Ordinary people...?

BWhite · 2004-12-30 17:14:42

The motivation being, that fuel cells do apear to be the only solution to the majority of fossil fuel problems, and the Earthly supply of catalyst metals are not sufficent to support this goal. As a commodity, the price will rise cataclysmically as the supply from the meager African mines runs out. Unless someone can come up with a catalyst that doesn't need rare elements, then we will just have to get more. $200 billion doesn't seem like such a big number if you look at it, only double the cost of the ISS.

If this is true, and the price per ounce skyrockets (sic), then the calculations change accordingly.

If an "honest to God" RLV is a pre-requisite, we may be many, many decades away from doing this, however, since no "honest to God" RLV development programs are currently funded at any meaningful levels, by anyone, anywhere, correct?

GCNRevenger, can you recompute these numbers using Proton, for example? $20 billion (your RLV budget) will buy you 266 Proton launches.

Edited By BWhite on 1104448965

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-30 17:50:03

Not really nessesarry to crunch numbers... you can set up such an operation with fewer then 266 Proton rockets, you just can't operate it. The RLV is a prerequisit because you need it to ferry cargo and the fuel to get it to the asteroid mine to LEO... And if the ISS is any indication, where they can't even keep in food for two men with the whimpy Progress, then serious quantities will be needed on a regular basis plus regular crew rotations (preferably three per year).

I also don't like this idea of building "drop box" anything, manufacturing at the mining site must be kept to a strict minimum of complexity to hold development costs down... and since you are going to have a supply of fuel on the asteroid end, tugs going back and forth, and frequent RLV flights to orbit that are returning to Earth... you might as well bring the product back that way.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-30 17:52:58

The carbonyl process is used on Earth. It's used to refine extremely pure nickel. Since it's already used to extract nickel from smelted nickel, how much different do you think it is to use carbonyl to extract nickel from nickel-bearing metal of an M-type asteroid? The only real change is to use it for iron and cobalt as well, and operate in zero-gravity.

One big advantage of an M-type asteroid is you start with ferrous metal; you don't have to smelt it from an oxide mineral. That greatly reduces energy for processing. The first step would be grinding its metal so literally grind the working mine face into iron filings. Then put the filings in a centrifuge and use an electromagnet to pull out metal filings. That will leave behind mineral inclusions. Those inclusions can be partially melted to clump them together, then welded to each other in a giant clump tethered to the asteroid. That giant clump will be the tailings pile. You don't want a cloud of loose material floating about the asteroid or a cargo ship intended for delivery/pick-up duties would not be able to safely approach. The magnetically separated iron filings would go to the carbonyl process to extract iron, nickel and cobalt. The left-overs are concentrate; each tonne having (as an example) 1788.6g platinum, 1024g palladium, 943g iridium, 260g rhodium, 1415g ruthenium, 1089g osmium, 31.9g gold, and 34g silver. That's for an asteroid with 30% nickel / 68% iron / 0.5% cobalt. More nickel / less iron would increase the platinum group, decreasing gold & silver; more iron / less nickel means more gold & silver, less platinum group. You still have to smelt precious metals from the concentrate, but at those levels isn't it worth it?

Transport: did you see the Genesis capsule return to Earth? Its parachute didn't open, it slammed into the dessert floor. The silicon wafer collection plates chattered, but the gold plates survived intact. I treat this as successful demonstration of a precious metals entry capsule: you don't need a parachute. You could add a single wing like a maple seed; the autogyro effect would slow its descent. The ESA's Mars lander called Beagle didn't have any maneuvering thrusters, it was just released from Mars Express on the correct trajectory. Although its heat shield was too sharp for Mars, this demonstrates you don't need thrusters for the capsule. So what are you left with? An interplanetary cargo tug that never enters a planetary atmosphere and gets refueled to operate for decades, and expendable entry capsules that are just molded pieces of inconel. Inconel is an alloy of nickel, chromium, and molybdenum. Smelt chromium & molybdenum from the same concentrate as precious metals; you should also get titanium, aluminum, magnesium, manganese, copper, and a touch of vanadium.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-30 18:03:52

I don't like the idea of the entry capsules, too much manufacturing involved. Just get the metals back, they can even be just powder in a canister. Don't produce ANYTHING up there at all except fuel and refined metal.

The heat shields will have to be of pretty high consistancy to reenter the atmosphere with precision time and time again, but the real killer is how to get them there... How do you push those metal-bearing pods twards Earth?

