Slashdot Mirror
NASA On Mining Extraterrestrial Sources
FortKnox writes "Looks like something from the game "Homeworld", but NASA discusses mining ore from planets/asteroids or any other source of "Cosmic Dirt"." I remember debating this idea in high school debate - it's a wonderful idea.
"As example, processing of Martian resources to churn out fuel for a Mars sample return mission could be later scaled up to support human expeditionary crews on the red planet."
Wonderful idea or not, we're decades away from this. Right now, we can barely get people to the moon. We managed to get a tiny little explorer to the moon. Now, they're already thinking about putting PEOPLE on mars?
Take things one step at a time, I say. Let's wait a while, allow the technology to improve, and then evaluate what to do once we can place people on other planets.
I'm sure we can come up with far better things to do if we could get humans on Mars. And I pray it doesn't involve stripping the planet of its natural resources like we're doing here on Earth. I hope by the time this becomes reality, we're better at drawing resources from nature (i.e. solar power) and that we won't have to resort to strip mining on other planets just to keep up our quality of life here on Earth.
-NeoTomba
I just read the article, and the big unanswered question is: WHAT are you going to mine?
Taylor explained that work should focus on the "unusual economics" of planetary ores, including the relationship of lunar and Martian development to each other.
Unusual economics is a good euphimism for "ungodly expensive", especially in transport costs. Whatever we're mining, it would have to be extremely valuable per ounce, right?
Aggregate will be an important resource on both the Moon and Mars. Here on Earth, it is the most mined material in the United States, at some 2.3 billion tons a year. It is used for roads, concrete, bridges, roofing materials, and glass
Aggregate? Not Iridium, Gold, Plutonium, Scandium, or "rare earth" metals so expensive we haven't even heard of them? AGGREGATE? Rock?
I'm sorry, I don't buy it. Space travel costs are in the billions of dollars per ton right now. A metric ton of aggregate crap... you can mine out of my back yard.
I must be missing something.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Another question is whether these space resources would be used for construction up there, or sent back here... if sent back here, I can see now the inane claims of Greens that, while we'd be using less of the Earth's own bounty, we'd be dangerously adding mass to the Earth with "unknown consequences"...
Love the earlier reference to Larry Niven... always worth going back and reading his stuff.
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
Surely the primary focus of "Exterrestrial Mining" would be to produce raw materials needed for space exploration and colonization, not just to bring it back to Earth in lieu of terrestrial sources?
This article also talks about one of the biggest advantages of mining asteroids - getting mass (ore, water, aggregate) off an asteroid is trivial in terms of energy and thrust required. If you're looking to build spaceships or space stations, there's a big advantage in using the materials already up there instead of bringing them out of the Earth's gravity well. The Moon and Mars have the same advantage to a lesser degree.
Nothing ever collected in space has ever been practically useful. Dust, rocks, etc. were only used as research material, and then only back on earch. In effect, when it comes to space travel, we've always carried a sack lunch, and tend to pack out our trash.
In Earth's history, voyages of discovery have always taken enough supplies to get them to their destination, then they used indiginous resources to keep going. How far could Columbus (nasty Eurotrash that he was) have kept going if he'd had to get back before his food ran out?
Mining operations in space needn't be self-sufficient to represent a new era in space exploration; they need only become marginally profitable, and we'll be over the hump. The new "New World" will begin to move past the exploration phase, and on to exploitation and settlement. Thank God we aren't carrying smallpox around anymore.
It costs quite a bit of money just to put a pound of mass into orbit. Just looking for a quick ballpark, I found http://www.orbit6.com/et/ngfido94.htm which asserts:
So it's about US$1.875M to launch one ton of mass into orbit (best case.) Therefore one ton of, say, iron in orbit is worth whatever a ton of iron is worth normally, PLUS some fraction of US$1.875M.
