough NEOs to provide (certain) materials for tens of thousands of years.

I don't think you can have your mining ship (lets be cool and from now on call it an outpost) unmanned and automated.

Correct. The unexpected frequently happens at a mine. Murphy's Law reigns (What can go wrong, will). The notion that mining can be easily automated is a naive and ignorant notion. Miners aren't like assembly plant automatons that constantly repeat the same motion in a predictable environment.

Mining is very stressful on equipment and it wears it down quickly, so constant maintenance and part replacing is required. I'm not sure it can be done remotely.

Especially for an asteroid where light lag will make teleoperation difficult.

Mining the moon is more plausible.

Sending mined (and preferably somewhat refined) material back to Earth's orbit is also an issue. Unless you can move around massive amounts of it, entire project is doomed, and I'm pretty sure current propulsion systems are not capable of doing it in reasonable amount of time.
What is needed (IMO) is a new engine capable of burning whatever is found in those asteroids (mainly various types of rocks), because sending enough propellant to the asteroid to be able to get back the material is not practical.
I guess it should be some kind of electric system (a cousin of an ion engine or VASIMR), but not too picky about the propellant.

Yes, propellent is one of the big show stoppers (that along with delta V and the rocket equation). Mining of propellent should precede mining of metals.

[Booban]

I wasn't really trying to advocate something, I was trying to brainstorm. There is a difference between constructive criticism and criticism. I guess you guys are just so clever you don't need to know that.

[Shpaget]

Well, guess what?
HopDavid and I also did some constructive criticizing, and it seems to me that you can't handle it.
Just by pointing out major flaws in an idea you make sure early on that these flaws are taken into account when developing later ideas.

Were we supposed to clap out hands and pat you on your back? How would that help in coming up with a good idea? It wouldn't.

[Booban]

You clever guy, finding flaws on a community forum, you are just too smart! Wow. And all that criticism was spot on, nobody can argue with that, your opinion is just too true! You know exactly how space exploration will pan out.

I am sure you have the one idea that is flawless that will propel humanity to space. OMG, no don't tell us, I wouldn't know what to do with my time anymore.

[Booban]

You can't seriously think that materials from which some very large space station would be built are going to be mined on asteroid, bombarded the Earth with and then blasted back to space?
I mentioned steel since it's probably the best candidate for building structural components of a space station because it's fairly simple to produce it from ore and because there so much iron in asteroids.

Yes, I can. I do not know what fantasy very large space station you are talking about, but keeping the manufacturing infrastructure down on earth is cheaper than putting an entire space station factory in space just for a one off space station. The day that you are talking about mass producing space stations is when you want to keep the infrastructure in space. And I wasn't even talking about building anything in space, I'm talking about space enterprises directly benefiting humanity here on EARTH FIRST. I do not care about steel, I am interested about metals valuable on mother earth, not in space. If you are going to answer me, talk about what I am talking about please.

No I don't suggest mining Moon. There are lots of asteroids in lower orbit than Earth, and there are even asteroids whose orbit crosses Earth's.

Why should I care which space rock is mined?

Dawn is 1,250 kg probe.
Something that could carry human workforce and heavy machinery will surely be much slower than a probe.

Yeah, so?

Propulsion is an issue because investors won't like the idea of their investment starting to return money after 30-50 years. Why? None of them will live long enough to see it.
Besides, a lot of things can change in that time period. Just look what happened in last 30-50 years.

Says you. Warren Buffet makes some investments for a 30 year time frame, he doesn't even care if he is going to die before then. If the investment is sound for 30 years, it will probably pay back before then too.

Yes, look whats happened in the last 30-50 years...we're still on this planet! I do not think we are talking about those investors who are looking for a 5 year payback. If you read from the start of this thread, Bill is talking about us investing in space, people who really want things to happen.

There is no space industry that want's to buy my asteroid ore in space, therefore steel is worth zero dollars in space.

Actually I think if you could offer steel at $5000/kg in orbit, customers would be standing in line, and you'd be struggling to meet the demand.[/quote]
Erm, yeah, that's what you think. Who has that space factory pumping out space ships up there to buy your steel?

[Boots09]

Well, heres my two cents. One, I do kind of think it sad that no one seems to be interested in exploring space just out of curiosity or the desire to learn. But for the question of people going into space in large numbers. ..when they can do so in comfort. Mining won't do it. We have plenty of ore right here yet and by the time we don't we'll be manufacturing other replcements for it right here...like the carbon fiber tech etc. Even if we do need to mine from other than earth...ok..you have a automated facility with a few bored out of thier skull miners to watch the gagues. But, figure out a way to get people from point A to B fast and in comfort..then buid a resort/casino. Some who work there will live there, might become a retierment destination someday. Or maybe just a vacation option. Look at Antartica. Whos there? A handful of researchers......and thousands of people on cruise ships. But, sadly I think its a few hundred years off yet.

[HopDavid]

Why is propulsion such an issue? It's frictionless space, isn't it ways easier to move things about there?

To get from here to there, you need delta V, change in velocity.

If there is no propellent at your destination, delta V must include the return leg of the trip.

Delta V is part of the exponent in the rocket equation:

Mass propellent / Mass payload = e^(delta V/Vex) - 1.

e - Euler's number which is about 2.72
delta V - total change in velocity needed.
Vex - exhaust velocity of propellent. For liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen Vex is about 4.46 km/sec

Achieving low earth orbit takes about 9 km/sec. Due to gravity and drag loss, it takes about 12 to 13 km/sec to escape earth's gravity well. You will some more than that to fly to an NEO.

After arriving at the NEO, you must match velocities before you land. After getting ore, it must be sent back to earth - more delta V.

After arriving at earth, the incoming cargo must match velocities with our earth moon system or it will go sailing past the earth. Perhaps some or all of this delta V can be acheived with aerobraking/lithobraking.

The delta V budgets for returning material from various asteroids can vary quite a lot depending on the asteroid you pick.

Achieving low earth orbit (LEO) is a large part of the mission. But once you're in LEO, getting there and back isn't trivial.

[Shpaget]

Who's talking about one time missions? You sound like your final goal is to mine few grains of precious ore, get it to Earth (burning half of it in the process) and throwing away your entire space program.
You don't care about steel? Maybe you should, since it's one of the most important products of our society and as such is extremely important no matter where you are.
I gave an example of steel and now you hold on to it like a drunkard to a floor. Of course there would be other ores and minerals mined, and of course they would be used.
And yes, I am talking about building stuff in orbit.

You're the one that brought the Moon in the discussion, not me. You said something about it having tidal effect on Earth. I think you were worried about humans mining so much that it would affect its gravity... well... not possible in this solar system's life time.

You gave an example of Dawn's 10-year mission as acceptable for humans.
I said that a ship with human on board would be much slower, and that the mission would extend well beyond acceptable.
Do I need to draw it for you? I will if you ask me politely.

Unfortunately not all of us are Warren Buffett (two "t"s).

As for your last question, the answer is: Nobody, primarily because transporting cargo at $10 000 - $20 000/kg is not economical.
But like I said, if you could offer it at much lower prices and offer custom made parts bigger than what is transportable by rockets, you'd have clients waiting in line.


Oh, and yes, I am a clever guy. Thanks for noticing my unbearable awesomeness.