I say just use the cargo tugs and fuel from the asteroid and bring the metal back to LEO, and just put them in the RLVs when they return to Earth.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-30 18:06:28

GCNRevenger wants to use fuel to enter LEO, then a next generation Shuttle to return it to Earth. That seams like a reversal of previous posts, but Ok, I won't object to that. The mass returned on the shuttle would be 99% pure precious metal bullion, so that value could justify Shuttle services. Not a dedicated flight, but if a true RLV Shuttle makes a trip to a space station anyway it could carry down a load of bullion. If we use ISS as the weight station, we could experiment with fancier materials processing and manufacture there. That might give the station a use the members on this board wouldn't object to.

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-30 18:15:35

I think you are underestimating the necessary size of said minning equipment. Even given possible much better ore densities on an asteriod the amount of rock you have to mine and process is huge. Using your numbers of ~27g/MT, which is a couple times greater than terrestrial ore densities, you mine and process over 32,000MT of rock to get one MT of the refined ore. Assuming typical densities of hard rock (3000kg/m^3) thats over 10,000m^3 of rock to move. Terrestrial mines are BIG things, and they use big and heavy equipment, and employ LOTS of people. And not only that, at (I suppose) 20MT a year, you are talking about an absolutly GIGANTIC mine, one of the biggest platnium mines ever. Terrestrial mines of this size employ thousands of people. A small space station is not going to cut it. You are going to need some serious equipment out there.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-30 18:45:03

But its not rock, its solid metal. Not much oxide or silicon to it. For a 30/70 Ni/Fe asteroid, the density is 8,100kg per cubic meter. Which comes out to be a cube about 14.4 meters (47ft) on a size. Thats big, but it isn't unmanageable if an effective cutting method is available.

This also means that there isn't really a smelting step at all.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-30 18:53:15

Alot of that "serious equipment" is also used to handle the weight of the material, which an asteroid mine won't have. The material will almost move itself if you give it a little push.

Brainstorm mode:
-Compressed high-pressure oxygen with an arc heater?
-Diamond saws like Marble quaries?
-Imported chemical explosives from Earth?
-Cutting laser?
-Cryogenic embrittlement?

Edit: Another brainstorm... instead of grinding the metal up mechanically, which will be pretty hard to do, melt it instead. Melt it all down with a solar thermal furance, then spray the stuff into a mist and let it cool... that ought to divide it up pretty finely without heavy machinery and use energy most directly.

Further brainstorming...: using a cutting method to move 2-3m sized ore chunks into "the tube" where they are pushed into the preheater and allowed to free-float into a section that is a radiant oven operated by waste heat, piped in by liquid metal lines. Then into the solar condenser furnace where the floating metal chunks are heated to melting. Then by another mechanism (do magnets work on melted metals?) presses the metal through a sprayer nozzle to render it a hot, coarse mist. The metal mist cools and the heat is carried away to preheat the next chunk of ore. Magnets then seperate out the ferrous junk (for microwave sintering or solar melting later) and the remaining powder is collected into batches and fed into the Carbon Monoxide reactor. After that, the warm Carbonyl complex is seperated into its componets by gas centrifuge and renderd as purified metal powder or ingots by thermal decomposition, possibly also from furnace waste heat.

Grypd · 2004-12-30 20:24:13

But when it comes down to it yes there are a lot of people involved in the mining on Earth but most of these people are in the support of the actual mine face/s. The actual Mine faces where the stuff is dug out of the ground usually have a few crew and thats all. But unlike Earth mining we are not digging for a mile underground just to find the seams that had been left by the meteor strike we are going into the meteor itself, the asteroid. Our platinum in South africa and Z|imbabwe is actually the result of an asteroid strike millions of years ago forming the seams of gold and platinum we mine today.

A possible thought we will be using a lot of ilemite or equivalent to create oxygen for the bases. If I remember is not one of the waste products from that a lot of Titanium oxide. Could we not use the Titanium oxide to create a heat shield to protect the dumb loads as they are dropped into the atmosphere. We are then using and creating another product that could be exported to LEO to save or make money.

BWhite · 2004-12-30 20:33:27

How do we identify platinum laden asteroids? How accurate are our observing platforms?

Have platinum rich locations been surveyed on the Moon, or is lunar platinum still something that theory predicts?

= = =

http://www.mines.edu/research/srr/Prese … um.PDF]One paper - background reading

He proposes moving a 20 meter asteroid into LEO and processing it there. At that size, it would not survive re-entry and therefore would not pose a danger to the surface.

