Planetary Resources Confirms Plan To Mine Asteroids

Matching widespread predictions, The Bad Astronomer writes with word that "The private company Planetary Resources has announced that it plans to mine asteroids for water, air, and even precious metals in the next few years. Your initial reaction may be to snicker a bit, but it's headed by Peter Diamandis — who established the X Prize — has several ex-NASA personnel running the engineering, and also has the backing of a half-dozen or so billionaires. So this is no joke — their plan looks solid, and may very well be the first step in establishing a permanent human presence in space."

Comments

What could possibly go wrong?

[GameboyRMH]

Hopefully they'll be very careful about bringing asteroids into Earth orbit. But the energy and mining industries are pretty safe and responsible right?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[pr0t0]

Well, there's always the possibility that some enterprising manager finds that if he provides performance enhancing narcotics to the miners, his quarterly numbers and thus compensation will go up. Then a marshal of Scottish descent will catch on after a miner wigs out on the drugs and opens an airlock without an environment suit on. He'll try to stop the operation leading the manager to send up some thugs to take the marshal out. This will cause a bloody gunfight and some EVA shenanigans; maybe an explosion or two.

Props to everyone who's old enough to get the reference!

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off and die -- it's not scary, because there's almost no conceivable way you can mess up popping an asteroid into Earth orbit that doesn't either leave it on a slow (LEO-like), grazing path through the atmosphere, easily burning/breaking up before it hits ground, or cause it to miss the Earth entirely. Orbital mechanics just don't work the way you alarmists seem to think, and the only way you'll get a weapon-like trajectory is if someone actually tried for that.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Slightly paraphrasing Hubert Farnsworth: "Yes, there's no safer occupation than mining. Especially when you're on a rock whipping through space at a million miles an hour! Whoo whoo whoo whoooo! Safe!"

Dr. Zoidberg: It's true, it's true. I've never had one asteroid miner come to me seeking medical attention.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[tmosley]

You don't see a difference between aiming a meteor to take up orbit and aiming it to hit the Earth? Like the GP said, that is HARD to do, and you really have to try to get it into that range. This is why for every Tunguska, there are at least hundreds of thousands of similar sized rocks that burn up or get flung away.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

the only way you'll get a weapon-like trajectory is if someone actually tried for that.

And there is my next movie idea. A rogue non-union group of asteroid miners, sick of lousy pay, blue gruel, and malfunctioning sexbots, actually tries to get an asteroid into a weapon-like trajectory in order to hold to Earth ransom for one bazillion, no wait, one gazillion dollars. Cue Dwayne Johnson to get Bruce Willis out of retirement for one last Earth saving "Hurrah!" Call it "Die Hardest Mega-Impactor Go Joe Go".

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Travco]

"Trying to teach a pig to sing wastes your time and only annoys the pig"
Robert A. Heinlein

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Be nice if people could explain it without the "fuck off and die" part, though. Or the singing pig comment below mine. I have a general understanding of orbital mechanics being in the space biz and all, but I really don't expect it to be general knowledge even in the geekverse.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[LateArthurDent]

Be nice if people could explain it without the "fuck off and die" part, though. Or the singing pig comment below mine. I have a general understanding of orbital mechanics being in the space biz and all, but I really don't expect it to be general knowledge even in the geekverse.

I completely agree with you, and think general politeness goes a long way in making a convincing argument (it doesn't matter how logical and factual your argument is if you've made the other person stop listening to you).

That said, I think I also understand the frustration that causes people to answer so angrily. We're seeing this anti-technology reaction lately, even among geek circles. Every time somebody tries anything remotely innovative, you see the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag pop up and a bunch of people posting about how this new innovative thing sounds great in theory, but in practice it's going to kill and maim people, and generally make puppies cry.

Basically, it's not that I expect people to have a general understanding of orbital mechanics here. It's that I expect people who do not have a general understanding of orbital mechanics to assume that those actually involved in the project know what they're doing. It's alright to ask, "is there a danger here, can someone with knowledge in this area explain to me the risks involved?" It's another thing entirely to say, "I hope these guys are being extremely careful, because I see a danger here even though I know absolutely nothing about the field. In addition, I assume the people who are involved in this project to be completely irresponsible people who care nothing about safety."

I'll believe it

[Black Parrot]

when I see it happening.

Does anyone know what the (plausible) ROI for this is?

Re:I'll believe it

[gurps_npc]

They are not sending metal down to earth.