If you're building things for space, the best way to go is to build them IN space, which should cut their cost dramatically. We shouldn't forget about reusing the shuttle's bigass tanks, which NASA says they can do for free, and supposedly will do for anyone who is willing to do something responsible with them. We should be thinking of ways to use those tanks to do something clever WRT space-based mining, because they're cheap. Perhaps one should build some sort of machining facility, and a smelter; Having done that it should be possible to make ISS parts or similar. This would save huge piles of money, because you only have to lift the most specialized components.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Read "Moon is a harsh Mistress" by R.A. Heinlein for a Sci-fi view of this. You folks who are talking about bringing the ore back to earth seem to miss the point - it's better to keep this stuff up in orbit to you can use it instead of bringing it back to Earth. I forget the price per Kilogram of sending something up in the space shuttle, but it's something like $20,000/kg +.
Of course, if you bang an asteroid with a nice meaty chunk of Platinum or Paladium, there's a lot of healthy uses for that back home.
The danger is that this type of system, if it was automated, could easily over-run us.
I don't know if anyone remembers this earlier slashdot article, which also discussed the matter of mining space. It also mentioned that one near earth asteroid (NEO 3554 Amun, about 2km wide) that was worth about 20 trillion dollars. Mind you that's in today's market, but I'd say there is more than enough economic incentive to go for it. I don't understand why NASA hasn't already - just one rock could solve their many budgetary woes for years to come, would be a tremendously telegenic venture, and would stimulate practical space technologies tremendously...
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
But, what about self sufficiency for a space colony? Robinson's Mars series points out how any colony that becomes self sufficient is destained to become its own nation (think of the U.S. colonies in 1776). Extraterretial mining technology would be the first step in that direction.
Most SF on the topic (including Robison) focuses on a revolution scenario, with Earth trying to maintain its grip on the colony in question. On the other hand, skeptics of human space colonization say colonies will never happen beacause they cost too much and will drain resources from Mother Earth over the long term.
What if they're both wrong? Would Earth be willing to front a large, but finite, amount of cash to set up a colony with the understanding that it would one day become an independant political entity and not an ongoing drain on resources? Would immigrants be more willing to join up, and front some of their own capital, with this promise of independance when "the mortgage is paid off"?
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
This discussion of space mining is pure sci-fi dreaming.
The world can barely muster up enough political will and economic support to maintain one space station with three people on it. Even the space station plan has been cut way back from its original scope. You can forget about seeing extensive space mining or any other other kind of major escalation of space efforts as long as the current economics and attitudes prevail.
IMHO, extensive exploration of space will only start happening when it's no longer the governments of the world that are paying for it.
-- Spike
Bull shit.
Your fear-mongering. Sure, the risk exists. But I really don't think that it's reasonable. Contrast with other risks in history. Take, for instance, cars: it's easy for someone to point a car at something and put a brick on the accelerator. Trivial, in fact. Now, I think we can fairly well agree that some level of widely availible mode of transportation was necessary for society.
I think we can also agree that expansion into has been necessary (We've always explored), and will continue to be. We've covered the earth: the sky is next. Whether it's because of mining or whatever, is irrelevant: the dangers exist because we are putting the average joe up there.
What about planes? They have been used as massive weapons, but we still use them for their intended purpose. To abandon something because it potentially could be a weapon is cautious, however, to restrict civilization to the earth is ignorant, and, in the long run, suicidal.
I never like short term solutions over long term solutions.
IF we get in the habit or scrounging up every bit of good minerals/power from everywhere near us, we will leave a trail of trash wherever we go. In 1000 years do we want a string of dead solar systems pointing to us, who now need a galaxy's power for a few star systems?
Bah. We need to learn efficiency.
short term good sucks.
Another thing is that when/if we establish fully functional mining colonies on the moon, the next stage will be to create the industrial resources there on the moon to construct and launch spacecraft. There's some startup costs getting materials there for the first few spacecraft... but construction and launches should both be much more efficient in a low gravity environment. Those first ships can then hopefully lead to cheaper mining elsewhere (Mars?) for raw materials to build more in space, leading to progressively less and less launches from Earth.
11*43+456^2