Re: First Revenues: Asteroid or Moon Mining?

Poll
Question: Will asteroid mining or Moon mining generate the first revenues from selling a refined material product?
Asteroids (51% chance or better) - 40 (36.7%)
The Moon (51% chance or better) - 27 (24.8%)
Neither - 11 (10.1%)
It's a coin flip (50% chance for both) - 31 (28.4%)
Total Voters: 109

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 Next
Author Topic: Re: First Revenues: Asteroid or Moon Mining?  (Read 14255 times)
neilh
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2264
Location: Pasadena, CA


WWW
« Reply #270 on: 05/10/2012 11:14 PM »

I wonder what would happen if you tossed a water-rich carbonaceous chondrite in a microwave.

Find a chunk of serpentine and find out!

EDIT: I just stuck a chunk of high strength portland cement mortar (hardened and cured) about the size of a golf ball in the microwave. After 1 minute it was hot to the touch and appeared to be steaming. After 5 minutes, it was too hot to touch, but no longer appeared to be steaming. Probably should crush it up.

But anyways, portland cement might be a good analog for trying to extract water. It also supposedly has about 20% water locked up in its crystal structure. If one had a decent scale, it would be easy to measure the before and after to see what percentage of water could be liberated.

Science!

I've posted about it a couple times in this thread, but I think microwaves could be useful for both asteroid and lunar mining. It looks like they're already being looked at for terrestrial mining applications.
JohnFornaro
Not an expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 6931


« Reply #271 on: 05/11/2012 01:22 PM »

Channelling Thoreau as usual.  Back in his time, they baked or burned oyster shells to get the lime to make mortar.  Thoreau baked his own lime.  It was known that moisture needed to be driven out of the lime, in order to make cement:

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter05-06/bricks.cfm

They also used limestone:

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mendips/aggregates/history/limeburning.html

As we all know, microwave technology wasn't as well developed in Roman times, but hey.

I'm not quite convinced that using microwaves would be the right way to process asteroidal material, at least not for the initial steps.  What I'm gathering here is that the most mass from the asteroid will be rather bland, suitable for radiation shielding.  Bricks have been mentioned as one of the shielding products which could be fabricated.

From:

http://www.glengerybrick.com/about/manufacturing/index.html

Quote
The process of making brick generally consists of the following steps: Gathering, crushing, grinding, screening, and mixing the raw materials; making the brick; and setting, drying, firing, packaging and inventorying the final product.


Of course, gravity plays an important role in most of these steps.  Earlier assertions in the thread regarding the "ease" of zero gee manufacturing of industrial quantities of masonry are simply not backed up.  New manufacturing techniques would have to be developed.  In a modern brick plant, electricity is used a lot to operate machinery, it is a certainty that electricity will be needed to operate the EML-1 brick facility.  The other necessary energy source is heat, provided by burning something in the old days, and even quite recently, although electric furnaces are also used.

The bits of the PRI plan that were announced envision CSP as being used, presumably for firing and drying and such.  That's got to be more efficient than converting the sunlight to electricity and then back into heat.  Especially for Aster-Lith (TM)  (heh.  First use claim.)

Just my take, is all.

Thinking about bricks and bags of loose Aster-Lith (TM).  Here on Earth, masonry products are used in compression, and don't handle tension or vibration.  Out there on a ring station, you're going to have tension from spinning, and vibration from docking.  So you're not going to be able to use bricks per se.  Perhaps concrete, using the water you outgassed from your asteroid processing, maybe?  If you put your Aster-Lith (TM) loose in a bag, that bag would have to have the proper shape for the ring station, as well as be strong enough to withstand the centripetal force.  Maybe the bag is one type of construction, covered by a net in the final installation.  Because it would be loosy goosy, it actually could have a beneficial damping effect on the dynamic loads that the ring station structure would have to experience.
mrmandias
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 425
Location: US



« Reply #272 on: 05/11/2012 04:01 PM »

Business plans based on winning the lottery rarely pan out.

While technically, and literally that is obviously true, in the case of PRI, there is much "hope" and many "ifs" in their long term plan.  By their study and expertise, they hope to minimize the chances of failure.  Theirs is undoubtably a risky enterprise, and risk is a more business like way of saying "lottery".

Just quibbling.

If PRI's business model depended on finding NEA's with large amounts of regular water ice, that's not risk: that's buying billion dollar lottery tickets for a living.

