Re: First Revenues: Asteroid or Moon Mining?

[go4mars]

Hopefully in a few decades we'll all be trying to decide whether the giant mermaid fountain in our back yard should be made of lunar platinum, or asteroid platinum! 

[Warren Platts]

Well, interesting results so far (although I lean toward the Moon--big secret there!). Looks like quite a few of the initial fence sitters had a slight leaning for asteroids.

As of Monday afternoon (Apr 30)

9 Asteroids
4 Moon
1 Neither
5 Coin Flip

[Robotbeat]

Well, interesting results so far (although I lean toward the Moon--big secret there!). Looks like quite a few of the initial fence sitters had a slight leaning for asteroids.

As of Monday afternoon (Apr 30)

9 Asteroids
4 Moon
1 Neither
5 Coin Flip

I say we do the same poll in a year. I predict some of the results are due to the excitement over the recent Planetary Resources announcement, while Moonbats are always Moonbats (and I use that term affectionately... passion is good).

Eventually, of course, the results will converge on the likely result (which could be neither ).

[JohnFornaro]

coin flip.  who knows?

[MikeAtkinson]

I voted asteroid.

A single SEP tug (~20 tonnes fueled in LEO) could capture a 1000 tonne carbonaceous chondrite asteroid into high lunar orbit. 20% of that mass could then be extracted as water, simply by heating, which is not particularly complex given continuous sunlight. Lets guess another 20 tonnes in LEO for the ISRU plant. 40 tonnes in LEO gives at best 20 tonnes of useful payload at L2. From a pure mass in LEO perspective asteroid mining breaks even when 20 tonnes is extracted in cis-lunar space.

Taking into account tug and ISRU plant development, extraction of about 50 tonnes of useful stuff (e.g. water) is needed to break even financially.

Energetically it is easier to get to (and return) many NEO than it is to get to the surface of the moon. High Isp propulsion can be used all the way to a NEO which makes initial mass in LEO much less.

The major disadvantage of asteroid mining is the long time it takes to get to and return from the asteroid.

-----

In contrast lunar mining is much less defined. Although we know there are useful deposits of water, and have strong suspicions about other elements. The actual "ore" bodies are unknown in chemical and physical properties. It seems likely that the deposits are stratified, in that case just observing the surface is not sufficient, automated drilling a few sample holes is a major undertaking in its own right.

The Lunar environment seems less hospitable to mining as well. The best deposits seem to be in permanently shaded craters, which complicates water extraction. Lunar dust is very abrasive. A four week day night cycle gives great temperature extremes and makes use of solar power difficult.

Any products of ISRU are at the bottom of a gravity well. OK, its only Lunar gravity, but that still adds to the cost, at best it doubles the cost and probably more like 3x or 4x the cost for resources delivered to L2. Obviously, delivery to a Lunar base does not suffer from this problem.

The joker in the pack is the possibility of temporary moons, there should be a couple of 1m diameter asteroids in orbit at any one time. These are probably not worth recovering for resources, but would make good practice targets and would partly pay for the mission by providing samples. There is however a significant possibility that a 3-4m rock will be captured in the next couple of decades and a small probability that a 7m diameter (500-1000 tonnes) asteroid will be captured.

[ChileVerde]

I say we do the same poll in a year.

Not a bad idea. I would humbly propose that "Will asteroid mining or Moon mining generate the first profits?" be supplemented with "Which will generate the first revenues?" Profits can be trickier to assess than revenues.

[Warren Platts]

I say we do the same poll in a year.

Not a bad idea. I would humbly propose that "Will asteroid mining or Moon mining generate the first profits?" be supplemented with "Which will generate the first revenues?" Profits can be trickier to assess than revenues.

Good point. Thread title changed. The question is who will make the first sale of refined materials, like a tonne of propellant or a minted platinum or gold coin. Selling of mere unrefined samples or moon rocks shouldn't count for purposes of the pole (e.g., it wouldn't be too hard for an X-prize contender to bring back a fraction of a gram from the Moon and sell it--that doesn't count for purposes of the poll.)

[RocketmanUS]

Vote: It's a coin toss

Profit or revenue

It will depend on who is better equipped and who is willing to see things through plus what can be sold at that time.

