SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

RGClark · 2012-04-10 05:19:11

RGClark wrote:

Note that all the components for such a mission already exist, the launcher, the spacecraft, and the rover. All that is required is to mate them together. On that basis such a mission probably could be launched within a year. Note also all of the U.S., Russia, and Europe have the required 20 mT launcher, and the upper or space stage capable of the space traverse. And China will also with the introduction of the Long March 5 in 2014. Then the question arises who will be first?
A common charge leveled at the space program is what is it good for? If the U.S. government fully financed the mining operation then based on an estimated $20 trillion value for the minerals on a single asteroid, this would have enough value to retire the entire U.S. debt(!) Preferably though the U.S. would only be a partial investor to retain the costs savings of a privately financed venture. Even then as a minority investor, the return in value to the U.S. government could be in the trillions.
...

Astrobotic Technology Reveals Design for Robot to Prospect at Moon’s Poles.
April 3, 2012 – 8:00 pm|Releases

PITTSBURGH, PA – April 3, 2012 – Astrobotic Technology unveiled
its new Polaris lunar rover design, which will prospect for
potentially rich deposits of water ice, methane and other resources at
the moon’s north pole in three years.
A powerful Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX will launch Polaris from Cape
Canaveral in late October 2015. Four days later Polaris will land
during north pole summer, when patches of ground that are in cold
shadow most of the year get brief illumination. This is where ice will
be found closest to the surface, and when a solar-powered robot will
get the sunlight needed to sustain exploration. Polaris will search
for ice for the next 12 days until sundown in early November.

http://astrobotic.net/2012/04/03/astrob … ons-poles/

Such missions are very important to further quantify the amount of
water and other minerals suggested by orbiter missions to lie within
the polar regions of the Moon. They are a key first step, though there
is nothing better than having the actual sample in your hands for
geologists to assay and determine if there really are such valuable
minerals as gold and silver tentatively identified by the LCROSS
mission.

Bob Clark

RGClark · 2012-04-20 12:17:08

Google billionaires, James Cameron backing space resource venture.
By Alan Boyle

Today's media alert says the new company "will overlay two critical sectors — space exploration and natural resources — to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will create a new industry and a new definition of 'natural resources.'"
"That sounds like asteroid mining," Christopher Mims writes on MIT Technology Review's "Mims' Bits" blog. "Because what else is there in space that we need here on earth? Certainly not a livable climate or a replacement for our dwindling supplies of oil."
Parabolic Arc's Doug Messier, meanwhile, writes that the venture will be an "extraterrestrial mining company."
Diamandis has said on more than one occasion that he's intrigued by the idea of digging into asteroids, for materials ranging from water (for fuel as well as for astronauts) to precious metals such as platinum. The Verge points to a TED talk in 2005 where Diamandis discusses his dream, while Forbes magazine has brought up the subject with him more than once in the past few months.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 … ce-venture

Bob Clark

louis · 2012-04-20 19:04:15

RGClark wrote:

Google billionaires, James Cameron backing space resource venture.
By Alan Boyle
Today's media alert says the new company "will overlay two critical sectors — space exploration and natural resources — to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will create a new industry and a new definition of 'natural resources.'"
"That sounds like asteroid mining," Christopher Mims writes on MIT Technology Review's "Mims' Bits" blog. "Because what else is there in space that we need here on earth? Certainly not a livable climate or a replacement for our dwindling supplies of oil."
Parabolic Arc's Doug Messier, meanwhile, writes that the venture will be an "extraterrestrial mining company."
Diamandis has said on more than one occasion that he's intrigued by the idea of digging into asteroids, for materials ranging from water (for fuel as well as for astronauts) to precious metals such as platinum. The Verge points to a TED talk in 2005 where Diamandis discusses his dream, while Forbes magazine has brought up the subject with him more than once in the past few months.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 … ce-venture

Bob Clark

Wow - that's brilliant! I always said that Space X were the real deal and that billionaire philanthropists would eventually come on board. Put the two together and we have an outfit that will be more powerful than NASA in terms of human exploration of space.

SpaceNut · 2012-04-20 20:02:10

Mating of unrelated payloads to carrier does take time and is usually part of a 6 year mission design to reality that most satelites and even Nasa uses for its landers, orbiters ect....with selected launcher. I think this is too long for a developement time but its also the item of payload that takes all the work....launcher build time is less than 2 years of it.