Fortunately, IMO, I'm convinced they can actually find enough of the plain old CI asteroids with enough of the hydrated minerals to possibly close a business case for asteroid mining, if they can get the unit costs of the SEP retrievers down to the low $100 millions each, and if they can get the processing unit up and running for $1 or a very few billion.

If it really is the case, however, that it is absolutely necessary to find NEA's with regular water ice in order to close the business case for asteroid mining, then asteroid mining is a practical impossibility for the foreseeable future.

I've jumped on comments of yours in the past, so its only fair that I say that this is a pretty fair0minded take.
JohnFornaro
Not an expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 6931


« Reply #273 on: 05/11/2012 05:12 PM »

Business plans based on winning the lottery rarely pan out.
... in the case of PRI, there is much "hope" and many "ifs" in their long term plan.  ... they hope to minimize the chances of failure.  Theirs is undoubtably a risky enterprise, and risk is a more business like way of saying "lottery".

Just quibbling.

...I'm convinced they can actually find enough of the plain old CI asteroids with enough of the hydrated minerals to possibly close a business case for asteroid mining, if they can get the unit costs of the SEP retrievers down to the low $100 millions each, and if they can get the processing unit up and running for $1 or a very few billion. ...

That I could not say.  The task seems so daunting to me, but my expertise and pocketbook are not up to the task.  However, you've re-iterated my comment about there being a lot of "ifs" in their announced plans.
gbaikie
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 623


« Reply #274 on: 05/11/2012 09:22 PM »

"You must have missed the part where I calculated the hydrostatic pressure at the center of a 10-meter asteroid to be on the order of 0.01 Pa. At those pressures, water turns into vapor at 200K."

Hmm. it doesn't seem to me much difference in terms forces of  the gravity of 10 meter asteroid and two 1 meter cubes.

101,325 Pa is one atm.
On earth 10 meter column of water is 101,325 Pa
A one meter column is 10,132.5
On Moon one meter of water is 1688.75 Pa
On a fairly large Asteroid with 1/100th earth gravity: 101 Pa
4 Vesta: Equatorial surface gravity: 0.22 m/s2
0.022 g or 1/45th of gee
Eros: equatorial surface gravity: 0.0059 m/s²
About 1/1000th of gee
For 1 cube meter water to create .01 Pa, one needs 1/millionth of earth gravity.

Suppose you have two tanks of water, each being 1.16 meter in diameter- giving cubic meter of water per meter in length. And each being 10 meter long. If both tanks were half full, each have 5 tons of water.
And in orbit you put them end to end. Could assume water from both tanks would be gravitational attracted and if so what would pressure of water be at the bottom of each tank?
And if had them full of water [doubling mass, though bit further away] how close would be to doubling that pressure?

Now have two tanks of different lengths: one 20 meter length and other 10 meter. Both half full and 20 meter tank has twice the mass.
Now have them connected with plumbing and open the valve- which way does the water flow?

It doesn't appear we can accurately measure gravity.
25143 Itokawa:
Dimensions    535 × 294 × 209 meters
Equatorial surface gravity    ~0.0001 m/s²
Mean density    1.9 ±0.13 g/cm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25143_Itokawa
And:
"The probe arrived in the vicinity of Itokawa on 12 September 2005 and initially "parked" in an asteroid–sun line at 20 km (12 mi), and later 7 km (4.3 mi), from the asteroid (Itokawa's gravity was too weak to provide an orbit, so the spacecraft adjusted its orbit around the sun until it matched the asteroid)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25143_Itokawa
So it's about 1/100,000th of earth gravity. But they didn't get into orbit, though they seem to think the spacecraft could have orbited the rock [at 20 to 7 km distance]. And I assume it's a rough guess in terms it's gravity.
Other things:
Rotation period    0.5055 d (12.132 h)
Albedo    0.53
Temperature    ~206 K
Orbit:  Aphelion    1.695 AU
Perihelion:    0.953 AU
And "The Hayabusa images show a surprising lack of impact craters and a very rough surface studded with boulders, described by the mission team as a 'rubble pile". And they think it's a contact binary [formed from two space rock]: "Asteroids suspected of being contact binaries include the unusually elongated 624 Hektor and the bilobated 216 Kleopatra and 4769 Castalia. 25143 Itokawa".
Keep in mind it gravitational came together and rotating at a fair speed.

