Quote from: Mongo62 on 04/25/2012 08:32 pm100 mT = 100 metric tonsI would think that in-situ processing must happen, that way the cost of returning the refined metals to Earth would be economically feasible.How is that accomplished?
100 mT = 100 metric tonsI would think that in-situ processing must happen, that way the cost of returning the refined metals to Earth would be economically feasible.
Let me ask a different question:So, PR has a rock containing 100 ppm PGM in high lunar orbit. Then what? Where do they make money?
How is it brought down? 100 mt of ore is to be returned to Earth - how? Is ore really worth $10K a kg?
You need return samples to confirm or refute the interpretations of the spectra of celestial bodies.EXAMPLE; It's a FACT that the flyby of the asteroid Lutetia by Rosettadisproved the interpretations of telescopic spectra of that body.
Quote from: Moe Grills on 04/25/2012 08:44 pm You need return samples to confirm or refute the interpretations of the spectra of celestial bodies.EXAMPLE; It's a FACT that the flyby of the asteroid Lutetia by Rosettadisproved the interpretations of telescopic spectra of that body.--whistles innocently--
Heat up asteroid with large fresnel lens. Once liquid, it self-differentiates with the less expensive metals on the surface and the more expensive in the middle. Let it cool on its way to earth. When it re-enters, it burns off some of the lower value metal jacket. The differentiated ingots could be formed bar shaped to minimize atmospheric interaction by spinning while liquid around the long axis. Land them on/in a glacier.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/25/2012 04:14 pmQuote from: mrmandias on 04/25/2012 02:56 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 04/25/2012 01:15 pmQuote from: mrmandias on 04/25/2012 02:13 am...You are assuming that because the US has agreed to a treaty, it is now part of the body of law applicable to US citizens. That assumption is incorrect.I'm having a hard time reading this and not concluding that you assert that US citizens are not bound by the terms of the international treaties that the US has properly ratified.It’s more complicated than that, but in some cases, basically yes. Treaties are binding on the United States, the government. In most cases, how those treaties should affect individual citizens is a policy decision that has to be made by the government ...Without dragging this aside too much, now I'm thinking that my fears of OST, expressed elsewhere, may be unfounded, since that "policy" decision has yet to be made. Maybe it simply doesn't pertain at all to US citizens?I'm not seeing a logical consistency in the legal aspects you're commenting about. If the Planetary Resources folks can bring home the "bacon", then the legal precedent can be made in US courts. I don’t understand your question. We’ve discussed the OST in two contexts here. One is whether the OST means that until some government agency issues a permit, Planetary Resources can’t do anything in space. The other is whether Planetary Resources can own resources that they extract.My initial view is that the OST permit requirement is almost certainly not self-executing. It doesn’t apply absent some US law or regulation. But as to the ownership of resources, my view is that its an open question whether the OST is self-executing or not. If it isn’t, then US courts would probably hold that Planetary Resources possession of extracted material gives it working title. If it is, then Planetary Resources would own the resources as per the prevailing interpretations of the OST.
Quote from: mrmandias on 04/25/2012 02:56 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 04/25/2012 01:15 pmQuote from: mrmandias on 04/25/2012 02:13 am...You are assuming that because the US has agreed to a treaty, it is now part of the body of law applicable to US citizens. That assumption is incorrect.I'm having a hard time reading this and not concluding that you assert that US citizens are not bound by the terms of the international treaties that the US has properly ratified.It’s more complicated than that, but in some cases, basically yes. Treaties are binding on the United States, the government. In most cases, how those treaties should affect individual citizens is a policy decision that has to be made by the government ...Without dragging this aside too much, now I'm thinking that my fears of OST, expressed elsewhere, may be unfounded, since that "policy" decision has yet to be made. Maybe it simply doesn't pertain at all to US citizens?I'm not seeing a logical consistency in the legal aspects you're commenting about. If the Planetary Resources folks can bring home the "bacon", then the legal precedent can be made in US courts.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/25/2012 01:15 pmQuote from: mrmandias on 04/25/2012 02:13 am...You are assuming that because the US has agreed to a treaty, it is now part of the body of law applicable to US citizens. That assumption is incorrect.I'm having a hard time reading this and not concluding that you assert that US citizens are not bound by the terms of the international treaties that the US has properly ratified.It’s more complicated than that, but in some cases, basically yes. Treaties are binding on the United States, the government. In most cases, how those treaties should affect individual citizens is a policy decision that has to be made by the government ...
Quote from: mrmandias on 04/25/2012 02:13 am...You are assuming that because the US has agreed to a treaty, it is now part of the body of law applicable to US citizens. That assumption is incorrect.I'm having a hard time reading this and not concluding that you assert that US citizens are not bound by the terms of the international treaties that the US has properly ratified.
...You are assuming that because the US has agreed to a treaty, it is now part of the body of law applicable to US citizens. That assumption is incorrect.
