Quote from: DanClemmensen on 02/22/2022 08:29 pmQuote from: Twark_Main on 02/22/2022 06:41 amQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2022 05:57 pmQuote from: Twark_Main on 06/03/2021 06:58 amFun fact: if we brought 16 Psyche's infamous "100 quadrillion dollars worth of metals" back to Earth, that'd be enough iron to completely consume all the free oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. Fun Fact? Somebody don't do something!No $100,000,000,000,000,000 payday huh? Sounds like somebody hates growth and jobs. Gettim boys!Sigh. The iron is not very valuable on Earth, not worth sending down to the surface. Keep it in space and use it to build rockets, spacecraft, structures, etc. Separate out the stuff that is valuable on Earth and send it down, completely destroying nearly the entire mining industry and the financial structure instead of destroying life by consuming the oxygen.The price calculation is based on the spot metal value on Earth.Point being, it's an absurd calculation on a number of levels."Keep it in space" is a good quip, but it's begging the biggest unsolved question in spaceflight economics. It's still an open question whether it can ever be economical to live your entire life in space.All you've done is replace one hard problem (asteroid mining economics) with an even harder problem (space habitation economics).
Quote from: Twark_Main on 02/22/2022 06:41 amQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2022 05:57 pmQuote from: Twark_Main on 06/03/2021 06:58 amFun fact: if we brought 16 Psyche's infamous "100 quadrillion dollars worth of metals" back to Earth, that'd be enough iron to completely consume all the free oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. Fun Fact? Somebody don't do something!No $100,000,000,000,000,000 payday huh? Sounds like somebody hates growth and jobs. Gettim boys!Sigh. The iron is not very valuable on Earth, not worth sending down to the surface. Keep it in space and use it to build rockets, spacecraft, structures, etc. Separate out the stuff that is valuable on Earth and send it down, completely destroying nearly the entire mining industry and the financial structure instead of destroying life by consuming the oxygen.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2022 05:57 pmQuote from: Twark_Main on 06/03/2021 06:58 amFun fact: if we brought 16 Psyche's infamous "100 quadrillion dollars worth of metals" back to Earth, that'd be enough iron to completely consume all the free oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. Fun Fact? Somebody don't do something!No $100,000,000,000,000,000 payday huh? Sounds like somebody hates growth and jobs. Gettim boys!
Quote from: Twark_Main on 06/03/2021 06:58 amFun fact: if we brought 16 Psyche's infamous "100 quadrillion dollars worth of metals" back to Earth, that'd be enough iron to completely consume all the free oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. Fun Fact? Somebody don't do something!
Fun fact: if we brought 16 Psyche's infamous "100 quadrillion dollars worth of metals" back to Earth, that'd be enough iron to completely consume all the free oxygen in Earth's atmosphere.
Quote from: Twark_Main on 02/22/2022 10:39 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 02/22/2022 08:29 pmQuote from: Twark_Main on 02/22/2022 06:41 amQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2022 05:57 pmQuote from: Twark_Main on 06/03/2021 06:58 amFun fact: if we brought 16 Psyche's infamous "100 quadrillion dollars worth of metals" back to Earth, that'd be enough iron to completely consume all the free oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. Fun Fact? Somebody don't do something!No $100,000,000,000,000,000 payday huh? Sounds like somebody hates growth and jobs. Gettim boys!Sigh. The iron is not very valuable on Earth, not worth sending down to the surface. Keep it in space and use it to build rockets, spacecraft, structures, etc. Separate out the stuff that is valuable on Earth and send it down, completely destroying nearly the entire mining industry and the financial structure instead of destroying life by consuming the oxygen.The price calculation is based on the spot metal value on Earth.Point being, it's an absurd calculation on a number of levels."Keep it in space" is a good quip, but it's begging the biggest unsolved question in spaceflight economics. It's still an open question whether it can ever be economical to live your entire life in space.All you've done is replace one hard problem (asteroid mining economics) with an even harder problem (space habitation economics).I guess you missed the implicit tags, so here:<sardonic> Separate out the stuff that is valuable on Earth and send it down, completely destroying nearly the entire mining industry and the financial structure instead of destroying life by consuming the oxygen.</sardonic>
While the Moon and Mars dominate, and likely will continue to dominate, spaceflight plans, the asteroids in general may hold a place still.Creating this thread so people can discuss asteroid mining and what routes companies, SpaceX or otherwise, could take to obtain materials for Earthly and extraterrestrial use.(snip)Add your own thoughts to the above and anything regarding mining strategies.