"Small spinning asteroids are piles of rubble and dust that ought to fly apart but don't. Now astronomers have worked out why not. "
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24818/
"Spin rate statistics suggest that Ikotawa and asteroids like it are piles of rubble held together by gravity on scales of 150 metres and larger. But smaller boulders should fly off into space at this rate of spin.

"But that creates a puzzle. Images from Hayabusa show that on smaller scales, Ikotawa is little more than a collection of boulders and dust. But if gravity cannot beat the centripetal forces involved, what's holding Ikotawa together?"
And: "Of the various possibilities, the main ones that astronomers have studied are radiation pressure from the Sun, friction and electrostatic forces between ionised dust (which is responsible for dust levitation on the Moon and so more likely to push dust apart). "
But: "Scheeres and co show that none of the usual suspects is the likely culprit. Instead it looks as if small asteroids are held together by van der Waals forces. "


Now, if van der Waals forces [which could be factor] how did they close the distance from say 100 meter to contacting each other? It seems to me if two bodies are gravitational bought together, they have two options: if pulling together they will rotate and if rotate too fast then they throw each other apart, otherwise they come together. Oh, and third option, some of asteroid [a rubble pile] stays and rest of it is fling away.
JohnFornaro
Not an expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 6931


« Reply #275 on: 05/12/2012 01:53 PM »

The paper, 1002.2478v1.pdf, referenced in the news article posted above, is a fascinating introduction to asteroids.

My takeaway is that small ateroids are likely to consist largely of "cohesive powders".  Think flour.  since the dust is "clean", that is, not contaminated by water vapor and stuff like here on Earth, the particles can get closer, and Van der Waals forces can become more noticeable.  But there's a half dozen other forces to reckon with too.

Quote
Our statements do not preclude the presence of larger, coherent particles that are not held together with cohesive forces, but does indicate that based on our scaling arguments one cannot exclude the possibility that some of these structures may also be constructed out of conglomerates.

Maybe think flour, gravel and boulders?  But they don't really know what causes the apparent porosity.

This would be a good paper to read:

P. Pravec and A.W. Harris. 2000. \Fast and Slow Rotation of Asteroids," Icarus 148: 12-20.

A big flaw in the paper is that they don't define the YORP effect, causing me to take a googol.  Turns out it's not a Seussian term:

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March07/margot.yorp.html

Quote
The acronym, from the tongue-twisting Yarkovsky-O'Keefe-Radzievskii-Paddack effect, is a phenomenon that occurs when photons from the sun are absorbed by a body and reradiated as heat. In the process, two forces influence the object: one from the impact of the photons, providing a tiny push, and the other as a recoil effect when the object emits the absorbed energy. For small, irregularly shaped objects like PH5, YORP can cause measurable changes in motion.

If PRI thinks it can deorbit a spinning glob of flour, gravel and boulders, then it's got its work cut out for it.


Robotbeat
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 14572
Location: Minnesota



« Reply #276 on: 05/12/2012 04:43 PM »

May make it easier to process if it's already powdered.
HappyMartian
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2098
Location: Asia

Tap the Moon's water!


« Reply #277 on: 05/13/2012 05:30 AM »

How often did comets impact asteroids during the last 4.5 billion years?

Is the water found on the Moon primarily from asteroid impacts or comet impacts?


"In 2010, an expedition of Vladimir Alexeev, with scientists from the Troitsk Innovation and Nuclear Research Institute (TRINITY), used ground penetrating radar to examine the Suslov crater at the Tunguska site. What they found was that the crater was created by the violent impact of a celestial body. The layers of the crater consisted of modern permafrost on top, older damaged layers underneath and finally, deep below, fragments of the celestial body were discovered. Preliminary analysis showed that it was a huge piece of ice that shattered on impact, which seem to support the theory that a comet caused the cataclysm."
From: Tunguska event
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event



"Centaurs are an unstable orbital class of minor planets that behave with characteristics of both asteroids and comets."

And, "Any centaur that is perturbed close enough to the Sun is expected to become a comet."

And, "1999 XS35 (Apollo asteroid) follows an extremely eccentric orbit (e=0.947), leading it from inside Earth's orbit (0.94 AU) to well beyond Neptune (>34 AU)

From: Centaur (minor planet)
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_%28minor_planet%29

Anyone know of a centaur in an easy to get to orbit?