Edited By BWhite on 1104461603

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-30 21:23:45

The best way would be to start with mass estimates, then spectrographic studies, then send a probe with a drill and a mass spectrometer.

20m is too small to be worth much I think; sending back only small masses of the stuff we want rather then lugging the whole asteroid of the stuff we don't is worth the trouble of mining further out.

---

Edit: How much of the scale, infrastructure, and expense of Earthly mining is spent on digging under the worthless dirt and soil (and avoiding being crushed) plus having to convert the salt and oxide laden materials... which you wouldn't have to do in space. Just blast the surface off and start cutting out chunks of metal and seperate it magnetically.

Vajper · 2004-12-30 21:40:57

Thanks for totally hijacking my thread guys

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-30 21:48:49

Thanks for totally hijacking my thread guys

Heh sorry, a common occurance around here...

...its not entirely unrelated though. The only way that the average joe can afford a trip to space, beyond a little suborbital hop, is if there is development in space that builds infrastructure and technology that lowers the cost of space tourism.

With building materials available from asteroids brought by various types of tugs to Earth orbit that may lead to limited orbital industry, and regular medium flights from the surface by RLVs... a large space hotel and passenger RLVs able to access economies of scale becomes easier and makes that ticket to orbit a whole lot cheaper.

RobertDyck · 2004-12-30 22:46:41

How do we identify platinum laden asteroids? How accurate are our observing platforms?
Have platinum rich locations been surveyed on the Moon, or is lunar platinum still something that theory predicts?

Platinum (and platinum group metals) follow nickel. Look for nickel and you'll find platinum. The Moon has light elements on the surface: silicon, aluminum, and iron oxides. Oxides are lighter than metal, and pure oxygen is lighter than oxides so the surface of a molten planet(oid) will be composed of oxides. Lunar gravity wasn't strong enough to hold onto its volatiles. Gold and platinum don't form oxides so they sank to the lunar core. The only platinum you'll find on the surface of the Moon will be meteor craters. So why not mine the source: an M-type asteroid. That will be pure asteroid material, no oxide minerals mixed in.

Our platinum in South africa and Z|imbabwe is actually the result of an asteroid strike millions of years ago forming the seams of gold and platinum we mine today.

Sudbury, Canada, is also a meteor.

A possible thought we will be using a lot of ilemite or equivalent to create oxygen for the bases. If I remember is not one of the waste products from that a lot of Titanium oxide. Could we not use the Titanium oxide to create a heat shield to protect the dumb loads as they are dropped into the atmosphere. We are then using and creating another product that could be exported to LEO to save or make money.

It takes hydrogen to smelt ilmenite. If your going to mine one asteroid for metals, why not extract water from a C-type asteroid?

::Edit:: There are gold mines on Earth that aren't meteor craters, but they're volcanic intrusions. You could try to find gold in the Lunar mares, but if all major platinum mines on Earth are meteor craters that should give you a strong hint about where to find platinum.

MarsDog · 2004-12-30 22:55:44

The http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/dinos/de_4/5c5 … m]PREDATOR / PREY RATIO ratio may give a clue.

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php]Top 1% income equals bottom 57%

One percent, eventually, might have the opportunity to move to space.
And a small fraction of that will actually want to leave.

Will the poor be forced and subsidized to leave Earth ?
To mine the asteroids ?

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-31 03:47:52

Just look through history though, at one point we'd have said only rich people would own cars, now most families have one or two (or four cough) sitting outside their houses.

Just because at the moment space is limited to the multimillionaires does not mean that it will always be limited in that way. One percent now may equal fifty percent in thirty years.

Graeme

RobertDyck · 2004-12-31 13:11:54

Thanks for totally hijacking my thread guys

Ok, if you invest in my company then by 2027 (launch March or April) I'll have a large ship carry settlers to Mars. If the base construction crew launches late 2022 (November or December) then that gives the construction crew 4 years and 4 months to prepare the first Mars settlement to accept settlers. Is that what you want to hear? You said you're 19 now; unless you have a birthday in the next 4 months, you'll be 41 when it launches. (I'll be 64 )

Vajper · 2004-12-31 14:51:22

Sounds really good, depending on your definition of 'invest'

Grypd · 2004-12-31 16:42:46

Thanks for totally hijacking my thread guys

We want to go to Mars but many of us want to go there to stay. But most really just want to be able to get to space in their lifetimes.

