Deep Space Industries vs Planetary Resources

[Hyperion5]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jan/22/space-mining-gold-asteroids

http://www.slashgear.com/planetary-resources-shows-off-full-scale-arkyd-100-space-telescope-prototype-22266215/

Announced only within the last week, a new firm called "Deep Space Industries" has jumped into the asteroid mining business with the Google billionaires' Planetary Resources.  Already we're seeing two different business models, with DSI concentrating on only in-space extraction and refueling of satellites, while PR is considering bringing back rare earth metals to Earth.  But rather than me summarize things too much, I'll leave it up to you, the members of this forum, to get into the details on both companies' plans. 

There's a lot to think about in this new area of competition.  Can asteroid mining become a profitable venture?  Which company has the better business plan?  Will either of these companies succeed?  How big of an industry could this become?  What kinds of things do both firms need to make this more profitable? 

You get the idea.  Does anyone have a guess as to how long it'll take before either firm sees a profit, if ever? 

[Robotbeat]

When/if either venture ever first makes a profit, it will not be directly from mining asteroids.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The launch costs for launching a secondary into a GTO is ~$15,000/kg. So three 25 kg cubesats launch costs comes to ~$1.2M on a SpaceX F9. But there is also sat prep costs which could be as much as an additional $1M if there is significant fueling and integration. Making the launch costs as much as $2.2M. Satellite construction requires buying some very expensive parts like HAL thrusters, would probably involve an additional several $2-3M. The rest of the parts are very cheap for cubesats which are in the $10-100K ranges, such as the rad-hard computers available for cubesats. Deep space communications to/from these cubesats will be a problem and could end being the most expensive item in the cubesats operation, post 2015 (if successfully deployed operations would be over 2015-2017).

DSI, if they have 20 people for 3 years that build and operate their 3 cubesats then would be a cost of ~$12M. So total expenditures for 3 years including sat construction and launch costs for DSI could be $17-20M. That is in-line with their statement about funding needing to raise $20M in funding. If they can build and launch their 3 cubesats for <$5M + $12M for their manpower over 3 years, then a data contract with NASA of >$20M for delivery of data on an asteroid if one sat successfully gathers data of an asteroid, DSI could make a profit on the first mission.

[Hyperion5]

The launch costs for launching a secondary into a GTO is ~$15,000/kg. So three 25 kg cubesats launch costs comes to ~$1.2M on a SpaceX F9. But there is also sat prep costs which could be as much as an additional $1M if there is significant fueling and integration. Making the launch costs as much as $2.2M. Satellite construction requires buying some very expensive parts like HAL thrusters, would probably involve an additional several $2-3M. The rest of the parts are very cheap for cubesats which are in the $10-100K ranges, such as the rad-hard computers available for cubesats. Deep space communications to/from these cubesats will be a problem and could end being the most expensive item in the cubesats operation, post 2015 (if successfully deployed operations would be over 2015-2017).

DSI, if they have 20 people for 3 years that build and operate their 3 cubesats then would be a cost of ~$12M. So total expenditures for 3 years including sat construction and launch costs for DSI could be $17-20M. That is in-line with their statement about funding needing to raise $20M in funding. If they can build and launch their 3 cubesats for <$5M + $12M for their manpower over 3 years, then a data contract with NASA of >$20M for delivery of data on an asteroid if one sat successfully gathers data of an asteroid, DSI could make a profit on the first mission.

I'd been wondering how the economics of that would work.  Thanks!  Any opinion as to which firm has the better business model?  DSI I've read is only going to do things in space (refueling satellites, building space stations, refining ores, etc) while PR is saying they might bring things like platinum back to the earth if it's valuable enough.  What kind of prices would we need to see for platinum or rare earth metals for it to be worth bringing it back to the earth's surface? 

If it's more than market prices, is there any chance it'd be worth it to a country like Japan, which has had its access to rare earth metals denied by China due to political spats?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

PR's Arkayd 100 series sats will be more expensive per sat but also will probably have a higher success rate of delivering data. Also there are multiple customers for that data other than NASA.