Their first step is to mine water and air and other materials to sell to NASA in orbit..

Cheaper for a space station to get water from an asteroid mine than it is to ship it up from earth.

Similarly, if they can get a simple forge up there, they can build the heavy support structures for satelitels and space stations out of metals mined on the asteroid.

This allows bigger construction in space.

Re:I'll believe it

[vlm]

Does anyone know what the (plausible) ROI for this is?

Most people are just going to babble nonsense in this article, but I'm going to try to actually give you numbers.

You can orbit a Kg for about "ten grand". However asteroids are already in orbit, and it takes a hell of a lot less fuel to deorbit than to orbit. So to a VERY crude first approximation the delivery expense is perhaps a buck per gram. Precious metals from the ground cost around one to two orders of magnitude more. So the delivery cost seems high in an absolute sense, but its not really a significant fraction of the cost of the metal.

Its kind of like complaining that you can't mine gold in South Africa because a 747 cargo plane costs $50M and $50M is a lot to spend for a little gold. Well, yes $50M is a lot of dough but you'd find that the cargo capacity of a 747 in gold is worth a whole hell of a lot more than $50M, so suddenly the airplane cost doesn't matter much.

The ROI killer is going to be the mysterious and unclear latency from when the $ are spent until the capsules of solid gold hit the earth. I would postulate that you're trading the risks of international and national politics (nationalization of mines, strikes, government delaying regulation, etc) for technology risks.

I think the ROI/risk is about as bad as opening a gold mine in South Africa. Much riskier than a diamond mine in Canada. Not as risky as a rare earth mine anywhere on the African continent. Its a plausible realistic investment.

Re:I'll believe it

[Gnomaana]

Going by this logic the human race should still be confined to some small valley in Africa. Human's do stuff and go places "because it's there." When we stop doing that the clock to extinction starts ticking.

Re:I'll believe it

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Platinum has the advantage of being reasonably intrinsically useful(a brilliant catalyst for a variety of applications(certain fuel cell designs, for one), nice and corrosion resistant, in addition to being pretty and rare); but the price would certainly plummet if supply increased dramatically.

There are relatively few elements that are genuinely without practical applications(some of the shorter-lived radioactive ones are probably too hot to handle but fade too quickly to be useful industrial or medical emitters); but some get bumped into the status of 'financial instrument with a few esoteric applications' by their scarcity.

Re:I'll believe it

[squiggleslash]

One of the ironies is that many materials are prized for their scarcity, but their scarcity actually makes them less valuable in the real world.

Take gold as an extreme example. There's not enough of it to be useful, so we don't really use it that often. Instead, its rarity is prized by people who value rarity and that's it.

Libertarians might think it's valuable as some post-apocalyptic currency. Me, I think gold's useless. Outside of plating electrical connectors (something silver's pretty good at too), it's only in my house 'cos my wife like wearing the stuff decoratively.

If we had lots of gold, on the other hand, we'd start using it. Copper wire would start being replaced by gold/copper alloys. We'd use it to plate large objects to protect them from rust - car components, train bodies (perhaps even train rails.)

The irony here is that by becoming abundant, gold would become useful. As such it would be valuable. You could build and fuel industries around it. There's not enough of it to build industries around it today.

Re:I'll believe it

[0123456]

Me, I think gold's useless. Outside of plating electrical connectors (something silver's pretty good at too), it's only in my house 'cos my wife like wearing the stuff decoratively.

The odd part is that you have just demonstrated the primary reason why men like to have a big stash of gold while simultaneously claiming that it's useless.

Re:Best of Luck

[GameboyRMH]

Wise choice. From TFA:

I asked Lewicki specifically about how this will make money. Some asteroids may be rich in precious metals — some may hold tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars in platinum-group metals — but it will cost billions and take many years, most likely, to mine them before any samples can be returned. Why not just do it here on Earth? In other words, what’s the incentive for profit for the investors? This is probably the idea over which most people are skeptical, including several people I know active in the asteroid science community.

I have to admit, Lewicki’s answer surprised me. “The investors aren’t making decisions based on a business plan or a return on investment,” he told me. “They’re basing their decisions on our vision.”

These guys aren't even making excuses, they're throwing money down a hole for the lulz. And if this is one of Elon's "playing the long game" ideas he's going to be really disappointed that this will never be profitable as long as spaceships are being pushed from A to B. The only material that could possibly be profitable to bring back to Earth would be He3 from the Moon for use in fusion power.

