Mission Targets

[joertexas]

Has anyone seen an up-to-date list of potential destinations for asteroid exploration missions, whether manned or unmanned?

[Boxy]

I'm pretty sure that only Near Earth Asteroids (i.e. those around the Earth's orbit) are being considered for mineral extraction. However, only a fraction of the NEA's have been spectrally analyzed (i.e. figured out what's in them).

Here's a good article that details the feasibility of asteroid mining:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_technical_and_economic_feasibility_of_mining_t he_near_earth_asteriods.shtml

[Phenix]

How can we be sure that it is the first target priority as investors want their cake part ?

[joertexas]

How can we be sure that it is the first target priority as investors want their cake part ?

I vote we send small probes to 15-20 likely destinations first. The total cost would be somewhere around $150 million - based on back-of-the-envelope calculations.

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

I vote we send small probes to 15-20 likely destinations first. The total cost would be somewhere around $150 million - based on back-of-the-envelope calculations.

JR

Which would be a good investment. Make sure you utilize the NEOs that would deliver the goods better, faster. Once the return on investment ramps up. Then it will accelerate in a massive rush.

[Phenix]

That sounds good. Please describe the probe's technologies.

How long would it take to manufacture one ?

Along with the probes are there any satellites relays ?

How long would it take from launch sequence up to the target to travel ?

What model of rocket would be used if mutiple probes are to be lauched ?

Thanks in advance for going more on details.

[joertexas]

That sounds good. Please describe the probe's technologies.

How long would it take to manufacture one ?

Along with the probes are there any satellites relays ?

How long would it take from launch sequence up to the target to travel ?

What model of rocket would be used if mutiple probes are to be lauched ?

Thanks in advance for going more on details.


1. http://www.spacedev.com/index.php These folks make satellite buses to order. A wild guess would be two years for development of the whole vehicle including a booster stage.

2. I don't think a relay would be needed. If that requirement changes, it could be built into the orbital delivery stage.

3. Six months? That's also a guess based on the fact that most of the target asteroids orbit roughly between Earth and Mars.

4. SpaceX's Falcon 9 - if they can get it up and running. Haven't heard a peep about it since June.

JR

[Sam Fraser]

Are mini-probes launched by a Falcon 1 feasible? Falcon 1 just had its first successful commercial flight. Its cost is reportedly $6-9m. Also, what propulsion would these probes use? Ion drive?

[Sam Fraser]

Do we even need to launch probes initially? Can we not do spectral analysis of known NEOs from the ground? And what would be more valuable? Water ice or PGMs?

[Rhyshaelkan]

1. http://www.spacedev.com/index.php These folks make satellite buses to order. A wild guess would be two years for development of the whole vehicle including a booster stage.

2. I don't think a relay would be needed. If that requirement changes, it could be built into the orbital delivery stage.

3. Six months? That's also a guess based on the fact that most of the target asteroids orbit roughly between Earth and Mars.

4. SpaceX's Falcon 9 - if they can get it up and running. Haven't heard a peep about it since June.

JR

Some financial remuneration, would be to sell in part or in whole the findings of those probes. Depending on how sharing PERMANENT, or which ever group, finances such probe activity.

Watching a program on TV, I forget which channel, listed the price of a gallon of water at some ridiculous price of $80000 :p. As with all commodities, supply and demand will show us what to run after first.

Were water-ice to be in highest demand. PERMANENT's first mission might be to a dormant comet. Send up a drilling rig. Pump in heated water. Collect what comes out in a massive heat reflective bag. 10000 gallons of water? Strap the bag to the thrusters and head back to LEO. Sell to the highest bidder.

Edit: The water would also be useful for a solar powered steam rocket.

Edit Edit: Someday you might even see astro-water on the NYMEX. :D

[joertexas]

Are mini-probes launched by a Falcon 1 feasible? Falcon 1 just had its first successful commercial flight. Its cost is reportedly $6-9m. Also, what propulsion would these probes use? Ion drive?

According to the research I've done, a spacecraft starting from LEO will require 4/5 of its mass in fuel to reach its destination. At 200kg, the satellite itself with weigh 40kg. That's probably about as small as you can get and still have a worthwhile vehicle.

The Falcon 1 can put 420kg into LEO. That's two probes for $9M. The Falcon 9 can put 10,000kg into LEO for about $40M. That's 40 probes, more or less, depending on the carrier bus used.

To keep things simple, I'd vote for chemical engines - but that'd be a question for the designers to tackle.

JR

[joertexas]

Do we even need to launch probes initially? Can we not do spectral analysis of known NEOs from the ground? And what would be more valuable? Water ice or PGMs?