Remember both companies will get $0 if thier sats don't deliver good data (a NASA SAA or a commercial contract payable on delivery). That is what they are both risking during the first round of sat building and launch. From that standpoint both business models are very similar during the first 5 years. DSI will just be spending less than PR.

BTW a NASA SAA contract with either would have virtually $0 outlay from the government until ~FY2017 or later.

[Borklund]

Thanks a bunch for your insight oldAtlas_Eguy!

[jabe]

I just hope they release some good educational out reach materials.  I find they underestimate their "audience's" intelligence and want some more specifics.  i.e. engine type, power usage, orbital parameters..
jb

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I just hope they release some good educational out reach materials.  I find they underestimate their "audience's" intelligence and want some more specifics.  i.e. engine type, power usage, orbital parameters..
jb

Sensors?

[go4mars]

What kind of prices would we need to see for platinum or rare earth metals for it to be worth bringing it back to the earth's surface? 

This was discussed quite a bit on one of the PR threads, but basically it comes down to assumptions which have error bars bigger than a blue whales tail.

[RanulfC]

What kind of prices would we need to see for platinum or rare earth metals for it to be worth bringing it back to the earth's surface? 

This was discussed quite a bit on one of the PR threads, but basically it comes down to assumptions which have error bars bigger than a blue whales tail.

So a more viable plane should aim for sizing of a smaller whale? How would using a Whale Sharks tail fare? Is vertical rather than horizontal orientation a factor? 

Randy

[mlindner]

DSI, if they have 20 people for 3 years that build and operate their 3 cubesats then would be a cost of ~$12M.

You only need 2-3 people to operate a cubesat mission, their complexity is quite low.

[RocketmanUS]

Pr
1st start off with LEO telescopes public can buy time on.
2nd send probes to NEA with possible sale of data to NASA.

DSI
1st start off with probes to NEA that NASA could buy data on.
2nd send probes for return samples.

Both will need to develop a way to mine and deliver commodities to the customers. They will not know what commodities they will have to sell till they know what is available at the NEA's and what the future customer's needs are.

Propellants delivered to EML1/2, LLO, and Mars orbit are near term options. Long term with new technology would be in space alloys and plastics made into simple structures ( boom, tanks, ect. )

Both will have to deal with disposal of the waste by product from mining the NEA's.

Time till profit.
Both could see a profit in a few years if they can sell their first commodity ( data and images still and video ).

The big profit will be from who can build off world.

Earth does not need to import from NEA's, we already have it here. So it will be for space use.

Both will need cheaper launch systems that launch when they need them too ( not wait year(s) after first promise date ). And they will both and others need a LEO assemble/depot station(s) to work from. For crew/cargo to depart from LEO and a place to store items till they are sent to there destination.

[sanman]

But gentlemen, don't you think that if/when things ramp up, then the costs could plunge very quickly? It seems that all this space hardware is so expensive because hardly anybody's gotten the chance to space-rate their equipment. Once enough stuff starts flying, and there's much more data available, then probably there would be room for cheaper entrants to disrupt the cost chain.

In what order do you all expect cost disruptions to happen? Which places along the chain will get disrupted first?

Btw, here is the latest update from Planetary Resources:



Some very strong and direct questions from the lady, and good answers given back:

[happyflower]

Earth does not need to import from NEA's, we already have it here. So it will be for space use.

This has not been proven yet.

The reason why Platinum group metals are used in small quantities, is because they exists in small quantities. These metals have amazing qualities that can really be used more often and in many industries than the current situation. Therefore if the materials "can" be brought down to Earth with some reasonable price, the use of these metals will explode. Again I am not saying this is for sure, but dismissing it out of hand that Earth will not need material from Space is short sighted.

[RocketmanUS]

Earth does not need to import from NEA's, we already have it here. So it will be for space use.

This has not been proven yet.

The reason why Platinum group metals are used in small quantities, is because they exists in small quantities. These metals have amazing qualities that can really be used more often and in many industries than the current situation. Therefore if the materials "can" be brought down to Earth with some reasonable price, the use of these metals will explode. Again I am not saying this is for sure, but dismissing it out of hand that Earth will not need material from Space is short sighted.