The robots discription is interesting...
the robot will operate for 10 to 12 days of constant sunlight, then hibernate during the equal period of polar nighttime.

Astrobotic Technology, one of 26 teams competing for a $30 million Google Lunar X Prize, has altered its October 2015 mission to the moon in dramatic fashion.

http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/2012/ … -high.html
http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/2012/ … s-for.html

http://www.lunarrover.org/
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/teams/astrobotic

RGClark · 2012-04-21 12:14:16

SpaceNut wrote:

Mating of unrelated payloads to carrier does take time and is usually part of a 6 year mission design to reality that most satelites and even Nasa uses for its landers, orbiters ect....with selected launcher. I think this is too long for a developement time but its also the item of payload that takes all the work....launcher build time is less than 2 years of it.
The robots discription is interesting...
the robot will operate for 10 to 12 days of constant sunlight, then hibernate during the equal period of polar nighttime.
Astrobotic Technology, one of 26 teams competing for a $30 million Google Lunar X Prize, has altered its October 2015 mission to the moon in dramatic fashion.
http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/2012/ … -high.html
http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/2012/ … s-for.html
http://www.lunarrover.org/
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/teams/astrobotic

Thanks for that. I didn't know they were changing the plans for their Google Lunar X Prize entry essentially to turn it into a prospector mission.

Bob Clark

RGClark · 2012-04-22 17:19:40

RGClark wrote:

Thanks for that. I didn't know they were changing the plans for their Google Lunar X Prize entry essentially to turn it into a prospector mission.
Bob Clark

The Astrobotic rover is built by the same Carnegie Mellon robotics lab that built the Scarab lunar polar rover. The Astrobotic rover will be launched on just a Falcon 9 so this is a smaller and cheaper lander/rover than one that would require the heaviest 20 mT capacity launchers. Though it will not be sample return, it can certainly confirm the large amounts of water suggested by the orbital studies. It may also be able to confirm the tentative detections of precious metals such as gold and silver found by LCROSS.
Again because the delta-V requirements to a NEO are less than those to the Moon, this lander/rover could also serve as a prospector for asteroid missions. There was a recent article discussing the idea that a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty might allow private land claims on outer space bodies:

Loophole Could Allow Private Land Claims on Other Worlds.
By Adam Mann | April 5, 2012 | 6:30 am | Categories: Space
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/ … -property/

Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?

Bob Clark

RGClark · 2012-04-24 05:59:16

RGClark wrote:

...
Again because the delta-V requirements to a NEO are less than those to the Moon, this lander/rover could also serve as a prospector for asteroid missions. There was a recent article discussing the idea that a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty might allow private land claims on outer space bodies:
Loophole Could Allow Private Land Claims on Other Worlds.
By Adam Mann | April 5, 2012 | 6:30 am | Categories: Space
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/ … -property/
Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?

There is debate among legal scholars about the Outer Space Treaty. While it does ban national ownership, there is debate on whether it bans private ownership. This article on The Space Review site discusses the issue in more detail:

Staking a claim on the Moon.
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 9, 2012
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2058/1

The opposing view to Simberg's is expressed here:

How the U.S. Can Lead the Way to Extraterrestrial Land Deals.
By Berin Szoka and James Dunstan April 9, 2012 | 1:58 pm | Categories: Space, Wired Opinion
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/ … ty-rights/

I don't agree with the argument that Szoka and Dunstan give that Article VI of the treaty bans private use of outer space bodies. This article in the treaty states:

Article VI
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.

This article only seems to be talking about that the uses shall only be for peaceful purposes and that rescue operations need to be undertaken for other nations manned missions if needed, etc.

However, another part of the Szoka/Dunstan argument I do find compelling: that different countries would grant overlapping land claims. Then it would appear such claims would have to be granted by an international organization.

It is important to note the treaty most certainly does not ban private, financial use of space resources. The big debate has been about ownership, but you don't even need ownership for private, financial use! The situation would be quite analogous to mining rights granted on public lands. The mining companies have the right to extract even valuable minerals from the ground but they still do not own the land.