Well, I'd rather know what a manned crew will find before we went through all the trouble of sending them out. Considering we could look at maybe 20 asteroids for about $150M, the probes are worth it, in my opinion. Also, if the probe could stay with the target asteroid, they could serve as navigation beacons for the manned flight, and use their sensors to locate more asteroids.

Water ice would be the most valuable first find, since it could be processed into fuel. Fuel and air are the two biggest requirements in space travel, and water ice gives you both using fairly basic equipment.

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

Probes will also allow for deeper knowledge. Spectral scans only show surface results. Radar can go deeper. I do not know if spectral or radar can tell compactness. A nice two part probe, one part to orbit and scan, the other to get touchy feely.

Whether an asteroid is a big pile of rubble. Or strong as stone can tell us what kind of mining platform to send. Whether to send up a robot to find a fissure, drill a blast hole and blast off 20 tons. Or send up something similar to what they use to chew out coal (http://www.coalleader.com/continuous_mining.htm).

Volatiles could be tricky. Send up a drilling rig. Then carefully warm up the volatiles so that the pressure does not blast the rig into deep space. Pump into a large bag on the shady side of the asteroid/dormant comet.

On that note volatiles might be the easiest to mine and return. Being able to use part of the volatiles as fuel for the return trip. However supply and demand could swing against us. We could over produce so easily were we to reach that point. We could have hundreds of thousands of cubic-liters in orbit, but no buyer. Unless other like-minded groups have the need.

Best solution of course is if PERMANENT, with it's main goal of establishing a presence off-Terra, had the funding to tackle both a Lunar base and asteroid mining at the same time. One mining mission is recovering precious metals for sale to Terra to cover on-going launching costs. Another mission is mining Lunar oxygen, aluminum, titanium, and silicon. While a third mission recovers volatiles from a dormant comet.

Gain money to further our endeavors, and provide sustainability for our production bases.

[JohnHunt]

And what would be more valuable? Water ice or PGMs?

Platinum costs $1,184/oz. Launch costs on the Proton is about $154/oz. So one would think that PGMs would be more valuable. But the cost extracting a particular precious metal from an asteroid might make the difference. If one could find an small asteroid with a lot of PGM then perhaps one could dislodge it towards the Earth and then separate out the metals after it hits ground.

[joertexas]

And what would be more valuable? Water ice or PGMs?

Platinum costs $1,184/oz. Launch costs on the Proton is about $154/oz. So one would think that PGMs would be more valuable. But the cost extracting a particular precious metal from an asteroid might make the difference. If one could find an small asteroid with a lot of PGM then perhaps one could dislodge it towards the Earth and then separate out the metals after it hits ground.

At this point, anything that's in orbit is valuable. Water, oxygen and fuel are the big needs to sustain people in orbit. The rest is just icing on the cake for the moment. Also, I'd rather not sling any rocks at home plate - remember how people reacted when AF One buzzed Manhattan?

JR

[Sam Fraser]

I assume that while PERMANENT aims to supply the on-orbit/in-space economy later or provide raw/semi-processed materials to develop space infrastructure initially, the first manned mission/operation would probably have to produce things the terrestrial market would be willing to pay for. At the same time, water ice is probably the easiest material to mine, handle and process into a value-added commodity through simple electrolysis as fuel for chemical rockets and of course life support in space. Of course, we'd want to diversify and produce as many commodities and products as possible for maximum income streams. But what's feasible for a first mission? I suppose it depends on if our investor(s) is expecting a short-term ROI or has a longer view.

[joertexas]

I assume that while PERMANENT aims to supply the on-orbit/in-space economy later or provide raw/semi-processed materials to develop space infrastructure initially, the first manned mission/operation would probably have to produce things the terrestrial market would be willing to pay for. At the same time, water ice is probably the easiest material to mine, handle and process into a value-added commodity through simple electrolysis as fuel for chemical rockets and of course life support in space. Of course, we'd want to diversify and produce as many commodities and products as possible for maximum income streams. But what's feasible for a first mission? I suppose it depends on if our investor(s) is expecting a short-term ROI or has a longer view.

At the risk of being batted on the nose, allow me to say that those are good questions ;)

This is why I say we need to send small satellites to each of the dozen asteroids - or any other targets we might select - to see what is there before we send out a manned mission.

JR

[Sam Fraser]

Over 6300 NEOs discovered to date, including 84 NECs or Near-Earth Comets:

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/stats/

[RaresH]

Those are a lot of targets to pick from. Of particular interest to me are the 'atira' class asteroids which is a category of neo's I haven't read about until now. Are those not considered for the near term? Perhaps they require more delta-v than the apollo, aten and amor class neo?