To do this we need to develop space until we are the point of being able to go there to stay and to take our families with us. We have to be able to utilise space like we have never before and this really is hard.

But by using resources we will be able to develop and make cheaper our access to space.

Oh incidentally how difficult would it be to make the Lunar basalt KREEP into a nuclear fuel source for use on the Moon. I expect GCN will have the answer.

Vajper · 2004-12-31 17:21:20

You really believe that we'll be able to go to mars to stay within our lifetimes? If you do, I'd love to be 'on board' ( pun not intended... )

RobS · 2004-12-31 18:36:20

Regarding gold on the moon, I think not. As far as I know, gold is indeed associated with volcanic activity, but I think it is SIALic volcanic activity; granitic, not basaltic. But I'm not sure of this. However, if I'm right, then there won't be gold deposits on Mars, either, because the Martian crust is made up of low-silicon basaltic rocks like the Earth's oceans (unlike the continents).

Going to Mars to stay: if the first astronauts land on Mars on, say, 2024, I see no reason why the infrastructure to support a few people for more than one opposition wouldn't be in place before 2028 (in other words, the third visit). But that isn't the same as saying humanity will be ready to send hundreds or thousands to Mars. That requires transportation to low Earth orbit a factor of ten cheaper than it is today. If transportation to LEO drops to $500 per kilogram (as opposed to $5,000 per kilogram today) then it may be feasible to support a base of 100 or so on Mars. If a base of that size existed, it is likely that some couple will decide to stay and decide (with or without permission) to have children. It may be possible to have transportation to LEO down to the $500 per kilo range by 2040 or 2050, but it's impossible to predict. I wonder what GCN would predict . . .

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-31 18:54:33

I am thinking there will be an exploration phase, where crews are sent to various locations all over Mars, and will last about five missions give or take. Then it will take around two more missions to one of these locations to set up the requisit equipment before the last of these crews could stay indefinatly. About two years between missions, thats talking around 12-14 years following the first departure before a perminant crew can go. It will be another 4-6 years of construction beyond that before larger crews (>12-16) will be able to stay, and would likly require some sort of medium/light RLV on both planets and pretty signifigant Martian industrial capacity to pull of bigger numbers of people.

So, I'm thinking in about ~20 years give or take two launch opportunities or so following first departure, then we can think about going beyond a "Martian McMurdro." If we launch in about 2015 (no Lunar trip) or 2030 (Lunar side trip), that puts the date around 2035 to 2050. Maybe 2030 if Shuttle went away tomorrow. This is assuming that we only send one mission per opportunity and no radical improvements in propulsion or launch systems.

Grypd · 2005-01-01 09:42:57

Regarding gold on the moon, I think not. As far as I know, gold is indeed associated with volcanic activity, but I think it is SIALic volcanic activity; granitic, not basaltic. But I'm not sure of this. However, if I'm right, then there won't be gold deposits on Mars, either, because the Martian crust is made up of low-silicon basaltic rocks like the Earth's oceans (unlike the continents).
Going to Mars to stay: if the first astronauts land on Mars on, say, 2024, I see no reason why the infrastructure to support a few people for more than one opposition wouldn't be in place before 2028 (in other words, the third visit). But that isn't the same as saying humanity will be ready to send hundreds or thousands to Mars. That requires transportation to low Earth orbit a factor of ten cheaper than it is today. If transportation to LEO drops to $500 per kilogram (as opposed to $5,000 per kilogram today) then it may be feasible to support a base of 100 or so on Mars. If a base of that size existed, it is likely that some couple will decide to stay and decide (with or without permission) to have children. It may be possible to have transportation to LEO down to the $500 per kilo range by 2040 or 2050, but it's impossible to predict. I wonder what GCN would predict . . .
-- RobS

Gold veins are formed on Earth due to Volcanic actions and hot springs and we believe a lot of it is due to small bacteria absorbing the gold particles and then dieing so concentrating the gold. If we find life on Mars it may be the case that we have the same result.

But in Space we find that there are asteroids with a very high loading of gold and if they have impacted on the Moon and possibly Mars it could mean that we can find localised impact events with a lot of material. Or we could just find an asteroid with a lot of metal in it. But gold as a reason to go to space is wrong it will be a benefit of looking but really wont pay for the missions. We have been discusing Platinum group metals which are worth a lot more and are desperatly needed down here.