:)
gbaikie
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 623


« Reply #278 on: 05/13/2012 08:33 AM »

How often did comets impact asteroids during the last 4.5 billion years?

Is the water found on the Moon primarily from asteroid impacts or comet impacts?
Asteroid.
There more asteroid impacts.
Also comets would hit at much higher velocity- meaning more material would directly leave the Moon at time of impact.

Quote
"In 2010, an expedition of Vladimir Alexeev, with scientists from the Troitsk Innovation and Nuclear Research Institute (TRINITY), used ground penetrating radar to examine the Suslov crater at the Tunguska site. What they found was that the crater was created by the violent impact of a celestial body. The layers of the crater consisted of modern permafrost on top, older damaged layers underneath and finally, deep below, fragments of the celestial body were discovered. Preliminary analysis showed that it was a huge piece of ice that shattered on impact, which seem to support the theory that a comet caused the cataclysm."
From: Tunguska event
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
Tunguska is thought to  be an airburst due to pattern trees which were knock down, in other words it exploded similar to nuclear bomb. Fragments would hit the ground, but they probably didn't have much in terms of velocity at impact, nor is there any need for there to be large fragments or create a significant crater.


Quote
"Centaurs are an unstable orbital class of minor planets that behave with characteristics of both asteroids and comets."

And, "Any centaur that is perturbed close enough to the Sun is expected to become a comet."

And, "1999 XS35 (Apollo asteroid) follows an extremely eccentric orbit (e=0.947), leading it from inside Earth's orbit (0.94 AU) to well beyond Neptune (>34 AU)

From: Centaur (minor planet)
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_%28minor_planet%29

Anyone know of a centaur in an easy to get to orbit?

:)
"The Minor Planet Center (MPC) defines centaurs as having a perihelion beyond the orbit of Jupiter and a semi-major axis less than that of Neptune."

So closest they get to sun is beyond Jupiter orbit, so one needs a delta-v to gets you to Jupiter.
They require either a lot of delta-v, or using gravity assist, a long time to get to them [and need close to Jupiter or trajectory that passes Jupiter].
They are in slow orbit around the sun [earth orbit is 29.8 km/sec and Jupiter is 13.1 km/sec- and would have slower orbital speed than Jupiter which means they do not necessarily require much delta-v to change their orbit- so something like 1 km/sec or less in delta-v could change it's orbit so passes near Jupiter therefore one use Jupiter to give it gravity assist.
One could bounce off Jupiter, and gravity assist off some other planet [not earth, one would get arrested and thrown in jail] but say Mars and/or Venus. And further objects are from Earth the easier to change their orbit.
But that not something we going to do in near terms- it's something asteroid miners in 2080-90's might do.
So brief answer, no, none are low delta-v or easy to get to.
HappyMartian
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2098
Location: Asia

Tap the Moon's water!


« Reply #279 on: 05/13/2012 11:49 AM »

Gbaikie, the orbit of 1999 XS35 is extremely eccentric.

What Warren suggests makes sense. However comets or comet like asteroids are available in the inner Solar System. Water might eventually be available from small comets or comet like celestial bodies that have impacted medium-sized or large NEOs. Perhaps the water from comet impacts helps to 'cement together' the pile-of-rubble asteroids. And releasing or mining water that is chemically bound with various other substances in asteroids will also eventually be doable. 

Also, it doesn't seem that all the needed research data is available yet on where the Moon's known and extensive supply of frozen water came from.

In any case, the Moon presents a close location for doable human and robotic ISRU and should be our near future source of water, gases, PGMs, and other valuable resources. Mining Lunar water is an affordable, sustainable, commonsense business approach to what should come next. Propellant derived from Lunar water will allow for reusable spacecraft and sustainable exploration missions to Mars and a wide diversity of asteroids and comets.



"1999 XS35 (Apollo asteroid) follows an extremely eccentric orbit (e=0.947), leading it from inside Earth's orbit (0.94 AU) to well beyond Neptune (>34 AU)
From: Centaur (minor planet)
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_%28minor_planet%29



"1999 XS35 is a damocloid asteroid discovered in 1999 having a comet-like orbit. Its semi-major axis is 17.8 AU. Its orbital eccentricity is 0.94, which means that at the perihelion 1999 XS35 comes as close as 0.9 AU to the Sun, while at the aphelion it reaches beyond the orbit of Neptune.[2] The asteroid is a damocloid. 1999 XS35 is a small object with an absolute magnitude (H) of 17.2, which implies a size of about 1 km."

