Slashdot Mirror


Earth-buzzing Asteroid Would Be Worth $195B If We Could Catch It

coondoggie writes "The asteroid NASA says is about the half the size of a football field that will blow past Earth on Feb 15 could be worth up to $195 billion in metals and propellant. That's what the scientists at Deep Space Industries, a company that wants to mine these flashing hunks of space materials, thinks the asteroid known as 2012 DA14 is worth — if they could catch it."

58 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. Re-position the Planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Re-position the Planet. We could catch it full in the face. How much would it be worth then?

    1. Re:Re-position the Planet by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Using average values for velocity, density, impact angle, etc. you get about six megatons. Hardly a 'zit'.

    2. Re:Re-position the Planet by Westwood0720 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd pay for it to land on Washington

      Fixed.

    3. Re:Re-position the Planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see kickstarter potential ... I'm sure they could raise $195B if someone could redirect it for DC ...

    4. Re:Re-position the Planet by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      No they havn't, they have armed thugs stopping random people in the street and frisking them.

      Seriously, read up.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:Re-position the Planet by steelfood · · Score: 2

      6 megatons is not even a zit. The pores of your skin would be more prominent than the explosion this would cause. This planet is huge. 6Mt will just flatten a lot of trees and kill off a bunch of animals (humans included) in a localized area, but it probably won't cause a supervolcano eruption unless the human species got real lucky.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    6. Re:Re-position the Planet by Iniamyen · · Score: 2

      I hate how people that aren't from the state of Washington use "Washington" to mean "Washington DC."

    7. Re:Re-position the Planet by amoeba1911 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't get it: material in space is worth a whole lot more than material on earth. If you brought it back down to earth it would be worth only a tiny fraction of that price and defeat the entire purpose of catching it. We already have lots of water on earth, and this whole planet is made of all kinds of metals, there is no water shortage here. Asteroid is worth a lot in space because bringing material out of the gravity well and atmosphere is expensive, to the tune of several thousand dollar per pound. If we slowed down this asteroid to make it go into a stable orbit around the earth (or the moon) then it really would be worth billions, if not trillions. The problem is slowing down an object out of a hyperbolic orbit - it requires tremendous amount of force. We could change its trajectory slightly so it enters the atmosphere for aerobreaking, but that requires very precise control of the trajectory to make sure it doesn't end up sub-orbital. :)

    8. Re:Re-position the Planet by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, I hate how people from all over the world think that the capital of the United States is a more relevant use for the word "Washington" than one of the 50 states which shares its name! Those people suck!

  2. Doggy Dollars.... by rts008 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure that's the same thought my neighbors dog has while it is chasing the cars passing by.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  3. Who owns the asteroid? by gTsiros · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The US? The world? An individual?

    --
    Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
    1. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by corbettw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whoever can land on it. Possession being 9/10s of the law and all that.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by Zouden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The outer space treaty says that nations can't "claim ownership" of space bodies and they can't use them for weapons testing. But AFAIK that doesn't prohibit commercial exploitation of an asteroid. Whoever can catch it and start mining it has a pretty good claim to it. Who's going to stop them? And for what purpose?

      A legal battle would arise if another company tried mining the same asteroid. They'd need to set up a way of staking a claim. But we're not nearly at that stage yet.

      --
      "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    3. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by Zouden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes it's ratified, and how is the number of spaceships relevant to the question of mining rights?

      --
      "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    4. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by Zouden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, but that superpower would also need the desire to enforce ownership. There's just no incentive when they can just encourage Chinese or US mining companies to do the dirty work.

      --
      "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    5. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by martin-boundary · · Score: 2
      Why would anyone stop them? Just wait until they try to bring any of it back down to Earth (*), and then take it off them by force.

      (*) or anywhere else they would want to send the metals. Basically, metals are useless if they stay on the asteroid, and they can only become valuable if they are brought to some location where there are (or will be) people. Take the stuff off them wherever that is.

    6. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      The outer space treaty says that nations can't "claim ownership" of space bodies and they can't use them for weapons testing. But AFAIK that doesn't prohibit commercial exploitation of an asteroid

      But many (all?) launching nations have laws that any meteorites, space-craft, or space debris belongs to the government. Which would include any metals you return from space. And even if you drop them into international waters, and you don't get to them first, normal salvage rules probably apply. So you'll need a large landing/crashing area in a desert which you own mineral rights to, in a country that doesn't regulate the trade in meteorites.