The Earth-Moon system will remain the centre of activity, and Mars is clearly the destination with the most momentum at the moment. Any conversation about asteroid mining has to take place in that context, but orbital mechanics sets the rules. Will mined materials be returned to Earth or sent to Mars? Not unless they're very low mass and/or precious, or unless the delta V to move the materials is otherwise small. These conditions create a strong preference for choosing asteroids that can be maneuvered onto regular close approaches with Earth or Mars. First takeaway: The mining architecture should have as its bi-product a way to maneuver the host asteroid - doesn't have to be by much, relatively speaking, we're talking "station-keeping" delta V for small mountains. There will be an incentive to select asteroids which are in orbits that are close to a regular ratio with Earth or Mars (say 2:3, 3:4, 3:5, 2:7, etc) so that they can be maneuvered to an orbit such close approaches occur regularly. This probably puts a reasonably small upper-size-limit on the asteroids that can be viably mined for profit on Earth-based or Mars-based markets.
What's a "close approach" here, and what's "small delta-v" here?
Quote from: LMT on 07/06/2022 03:00 pmWhat's a "close approach" here, and what's "small delta-v" here?Most of bulk ISRU metals and water would end up in CIS lunar space which means round trip from eg EML1 for closer ones is 2-4km/s.In most cases the return trip should be fuelled from Asteriod water so only 1-2km/s to transport bulk materials to CIS lunar space.At these low DV ranges simple low ISP water fuelled thrusters become viable.
Quote from: mikelepage on 07/05/2022 09:26 amThe Earth-Moon system will remain the centre of activity, and Mars is clearly the destination with the most momentum at the moment. Any conversation about asteroid mining has to take place in that context, but orbital mechanics sets the rules. Will mined materials be returned to Earth or sent to Mars? Not unless they're very low mass and/or precious, or unless the delta V to move the materials is otherwise small. These conditions create a strong preference for choosing asteroids that can be maneuvered onto regular close approaches with Earth or Mars. First takeaway: The mining architecture should have as its bi-product a way to maneuver the host asteroid - doesn't have to be by much, relatively speaking, we're talking "station-keeping" delta V for small mountains. There will be an incentive to select asteroids which are in orbits that are close to a regular ratio with Earth or Mars (say 2:3, 3:4, 3:5, 2:7, etc) so that they can be maneuvered to an orbit such close approaches occur regularly. This probably puts a reasonably small upper-size-limit on the asteroids that can be viably mined for profit on Earth-based or Mars-based markets.What's a "close approach" here, and what's "small delta-v" here?
Quote from: LMT on 07/06/2022 03:00 pmWhat's a "close approach" here, and what's "small delta-v" here?...a close approach of ~2 Lunar Distances should be plenty close enough...
Inbound: Quote from: mikelepage on 09/14/2022 06:20 amQuote from: LMT on 07/06/2022 03:00 pmWhat's a "close approach" here, and what's "small delta-v" here?...a close approach of ~2 Lunar Distances should be plenty close enough...But how many known metal NEAs actually do this?
Outbound:High outbound delta-v for heavy mining cargo doesn't discourage asteroid mining enthusiasts, despite the high attendant cost. Mars delta-v is much lower, hence cheaper, yet ignored here.It's all the same ore, but only free-flying asteroids garner enthusiasm. The dissonance is weird.
I wrote a very long post about on selecting asteroids for mining that can be maneuvered into such close approaches. I even suggested... control on the asteroid's Yarkovsky effect...
If delta-V was the only measure that counted, then we wouldn't have sent probes to Pluto or Mercury. The trade space has more than one variable.
I assume starting location is LEO but its never stated.
Quote from: mikelepage on 10/06/2022 10:56 amI wrote a very long post about on selecting asteroids for mining that can be maneuvered into such close approaches. I even suggested... control on the asteroid's Yarkovsky effect...Oh, I thought you'd moved on from that. No, Yarkovsky effect wouldn't shift orbit as desired, not in a civilizational timespan. It's < 1 N.
Quote from: mikelepage on 10/06/2022 10:56 amIf delta-V was the only measure that counted, then we wouldn't have sent probes to Pluto or Mercury. The trade space has more than one variable.Don't straw-man, with "If [x] were all that counted..." You haven't really explored the trade space, yourself.Re: counting: Count the landers on Pluto and Mercury.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 10/08/2022 11:27 pmI assume starting location is LEO but its never stated. Yes, the website has popups that say things like, "LEO departure delta-V is the Earth departure manoeuvre from a 400 km altitude circular parking orbit, calculated using the two-body patched conics approximation." Note also for rendezvous missions: "The total mission delta-V in km/s includes the sum [of] departure and arrival v-infinities. Choose a specific object to see the computed delta-v manoeuvres for departure from the parking LEO." They are assuming trajectories of the type found by solving Lambert's Problem. They don't appear to be considering mid-course inclination change burns which for high inclination asteroids might make a considerable difference.
...Fe-rich asteroids are a particularly bad example to choose if one was making the case for asteroid mining and export (because Earth/Mars have iron in abundance)....eventually - will be able to export some of the most valuable mined products...
Quote from: mikelepage on 10/10/2022 09:07 am...Fe-rich asteroids are a particularly bad example to choose if one was making the case for asteroid mining and export (because Earth/Mars have iron in abundance)....eventually - will be able to export some of the most valuable mined products...What are highly siderophile elements?Current prices?