Lunar could be better for fuel (water) , to supply EML1/2.

Asteroids for SEP fuel for their own needs then for profit platinum ( will need a cost effective way to bring it back to Earth, there are some concepts that might work, small profit margin ). Water for fuel, we will have to see an asteroid has H2 and O2.

As far as the vote option as Neither, that is a possibility that no one might make it to mine either option. Just hope at least one team can mine either of the sources for future human space travel and colonization. Just how soon would we see humans ( commercially ) working in space ( as a statement ).

[savuporo]

Neither is going to be relevant in near future, private enterprises in space will be riding on other revenue sources - and that includes both PR and MoonExpress ( and Astobotic etc )

[gbaikie]

I voted for the Moon, because I think it will be the first to be mined.

I don't consider sample return to earth as mining. And so as I am defining it, there hasn't been mining in space up to this point in time. Sample return, exploration, surveying could seen as mining related.
Mining is like farming, someone picking wild berries isn't farming; mining is process and system of extracting resources. Sorting different size gravel would be mining. Though I suppose humans picking diamonds off a beach could be called mining- so distinguishing between sample return and mining is blurry line.
Humans have mining for +million of years. Here something:
"Tonight I am reporting on one of the most complex behaviors yet--subterranean mining. Technically speaking, mining goes back to the appearance of the first flint tools around 2.5 million years ago"
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mining.htm
So I think mining predates farming- farming is modern invention, something like 10,000 years ago. But just picking up a rock isn't what is called mining.

Edit: One could define mining a process of making tools. Rocket fuel used by a rocket engine is definitely a tool.

[daveklingler]

The orbital refinery is somewhat necessary for lunar mining.  But lunar mining isn't necessary for the orbital refinery.  The answer, therefore, is asteroids.

The problem lies in where it's feasible to locate refining operations.  Landing and installing a mining, bagging and mass driving installation on the Moon is difficult enough.  But if you add refinement (which brings with it a much higher requirement for power generation), that's just another level of difficulty and a much lower duty cycle for your installed equipment (assuming it's solar-powered and prone to regular two-week downtimes) than if you just stuck the bloomin' thing in orbit.

After you use up a bunch of LOX and LH2 to get your refining equipment down to the lunar surface and installed, you don't buy anything launching refined materials versus raw from the lunar surface; just the opposite, in fact, because encapsulation becomes more difficult with final products.  Much easier to fire off bagged regolith than bottled LOX.

But if your hypothetical orbital refinement facility exists, it can process both asteroids and lunar material.  You might not get around to building your lunar mass driver for quite a while after your refinement center's operating. You'll probably build the mass driver some day, but probably not until propellant is cheap, i.e. being produced from asteroid material.  And at that point your mining spacecraft can be refueled and sent back out.  Another NEO is arriving next week, and besides you just cannibalized the panels meant for the lunar emplacement so you could get a little more process heat...

So the cost to entry for asteroid mining is much, much lower than for lunar mining.  Lunar mining probably won't happen until it's (1) necessary and (2) cheap.

[manboy]

Its too soon to say if either companies will be successful.

[gbaikie]

The orbital refinery is somewhat necessary for lunar mining.  But lunar mining isn't necessary for the orbital refinery.  The answer, therefore, is asteroids.
<snip>

To go to the Moon with existing spacecraft, requires a means delivering rocket fuel into space. Either depots or docking of spacecraft.

In terms of lunar operations a critical location for docking or re-fueling is high earth orbit: GTO, GEO, L-points, or lunar orbit. And if one is also docking or re-fueling in LEO, one can use medium to small launchers to get to the Moon.
One could restrict it to only docking in LEO, and use existing hvy launchers- docking two payloads from two hvy launchers [though one could have multiple smaller launches and docking in LEO].


If one docking in some Lunar orbit and using hvy lift: hvy being any rocket that put about 5 of tonnes in lunar orbit. Any rocket that put 5 tons to GTO can put about 5 tons to Lunar orbit.
Existing Hvy lifts are Ariane V, Zenit, Proton, Altas V, Delta-IV.