      In a world where record companies have been buying laws, it seems unlikely that any company capable of engaging in space mining wouldn't quickly be able to get the laws changed to something more up to date. Only in this instance, it would actually be a positive change to allow actual free enterprise.

    7. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you catch an asteroid, right then you gain the power you need to demand anything you want of any nation.

      'Cause if you can catch it, you can drop it.

      --
      This space available.
    8. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by isorox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did the US Senate ratify the outer space treaty?
      How many spaceships has the UN got to enforce the provisions of this treaty?

      They could just rent space on a Russian rocket. Sound famillier?

    9. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by LingNoi · · Score: 4, Informative

      The whole point of these materials being valuable is due to the fact that launching said material into space is expensive, so the materials wouldn't be taken back to earth, they'd be used in space.

    10. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Whoever can land on it. Possession being 9/10s of the law and all that.

      Heh -- you are almost right. It's the person who can defend a claim that owns it, not the first person to make the claim. I sincerely hope Deep Space Industries does live up to their potential by profiting from asteroid mining. But their success is contingent upon them being able to defend their claims of ownership, and they really haven't addressed how they are going to do that, yet. Be interesting see what their defense is. Claim-jumping is just as real a threat now as it was in California in 1849. Who will Deep Space Industries appeal to when a rival lands on their rock and reprograms all their mining bots -- Starfleet, perhaps? (I kid, I kid, but I think you see my point.)

    11. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      And how quickly would they decide to unratify that treaty, or just plain ignore it, if there was any reason to whatsoever? When has having signed a treaty or other niggling bs like that stopped them before?

      Treaties are for countries that have to worry about sanctions or invasion.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    12. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by DMorritt · · Score: 2

      The IRS can't claim money from shell US companies in random tax evasion, erm I mean *avoidance* countries, or even collect the due money from your presidential wannabe, how much luck do you think they will have when someone catches a rock from space? Unless you plan on landing it in the middle of the US and mining it the traditional way... In which case - carry on!

    13. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by WillAdams · · Score: 3, Insightful

      for so long as:

        - one doesn't get tired of hydroponically grown food and one can keep the water and air cycle going
        - one can prevent anyone from coming up the gravity well and launching a nuke
        - and no one stands up and refuses to cross the line in the sand

      Heinlein touched on all of these in _Space Cadet_, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ and _Starship Troopers_ --- there was a very good line about how trying to keep the peace w/ nukes was like trying to keep discipline in a kindergarden class w/ nothing but a loaded shotgun.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    14. Re:Who owns the asteroid? by bughunter · · Score: 2

      But their success is contingent upon them being able to defend their claims of ownership, and they really haven't addressed how they are going to do that, yet. Be interesting see what their defense is.

      I suggest the option of de-orbiting chunks of the object onto the headquarters of those who threaten their claim would be part of their defense.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  4. Supply & demand by dingen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But... if $195B worth of metals would be added to the market, wouldn't the value of metals drop because of supply & demand, resulting in a much less profitable asteroid?

    --
    Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    1. Re:Supply & demand by corbettw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The global economy is worth almost $70 trillion dollars; a sudden influx of 0.27% of that amount would have negligible impact on the value of goods and services.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Supply & demand by dintech · · Score: 2

      Just release it to the market slowly, like the OPEC do.

    3. Re:Supply & demand by taiwanjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Different market. They're talking about the value of these materials in orbit, not here on earth.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    4. Re:Supply & demand by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      America is sitting on 3 trillion barrels of oil. What keeps the economy in check is that it still needs to be mined and extracted.

      Same with this asteroid. It wouldn't be a sudden dump of $195bn onto the market. Just like the 175tcf of gas that have suddenly been discovered in Australia haven't made a dent in the economy, instead it's just changed the share price of a handful of company.

    5. Re:Supply & demand by Respawner · · Score: 2

      Because markets behave rationally ?
      The prospect of a sudden influx of rare earth materials or fuels couldn't drive down the commodity pricing ? Even if this prospect seems baseless right now (cost of recovering the materials seems rather high) it could still have an effect on pricing.