And, "1999 XS35 came to perihelion on 24 October 1999,[2] passed 0.0453 AU (6,780,000 km; 4,210,000 mi) from the Earth on 5 November 1999,[5] and was discovered on 2 December 1999 at about apparent magnitude 16.9."
From: 1999 XS35
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_XS35



"This collision destruction has occurred so often during the lifetime of the solar
system, that practically all the asteroids we now see are fragments of the original parent bodies."

And, "The present situation estimate that some 60% of the Earth-crossing (Apollotype) objects supplied from some other reservoirs. At present the short period comets are the only identified reservoir that can fill that gap (Richard et al, 1992)"
From: On Near-Earth Asteroid Study at Department of Astronomy, Bandung Institute of Technology By S.Siregar of the Department of Astronomy and Bosscha Observatory at Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung Indonesia
At: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.2715.pdf


:)

HappyMartian
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2098
Location: Asia

Tap the Moon's water!


« Reply #280 on: 05/14/2012 10:20 AM »

If some NEOs, and 'relatively close' asteroids and comets are tidally locked to the sun or have a stable minimal axis tilt, they may contain cold traps with frozen water and gases. But the most useful and closest known NEO is our Moon. It has a small axis tilt and many obvious and very useful polar cold traps.   

Chronologically, the current private and national space policy NEO ‘fever’ seems to have been carved in stone prior to the new discoveries that were made by NASA's Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, or LCROSS, and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO.



From: Do We Need to Go to the Moon to Get to Mars?
There's a palpable longing to return to the moon. But does it make sense?

By William Sweet June 2009
At: http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/do-we-need-to-go-to-the-moon-to-get-to-mars/3
“The one thing that could redeem the moon as a stepping-stone, Rapp and others argue, is if you could produce propellant on the moon to use in the rocket that went to Mars. But Rapp points out that the prospects for extracting oxygen on the moon are not promising.”

And, “One approach is to mine oxygen near the moon’s equator from regolith, the fluffy, silicate-rich material that covers most of the lunar surface. But the silicates, which are about 30 or 40 percent oxygen, would have to be heated to 2600 °C, too hot for any known container.”

And, "Alternatively, it might be possible to extract hydrogen and oxygen from water at the poles, if such water exists and proves accessible."



From: Enabling Profitable Asteroid Mining
At: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/383154main_53%20-%2020090803.7.toAugustineCommittee-2009-08-03.pdf 
Submitted to Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Chair Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee 
August 3, 2009
By Abundant Planet
Board of Directors
William BC Crandall, MBA
Founder, Abundant Planet
Larry Gorman, Ph.D.
Professor of Finance
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
Peter Howard, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, Exelixis, Inc.
South San Francisco, CA
Board of Advisors
Frans von der Dunk, Ph.D
Professor of Space Law
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Martin Elvis, Ph.D
Senior Astrophysicist, Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Dante Lauretta, Ph.D.
Director, Southwest Meteorite Center
University of Arizona, Tucson
Jordi Puig-Suari, Ph.D.
Professor of Aerospace Engineering
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo
Hon. Andrea Seastrand
Executive Director
California Space Authority
Mark Sonter, MAppSc
Asteroid Enterprises, Pty Ltd
Queensland, Australia
“Rather than the resource-poor moon, or too distant Mars, our national civil space agency should focus on asteroid mineral resources—specifically the platinum group metals. The terrestrial sources of these vital metals are in rapid decline.”



Why are all those important and smart Abundant Planet folks so sure that the Moon is “resource-poor” and that asteroids are the best destination for NASA? Maybe Warren Platts needs to explain a few things to them.



From: Wesley T. Huntress: Author of NASA's New Strategy
Questions for the originator of the "stepping-stones to Mars" approach

By James Oberg   April 2010
At: http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/wesley-t-huntress-author-of-nasas-new-strategy

“The agency is to send people to Mars using a series of ‘stepping-stone’ destinations that are themselves of interest: Lagrange points, near-Earth asteroids, and Martian moons. The plan is pretty much exactly what Planetary Society president Wesley T. Huntress Jr. proposed in 2004.”
….
And, James Oberg: “Does this mean the end of dreams for human exploration of the moon?
Wesley T. Huntress Jr.: “Others may go there and follow in our footsteps of long ago. Best of luck to them.”
James Oberg: “What do you see as the main theme of American spaceflight strategy?"
Wesley T. Huntress Jr.: “We want to be in the lead. We want to be out there, farther out than others dare go, clearing a path beyond the moon and onward to Mars. Mars is where the American public really wants us to go, and we can give them a good game, just like we did with getting to the moon in the 1960s.”