Bob Clark

louis · 2012-04-24 17:12:22

RGClark wrote:

RGClark wrote:
...
Again because the delta-V requirements to a NEO are less than those to the Moon, this lander/rover could also serve as a prospector for asteroid missions. There was a recent article discussing the idea that a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty might allow private land claims on outer space bodies:
Loophole Could Allow Private Land Claims on Other Worlds.
By Adam Mann | April 5, 2012 | 6:30 am | Categories: Space
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/ … -property/
Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?
There is debate among legal scholars about the Outer Space Treaty. While it does ban national ownership, there is debate on whether it bans private ownership. This article on The Space Review site discusses the issue in more detail:
Staking a claim on the Moon.
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 9, 2012
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2058/1
The opposing view to Simberg's is expressed here:
How the U.S. Can Lead the Way to Extraterrestrial Land Deals.
By Berin Szoka and James Dunstan April 9, 2012 | 1:58 pm | Categories: Space, Wired Opinion
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/ … ty-rights/
I don't agree with the argument that Szoka and Dunstan give that Article VI of the treaty bans private use of outer space bodies. This article in the treaty states:
Article VI
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.
This article only seems to be talking about that the uses shall only be for peaceful purposes and that rescue operations need to be undertaken for other nations manned missions if needed, etc.
However, another part of the Szoka/Dunstan argument I do find compelling: that different countries would grant overlapping land claims. Then it would appear such claims would have to be granted by an international organization.
It is important to note the treaty most certainly does not ban private, financial use of space resources. The big debate has been about ownership, but you don't even need ownership for private, financial use! The situation would be quite analogous to mining rights granted on public lands. The mining companies have the right to extract even valuable minerals from the ground but they still do not own the land.

Bob Clark

This is an interesting area - my view has always been that the OST does not prevent private enterprise activity, but it has to have some sort of treaty party approval. Clearly as none of the planet can be alienated by a treaty party, there is no provision for freehold ownership by a company. Leasehold I think is more arguable and licensing even more so. I think one might say that an area of land could be licensed to a private company by a treaty party for a limited period. Otherwise you would have the absurd situation where one treaty party could build a base "on top of" another treaty party's base. So a system of licensing might substitute for a freehold system of land ownership.

Of course, remember, there are small treaty parties - tiny countries - who may be happy to rubber stamp activities of companies like Space X. And remember, also that there are countries that have not ratified the OST - implicitly, a company registered in one of those countries might argue they are not covered by the OST.

Another key point: nothing in the OST prevents a self-governing community of humans being established on Mars. Musk could simply declare a Mars Republic. Nothing in the OST prevents the estbalishment of such a state.

SpaceNut · 2012-04-24 20:45:22

The Outer Space Treaty http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6089
Also these are very simular in what was expected by them...peace in orbit.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

RGClark · 2012-04-26 07:52:42

RGClark wrote:

Google billionaires, James Cameron backing space resource venture.
By Alan Boyle
Today's media alert says the new company "will overlay two critical sectors — space exploration and natural resources — to add trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will create a new industry and a new definition of 'natural resources.'"
"That sounds like asteroid mining," Christopher Mims writes on MIT Technology Review's "Mims' Bits" blog. "Because what else is there in space that we need here on earth? Certainly not a livable climate or a replacement for our dwindling supplies of oil."
Parabolic Arc's Doug Messier, meanwhile, writes that the venture will be an "extraterrestrial mining company."
Diamandis has said on more than one occasion that he's intrigued by the idea of digging into asteroids, for materials ranging from water (for fuel as well as for astronauts) to precious metals such as platinum. The Verge points to a TED talk in 2005 where Diamandis discusses his dream, while Forbes magazine has brought up the subject with him more than once in the past few months.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 … ce-venture

In regards to the reason for this endeavor, several studies have shown many of the important metals for high technology such as platinum at present global growth rates, especially in the emerging economies such as China, will be depleted within decades:

Earth's natural wealth: an audit.
23 May 2007
NewScientist.com news service
David Cohen
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscien … ns_005.htm

If these reports are true, and there is some uncertainty in the estimates, then such asteroid mining missions, might turn out to be not amusing topics of discussion, but actual necessities.

Bob Clark

Mark Friedenbach · 2012-04-26 15:30:58

There is some significant truth in that. Platinum-group metals have fundamental value for their chemical properties as catalysts, and I know that there has been research into their electrical properties as well (doping, etc.). Existing uses are depleting accessible reserves quickly, and industry demand would be even larger if the price weren't so high. They are also examples of resources which are extremely scarce on Earth, but relatively not so in the solar system as a whole. It's just the geochemistry of platinum-group metals that makes them so rare in the Earth's crust.