      Besides that, OP was wrong to (didn't RTFA I guess), unless you want to "land" the astroid on earth, the $195B isn't added directly on the market, rather it decreases the amount of materials needed to be send into space @ $10m /tonne.
      However, for this you would need to create refineries and more in space (right now they are still in prototype scale, with "70-lb DragonFlies"). As such I highly doubt that the exact cost/benefit could be determinned at this point in time, since (space program) estimates are inaccurate.

    6. Re:Supply & demand by jonadab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is, however, possible to flood the market for particular commodities. A few centuries ago, for example, Spain mishandled their newfound wealth from Central America and flooded the European gold market. OPEC has repeatedly been held together because the country with the largest production has consistently and deliberately reduced their production to compensate whenever other member nations produce too much in a given year. If they had not done so, the market would have been saturated and the commodity price of crude oil would have dropped significantly.

      An asteroid made of mostly iron, to have any impact on the commodity market for iron or steel, would have to be worth a good deal more than $139 billion. An asteroid containing significant amounts of some less common material (e.g., rare earth metals) could potentially have an impact on the commodity prices of those -- if it were economic to capture and mine the thing, which of course it's not, at our current level of technology.

      In fact, however, this asteroid probably doesn't contain anywhere near $139 billion worth of metals at commodity prices. (It's only about the size of a football field, and they don't yet know precisely what it's made of.) The article talks about how much its materials would be worth in orbit, which is mostly a function of how expensive it is to get things up there from the surface. For example, they're imagining it might contain water, which could be used as reaction mass for spacecraft. On the surface, water is one of the cheapest materials there is. (Air is even cheaper.) But it costs money to lift it out of Earth's gravity well.

      They're dreaming, though. Without sci-fi technology (e.g., a tractor beam), capturing (let alone mining) a passing asteroid would be a ridiculously expensive (and also dangerous) operation, and all the equipment and personnel needed to do it would have to be lifted to orbit from the surface.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    7. Re:Supply & demand by jkflying · · Score: 4, Informative

      If we could stick into the Earth-Moon L4/L5 points it could sit there for a few million years without any sci-fi hardware. The difficulty is getting it there in the first place.

      I think the reason there isn't any demand for orbital construction is because there isn't enough materials. If we could get that sorted, the construction opportunities will follow.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    8. Re: Supply & demand by cusco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Markets respond rationally? Maybe in Ronpaulland, but here on Earth there are entire industries devoted to make sure that they don't. Madison Avenue alone receives more money for marketing than the entire NASA budget, and Wall Street sucks more money out of the world economy than the revenue of most countries.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    9. Re:Supply & demand by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      There isn't a market in orbit - so the actual value of these materials (currently and for the foreseeable future) is zero.

  5. Space mining ROI - fuel by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me that the biggest bottleneck in making a ROI for something like this isn't even so much the logistics of getting up there, mining it, and bringing it back down gracefully. It's the fuel consumption. Short of nuke power, we haven't got anything approaching the energy requirements to make this efficient.

    I haven't looked into Deep Space Industries all that much or what their business plan is, but what I understand seems kind of pie in the sky and unrealistic. Mining operations are huge capital investments. So would be the infrastructure necessary to bring the materials down here once they're harvested, and getting the equipment up there.

    Granted, you'd not have to worry about the ecological impact mining on the planet causes or the associated government regulation, but short of establishing a fairly large extraplanet base where most operations, including smelting, occur, with massive space mining ships like what you'd see in science fiction movies, I can't imagine this being profitable anytime soon... Don't get me wrong, but how are these guys NOT some sort of "dotcom company" selling vaporware?

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:Space mining ROI - fuel by sFurbo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It seems their plan is not to bring the materials to Earth, but to use them to build things in space, where things are much more valuable (is it something like 10.000$ per kg to launch a satellite?). IIRC, the first part of their scheme is simply to extract water and other volatiles, which can be used for propellants. The required investment would be much smaller than for producing objects, and the cost in orbit is still at least what it costs to launch it on a rocket.

    2. Re:Space mining ROI - fuel by ae1294 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's space so there is no vapor...

    3. Re:Space mining ROI - fuel by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually I think you're applying a lot of conventional earth-bound thinking to an enterprise which is not.