We don't mine enough of it right now, that is why the supply is down. The so called environmental laws ( the U.S. has shut down a lot of mining, however imports from other nations ) have slowed things down. Also economical methods of mining the metals and the lack of recycling.

When mining for Platinum group metals or gold there are other item that can be extracted from the raw material to lower cost and improve real  environmental impact.

Keep in mined that a lot of the metal is put in the form of investment/collectable coins.

Asteroid mining business model has to be for in space use. Later if they can get the return cost down then they might send some metals ( other ) back to Earth surface for use. There will be some people willing to pay a premium to have jewelry made from Platinum from space.

[Blackstar]

then a data contract with NASA of >$20M for delivery of data on an asteroid if one sat successfully gathers data of an asteroid, DSI could make a profit on the first mission.

What is this "data" of which you speak?

[go4mars]

Asteroid mining business model has to be for in space use. Later if they can get the return cost down then they might send some metals ( other ) back to Earth surface for use. There will be some people willing to pay a premium to have jewelry made from Platinum from space.

Platinum is very rare on Earth and most of it is produced in one place in Africa.  I agree that a lot of it will be ideally used in space, PR talks about bringing it in industrial-scale quantities (far exceeding novelty jewelry demand), shifting the supply/demand price point lower for the element, regardless of provenance. 
Diamandis wrote a book that provides the philosphical roots of his company; entitled: Abundance.     Even the title is telling.  The book is well-written, thought provoking, and pertinent to PR's longer-range goals. 

[JohnFornaro]

OK.  I had another look at Mr. Lewicki's cube sat, with an eye towards not confusing it with DSI's cube sat.

It is, to my eye, 30cm x 30cm x 60cm. (12" x 12" x 24") It weighs 11kg. (24 lbs)

So this device is 18U, right? and weighs as little as it does?

I am having a hard time believing in the utility of this small thing to orbit in LEO and reliably spot and characterize asteroids.

then a data contract with NASA of >$20M for delivery of data on an asteroid if one sat successfully gathers data of an asteroid, DSI could make a profit on the first mission.

What is this "data" of which you speak?

My take on his remark has to do with a recent BAA by NASA offering $20M for "data".  My understanding of that BAA was that, if you were to successfully land a probe on, say, the Moon, and take pix, then NASA would give you $20M for a full data dump of every last bit of telemetry that you gathered, starting, I suppose, with the launch, and ending with the landing.

[Robotbeat]

OK.  I had another look at Mr. Lewicki's cube sat, with an eye towards not confusing it with DSI's cube sat.

It is, to my eye, 30cm x 30cm x 60cm. (12" x 12" x 24") It weighs 11kg. (24 lbs)

So this device is 18U, right? and weighs as little as it does?

I am having a hard time believing in the utility of this small thing to orbit in LEO and reliably spot and characterize asteroids....

If the optics and sensor can fit, I see no reason why not. Everything else isn't too different from other nanosats or microsats, so should be fine.

You're equating mass and/or size with capability without understanding what drives the requirements for size.

[RocketmanUS]

Asteroid mining business model has to be for in space use. Later if they can get the return cost down then they might send some metals ( other ) back to Earth surface for use. There will be some people willing to pay a premium to have jewelry made from Platinum from space.

Platinum is very rare on Earth and most of it is produced in one place in Africa.  I agree that a lot of it will be ideally used in space, PR talks about bringing it in industrial-scale quantities (far exceeding novelty jewelry demand), shifting the supply/demand price point lower for the element, regardless of provenance. 
Diamandis wrote a book that provides the philosphical roots of his company; entitled: Abundance.     Even the title is telling.  The book is well-written, thought provoking, and pertinent to PR's longer-range goals. 

How much more per year do we need? Double? Triple?
We can increase production. If the supply is increased without demand then the price will fall and the production with it. Just like what happens with gold. And the production is controlled politically, look at diamond mining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum
Jewelry is about 31%.

It is rare, however it is a byproduct of other mining. Once someone delivers a means to detect the metal from other material in an economic way then production could increase.