|
JohnFornaro
|
|
« Reply #180 on: 06/13/2012 03:54 PM » |
|
In the PRI context, the answer is "we know", because (a) they said so; and (b) if you crunch the numbers, the inescapable conclusion is that they must refine any PGM's on site in order to be worth it: to get billion dollar amounts of PGM's requires asteroids that are too big to be practical for retrieving back to Earth orbit.
Why focus only on PGMs? Even iron ore would do: remember it's already on space, that's a huge cost saving for potential buyers. Anything they mine would compete against $20,000/kg (from Earth to LEO). An orbiting steel mill could provide material for space stations, for example.
If you should reflect for a minute, you'd be able to answer that question: The thread's focus on PGM's is because they are a heck of a lot more valuable than iron. Even tho, as you suggest, a pound of feathers and a pound of iron could be launched from Earth at aboutthe same price, you're failing to acknowledge that it is what it is that you are launching that carries value. Moving back up to space; what you are missing is that while they may need a whole lot more iron to build an O'Neil cylinder, say, than platinum; the cost of refining, the cost of manufacturing, and the cost of assembling such a structure are huge line items. Right now, the thread is just considering the PGM possibility at the moment. Ores, and lesser minerals just don't seem to have bill-yuns of dollars worth of value. Nobody's really speculating about what to make up there just yet.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #181 on: 06/13/2012 04:03 PM » |
|
Back in the 1990s, I looked at the emerging RLV/new launcher sector and concluded that if they were to be successful, there would be a demand for pressurized habitable space in orbit; consequently, I proposed that the Mir space station not be de-orbited, but rather put into a storage orbit for some years, after which it could be revived and used by customers of those new launchers.
This became the kernel of someone's business plan, but it turned out to be premature, since the new launchers were many years away from becoming real.
If any company today proposed to exploit minerals in space for users in space, I would suggest that no person alive today would ever make a dollar off such an effort. This not to say that it won't be useful someday, but not very soon.
And yes, we are still a few years away from a hypothetical Mir space station having any value in orbit.
I would suggest that discussions of mineral exploitation for customers in space be moved to the Advanced Concepts section.
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #182 on: 06/13/2012 04:25 PM » |
|
Back in the 1990s, I looked at the emerging RLV/new launcher sector and concluded that if they were to be successful, there would be a demand for pressurized habitable space in orbit; consequently, I proposed that the Mir space station not be de-orbited, but rather put into a storage orbit for some years, after which it could be revived and used by customers of those new launchers.
This became the kernel of someone's business plan, but it turned out to be premature, since the new launchers were many years away from becoming real.
If any company today proposed to exploit minerals in space for users in space, I would suggest that no person alive today would ever make a dollar off such an effort. This not to say that it won't be useful someday, but not very soon.
And yes, we are still a few years away from a hypothetical Mir space station having any value in orbit.
I would suggest that discussions of mineral exploitation for customers in space be moved to the Advanced Concepts section.
Not appropriate for Advanced Concepts simply because you didn't think of it or you think it's less viable. There's a real company with real funding behind it that is pursuing the goal actively. That means it's appropriate for the commercial spaceflight section, whether or not you think it will turn a profit. Sorry for being abrasive, but this is a real project as real as anything Bigelow is doing (with the possible exception of an ISS module).
|
|
|
|
Alexsander
|
|
« Reply #183 on: 06/13/2012 06:27 PM » |
|
Moving back up to space; what you are missing is that while they may need a whole lot more iron to build an O'Neil cylinder, say, than platinum; the cost of refining, the cost of manufacturing, and the cost of assembling such a structure are huge line items.
Right now there are commercial portable steel factories -- like Framecad's "Factory in a can", housed in a modified 20-foot shipping container -- in the market. This particular product makes 700 m/h of steel frames from steel coils. Imagine a space-ready version of this "portable steel factory" in a size/weight that could be sent up to LEO with the current launchers. A factory like this could be a major milestone for building huge structures on space and could probably be done with current technology. However it would need a constant supply of steel coils from Earth -- and they are HEAVY. Technically it is the easiest part: right now it's possible (not cheap) to pack a rocket with a few tons of steel coils. Now imagine a bunch of factories in orbit making parts for a huge space steel mill that makes steel coils from iron ore. I think Planetary Resources wants to be a major supplier of iron ore for this mill.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #184 on: 06/13/2012 08:23 PM » |
|
I would suggest that discussions of mineral exploitation for customers in space be moved to the Advanced Concepts section.