      Earth mining has a lot of constraints which space doesn't. For one thing, solar power is perpetual and constant. There's no gravity - so structures don't need to support their own mass, only the forces they experience due to their own accelerations/rotations. You could use kilometers wide mylar sheeting to build solar furnaces, and provided you didn't spin it or over-tension it it would be just fine.

      Building volume is practically limitless, there's no environmental issues or clean up to worry about (though not scattering debris in the orbital regions would be important). There's also no convection - anything you heat up is only going to lose heat by inefficient radiative cooling. Keeping hot things hot would be ridiculously easy.

      The single biggest problem with space mining is refining - and it's not a problem, we've just never thought about how to do it in that environment. The goal of the mining/refining process is to use as few depleteable items as possible - i.e. you'd want to do as much as you could with free-floating masses of material and focussed sunlight as you could.

      Factories, refineries, mining picks/drills/whatever - all these ideas are irrelevant in such an environment. And all this can be done in an area less then a light-second away from Earth - so no need for any humans to be in space whatsoever.

  6. NASA said.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The impact of a 50-meter asteroid is not cataclysmic--unless you happen to be underneath it, NASA said."

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this statement.

  7. Hypothetic worth by Mitreya · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't material influx on that level affect the market and depress the cost?
    For example, an asteroid made of gold would be worth a lot of money, but the price of gold may fall worldwide if we do catch one.

    1. Re:Hypothetic worth by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      No, because it wouldn't be in the regular market. The space mining plans seem to involve collecting, refining and leave the materials in space to be used to build other things. The materials wouldn't be competing with the like materials in the open market, it would be competing with taking like materials into space.

  8. Meh by srussia · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just mint a $195B coin!

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  9. value = thing + time and place by epine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Greenland ice sheet would be worth nearly as much if we could snare it, tow it, and deliver it to the Middle East in pristine condition, held with minimal expense for the long term, and without leaving an ocean sized dent among when it's finally depleted by the immodest swimming pools of Saudi Arabia.

    Half the shit rotting in your basement could become liquid gold if you had a time machine and a forwarding address to eBay future. Only problem is that they will return payment in a priceless commodity you haven't got the first clue how to use. If you're clever, you might be able to wangle out of them all the remaining Bitcoin blocks.

    "Primordial human, what do you want that for? Are you an archaeologist, or what? Well, you'll just have to time your deliveries more precisely. The grand curator's office hours are October–November, Monday and Tuesday, 13:00 to 14:00, no exceptions."

    The real reason a supermodel isn't going to sleep with you is not because you're boring and ugly and proud of your Costco luxury goods—it's because you're living the wrong life, with the wrong crowd, on the wrong spiral arm of the social graph.

    It's there, you're here, and never the twain shall meet.

  10. An easier target... by ixarux · · Score: 2

    The moon is probably valuated many zillion dollars, give the tidal effects and romance industry that it fuels. Who's up to catching it?

  11. $195B in space... $1,950.00 on the ground! by pepsikid · · Score: 2

    I suspect that if this asteroid were to land gently in a valley somewhere, and we were to exploit all of it's resources conventionally, we'd find considerably less mineral wealth. The $195B figure is probably about saving the cost of launching comparable amounts of metals and water, minus the cost of developing infrastructure to mine in space. Mining in space is going to be about building in space, folks. The only thing we'll be sending back home is beams of space-generated power and research data. We'll spend the next million years filling the solar system with miles-long solar heat-sintered concrete cylinders to live in. There will be far more humans in space than on Earth, and we'll rarely mingle in person. Maybe someday we'll have the skill and energy to visit other stars (we quasi-already have the technology), but it won't be to bring back dilithium crystals and chests of gold-pressed latinum.

  12. I misunderstood by Grayhand · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought they meant that's how much we could save if we dropped it on North Korea

  13. Great trojan house for aliens by BlueCoder · · Score: 2

    The idea just struck me. If aliens didn't possess cloaking technology.. An asteroid such as this would make great cover to closely observe a species advanced enough to detect planets around other stars. You could even deploy small probes the size of a softball to fall to earth or into orbit.

  14. Re:What about the extra mass effecting our orbit? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

    You're right, and not at all stupid to bring this up.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  15. All EVE players know how this goes by realxmp · · Score: 2

    You go to all the trouble of catching the asteroid, mining it and it turns out to be Veldspar... Either that or some Goons turn up and steal it from your hauler when you try and take it home.

