Author Topic: Planetary Resources  (Read 373053 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #860 on: 10/08/2017 06:55 pm »
In order to be practical for moving large amounts of water around, you're going to have to use a thruster which can use water as a propellant. None exist proven commercially; all are experimental.

Such a thing is a core technology for an asteroid mining company, and you're going to need them very cheap. They'll have to eventually develop them, so might as well start now.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #861 on: 10/08/2017 06:59 pm »
There is no way they will be doing electric propulsion and deep space navigation &tracking in house
Why not? SpaceX is doing their own electric propulsion, and universities sometimes develop thrusters. It's not THAT complicated.

SpaceX has considerable resources to hire experienced engineers and technicians in this field and there's not too many companies that even build commercial electric propulsion systems. There's very few startups working on electrical propulsion of any kind.I'd be willing to bet it really is THAT complicated.

Just as importantly, they have the legal resources to defend or fight over applicable IP. A company with most recent $20M funding round may not
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #862 on: 10/08/2017 07:42 pm »
There is no way they will be doing electric propulsion and deep space navigation &tracking in house
Why not? SpaceX is doing their own electric propulsion, and universities sometimes develop thrusters. It's not THAT complicated.

SpaceX has considerable resources to hire experienced engineers and technicians in this field and there's not too many companies that even build commercial electric propulsion systems. There's very few startups working on electrical propulsion of any kind.I'd be willing to bet it really is THAT complicated.

Just as importantly, they have the legal resources to defend or fight over applicable IP. A company with most recent $20M funding round may not
That doesn't make sense. Just about the only assets any small space company has is IP.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #863 on: 10/08/2017 08:11 pm »
Just as importantly, they have the legal resources to defend or fight over applicable IP. A company with most recent $20M funding round may not
That doesn't make sense. Just about the only assets any small space company has is IP.

I'm not following. Planetary Resources has existing electric propulsion IP on the shelf that will power their probes, that they can freely deploy ? Not Busek, SNECMA etc ?

EDIT: I mean do you simply assume you can just take whatever from here and make as many copies as you want ?
« Last Edit: 10/08/2017 08:19 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #864 on: 10/08/2017 09:05 pm »
Musk doesn't think it's that hard:
Quote
Teaming with local propulsion companies? Not really. I don't think so. We're going to build our own propulsion unit. People in the space industry have a really difficult time manufacturing things. They're pretty good at designing them in the first place but they don't actually know how to make them in volume. It's possible we could license some technology or something but the main propulsion system we have in mind for the satellite is a Hall effect thruster which, not to trivialize it too much, is basically like a loud speaker, okay. It's like a magnetic field accelerating ions, it's pretty easy to make. I mean, there's degrees of Hall thruster, like how good it is, but at the end of the day it's not that hard. So it's not clear that it would make sense to outsource something that's not that hard.
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-seattle-2015-2015-01-15

All right pack it up boys. EPL, AeroJet, Thales, OHB, Safran-SNECMA and all you kiddies who have spent decades of research and prototyping and validation, and actually serve incredibly competitive satellite manufacturing market with your hall effect and grid ion thrusters through multiple product generations, you are all a bunch of morons. All solutions that you have invented and filed IP for are worthless, because its basically, you know, a speaker.
Great Elon has spoketh, and his words come true. And even when they don't, like crossfeed or Falcon Heavy being 3 rockets being strapped together or Dragon doing powered landings etc they still all come true in spirit, because we want to believe.


Edit/Lar:  PoliteJim3000 version:

I think Elon was glossing over the work that many other companies have done, and oversimplifying the problem for effect. He tends to throw out ideas and make pronouncements that don't always unfold the way he sketches them out. That frustrates me enough that my first temptation is to be sarcastic.

I can predict the future: this post will get moderated quick.

Edit/Lar: Indeed.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2017 01:47 am by Lar »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #865 on: 10/08/2017 10:28 pm »
Planetary Resources has their own in-house manufacturing capacity, which you would know if you had skimmed through this thread first (go up-thread and you'll see tours of their facility). They aren't just going to contract with Airbus or Boeing. (Although I wouldn't be TOO surprised if they buy a COTS thruster).

Skepticism is fine as long as you do a minimal amount of research first.

Planetary (heh) is one of the few firms with actual resources behind it.

(Doesn't mean they'll succeed, of course, but a Hall Effect thruster isn't /that/ complicated. It's within reach of universities, which is roughly what Planetary Resources' facilities look like.)

Facilities - yes, I saw.  But that's like a micro-sat hobbyshop, right?  So I can believe a nanosat, or maybe the telescope, if they get the optics from somewhere else.

But what's shown in their video is a very advanced and capable spacecraft.  As advanced as the best probes sent out by JPL.

Meanwhile, again - they've "launched" one cubesat the was stillborn, and have another one planned that is lost in the schedule, right?