Not appropriate for Advanced Concepts simply because you didn't think of it or you think it's less viable. There's a real company with real funding behind it that is pursuing the goal actively. That means it's appropriate for the commercial spaceflight section, whether or not you think it will turn a profit.
Sorry for being abrasive, but this is a real project as real as anything Bigelow is doing (with the possible exception of an ISS module).
Nope. Planetary Resources has no public plans for extracting minerals for users in space. if you have any information about that, please share.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #185 on: 06/13/2012 08:25 PM » |
|
Moving back up to space; what you are missing is that while they may need a whole lot more iron to build an O'Neil cylinder, say, than platinum; the cost of refining, the cost of manufacturing, and the cost of assembling such a structure are huge line items.
Right now there are commercial portable steel factories -- like Framecad's "Factory in a can", housed in a modified 20-foot shipping container -- in the market. This particular product makes 700 m/h of steel frames from steel coils.
Imagine a space-ready version of this "portable steel factory" in a size/weight that could be sent up to LEO with the current launchers. A factory like this could be a major milestone for building huge structures on space and could probably be done with current technology.
However it would need a constant supply of steel coils from Earth -- and they are HEAVY. Technically it is the easiest part: right now it's possible (not cheap) to pack a rocket with a few tons of steel coils.
Now imagine a bunch of factories in orbit making parts for a huge space steel mill that makes steel coils from iron ore. I think Planetary Resources wants to be a major supplier of iron ore for this mill.
I believe that G. Harry Stine wrote a book called "the second Industrial Revolution" in which he described a similar beam builder in the Shuttle payload bay. None of this has anything to do with the issue of a company extracting PGM bearing minerals from asteroids for users in space, but you are welcome to set up a thread in the Advanced Concepts section.
|
|
|
|
Alexsander
|
|
« Reply #186 on: 06/13/2012 08:54 PM » |
|
Nope. Planetary Resources has no public plans for extracting minerals for users in space. if you have any information about that, please share.
Are you sure? From their own website: http://www.planetaryresources.com/technology/Recovery and processing of materials in a microgravity environment will occur through significant research and development. Planetary Resources will lead the creation of critical in-situ extraction and processing technologies to provide access to both asteroidal water and metals. When combined with our low-cost deep space explorers, this represents an enabling capability for the sustainable development of space.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #187 on: 06/13/2012 08:59 PM » |
|
Nope. Planetary Resources has no public plans for extracting minerals for users in space. if you have any information about that, please share.
Are you sure? From their own website:
http://www.planetaryresources.com/technology/
Recovery and processing of materials in a microgravity environment will occur through significant research and development. Planetary Resources will lead the creation of critical in-situ extraction and processing technologies to provide access to both asteroidal water and metals. When combined with our low-cost deep space explorers, this represents an enabling capability for the sustainable development of space.
I am NOT saying that PR does not plan to extract minerals in space. But not for " users in space". The point here is a business plan based on selling to people in outer space is probably a little far term for anyone to invest in now. The exception might be for NASA to buy water for astronauts, but even that requires loads of fairy dust to believe.
|
|
|
|
Alexsander
|
|
« Reply #188 on: 06/13/2012 09:08 PM » |
|
Nope. Planetary Resources has no public plans for extracting minerals for users in space. if you have any information about that, please share.
Are you sure? From their own website:
http://www.planetaryresources.com/technology/
Recovery and processing of materials in a microgravity environment will occur through significant research and development. Planetary Resources will lead the creation of critical in-situ extraction and processing technologies to provide access to both asteroidal water and metals. When combined with our low-cost deep space explorers, this represents an enabling capability for the sustainable development of space.
I am NOT saying that PR does not plan to extract minerals in space.
But not for "users in space". The point here is a business plan based on selling to people in outer space is probably a little far term for anyone to invest in now.
The exception might be for NASA to buy water for astronauts, but even that requires loads of fairy dust to believe.
