How NOT to estimate cost-effectiveness of asteroid collectors

Submitted by David on Mon, 2012-04-30 10:06

I mentioned recently that a startup company is tackling lunar mining. Today the Globe and Mail published an article with a completely ludicrous way to estimate cost-effectiveness of this approach. How'd they do it?

Their calculations are based on Nasa’s forthcoming OSIRIS-REx mission, which aims to launch a probe in 2016 to pluck samples from an asteroid called 1999 RQ36 and bring them to Earth.
... Nasa hopes it will be home by 2023, with a couple of ounces of dirt. By then, the cost will have reached $1-billion - made up of $800-million for the vehicle, plus another $200-million for the rocket launch.

Some problems:

  1. Exploratory missions aren't the same as mining missions.
  2. It's probably a fair bit more expensive to build something like this the first time around rather than the Nth.
  3. They neglected to actually read the business plan - which involves towing asteroids into lunar orbit (which apparently doesn't have massive fuel requirements) and then supplying NASA as a start. Apparently current costs to NASA are about $20,000 per litre of water brought up from earth.

There's an interesting study in which Planetary Resources participated a while back. Estimated cost to bring a 500,000 kg asteroid into lunar orbit was roughly $2.6 billion. $2.6 billion / 500,000 = $5200 / kg. Compare to $1 billion / 0.057 kg = $1.76E10 / kg (the figures used in this economic "analysis"). Notice any slight difference between the figures?

One cool potential application of (comparatively) cheap resources in orbit might be the construction of space-based solar power - here's one interesting study of the possibilities there that I managed to sneak into my Ph.D. candidacy proposal. (Not quite sure why I tend to be relatively cynical about a lot of current solar installations but relatively positive towards probably crazier ideas like space-based solar power or paving over the Sahara with solar panels).

If they manage to drag together resources in orbit, think also about what possibilities an automated orbital manufacturing facility might have. Could you build future asteroid collectors at lower cost in orbit using the resources from previously captured asteroids?

Comments

Ronik

Mon, 2012-04-30 13:24

The whole thing is exciting, simply for the sake of industrial operations in space. It seems nearly as important of a step to humanity expanding into space as launching the ISS or sending out the Voyager probes to me. Actual continual industry seems to me like it could open the door to us using all of the resources of our solar system. If we can mine minerals, we can 'easily' mine oxygen and water, and indeed fabricate equipment in space to make self-sufficient expeditions. Granted, this may not be feasible now, but the ideas and the path it lays down is something I'm looking forward to, even if it is just another small step for man.

Also, as far as power goes: fusion? We're getting ever closer to net energy via self-sustaining reactions with things like ITER, even if it's not cold fusion. Fusion of course means we are no longer relying on uranium or other radioactives, but that we can use well-nigh inexhaustible supplies of hydrogen. Not to mention the greatly decreased risks associated with it complared to fission. People leading the Fusion effort say they expect to achieve energy gain by the end of 2012. Solar power may be powerful, but it seems to be far more expensive, materials-wise. Covering 10% of the Sahara is an incredibly massive task and cost, whereas it seems relatively feasible to have fusion power pretty much cure our energy problems in the next, oh, 30 years or so. Maybe I'm overstating fusion a bit, and we may not quite be there yet, but still, I look forward to the future.

David

Mon, 2012-04-30 15:29

The estimates that I've seen for fusion seem to have a (single) working, production fusion reactor in an estimated 20-40 years depending on funding. They seem to estimate a need for about $80 billion in research funding before they get to that point though - that'd also buy a lot of solar-related research / materials. Not sure how expensive it'd be to scale things out beyond the first production fusion though.

One interesting thing about space-based solar is that the panels, particularly if built in space, don't seem to need to be as resilient as they would be to deal with the earth's environment - ergo can be cheaper. They're also a lot more efficient without the atmosphere in the way, and similarly can deliver power almost the time if in the right orbits. Don't know if I'd want to count out space-based solar yet.

Ronik

Mon, 2012-04-30 18:49

Absolutely, solar power out of the atmosphere is a powerful source of energy. It's just, again, really expensive regardless of R&D. I've seen how we could construct essentially a ring of solar panels around the world, which would have a similar effect to the Sahara project you were talking about. But then you're still pretty much talking about building a megastructure, and in space then too. Even if you didn't go quite to that scale, space launches, and construction of course costs a lot. Not to mention the problem of transmitting any power to the Earth.

Assuming we can get a fuller and more complete space program going, I could see it being used 'Out There', but it seems incredibly expensive. Not to mention the costs for something grand and outrageous would likely have to come from a government or a corporation, and they tend to seem hesitant about putting towards capital for space ventures. Although we do have powers actively working towards building a space elevator now, if I recall, which would greatly change the playing field. That's pretty far in the future too though, I would guess. The whole issue of energy in space actually makes me think of sci-fi anime I've watched... Not to mention potential disaster from a megaproject like a circum-earth solar plant or a space elevator collapsing.

Solar power is good stuff, but seems to tend towards pretty outrageous costs. Something like fusion seems better capable to handle that, though we can definitely support ourselves through solar power. Just imagine humanity sitting down, putting the trillions or probably more along the lines of quadrillions of dollars to finance the project, then actually constructing this obscenely massive structure. 10% of the Sahara is more than either the complete land-mass of Turkey or France. It's just so outrageously massive, and unbelieveable that we would actually go through with something of that scale for at least centuries. We might as well build something like Deep Space Nine, rather than our little ISS out in space. Obviously the costs would not be a single unit, but just... it's so bit the perspective makes something like that actually happening seems impossible. Fusion seems far more feasible, cheaper financially, and cheaper just in resources and manpower.

Ronik

Mon, 2012-04-30 19:00

Oh, I also should ensure to say that I know scientists are increasing the efficiency of solar technology, so that could easily and drastically change the size, and cost of something like this. Still, effectively building an artificial country, probably pretty much depleting our reserves of the required materials seems like way too much. If we can jump from, what 15% efficiency we currently have in such large solar installations up to something more like 85%, or even the technical 120% I think they did a while back, using multiple photons in a beam of light, then I could see us getting enough solar power.

I could also see us having some unforeseen consequences from something of that scale as well, like atmospheric changes even. Perhaps that's a bit off, but we'd be absorbing an awful lot of power that would normally be going into the Earth and bouncing back up into the atmosphere.