[RaresH]

When considering candidate neo's I'm of the impression that it's best to select a candidate that has the most bang for the buck. That is to say we won't need or be able to bring much back with us initially, as stated my Mark on permanent, what we do bring back should be something rare or very valuable that isn't readily found on earth. This would make big impression and strengthen the case for such operations.

[joertexas]

When considering candidate neo's I'm of the impression that it's best to select a candidate that has the most bang for the buck. That is to say we won't need or be able to bring much back with us initially, as stated my Mark on permanent, what we do bring back should be something rare or very valuable that isn't readily found on earth. This would make big impression and strengthen the case for such operations.

I'd picked asteroids that needed the least Delta Vee to reach - to answer your post about certain asteroid classes.

As for value, anything carried into orbit has a value of thousands of dollars per pound. So, anything useful, even water, we could deliver to LEO or even HEEO, would be lucrative.

JR

[RaresH]

I'd picked asteroids that needed the least Delta Vee to reach - to answer your post about certain asteroid classes.

As for value, anything carried into orbit has a value of thousands of dollars per pound. So, anything useful, even water, we could deliver to LEO or even HEEO, would be lucrative.

JR

Hello JR,

Oh I have no doubt about the lucrative promise of water. What I'm entertaining here is the question, what mineral(s) will bring the wow factor to the widest audience. Obviously the first samples returned will include a bit of everything, including O2. I'm willing to bet that few people in the general public have any idea that an asteroid could posses platinum group metals or other precious metals. Before I studied PERMANENT I thought asteroids were just rock and iron. I was quite surprised to read about platinum and even gems/diamonds being in some neo's. If you take a look at the permanent site home page, one of the illustrations shows an astronaut holding what appears to be a bar of gold or some other precious metal. Something like that in reality would have quite an impact I think. And as an artist who will be working in the marketing side of things I'm very interested in the wow factor. My two cents on that.

[joertexas]

Hello JR,

Oh I have no doubt about the lucrative promise of water. What I'm entertaining here is the question, what mineral(s) will bring the wow factor to the widest audience. Obviously the first samples returned will include a bit of everything, including O2. I'm willing to bet that few people in the general public have any idea that an asteroid could posses platinum group metals or other precious metals. Before I studied PERMANENT I thought asteroids were just rock and iron. I was quite surprised to read about platinum and even gems/diamonds being in some neo's. If you take a look at the permanent site home page, one of the illustrations shows an astronaut holding what appears to be a bar of gold or some other precious metal. Something like that in reality would have quite an impact I think. And as an artist who will be working in the marketing side of things I'm very interested in the wow factor. My two cents on that.

Oh, you're right. Someone mentioned selling platinum rings set with diamonds - all of asteroidal material. The market for such items would be phenominal, not to mention all the media and product endorsements that Mark has talked about.

The mission will be expensive - something along the lines of $2 billion. But, the returns will be huge, too.

JR

[prometheuspan]

