It seems in near term and per lb, water is the most valuable resource in space.
Quote from: gbaikie on 04/26/2012 01:24 amIt seems in near term and per lb, water is the most valuable resource in space.Right now and in the near term it's still the number of functioning transponders on GEO satellites - as their product actually has paying customers.
When this was discussed on unmannedspaceflight.com, someone posted a table that showed that chondrites were just about as good as all but the best iron-nickel asteroids. So why are they assuming only iron-nickel asteroids are worth considering? That would change the numbers enormously...
This kind of asteroid mining would be very energy-intensive, however, and I don't see it becoming profitable and sustainable until we've developed a concentratable energy source such as fusion that can operate at a distance from the Sun.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 12/18/2013 09:42 pmThe problem with PGMs as I see it, is that the ores aren't that particularly rich. I mean, what are we really looking at for an iron-nickel asteroid: probably on the order of 50 ppm average? This has been discussed above i believe, and IIRC the two active sites in South Africa and Russia where most of worlds PGMs come from are in the range of 0.5 ppm or so. So, two orders of magnitude.However, i dont think the issue is not of the quality of the best ores available on earth. I think the issue is where these are and who exactly has access to them. Also, robots in space will probably not cause riots and price fluctuations .. BTW, there is a relatively recent and apparently pretty comprehensive book on the subject ( and an earlier one by the same editor about lunar resources )
The problem with PGMs as I see it, is that the ores aren't that particularly rich. I mean, what are we really looking at for an iron-nickel asteroid: probably on the order of 50 ppm average?
So ... why is that terrestrial ore bodies that result from asteroid impact have such a different concentration of metals from analogous bodies in space?
Nuclear power (fission as well as near-term fusion) is heavier than equivalent solar power (at same level of newly-invested R&D) until you get to the asteroid belt, and perhaps not even until you get to Jupiter (since solar power has such a huge jump on nuclear).(unless you're on a planet with an atmosphere)
It's the asteroid belt and beyond that I'm talking about, I think that's where the money is.
You're assuming that the benefit of mining asteroids is for the importing of the ore to Earth. It will never be economical to do that.
Earth actually has plenty of mineral wealth accessible for far less trouble than any asteroid mission.
Quote from: llanitedave on 12/19/2013 03:43 pmYou're assuming that the benefit of mining asteroids is for the importing of the ore to Earth. It will never be economical to do that.Never is a really long time. QuoteEarth actually has plenty of mineral wealth accessible for far less trouble than any asteroid mission.Yeah, i have 99% of worlds reserves of unobtainium buried right under my house, but im not going to let anyone dig here. The point being, is that the fact that in theory, Earth has a wealth of resources matters very little if the interested parties cannot dig them up for various reasons.
However wouldn't it be ironic if a chinese embargo on rare earths actually did drive asteroid mining. Even if it makes no economic sense perhaps it makes some sort of "military balance of powers" sense.
It is stating the obvious to observe that there is no shortage of metal in the Earth’s crust, only of known ore. Unfortunately, ore is becoming increasingly more difficult to define with any certainty. For many metals, what is now considered ore is trending to lower grade and it is becoming more deeply situated. Moreover, as the declining discovery rate over recent decades has shown, it is becoming more difficult to discover an ore body now than it was 30 – 50 years ago.Compounding the problem for mining companies and their explorers, this is all happening at a time when the demands for many mineral commodities are at all-time highs, and increasing. Without doubt, the world’s exploration teams will require a significantly improved future discovery performance if the present inventories of mineral-commodity ore reserves are not to be seriously depleted as the demand for mineral resources escalates over the coming decades…
What is clear is that increasing cost, scarcity, and political trends point to a time when it may be less expensive to mine resources in space than the Earth. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when, and how.
But the alternatives are ok, even if we use up every rare element and are restricted only to the elements that life recycles.