Now, a dry weight vehicle of 5 tons is quite large when one consider that 90% mass could be rocket fuel- giving fueled mass of 50 tons- as much or more than Saturn V lifted to lunar orbit, so fuel depot is more flexible than simply docking to craft.
Fuel depot at lunar orbit or Earth/Moon L-1 essentially makes the existing hvy launch equal to Saturn V.
One could make a similar argument with depot at LEO- if have dry mass of 20 ton, it equal to fully fuel 200 ton craft [much bigger the Saturn V LEO payload.
Also one make the argument that fuel depot on the lunar surface gives a Saturn V type capability. Either of the three locations does this, and all three is giving a payload size to the moon [and returning from the moon] of around 3 times a Saturn V, to a number of existing rockets. Or about the same capability of Saturn V to medium launchers [even a greater number of existing rockets].

If you mining the Moon to make rocket fuel, this obviously is leading to fuel depot supplied from rocket fuel made of the Moon.
From a lunar miners point of view, all that is essential is a depot in L-1 with fuel on Moon being made on the Moon.
Or one start with rocket fuel delivered from Earth, to L-1 and lunar surface, and later as fuel is made on the Moon, lunar depot gets lunar made rocket fuel, followed by L-1 depot getting lunar made rocket fuel.
That combination gives greater than Saturn V capability. And lower cost because it allows the reusability of spacecraft landing and leaving the Moon.
 

[daveklingler]

The orbital refinery is somewhat necessary for lunar mining.  But lunar mining isn't necessary for the orbital refinery.  The answer, therefore, is asteroids.
<snip>

To go to the Moon with existing spacecraft, requires a means delivering rocket fuel into space. Either depots or docking of spacecraft.

[snip]

Any rocket that put 5 tons to GTO can put about 5 tons to Lunar orbit.
Existing Hvy lifts are Ariane V, Zenit, Proton, Altas V, Delta-IV.

Ehhhhhh, that's a little shaky.  But it's irrelevant to my point.

Now, a dry weight vehicle of 5 tons is quite large when one consider that 90% mass could be rocket fuel- giving fueled mass of 50 tons- as much or more than Saturn V lifted to lunar orbit, so fuel depot is more flexible than simply docking to craft.
Fuel depot at lunar orbit or Earth/Moon L-1 essentially makes the existing hvy launch equal to Saturn V.

[snip]

If you mining the Moon to make rocket fuel, this obviously is leading to fuel depot supplied from rocket fuel made of the Moon.

You've just attempted to prove a bunch of things I'd already assumed, except that there's enough water on the Moon to make it a viable source of hydrogen.  But let's assume that's all true...

From a lunar miners point of view, all that is essential is a depot in L-1 with fuel on Moon being made on the Moon.

Absolutely.  But why bother? 

Once the depot exists at EML1/2, one then brings power, personnel, refining equipment to EML1/2, and then...drops it down into the gravity well?  And then builds a refinery in a gravity well?  Why not keep it where it is, in EML1/2?  The Moon's gravity doesn't do anything for the personnel.  It just makes it harder to get the refined fuel back, and frankly you're going to launch lunar material using a mass driver anyway.  You'd be insane to use fuel.  And that material is more valuable whole, not processed, when it reaches EML1/2, so you'll simply bag, launch and refine it in orbit.  But now we've established that your refinery's in orbit around the Moon.

And now it's easier to get asteroid material to your refinery/fuel depot at EML1/2 than it is to build your mass driver.  I'm not saying the mass driver won't be built.  But it won't be built first.  And frankly, if it is built it will probably be built to supply material for a rotating station, in which case virtually no one would rather live on the Moon instead of on the station.  So the Moon stays relegated to being a small research outpost.

[cro-magnon gramps]

   I feel like I am in a saloon, in California, after the first word of Gold in them thar' hills; lots of speculation from the 'green horns' and not much else; until there is boots or robots in space, we really don't know how difficult it will be, or what new strategies will be employed that we don't have a clue about now;
    I voted for a coin toss, as I don't see either having an advantage at the moment; perhaps in 4 -5 years we will be able to tell a difference; definitely in 10-15 years we will be able to tell the boys from the men;

Cheers

Gramps