When Planetary Resources talks about bringing back platinum-group metals, it's not to flood the commodity, jewelry, or collector market. It's because it will open up new industries (catalysts, medical devices, semiconductors, etc.) to make use of the once-depleted resource.

louis · 2012-04-26 16:15:37

Mark Friedenbach wrote:

There is some significant truth in that. Platinum-group metals have fundamental value for their chemical properties as catalysts, and I know that there has been research into their electrical properties as well (doping, etc.). Existing uses are depleting accessible reserves quickly, and industry demand would be even larger if the price weren't so high. They are also examples of resources which are extremely scarce on Earth, but relatively not so in the solar system as a whole. It's just the geochemistry of platinum-group metals that makes them so rare in the Earth's crust.
When Planetary Resources talks about bringing back platinum-group metals, it's not to flood the commodity, jewelry, or collector market. It's because it will open up new industries (catalysts, medical devices, semiconductors, etc.) to make use of the once-depleted resource.

PLatinum is about $50 per gram = about $50,000 per gram. Space X could probably provide the cheap rocketry to make this a going concern. You have to remember that asteroid miners will pay no rent, no tax, no licensing fee, no environmental clean up costs...etc etc. The surface mining costs will be far cheaper on the asteroids.

Mark Friedenbach · 2012-04-26 17:12:30

louis wrote:

PLatinum is about $50 per gram = about $50,000 per (kilo)gram.

It won't remain $50/g for more than a few minutes once you start bringing back any significant quantity.

louis · 2012-04-26 18:23:46

Mark Friedenbach wrote:

louis wrote:
PLatinum is about $50 per gram = about $50,000 per (kilo)gram.
It won't remain $50/g for more than a few minutes once you start bringing back any significant quantity.

Thanks for correctly reading the typo - it should have been $50,000 per kg.

You are obviously unfamiliar with the principles of control of supply. As long as you have the monopoly on the cheap source (as PRI would at least for several years) you can manipulate the price.

Space X aim to get launch costs down to $500 per kg. Even if the price dropped to $10,000 per kg there could still be a huge profit involved.

Mark Friedenbach · 2012-04-27 10:49:50

That's true, but the dynamics of manipulating price in that way are somewhat interesting. Bringing back platinum in abundance would destroy the investor/speculator market--they'll simply move to other commodities that remain scares, or to something like Bitcoin. About $4 billion per year is spent on platinum for industrial uses. So if you're sitting on a mountain of platinum the most revenue you can hope for $4bn/yr for a larger amount of platinum at lower cost (given that's how much they are willing to spend on the metal), or conservatively a value much less than that if demand is based on the amount of metal required and not price. Platinum is primarily used in the auto industry and for jewelry: general motors is not going to sell more cars because catalytic converters cost a few hundred dollars less, and outside of the most prestigious luxury brands the price of jewelry is tied to the price of the material so the price/demand dynamics there are more complex. They seem to be considering that cheaper platinum would jumpstart a new industry as new uses are made economical, but that is a long-term gamble outside of an investor's horizon of interest.

$4bn/yr is nothing to sneer at, but it is not that impressive even outside the space industry (I'll avoid the overused comparisons with NASA's budget). Apple's annual revenue is two orders of magnitude larger than that, and you'd have a hard time trying to convince me that prospecting, extracting, refining, and transporting metals safely from asteroids to the Earth's surface would take less resources than what Apple spends in consumer electronics.

Now I'm playing devil's advocate here because I'm involved in my own startup related to extra-terrestrial mining. I obviously think that Planetary Resources is on the right path and wish them the best. But overeager zealousness can lead to bad PR. It's better to look conservative and like we know what we're doing in the eyes of the economists.

Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2012-04-27 10:53:22)

louis · 2012-04-27 15:51:27

Mark Friedenbach wrote:

That's true, but the dynamics of manipulating price in that way are somewhat interesting. Bringing back platinum in abundance would destroy the investor/speculator market--they'll simply move to other commodities that remain scares, or to something like Bitcoin. About $4 billion per year is spent on platinum for industrial uses. So if you're sitting on a mountain of platinum the most revenue you can hope for $4bn/yr for a larger amount of platinum at lower cost (given that's how much they are willing to spend on the metal), or conservatively a value much less than that if demand is based on the amount of metal required and not price. Platinum is primarily used in the auto industry and for jewelry: general motors is not going to sell more cars because catalytic converters cost a few hundred dollars less, and outside of the most prestigious luxury brands the price of jewelry is tied to the price of the material so the price/demand dynamics there are more complex. They seem to be considering that cheaper platinum would jumpstart a new industry as new uses are made economical, but that is a long-term gamble outside of an investor's horizon of interest.
$4bn/yr is nothing to sneer at, but it is not that impressive even outside the space industry (I'll avoid the overused comparisons with NASA's budget). Apple's annual revenue is two orders of magnitude larger than that, and you'd have a hard time trying to convince me that prospecting, extracting, refining, and transporting metals safely from asteroids to the Earth's surface would take less resources than what Apple spends in consumer electronics.
Now I'm playing devil's advocate here because I'm involved in my own startup related to extra-terrestrial mining. I obviously think that Planetary Resources is on the right path and wish them the best. But overeager zealousness can lead to bad PR. It's better to look conservative and like we know what we're doing in the eyes of the economists.