Does Wesley T. Huntress Jr. still like his plan from 2004 and does that mean he isn’t interested in mining recently discovered valuable Lunar resources?



From: NASA Missions Uncover the Moon's Buried Treasures   Oct. 21, 2010
At: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2010/10-89AR.html
“MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. -- Nearly a year after announcing the discovery of water molecules on the moon, scientists Thursday revealed new data uncovered by NASA's Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, or LCROSS, and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO.”

And, "The missions found evidence that the lunar soil within shadowy craters is rich in useful materials, and the moon is chemically active and has a water cycle. Scientists also confirmed the water was in the form of mostly pure ice crystals in some places."

And, "'Seeing mostly pure water ice grains in the plume means water ice was somehow delivered to the moon in the past, or chemical processes have been causing ice to accumulate in large quantities,' said Anthony Colaprete, LCROSS project scientist and principal investigator at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. 'Also, the diversity and abundance of certain materials called volatiles in the plume, suggest a variety of sources, like comets and asteroids, and an active water cycle within the lunar shadows.'"

And, "The suite of LCROSS and LRO instruments determined as much as 20 percent of the material kicked up by the LCROSS impact was volatiles, including methane, ammonia, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. The instruments also discovered relatively large amounts of light metals such as sodium, mercury and possibly even silver."

Also, "In addition, an abundant presence of hydrogen gas, ammonia and methane could be exploited to produce fuel."



From: Moon Express Delivers Lunar Mission Design Report to NASA Detailing technical plans toward mining the Moon for precious planetary resources   April 23, 2012
At: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/moon-express-delivers-lunar-mission-design-report-to-nasa-detailing-technical-plans-toward-mining-the-moon-for-precious-planetary-resources-148538005.html
"The Moon has never been explored from an entrepreneurial perspective," said Moon Express co-founder and chairman, Naveen Jain. "Think of the Moon as the Earth's eighth continent, potentially the largest repository of asteroid resources in the solar system, and we have barely begun to explore it."

And, “Moon Express co-founder, vice-chairman and CTO Dr. Barney Pell, a former NASA technology manager, is confident of the value proposition of lunar water combined with precious metals. ‘There could be more platinum group metals on the surface of the Moon than in all the reserves of Earth,’ he said. ‘And the lunar water we now know to be present is the key to liberating lunar resources economically.’”



From: Moon
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
“Future manned missions to the Moon have been planned, including government as well as privately funded efforts. The Moon remains, under the Outer Space Treaty, free to all nations to explore for peaceful purposes.”



NEOs are interesting and have some resources. The Moon has long been considered a culturally, militarily, scientifically, and economically important location. Lunar water and other resources exist and mining them is doable and makes a lot of sense if you want reusable spaceships going on many missions to Mars, asteroids, and comets. The Moon is also where we can mine the propellant needed to enable a robust capability for defending our planet from wandering NEOs.

Where do you think initial commercial gains are going to occur? Some politicians, billionaires, and policy folks may have failed to understand the full ramifications of the new and valuable data provided by NASA’s LCROSS and LRO missions or they may have some old and outdated agendas, but for most space cadets the answer should be obvious.

Humans are going back to explore and mine our Moon.

Cheers!



Edited.
gbaikie
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 623


« Reply #281 on: 05/14/2012 11:25 AM »

Quote
From: Moon Express Delivers Lunar Mission Design Report to NASA Detailing technical plans toward mining the Moon for precious planetary resources   April 23, 2012
At: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/moon-express-delivers-lunar-mission-design-report-to-nasa-detailing-technical-plans-toward-mining-the-moon-for-precious-planetary-resources-148538005.html
"The Moon has never been explored from an entrepreneurial perspective," said Moon Express co-founder and chairman, Naveen Jain. "Think of the Moon as the Earth's eighth continent, potentially the largest repository of asteroid resources in the solar system, and we have barely begun to explore it."