How does that jive with all the capabilities they boast?

--

Also, unless Alan Boyle was there on a Sunday morning, I only saw about 5 people in the video.

2 were at an "operations center" doing some sort of simulation on a Mac.  Two others were in the lab.

The company I work at has 50 people and labs.  It doesn't look like THAT.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2017 10:37 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #866 on: 10/08/2017 11:34 pm »
Just as importantly, they have the legal resources to defend or fight over applicable IP. A company with most recent $20M funding round may not
That doesn't make sense. Just about the only assets any small space company has is IP.

I'm not following. Planetary Resources has existing electric propulsion IP on the shelf that will power their probes, that they can freely deploy ? Not Busek, SNECMA etc ?

EDIT: I mean do you simply assume you can just take whatever from here and make as many copies as you want ?
No, of course not. But Hall Effect thrusters are several decades old and out of patent.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #867 on: 10/08/2017 11:35 pm »
Planetary Resources has their own in-house manufacturing capacity, which you would know if you had skimmed through this thread first (go up-thread and you'll see tours of their facility). They aren't just going to contract with Airbus or Boeing. (Although I wouldn't be TOO surprised if they buy a COTS thruster).

Skepticism is fine as long as you do a minimal amount of research first.

Planetary (heh) is one of the few firms with actual resources behind it.

(Doesn't mean they'll succeed, of course, but a Hall Effect thruster isn't /that/ complicated. It's within reach of universities, which is roughly what Planetary Resources' facilities look like.)

Facilities - yes, I saw.  But that's like a micro-sat hobbyshop, right?  So I can believe a nanosat, or maybe the telescope, if they get the optics from somewhere else.

But what's shown in their video is a very advanced and capable spacecraft.  As advanced as the best probes sent out by JPL.

Meanwhile, again - they've "launched" one cubesat the was stillborn, and have another one planned that is lost in the schedule, right?

How does that jive with all the capabilities they boast?

--

Also, unless Alan Boyle was there on a Sunday morning, I only saw about 5 people in the video.

2 were at an "operations center" doing some sort of simulation on a Mac.  Two others were in the lab.

The company I work at has 50 people and labs.  It doesn't look like THAT.
The satellites pictured look like microsats.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #868 on: 10/08/2017 11:47 pm »
Just as importantly, they have the legal resources to defend or fight over applicable IP. A company with most recent $20M funding round may not
That doesn't make sense. Just about the only assets any small space company has is IP.

I'm not following. Planetary Resources has existing electric propulsion IP on the shelf that will power their probes, that they can freely deploy ? Not Busek, SNECMA etc ?

EDIT: I mean do you simply assume you can just take whatever from here and make as many copies as you want ?
No, of course not. But Hall Effect thrusters are several decades old and out of patent.

You understand that all improvements and developments over last 20 years are filed for and extensively covered, right ? If you have an army of IP lawyers that someone the size of SpaceX can afford, you may be able to navigate around it. A modest startup with a few ten million funding ? Hardly

And, to add to it. It would just hardly make any business sense.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2017 11:49 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #869 on: 10/09/2017 12:00 am »
In order to be practical for moving large amounts of water around, you're going to have to use a thruster which can use water as a propellant. None exist proven commercially; all are experimental.

Such a thing is a core technology for an asteroid mining company, and you're going to need them very cheap. They'll have to eventually develop them, so might as well start now.
That is DSI approach, use steam for thrust. ISP of around 200.

For an exploration vehicle SEP is better as it gives a larger DV and refuelling with water will not be option until PR are harvesting water. That will take different vehicle and few more years. In mean time SEP exploration vehicle can keep on looking for more target asteriods.


Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #870 on: 10/09/2017 12:02 am »
Planetary Resources has their own in-house manufacturing capacity, which you would know if you had skimmed through this thread first (go up-thread and you'll see tours of their facility). They aren't just going to contract with Airbus or Boeing. (Although I wouldn't be TOO surprised if they buy a COTS thruster).

Skepticism is fine as long as you do a minimal amount of research first.

Planetary (heh) is one of the few firms with actual resources behind it.

(Doesn't mean they'll succeed, of course, but a Hall Effect thruster isn't /that/ complicated. It's within reach of universities, which is roughly what Planetary Resources' facilities look like.)

Facilities - yes, I saw.  But that's like a micro-sat hobbyshop, right?  So I can believe a nanosat, or maybe the telescope, if they get the optics from somewhere else.

But what's shown in their video is a very advanced and capable spacecraft.  As advanced as the best probes sent out by JPL.

Meanwhile, again - they've "launched" one cubesat the was stillborn, and have another one planned that is lost in the schedule, right?

How does that jive with all the capabilities they boast?

--

Also, unless Alan Boyle was there on a Sunday morning, I only saw about 5 people in the video.

2 were at an "operations center" doing some sort of simulation on a Mac.  Two others were in the lab.