Global production of platinum is something like 500 tonnes per annum, so global worth is about $2.5billion. There's no reason PRI would have to get too greedy - they could take say 20% of the revenue and still gross $500 million per annum, $5 billion over a decade. As part of a portfolio of materials that would be a tidy sum.

I still hold to the view though that you can make a lot more money from lunar tourism.

RGClark · 2012-04-28 02:00:40

RGClark wrote:

In regards to the reason for this endeavor, several studies have shown many of the important metals for high technology such as platinum at present global growth rates, especially in the emerging economies such as China, will be depleted within decades:
Earth's natural wealth: an audit.
23 May 2007
NewScientist.com news service
David Cohen
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscien … ns_005.htm
If these reports are true, and there is some uncertainty in the estimates, then such asteroid mining missions, might turn out to be not amusing topics of discussion, but actual necessities.

In that New Scientist article the author seems to be implying the uncertainties in the estimates of impending scarcity come from how the producers are reporting their stocks and available mine-able ore. That is, they may be underreporting them to artificially keep prices high. But with some of these key minerals predicted to run out within two decades clearly this is something that needs to be determined definitively. Maybe we need to send in UN inspectors into their accounting departments and into their actual mines like we send in inspectors for rogue nuclear states.

In any case, here are some peer-reviewed papers that discuss this issue:

Metal stocks and sustainability.
R. B. Gordon*,
M. Bertram†,‡, and
T. E. Graedel†,§
PNAS January 31, 2006 vol. 103 no. 5 1209-1214.

Abstract
The relative proportions of metal residing in ore in the lithosphere, in use in products providing services, and in waste deposits measure our progress from exclusive use of virgin ore toward full dependence on sustained use of recycled metal. In the U.S. at present, the copper contents of these three repositories are roughly equivalent, but metal in service continues to increase. Providing today's developed-country level of services for copper worldwide (as well as for zinc and, perhaps, platinum) would appear to require conversion of essentially all of the ore in the lithosphere to stock-in-use plus near-complete recycling of the metals from that point forward.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/5/1209

An impending platinum crisis and its implications for the future of the automobile.
Chi-Jen Yang
Energy Policy.
Volume 37, Issue 5, May 2009, Pages 1805-1808.

Abstract
The global demand for platinum has consistently outgrown supply in the past decade. This trend likely will continue and the imbalance may possibly escalate into a crisis. Platinum plays pivotal roles in both conventional automobile emissions control and the envisioned hydrogen economy. A platinum crisis would have profound implications on energy and environment. On the one hand, inadequate platinum supply will prevent widespread commercialization of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. On the other hand, expensive platinum may enhance the competitiveness of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery-powered electric cars. Policymakers should weigh the potential impacts of a platinum crisis in energy policy.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 1509000457

And of course also if such scarcity estimates are valid this would have a major impact on the question of the profitability of the space mining ventures.

Bob Clark

GW Johnson · 2012-04-28 16:17:39

Bob Clark:

There's a related thread on PRI under human missions. Closely related to what y'all are discussing here. Which is resource recovery/mining.

GW

RGClark · 2012-05-01 02:52:50

A completely separate team has now announced plans to do mining from
the Moon:

Renowned scientists join tech visionaries at Moon Express to mine the
Moon for planetary resources.
“MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., April 24, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Moon Express, a
Google Lunar X PRIZE contender, announced today that some of the
world's leading planetary scientists have joined its Science Advisory
Board (SAB) to assist the company in its plans to explore and
ultimately mine the Moon for precious planetary resources.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases … 32035.html

A propos of that would be Bill White's novel Platinum Moon:

Platinum Moon [Paperback]
Bill White (Author)
"International intrigue, action, adventure and suspense wrapped around
a moon landing.
"Power abhors a vacuum. After NASA abandons its plans to return to the
Moon, New Hampshire native and global entrepreneur Harold Hewitt steps
in to fill the void. Rejecting the notion that the exploration of
space must be reserved to government, Hewitt establishes Lunar
Materials LLC to prospect for lunar platinum – platinum needed for
fuel cells that will help mitigate global warming. Hewitt sees himself
as an old fashioned Yankee trader, touting his lunar ambitions as an
altruistic endeavor undertaken in harmonious collaboration with global
partners. His opponents view Hewitt as a Yankee traitor selling out
his country in pursuit of profit."
http://www.amazon.com/Platinum-Moon-Bil … 0984405801

Bob Clark

SpaceNut · 2012-05-01 04:59:12

The argument of minerals or other things from space that we need more of here does not change the real dynamics of those in control as they can stock pile the item until its demand goes up as this is no different than oil here on earth. We have proven that drilling more wells do not bring the price down if the control of price is metered on speculation.

GW Johnson · 2012-05-01 17:32:41

Monopoly pricing is no surprise. Historically.

GW

RGClark · 2012-05-02 08:26:42

RGClark wrote:

A completely separate team has now announced plans to do mining from
the Moon:
Renowned scientists join tech visionaries at Moon Express to mine the
Moon for planetary resources.
“MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., April 24, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Moon Express, a
Google Lunar X PRIZE contender, announced today that some of the
world's leading planetary scientists have joined its Science Advisory
Board (SAB) to assist the company in its plans to explore and
ultimately mine the Moon for precious planetary resources.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases … 32035.html

Bob Clark

I happen to think off-world mining will be the "killer app" that makes space flight routine. For it, we will need low cost heavy lift and low cost manned flight.
Some people have advised that I should open up a blog for these technical discussions - sometimes meant as a constructive criticism, sometimes not. In any case I have decided to do so. On the blog so far are posts discussing creating a super heavy lift vehicle at the few hundred million per launch range, compared to NASA's SLS at ca. $10 billion per launch(!), and of manned lunar missions also at the few hundred million per launch range, compared to NASA's Constellation program at $100 billion total.

Low cost HLV.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/0 … t-hlv.html

SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/0 … -cost.html

Comments on the blog posts and on improving the blog are invited.

Bob Clark

SpaceNut · 2012-05-02 20:51:23

The mining will also need along with the cheap access to orbit long duration crafts for the crew while mining, lots of resupply capability and large scale down mass capability.

SpaceNut · 2012-05-14 19:30:22

The title says it all The big test; A test flight for SpaceX may also be a test for commercial crew

But then again if Boeing, Lockheed, Atk had gotten up to the task along time ago with how they designed and provided there product we would not be wishing so hard for success as a means to jolt the affore meantioned greoup to do the same....

RGClark · 2012-05-15 08:28:16

Planetary Resources co-founder Eric Anderson talks to Science Friday here:

APR. 27, 2012
Mining Quarries Millions of Miles from Earth.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/04 … earth.html

Interestingly he says at present world usage growth rates, several of the important metals for high technology such as platinum will run out within decades.
This article also says the platinum group metals will run out on short time scales:

Go Beyond Gold and Look at Silver and Platinum.
by ARI CHARNEY on MARCH 12, 2012
http://www.investingdaily.com/14823/go- … d-platinum

Bob Clark

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2012-04-10 05:19:11

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#52 2012-04-20 12:17:08

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#53 2012-04-20 19:04:15

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#54 2012-04-20 20:02:10

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#55 2012-04-21 12:14:16

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#56 2012-04-22 17:19:40

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#57 2012-04-24 05:59:16

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#58 2012-04-24 17:12:22

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#59 2012-04-24 20:45:22

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#60 2012-04-26 07:52:42

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#61 2012-04-26 15:30:58

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#62 2012-04-26 16:15:37

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#63 2012-04-26 17:12:30

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#64 2012-04-26 18:23:46

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#65 2012-04-27 10:49:50

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#66 2012-04-27 15:51:27

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#67 2012-04-28 02:00:40

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#68 2012-04-28 16:17:39

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#69 2012-05-01 02:52:50

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#70 2012-05-01 04:59:12

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#71 2012-05-01 17:32:41

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#72 2012-05-02 08:26:42

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#73 2012-05-02 20:51:23

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#74 2012-05-14 19:30:22

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

#75 2012-05-15 08:28:16

Re: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

Board footer