Quote from: SpacexULA on 04/29/2012 04:00 pmWould like to see a seperate updates only thread for Planetary Resources, nothing but the facts.There basically is one:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28680.msg890214#msg890214It is just that people seem to prefer this thread. I am not sure I agree that we need as many threads as go4mars is suggesting but perhaps some split would be a good idea and moving the bulk of the future discussions out of the live events thread. My suggestion would be to use the above thread for company updates (as SpaceXULA suggests), and then to have two more.Planetary Resources non-mining general discussionPlanetary Resources mining related discussion
Would like to see a seperate updates only thread for Planetary Resources, nothing but the facts.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 04/28/2012 01:48 pmThe logical fallacy is the argument from authority. You figure that because Diamandis et al. aren't stupid, then mining asteroids must not be stupid. If something is too good to be true, it probably is.(1) Argument from authority is what you were doing earlier with the notion of scientific consensus. I think that argument from authority has merit, within certain limits, .... But the word "authority" is misleading here. What we're talking about is argument from expertise. Diamandis et al. are also behind the Google Lunar X-Prize. (2) They know all about the advantages and disadvantages of mining on both the Moon and asteroids and they've chosen to invest time and money in both. Mining in space is a lot more about the geology and these guys have obviously done their homework, leading them to the conclusion that asteroid mining is on a par with Moon mining. These guys are smart, intelligent investors with a history of success and from that we can safely assume that mining asteroids is not stupid. They may end up being wrong, but the probability of that happening is likely to be very low. (3) One would need to provide extraordinary evidence to prove the contrary.
The logical fallacy is the argument from authority. You figure that because Diamandis et al. aren't stupid, then mining asteroids must not be stupid. If something is too good to be true, it probably is.
"Moreover, while I applaud PRI's plans to send "swarms" of telescopes to swarms of asteroids, these will not be able to tell the difference between a 50 ppm asteroid and a 5 ppm asteroid. To do that will require in situ sampling, probably with sample return"
According to [PRI's] website, there are more than 1500 known that are easier to get to than the surface of the moon. And more than 1000 new NEO's are discovered each year. 1500/20 years = an average of 75 per year that they could go for more easily than the moon's surface.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 04/29/2012 01:31 pmTo match world production of 200 mT Pt/year would require finding and processing an entire metallic asteroid massing several million mT with a diameter on the order of 100 meters--per year.That's correct -- and this is a problem how?
To match world production of 200 mT Pt/year would require finding and processing an entire metallic asteroid massing several million mT with a diameter on the order of 100 meters--per year.
Seriously guys, all this back and forth over the specific economics of asteroid mining misses the point. That is stuff that is far enough in the future that it doesn't matter much at this point, they might never even try or if they do mine enough to matter.From this article, the following is what matters:Quote...they’re bringing current approaches to building spacecraft into the 21st century by focusing on mass production and taking advantage of technologies available from other companies so that they don’t have to develop everything in-house. "In space exploration, it has been the case that you build a machine fine tuned to a mission and just build one. That has contributed to the cost."That is the real news here ... If they can demonstrate the business case for the above and that there is a market for that sort of thing others will follow. Increasing payloads will drive decreasing launch costs ... and both in turn will feed more investment in the industry. The value in what they are doing is from the fact that they are demonstrating a low cost spacecraft business model, and that will help change the perception of how space is done and who can do it.
...they’re bringing current approaches to building spacecraft into the 21st century by focusing on mass production and taking advantage of technologies available from other companies so that they don’t have to develop everything in-house. "In space exploration, it has been the case that you build a machine fine tuned to a mission and just build one. That has contributed to the cost."
Quote from: go4mars on 04/29/2012 02:23 pmAccording to [PRI's] website, there are more than 1500 known that are easier to get to than the surface of the moon. And more than 1000 new NEO's are discovered each year. 1500/20 years = an average of 75 per year that they could go for more easily than the moon's surface. You appear to be conflating delta-vee with "easier in all aspects"; then you go on to project a simple straight line math equation, which even I could do, as if to suggest that line would be an accurate projection of future discoveries.
One quibble: It will be the ability to mine and manufacture in space which will enable there to be sufficiently massive infrastructure to protect humans for their long term inhabitance of off world destinations. All the talk about the supposed benefits of lo delta-vee destinations avoids the gorilla in the room: Sending and receiving tons and tons and tons of mass from Earth's gravity well.
I have a question that I've been wondering about for some time now. PRI have stated that they will be going after the PGMs when they mine asteroids. Are they actually going to limit themselves to only those elements, or are they going to separate and send back to Earth everything that is worth the expense of sending (which is basically all of it)?
What is the orbit's for the ARKYD 100?How do they plan on deorbiting them when they need to?
They will mine anything that makes a profit.
I think it's reasonably likely that an early approach would be to nudge a SMALL chunk that is almost going to smack earth onto a collision course with a remote and politically feasible part of Earth.
i bet they may use something like this..cool stuffhttp://lmts.epfl.ch/microthrustjb