More valuable if they keep it in space

[robot256]

The last article on asteroid mining said it wouldn't be profitable even if the asteroid was 20% gold. That was based on the ludicrous assumption that the material would be brought back to earth. Going to all the effort of capturing and mining an asteroid in space just to get a bunch of air and water seems silly until you look at just how ungodly expensive air and water are *in space*, after launch and storage costs. Producing life support materials in situ is the holy grail of space exploration.

"their plan looks solid"

[Tx]

Solid as a rock?

IGMC

Re:Best of Luck

[Black Parrot]

Actually, I think this is worth doing on a "because it's there" basis. If you've got the money and want to spend it that way.

For my values, it beats buying a football team or a casino.

Re:Best of Luck

[Sperbels]

These guys aren't even making excuses, they're throwing money down a hole for the lulz.

The money put forth into space endeavors is NOT packaged up and shot into space. It's spent right here on earth. It employs people here on earth. It uses infrastructure and resources here on earth. It's not being thrown down a hole. Even if they are doing it for lulz, it employs people.

Re:Best of Luck

[Baloroth]

Yeah, throwing money down a hole for the lulz. Just like space travel always was!

Seriously, are you so short-sighted that you cannot see how useful mining asteroids for water, air, and eventually precious minerals is? I'll give you a hint: absolutely, 100% vital to the continued development of the human race. This has nothing to do with doing something "for the lulz." It is all about advancing the state of the human race. Not for profit, but because humanity can and should expand. Asteroid mining is one step forwards in our expansion towards other planets, and if we intend to not go extinct, we need to do that. We may not need to now. We may not need to in a hundred years, but we will in a thousand, or a million, and we are only going to get there if we start at some point. Might as well do it now.

To quote from the article: "[Planetary Resources] want to make sure there are available resources in place to ensure a permanent future in space." Our future, eventually, is in space. Whether from global warming, resource exhaustion, or nuclear war, Earth will eventually not be enough. When that day comes, we will be glad some billionaires chose to spend their money on space expansion, instead of building/buying shiny new toys, or hookers and blow.

A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies!

[Overzeetop]

I really kind of like this. A group of rich guys with a bent towards science fiction are doing a proof of concept mission that is - quite honestly - to risky for a big organization like NASA.

This is such a phenomenally more interesting use of their money than a huge yacht or a private island or buying a baseball team. I say go for it.

FWIW, I believe the target asteroid size is 500T, which is the same order of magnitude (barely, factor of 7.5) as the one that re-entered and blew up with apparently no ground damage over the US west coast last night.

Re:Best of Luck

[tmosley]

Men, flying through the air!? Ridiculous! I won't be investing in that "enterprise".

As if you had the means or the opportunity.

Its the in-orbit/lunar infrastructure ...

[perpenso]

Does anyone know what the (plausible) ROI for this is?

5 year, 25 year, 100 year?

The real return will not be from delivering things to earth, rather it will be delivering things to orbit and the moon to further orbital and lunar construction and habitation. Lifting metals and waters from the earth to orbit or the moon is very expensive. Getting those resources "locally" (local in terms of gravity well not absolute distance) is the way to go and someone will get very rich doing so. The problem is that a profitable mining enterprise is optimistically many decades in the future, more likely something for the next century at our current pace.

A lot, but

[oGMo]

A lot could go wrong, but hopefully they're talking about dropping it at L1 and not actually bringing it into LEO/MEO. After all, we already have a rather large chunk of rock in orbit. A fair-sized asteroid at L1 would make a great place for a real space station, especially if it's ice and rock ... water, breathable air, and a place to build, and you don't have to do anything to keep it there. And the moon is a short jump away.

Re:just in time

[EnsilZah]

Shouldn't you be out feeding the poor or something?

RIP: SpaceDev, hello newcomers!

[Sebastopol]

Jim Benson's baby, SpaceDev, had the same business plan in the mid-90's. They were players in the X Prize and the NEAR satellite, with custom satellite launches to fund their asteroid mining plan. Sadly, Benson died in the mid-2000's and his dream went too. [But not after I made lots of money trading small fluctuations in SPDV shares for 5 years (paid for my student loans!)]

Of course, he originally claimed there could be cobalt asteroids out there worth a quadrillion dollars. (No citation, but I remember the quadrillion # clearly.)

I really hope this new venture works, I think it is a feasible idea.