I say NASA needs to explore with the view of encouraging new markets in space.
We have one market in space the satellite market. This market wasn't deliberately started. But I would say it's at least a significant reason, NASA is funded and can operate today.
NASA needs to deliberately explore to find other markets in space.

I would agree that there is a lot to explore on the Moon, but this doesn't mean that NASA needs to do a lot exploring on the Moon. Instead the exploration should be focused on what could be future markets.
And one market on the Moon, could be private exploration of the Moon.

So NASA should explore sort of like exploring for NorthWest passage, rather look animals one trap for fur. though obviously note any furry animals one sees. In other words NASA exploration if it were to look for minable water, this would allow lunar water to mined, but it's opening the Moon. It providing a route to the Moon [and elsewhere].

I also like the idea of NASA getting a small rock- 7 meter diameter. What is important about doing this, is not so much the mining of the rock, but rather the exploration of a rock. By bring a rock into cislunar space, you changing the space environment- you are creating a tiny tiny moon or even though you not bringing it to earth surface, it is like huge sample return mission. If want study a asteroid- it's easy to get to. And if want develop some prototype asteroid mining thingy, you can practice on this little rock. So garbing a rock, is good way to start the whole trillion industry which develop some day of mining all the asteroid.
And the other good about is it cost less than 5 billion.
So it seems NASA explore the Moon and get this rock, and once done exploration needed, it goes to Mars. While NASA goes to Mars, one may have private enterprise mining water, if minable on the Moon, and/or and/or going to the little rock, and/or getting more space rocks or whatever.
HappyMartian
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2098
Location: Asia

Tap the Moon's water!


« Reply #282 on: 07/12/2012 07:16 AM »

....

From: NASA Missions Uncover the Moon's Buried Treasures   Oct. 21, 2010
At: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2010/10-89AR.html
“MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. -- Nearly a year after announcing the discovery of water molecules on the moon, scientists Thursday revealed new data uncovered by NASA's Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, or LCROSS, and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO.”

And, "The missions found evidence that the lunar soil within shadowy craters is rich in useful materials, and the moon is chemically active and has a water cycle. Scientists also confirmed the water was in the form of mostly pure ice crystals in some places."

And, "'Seeing mostly pure water ice grains in the plume means water ice was somehow delivered to the moon in the past, or chemical processes have been causing ice to accumulate in large quantities,' said Anthony Colaprete, LCROSS project scientist and principal investigator at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. 'Also, the diversity and abundance of certain materials called volatiles in the plume, suggest a variety of sources, like comets and asteroids, and an active water cycle within the lunar shadows.'"

And, "The suite of LCROSS and LRO instruments determined as much as 20 percent of the material kicked up by the LCROSS impact was volatiles, including methane, ammonia, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. The instruments also discovered relatively large amounts of light metals such as sodium, mercury and possibly even silver."

Also, "In addition, an abundant presence of hydrogen gas, ammonia and methane could be exploited to produce fuel."



From: Moon Express Delivers Lunar Mission Design Report to NASA Detailing technical plans toward mining the Moon for precious planetary resources   April 23, 2012
At: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/moon-express-delivers-lunar-mission-design-report-to-nasa-detailing-technical-plans-toward-mining-the-moon-for-precious-planetary-resources-148538005.html
"The Moon has never been explored from an entrepreneurial perspective," said Moon Express co-founder and chairman, Naveen Jain. "Think of the Moon as the Earth's eighth continent, potentially the largest repository of asteroid resources in the solar system, and we have barely begun to explore it."

And, “Moon Express co-founder, vice-chairman and CTO Dr. Barney Pell, a former NASA technology manager, is confident of the value proposition of lunar water combined with precious metals. ‘There could be more platinum group metals on the surface of the Moon than in all the reserves of Earth,’ he said. ‘And the lunar water we now know to be present is the key to liberating lunar resources economically.’”



From: Moon
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
“Future manned missions to the Moon have been planned, including government as well as privately funded efforts. The Moon remains, under the Outer Space Treaty, free to all nations to explore for peaceful purposes.”



NEOs are interesting and have some resources. The Moon has long been considered a culturally, militarily, scientifically, and economically important location. Lunar water and other resources exist and mining them is doable and makes a lot of sense if you want reusable spaceships going on many missions to Mars, asteroids, and comets. The Moon is also where we can mine the propellant needed to enable a robust capability for defending our planet from wandering NEOs.