To get to Mars with anything except flags and footprints needs major access to space. Unless we can get people interested in making access cheaper it wont matter we will be stuck permanently with super expensive goverment agencies and we the commen people will get no chance of going.

RobertDyck · 2005-01-01 11:45:43

I'm glad there isn't any lunar gold. I wanted to say the only resources on the Moon are aluminum and titanium; there's also oxygen but it's easier (less expensive) to get it from an asteroid. But I didn't know enough geology to say that for sure. So the only precious metals on the Moon are scattered chunks of meteor mixed with lunar regolith; why not go to an asteroid where it's pure asteroidal material?

The only way to get a company in a free market economy to reduce cost of access to space is to increase flight volume. We need more frequent flights. How do you pay for a high flight frequency? More government programs will reduce the per flight cost somewhat, but not to the point it becomes affordable for average people. Many here are already complaining about the cost of worth of the International Space Station, so another such NASA project to increase flight rate would get even greater criticism. We need a hotel in LEO, asteroid mining, and other commercially profitable destinations.

Commodore · 2005-01-01 13:37:39

The only way to get a company in a free market economy to reduce cost of access to space is to increase flight volume. We need more frequent flights. How do you pay for a high flight frequency? More government programs will reduce the per flight cost somewhat, but not to the point it becomes affordable for average people. Many here are already complaining about the cost of worth of the International Space Station, so another such NASA project to increase flight rate would get even greater criticism. We need a hotel in LEO, asteroid mining, and other commercially profitable destinations.

That’s what I think were going to have to do to get any more than flag planting missions off the ground, mass production. Of rockets, of habs, ect.

I think what we need to do is get contractors and governments together to develop a "kit" consisting of the surface, orbital, and transit habs, surface operations equipment(rovers, mini-refineries, ect) and the transit craft with the LEO facilities to support it, and all the launchers to send it up. In other words, everything needed to send 12-18 people to the surface (be it Luna or Mars) and once there use local resources to build a permanent, self-sufficient base, and then swap out the crews every couple years (for a Mars mission anyways).

Now that first mission might cost $50b to develop, and another $50b to build and launch, but when the mission is accomplished, you've got a proven "system of systems" that can then be mass produced, with interchangeable parts that can operate from mission to mission and support one and other. And as more of these kits are built, construction methods will be refined and cost will go down because of both that, and simple volume. The first kit might cost $50b, but the third might cost $30b, the sixth $20b, and so on, until even the smaller countries of Europe might be able to swing it. To the point were a group of large companies could get together and buy one.

By that time hundreds of launchers, rovers, and habs will have been constructed, and the cost of each one individually will plummet, making missions outside of main effort, missions as mundane as simple communications satellite launch, very cheap. Relatively speaking.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-12-30 17:14:42

Re: Ordinary people...?

#52 2004-12-30 17:50:03

Re: Ordinary people...?

#53 2004-12-30 17:52:58

Re: Ordinary people...?

#54 2004-12-30 18:03:52

Re: Ordinary people...?

#55 2004-12-30 18:06:28

Re: Ordinary people...?

#56 2004-12-30 18:15:35

Re: Ordinary people...?

#57 2004-12-30 18:45:03

Re: Ordinary people...?

#58 2004-12-30 18:53:15

Re: Ordinary people...?

#59 2004-12-30 20:24:13

Re: Ordinary people...?

#60 2004-12-30 20:33:27

Re: Ordinary people...?

#61 2004-12-30 21:23:45

Re: Ordinary people...?

#62 2004-12-30 21:40:57

Re: Ordinary people...?

#63 2004-12-30 21:48:49

Re: Ordinary people...?

#64 2004-12-30 22:46:41

Re: Ordinary people...?

#65 2004-12-30 22:55:44

Re: Ordinary people...?

#66 2004-12-31 03:47:52

Re: Ordinary people...?

#67 2004-12-31 13:11:54

Re: Ordinary people...?

#68 2004-12-31 14:51:22

Re: Ordinary people...?

#69 2004-12-31 16:42:46

Re: Ordinary people...?

#70 2004-12-31 17:21:20

Re: Ordinary people...?

#71 2004-12-31 18:36:20

Re: Ordinary people...?

#72 2004-12-31 18:54:33

Re: Ordinary people...?

#73 2005-01-01 09:42:57

Re: Ordinary people...?

#74 2005-01-01 11:45:43

Re: Ordinary people...?

#75 2005-01-01 13:37:39

Re: Ordinary people...?

Board footer