  16. What luck! by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

    And a project to capture and safely retrieving the asteroid could be as cheap as $200B.

    1. Re:What luck! by onyxruby · · Score: 2

      That would be an incredible deal actually to gain a market edge. How many countless billions have been invested into space programs before this with very costly lessons learned? For a 2.5% loss you gain insight into an entirely knew market in a very complex environment. That means the next time you do this your almost certainly making a profit off of the lessons learned from the first time. I live in Minnesota where we have a great deal of mining in the northern part of the state.

      There was recently talk about reopening some of the mines and the estimates to profitability were several years. This was in an area with a history of mining, proven materials, ready access, a trained workforce and on and on.

      By way of point, Microsoft, which has decades of experience in the computer software (and hardware) business is just now being estimated that they will start to make a profit on their x-box division with the X-box 720. This is a good decade and several billion dollars that before they started to break even.

      The people who invest in these things know that it isn't simple, could take years to pay off and will probably involve multiple failures along the way. Remember the people who have money to invest in something like this in the space have practice investing in things on the ground.

  17. Trigger-happy mods don't get the joke by sourcerror · · Score: 2

    Trigger-happy mods don't get the reference:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone

    Another fun trivia:

    " In 1674, according to Johann Ludwig Burckhardt, someone smeared the Black Stone with excrement so that "every one who kissed it retired with a sullied beard". The Shi'ite Persians were suspected of being responsible ... "

  18. Pity we can't put a camera on it.. by way2trivial · · Score: 2

    I'm told it's returning at some point?

    I imagine something useful come come of it... and for that matter, why aren't we soft landing an instrument package on the face of haileys comet?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  19. If it is such a good idea... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

    If this is such a good idea, then why doesn't Deep Space Industries raise the capital and do it? It is always interesting how people (usually business leaders) cry out for smaller government, but want the government to fund their business endeavors. It's quite simple really. The estimate from Deep Space Industries is that there is about $195B worth of resources to be mined from the asteroid. Depending on what they want for a ROI, say 40%, if they can do mine it for less than $139B then they should do it. If not, then it doesn't make business sense to do it and they should move on.

    When there is a for-profit venture, the government shouldn't be footing the bill. That is the role of the private sector. The government should get involved when research is necessary for the benefit of citizens but the ROI isn't there to encourage the private sector to act (ie. develop inexpensive vaccines) or to provide infrastructure (ie. if you want hydrogen powered cars, somebody has to build hydrogen delivery systems across the country).

    If Deep Space Industries thinks this is a good idea, then they should be able to convince any number of venture capitalists to fund it instead of taxpayers. Of course, venture capitalists have to be repaid, where taxpayers usually are not.

  20. I wouldn't be THAT expensive to catch it... by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You could capture it with a minimum of propellant fairly easily. Reorienting its orbit relative to Earth doesn't take much of a push if you do it far enough away (which is why when you do course corrections on a spacecraft, you make the big ones early on, and make small, fine-tuning ones when you get closer to your target).

    Then you can get most of your delta-v by aerobraking it in Earth's upper atmosphere, aiming it just deep enough to slow it down to just barely below Earth's escape velocity. You'd save a vast amount of propellant and make an amazing light show for anyone watching. =)

    Then you give it one more nudge at apogee (probably the most expensive part of the endeavor) to circularize its orbit enough that it doesn't hit the atmosphere again (which is important). After that last high-thrust burn you could then further circularize the orbit with low-thrust, high-efficiency electric thrusters.

    Given enough time and a nuclear reactor, this could all be done using reaction mass acquired on-site, so you wouldn't have to actually haul the propellant to the asteroid, and only take just enough to get your reactor and fuel-manufacturing plant to it.

    1. Re:I wouldn't be THAT expensive to catch it... by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not discussing LANDING it. The goal is to park it into a high Earth orbit, where it can be mined relatively cheaply. Only the most valuable materials would be landed, while bulk materials plentiful on earth (water, iron/nickel, etc.) would be used to build and service spacecraft.

  21. insignia idea by k6mfw · · Score: 2
    --
    mfwright@batnet.com