More important than the zero g and radiation problem is ship utilization in
the Moon vs Mars debate. A relatively simple ship could make the Moon run a
couple of times per month. The more complex ship on the Mars run would make
a trip once every couple of years at best and more likely once every four
years. When there is a 50/1 or 100/1 difference in equipment utilization,
there is an equivalent difference in the equipment ROI. DeltaV being less
than a factor of two counts, but ROi and time to market entry are likely to
count for far more.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 2:02 PM ken mason <laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I thought about that after my post. I wonder what percentage of asteroids
contain substantial % of PGM and Au/Ag because the moon should be a 'gold
mine' of these metals, as you said, w/o the massive delta-V needed to move
asteroids/mountains. My opinion is we, as the human race, should focus on
the moon not Mars. The physiological factors, including radiation and long
periods of zero g, are formatable if not show stoppers, in my opinion. 3
day trip vs 6-8 months, no comparison.
K
On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 5:53 AM Ivan Vuletich <ivan.vuletich@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The nickel mines in New Caledonia are also apparently nickel iron impacts.
In which case there should also be nickel iron impacts on the Moon, which
in the near-er term are likely to be more accessible than the asteroid
belt, when you consider logistics and the ability to use mining techniques
similar to those used on Earth.
I suspect that first generation mines are going to have to be
economically viable on a much smaller scale that ripping whole asteroids
apart.
On 16/08/2020 6:12, Rand Simberg wrote:
That would also be an extreme violation of the Article IX prohibition of
“adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the
introduction of extraterrestrial matter...”
But the Sudbury mine is in fact mining a nickel-iron asteroid.
On 8/15/20 1:07 PM, roxanna Mason wrote:
I know that on both accounts the latter is a bit of humor if that's ok.
But what was thought impossible even unheard of 50 years ago is
commonplace now. But with cheap rockets asteroid mining has just entered
the realm of possibility.
Think about deorbiting a stadium sized asteroid into a dessert in the SW
US or Sahara or Australia. It would break up and melt upon impact doing
most of the work of disassembly.
"Precious" metals may become a thing of the past.
K
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:58 PM Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
It's not that simple to make money mining asteroids, and the Moon and
Mars are not for sale.
On 8/15/20 12:25 PM, ken mason wrote:
I wonder why SpaceX/Musk isn't putting emphasis on asteroid capture and
mining. He could become the first multi trillionaire. He could buy the moon
and Mars.
K
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:05 PM Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip
We really need to visit a bunch of these things, not just a handful,to
get a good idea of what's out there. The 2km near-Earth asteroid1986 DA
really does seem to be bare metal, as best we can tell by radar (andit's
actually rather more accessible than Psyche).
I ran through a rough analysis of mining 1986 DA for gold here:
https://htyp.org/Mining_Asteroids
Keith