Where do you think initial commercial gains are going to occur? Some politicians, billionaires, and policy folks may have failed to understand the full ramifications of the new and valuable data provided by NASA’s LCROSS and LRO missions or they may have some old and outdated agendas, but for most space cadets the answer should be obvious.

Humans are going back to explore and mine our Moon.

Cheers!



Edited.

QESdunn
Member
*
Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #283 on: 09/18/2012 11:59 AM »

In either case, an entrepreneur will identify markets, mechanize capability, generate interest differentials, and sell product.  The first profits have already been harvested.  See the advertising to your right.

If you mean from the materials themselves, we need to be sure of the long term consequences to make sure the profits developed are not eclipsed by the losses incurred as a resultant of the systems in play.

For instance, in most mining operations the cost of "ethically complete" cleanup of the pollution, resulting medical care for everyone involved, and secondary consequences of the products produced, far outway the total profits of the mining venture.  Only a few benefit while a majority of those involved suffer losses that far exceed any benefits to them.

So let's say we start mining asteroids.  Asteroids are part of a "resultant" balance of systems where asteroids that did not fit within that system of temporally dynamic gravity fields were cast into gravity wells.  Earth is one of those gravity wells.

Has anyone used the supercomputers to model all of the known asteroids and planetary bodies to run genetic algorithms to discover the unstable relationships involved for up to and including a one million year outlook?  Not just as is, but for displacing asteroids along a mission plan at specific placements of all bodies involved.

Every asteroid has an accumulative effect upon the surrounding bodies.  The ones you see are the result of a mutually balanced relationship.

We could cause a Global Extinction Event, or possibly avert an impending naturally occuring Global Extinction Event.  Making informed choices is important!

People are self-serving; most only think of their own lifetime.  We were evolved from thinking from the end of our spears; our next meal.

The Butterfly Effect from certain mining choices could result in Global Extinction Events; especially if used as a weapon (many such scenarios).

My family and community are living on a small planet.  I'm told by "The Corporation" (translation in arabic "al Qaeda") that we are being displaced for the good of their corporation.   Before they can act, we dislodge thousands of asteroids and send them into Earth's gravity well.

The Butterfly effect has many undesireable scenarios, fewer if we "Eliminate ALL Corruption" and research the consequences of proposed actions.



JohnFornaro
Not an expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 6931


« Reply #284 on: 09/18/2012 01:43 PM »

In either case, an entrepreneur will identify markets, mechanize capability, generate interest differentials, and sell product.  The first profits have already been harvested.  See the advertising to your right.

At first paragraph, I gotta say, not a bad first post.  coming up to speed rapidly.  Sadly, I got to the million year plan part, and your comment lost a lot its pertinance, for me.  So...

Quote
... let's say we start mining asteroids.

You go on to mention  "ethically complete" cleanup of mining sites, which is something that we certainly struggle with here in the States, particularly with the mountaintop removal strategy that they are so fond of.  In space, there will also be detritus from mining activities, and you seem to be touching on that, particularly if they lose their "grip" on a huge asteroid, it might hit Earth, as shown in your illustration.

Fortunately, we don't have to worry too much about it yet, since most of the mining plans reside in the PowerPoint universe, where they are completely safe for the moment.  Personally, after a million years, I imagine that the asteroid belt would be a dust ring orbiting the Sun, which I'd wager could be visible from Earth, so there's definitely an aesthetic upside eventually.

The people who want government subsidies for their projects are playing the chicken little card about killer asteroids, with fear of Hollywood special effects exceeding the chances of a direct hit by several orders of magnitude.  I have no idea how those political constituencies will play their cards.  Your concerns about the Butterfly Effect seem unwarranted to me.  Divide a million by four, and you will simply not be able to predict what the political accomplishments of all those administrations will be, butterflies or no.

If there really is a business case up there, it would enable humanity to begin the attempt at off-world living.  I wouldn't call for, as you seem to be doing, delaying that work.

Backing up to ethics for a minute.  There's good reasons for establishing an industrial park on Luna, and possibly also at EML-1 and 2.  Barring the dropping of an asteroid on Earth, there's little ecological downside to letting Luna be a mining center.

So.... welcome to the forum.
Tags:
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 Next
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC
All content © 2005-2011 NASASpaceFlight.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.281 seconds with 25 queries.