The company I work at has 50 people and labs.  It doesn't look like THAT.
The satellites pictured look like microsats.

Pictured where?  In the Alan Boyle interview or in that video I'm being skeptical about?
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #871 on: 10/09/2017 12:04 am »
BTW, Arkyd-6 completed, slated for launch this year. Video published on Apr 25, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az8yhUfoq64&feature=youtu.be&t=64

And seems like launch is on Spaceflight Industries contract:

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/spaceflight-nasa-launch-services-ksc/
Quote
The NASA contract is structured in terms of the 4-inch-square Cubesat units. Spaceflight would handle 24 units, or 24U, in 2018. The options apply to 24U in 2019 and another 24U in 2020.

Those 24 units could cover 24 satellites of a 1U size, but the batch is more likely to include multiple-unit satellites, such as the six-unit Arkyd 6 satellite that Redmond, Wash.-based Planetary Resources has readied for an orbital test.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2017 12:32 am by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #872 on: 10/09/2017 12:26 am »
In order to be practical for moving large amounts of water around, you're going to have to use a thruster which can use water as a propellant. None exist proven commercially; all are experimental.

Such a thing is a core technology for an asteroid mining company, and you're going to need them very cheap. They'll have to eventually develop them, so might as well start now.
That is DSI approach, use steam for thrust. ISP of around 200.

For an exploration vehicle SEP is better as it gives a larger DV and refuelling with water will not be option until PR are harvesting water. That will take different vehicle and few more years. In mean time SEP exploration vehicle can keep on looking for more target asteriods.
I didn't say use steam for thrust. I said thruster and we had just been discussing Hall Effect SEP, which the video shows. But both approaches work, which is the reason I chose to leave it ambiguous.

And technically a 200s resistojet powered by solar panels is still SEP.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2017 12:31 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #873 on: 10/09/2017 12:27 am »
Just as importantly, they have the legal resources to defend or fight over applicable IP. A company with most recent $20M funding round may not
That doesn't make sense. Just about the only assets any small space company has is IP.

I'm not following. Planetary Resources has existing electric propulsion IP on the shelf that will power their probes, that they can freely deploy ? Not Busek, SNECMA etc ?

EDIT: I mean do you simply assume you can just take whatever from here and make as many copies as you want ?
No, of course not. But Hall Effect thrusters are several decades old and out of patent.

You understand that all improvements and developments over last 20 years are filed for and extensively covered, right ? If you have an army of IP lawyers that someone the size of SpaceX can afford, you may be able to navigate around it. A modest startup with a few ten million funding ? Hardly

And, to add to it. It would just hardly make any business sense.
Oh please, Hall Effect thrusters are old tech at this point. You aren't forced to use newer patented ideas. There are patents on every part of a spacecraft, so your argument applies with equal force to everything else. You've just latched on to Busek for some reason.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2017 12:33 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #874 on: 10/09/2017 12:38 am »
Oh please, Hall Effect thrusters are old tech at this point. You aren't forced to use newer patented ideas. There are patents on every part of a spacecraft, so your argument applies with equal force to everything else. You've just latched on to Busek for some reason.
You apparently never had a conversation with an IP lawyer, nor done any FTO analysis.

Busek and Snecma have the biggest IP portfolio for HE thrusters, and both have commercially very relevant product portfolio generating good revenue, but they are not the only ones. The assumption that you can simply and cheaply sidestep existing suppliers and key technology vendors is quite naive. I think that's enough of beating this horse.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #875 on: 10/09/2017 12:48 am »
Oh, I've had plenty of such discussions with lawyers, and mostly with newer technologies that are still under patent protection.

Hall Effect thrusters are literally half a century old and have been used operationally on spacecraft since the 1970s. And Planetary is making all kinds of spacecraft parts and plan on innovating in many areas, so they can't afford to ignore things because of your fears of IP. I mean, optical comms? Yeah, I'm sure no one else has thought of patenting that! Please stop digging this hole you're in.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2017 12:49 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #876 on: 10/09/2017 01:27 am »
FWIW they've raised at least $50M so far.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #877 on: 10/09/2017 04:48 am »
FWIW they've raised at least $50M so far.
ok - $50M jives with 60 people.
And if it's all recent, let's see if they can put something together beyond a cubesat.  Lack of Money certainly won't be an excuse now.

I'll be happy to see a working telescope.



ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #878 on: 10/15/2017 12:20 am »
Article about how Planetary decides which asteroids to mine:

https://www.planetaryresources.com/2017/10/hunting-asteroids-with-data-science/
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Geron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 229
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Planetary Resources
« Reply #879 on: 10/17/2017 08:08 am »
An interesting novella on asteroid mining.

I enjoyed it I hope some of you do as well.

Let me know what you think!!

https://www.fantasticfiction.com/h/peter-f-hamilton/escape-route.htm

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0