You are assuming US jurisdiction. Outer Space is outside the US Territorial waters, so the 'Law of Nations' probably applies instead of the 'US Constitution'.Planetary Resources and its machines could be arrested and tried before say a Chinese court. The charge may be something like committing an 'Unauthorised activity in space'.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/25/2012 08:15 pmI don't care WHERE we go in space, as long as we go. If anyone is willing to spend their own lives and treasures to do that, I will cheer them on, no question! What makes me excited about PRI is that they: 1) Have serious capital behind them. 2) Are pursuing a new market which is not necessarily limited like comm-sats and isn't space tourism (as much as I like space tourism, new space desperately needs to diversify beyond it). 3) Have a good team (including people with direct experience with similar missions and several PhDs in planetary science). and 4) Have a realistic early business plan that doesn't rely solely on just burning capital investment and which is technically very feasible.And as far as people, Planetary Resources has several planetary scientists on board:http://www.planetaryresources.com/team/Wholeheartedly agree. I would also add that even very partial success would help prove out other space resource plays, including lunar ones, and potentially even stuff like space-based solar power to the extent Planetary Resources can show that some space processing and manufacturing is possible.We would save a lot of arguing and back and forth if everyone in this thread realized that everyone in this thread probably agreed that (1) no one knows what the precise composition of most NEOs are. Planetary Resources doesn’t know either, which is why their first several phases all involve surveying and prospecting. (2) no one knows yet how or how cheaply asteroids can be mined/refined, shipped, and landed. Including Planetary Resources, at least that they’ve let on. Obviously they feel that there is some potential there, but they admit that these are tough problems. (3) if PGMs can be found, mined/refined, transported, and landed for something less than the earth market price, no one knows for sure the extent to which the earth market price would be lowered, and if the PGM operation would continue to be viable.(4) The Planetary Resources plan probably would be too risky or too unlikely for a normal investment, because Planetary Resources itself has stated that its investors were willing to take longer delays and/or face greater risks than normal because of the possible benefits to mankind. All of that said, higher risk does not mean impossible risk. Planetary Resources has some very smart and experienced people who presumably have taken a much harder look at data than any of us have. Their investors appear to be no slouches either. They presumably believe that there is at least some reasonable chance of finding asteroids with high enough PGMs and developing the tech to mine/refine, ship, and land at low enough costs that it would be economic. None of us are in a position to say for sure that there is no such chance.
I don't care WHERE we go in space, as long as we go. If anyone is willing to spend their own lives and treasures to do that, I will cheer them on, no question! What makes me excited about PRI is that they: 1) Have serious capital behind them. 2) Are pursuing a new market which is not necessarily limited like comm-sats and isn't space tourism (as much as I like space tourism, new space desperately needs to diversify beyond it). 3) Have a good team (including people with direct experience with similar missions and several PhDs in planetary science). and 4) Have a realistic early business plan that doesn't rely solely on just burning capital investment and which is technically very feasible.And as far as people, Planetary Resources has several planetary scientists on board:http://www.planetaryresources.com/team/
Most of the post here are relying on conjecture, wishful thinking, and estimates (guesses).
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 04/25/2012 11:52 pmYou are assuming US jurisdiction. Outer Space is outside the US Territorial waters, so the 'Law of Nations' probably applies instead of the 'US Constitution'.Planetary Resources and its machines could be arrested and tried before say a Chinese court. The charge may be something like committing an 'Unauthorised activity in space'.a little history lesson, of course Mr. Swallow knows this one;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins%27_EarThe War of Jenkins' Ear was a conflict between Great Britain and Spain that lasted from 1739 to 1748, with major operations largely ended by 1742. Its unusual name, coined by Thomas Carlyle in 1858,[5] relates to Robert Jenkins, captain of a British merchant ship, who exhibited his severed ear in Parliament following the boarding of his vessel by Spanish coast guards in 1731. This affair and a number of similar incidents sparked a war against the Spanish Empire, ostensibly to encourage the Spanish not to renege on the lucrative asiento contract (permission to sell slaves in Spanish America).[6]After 1742 the war was subsumed by the wider War of the Austrian Succession involving most of the powers of Europe. Peace arrived with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748.My point is, the US would not stand for it, and the Chinese would be aware of this; unless they felt strong enough, militarily, I don't think would be any such arrest or trial; edit sentence structure
Who is going to provide insurance for this project, to soften the financial risk?Lloyd's? AllState? Governments?Investors would like their money back if this project collapses; all it takeswould be for the stock or commodities markets to take a nose dive, like in 1987, 1929. Those are FACTS.{snip}
There is no way [one is] going to spur investment in the Moon by doing everything you can on an internet forum to tear down investment in utilizing asteroids.
[PRI has] a realistic early business plan that doesn't rely solely on just burning capital investment and which is technically very feasible.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/25/2012 08:15 pmI don't care WHERE we go in space, as long as we go. If anyone is willing to spend their own lives and treasures to do that, I will cheer them on, no question! ...This pretty much summarizes my view as well.Moreover it mystifies me why so many people are fixated on the long term mining aspects of this. More interesting to me is the idea that they are attempting to commoditize low cost space hardware with the Arkyd 100 & 200 lines. Part of what is needed is a shift in mindset among the larger public that changes the perception that only NASA or others with ultra high budgets can fly things larger than cubesats in space and/or beyond LEO. If they can get universities, non-profits, wealthy philanthropists, small countries, and others to start thinking in terms of flying their own telescopes or science missions, that alone will be really valuable irrespective of whether they ever mine a single gram of asteroid material. It helps strengthen a variety of aspects of the burgeoning low cost space industry on more immediate terms than any of the actual mining will.In addition these platforms help to emplace a communications network out in the solar system, which itself helps enable additional missions.
I don't care WHERE we go in space, as long as we go. If anyone is willing to spend their own lives and treasures to do that, I will cheer them on, no question! ...
Strip out the other stuff using various chemical processes.If the asteroid fragment is metallic (with pure FE or Ni rather than oxides as on Earth) then Mond process would allow pure nickel and pure iron to be stripped off the fragment and then vapor deposited into useful forms.That will increase the PGM concentrations before dropping to Earth.
Many non-metallic elements and compounds could simply be boiled off with direct application of focused solar energy, again increasing PGM concentration.