Not now -- but they are still designing and building their "step one" product, the ARKYD 100 space telescope. There's a long way to go, it's NOT a short-term plan, PR is betting that by the time they finish "significant research and development" to have a working mining facility, the customers will be there.
|
|
|
|
simonbp
|
|
« Reply #189 on: 06/13/2012 10:48 PM » |
|
I'm not sure what all this talk of Earth ore is all about; it has very little to real asteroid lithology.
The low-hanging-fruit of asteroid PGMs are going to be M-type asteroids with a primarily metal composition. The "ore" is then really the solid iron-nickel the PGMs are dissolved in. You could refine it in space with a solar heater and a centrifuge (as all the PGMs are heavier than iron), or just bring the whole thing down. Spraying a solid block of iron-nickel with some cheap ablative insulation and attaching a parachute pack to it is more than sufficient to get down. Combined that with NRO-style aircraft capture of the parachute, and getting stuff down in bulk is not really an issue.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #190 on: 06/13/2012 11:19 PM » |
|
Not now -- but they are still designing and building their "step one" product, the ARKYD 100 space telescope. There's a long way to go, it's NOT a short-term plan, PR is betting that by the time they finish "significant research and development" to have a working mining facility, the customers will be there.
There is no public information to suggest that PR is expecting to sell PGM materials for customers in space. All of their information suggests that their current plan is to move small asteroids to lunar orbit for magical transfer to Earth. During their press conference, they talked about the impact of cheap PGM materials here on Earth.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #191 on: 06/13/2012 11:20 PM » |
|
I'm not sure what all this talk of Earth ore is all about; it has very little to real asteroid lithology.
The low-hanging-fruit of asteroid PGMs are going to be M-type asteroids with a primarily metal composition. The "ore" is then really the solid iron-nickel the PGMs are dissolved in. You could refine it in space with a solar heater and a centrifuge (as all the PGMs are heavier than iron), or just bring the whole thing down. Spraying a solid block of iron-nickel with some cheap ablative insulation and attaching a parachute pack to it is more than sufficient to get down. Combined that with NRO-style aircraft capture of the parachute, and getting stuff down in bulk is not really an issue.
Pushing bulk in space costs more money than the bulk is worth. That's the problem. And the refining/handwaving you suggest does not lend itself to actual practice. For example, I could suggest that injection of anti-virals into selected tumor cells is a cure for cancer, but that doesn't really cure anyone. If you want to convince people, you might demonstrate existing centrifuge systems that could be useful in zero-gravity for separation of PGMs from the rock and other stuff.
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #192 on: 06/13/2012 11:52 PM » |
|
I would suggest that discussions of mineral exploitation for customers in space be moved to the Advanced Concepts section.
Not appropriate for Advanced Concepts simply because you didn't think of it or you think it's less viable. There's a real company with real funding behind it that is pursuing the goal actively. That means it's appropriate for the commercial spaceflight section, whether or not you think it will turn a profit.
Sorry for being abrasive, but this is a real project as real as anything Bigelow is doing (with the possible exception of an ISS module).
Nope. Planetary Resources has no public plans for extracting minerals for users in space. if you have any information about that, please share.
Ah, yes. My apologies. I thought you were referring to asteroid mineral mining in general. You're right, they have no such plans that I'm aware of. And that probably does belong in Advanced Concepts until such time as a space manufacturing company is announced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warren Platts
|
|
« Reply #194 on: 06/14/2012 01:05 PM » |
|
I would suggest that discussions of mineral exploitation for customers in space be moved to the Advanced Concepts section.
Not appropriate for Advanced Concepts simply because you didn't think of it or you think it's less viable. There's a real company with real funding behind it that is pursuing the goal actively. That means it's appropriate for the commercial spaceflight section, whether or not you think it will turn a profit.
Sorry for being abrasive, but this is a real project as real as anything Bigelow is doing (with the possible exception of an ISS module).
Nope. Planetary Resources has no public plans for extracting minerals for users in space. if you have any information about that, please share.
Ah, yes. My apologies. I thought you were referring to asteroid mineral mining in general. You're right, they have no such plans that I'm aware of. And that probably does belong in Advanced Concepts until such time as a space manufacturing company is announced.
Huh? Their "plan", such as it is, is to go for extracting chemically bound hydroxyl groups from asbestos-like serpentine minerals in CI-type asteroids. They certainly aren't going to be shipping rocket fuel to Earth. Therefore, said rocket fuel will be "for" users in space.
|
|
|
|