List

1566 Icarus
1620 Geographos
1685 Toro
1862 Apollo
1863 Antinous
1864 Daedalus
1865 Cerberus
1866 Sisyphus
1981 Midas
2062 Aten
2063 Bacchus
2100 Ra-Shalom
2101 Adonis
2102 Tantalus
2135 Aristaeus
2201 Oljato
2212 Hephaistos
2329 Orthos
2340 Hathor
3103 Eger
3200 Phaethon
3360 Syrinx
3361 Orpheus
3362 Khufu
3554 Amun
3671 Dionysus †
3752 Camillo †
3753 Cruithne
3838 Epona
4015 Wilson-Harrington †
(4034) 1986 PA
4179 Toutatis
4183 Cuno
(4197) 1982 TA
4257 Ubasti
4341 Poseidon
4450 Pan
4486 Mithra
4544 Xanthus
4581 Asclepius
4660 Nereus
4769 Castalia
(4953) 1990 MU
5011 Ptah
(5131) 1990 BG
5143 Heracles
(5189) 1990 UQ
5381 Sekhmet
(5496) 1973 NA
(5590) 1990 VA
(5604) 1992 FE
(5645) 1990 SP
(5660) 1974 MA
(5693) 1993 EA
5731 Zeus
5786 Talos
(5828) 1991 AM
(6037) 1988 EG
(6047) 1991 TB1
(6053) 1993 BW3 †
6063 Jason
6239 Minos
(6455) 1992 HE
6489 Golevka †
(6611) 1993 VW
(7025) 1993 QA †
7092 Cadmus
(7335) 1989 JA
(7341) 1991 VK
(7350) 1993 VA
(7482) 1994 PC1
(7753) 1988 XB
(7822) 1991 CS
(7888) 1993 UC
(7889) 1994 LX
(8014) 1990 MF
(8035) 1992 TB
(8176) 1991 WA
(8201) 1994 AH2
(8507) 1991 CB1
(8566) 1996 EN
(9058) 1992 JB †
9162 Kwiila
(9202) 1993 PB
(9856) 1991 EE
(10115) 1992 SK
(10145) 1994 CK1
(10165) 1995 BL2
10563 Izhdubar
(10636) 1998 QK56
11066 Sigurd
11311 Peleus †
(11405) 1999 CV3
11500 Tomaiyowit
(11885) 1990 SS
(12538) 1998 OH
12711 Tukmit
12923 Zephyr †
(13651) 1997 BR
14827 Hypnos
(16816) 1997 UF9
(16834) 1997 WU22
(16960) 1998 QS52
(17181) 1999 UM3
(17182) 1999 VU
(17188) 1999 WC2
(17511) 1992 QN
(20236) 1998 BZ7
(20425) 1998 VD35
(20429) 1998 YN1
(20826) 2000 UV13
(22099) 2000 EX106
(22753) 1998 WT
(22771) 1999 CU3
(23187) 2000 PN9
(24443) 2000 OG
(24445) 2000 PM8 †
24761 Ahau
25143 Itokawa
(25330) 1999 KV4
(26379) 1999 HZ1
(26663) 2000 XK47
(27002) 1998 DV9 †
(29075) 1950 DA
(30825) 1990 TG1
(30997) 1995 UO5
(31662) 1999 HP11
(31669) 1999 JT6
(33342) 1998 WT24
(35107) 1991 VH
(35396) 1997 XF11
(35670) 1998 SU27
(36236) 1999 VV
(36284) 2000 DM8
(37638) 1993 VB
37655 Illapa
38086 Beowulf
(38239) 1999 OR3
(40267) 1999 GJ4
(41429) 2000 GE2
(42286) 2001 TN41
(52340) 1992 SY †
(52750) 1998 KK17
(52760) 1998 ML14
(52762) 1998 MT24
(53319) 1999 JM8
(53409) 1999 LU7
(53426) 1999 SL5
(53429) 1999 TF5
(53550) 2000 BF19
(53789) 2000 ED104 †
54509 YORP
(55408) 2001 TC2
(55532) 2001 WG2
(65679) 1989 UQ
(65690) 1991 DG
(65717) 1993 BX3 †
(65733) 1993 PC
65803 Didymos †
(65909) 1998 FH12
(66008) 1998 QH2
(66063) 1998 RO1
(66146) 1998 TU3
(66253) 1999 GT3
(66391) 1999 KW4
(66400) 1999 LT7
(67381) 2000 OL8
(67399) 2000 PJ6
(68216) 2001 CV26
(68267) 2001 EA16
(68346) 2001 KZ66
(68347) 2001 KB67
(68348) 2001 LO7
(68372) 2001 PM9
(68548) 2001 XR31
(68950) 2002 QF15
69230 Hermes
(85182) 1991 AQ
(85236) 1993 KH
85585 Mjolnir
(85640) 1998 OX4
(85713) 1998 SS49
(85770) 1998 UP1
(85774) 1998 UT18
(85818) 1998 XM4
(85938) 1999 DJ4
(85953) 1999 FK21
(85989) 1999 JD6
(85990) 1999 JV6
(86039) 1999 NC43
(86450) 2000 CK33
(86666) 2000 FL10
(86667) 2000 FO10
(86819) 2000 GK137 †
(86829) 2000 GR146
(86878) 2000 HD24
(87024) 2000 JS66
(87025) 2000 JT66
(87309) 2000 QP
(87311) 2000 QJ1
(87684) 2000 SY2
(88213) 2001 AF2
(88254) 2001 FM129
(88710) 2001 SL9
(88959) 2001 TZ44
(89136) 2001 US16 †
(89958) 2002 LY45
(89959) 2002 NT7
(90075) 2002 VU94
(90147) 2002 YK14 †
(90367) 2003 LC5
(90403) 2003 YE45
(90416) 2003 YK118
99942 Apophis
(136617) 1994 CC

[Rhyshaelkan]

Care to explain the reasoning behind why you chose those targets prometheuspan? Target launch times, material composition, etc?

[prometheuspan]

earth crossers.

[joertexas]

earth crossers.

I downloaded and used Jaqar's software to calculate out and back trips to several NEOs. The Delta vee required for these missions is on the order of 9km/s or more, and the round trip mission times are typically 500 days or more.

That's out of reach for the moment, since that equates to placing a complete rocket - booster stage and all - into LEO to get the mining craft there and back.

JR

[prometheuspan]

you are having impatient calculations. Use the interplanetary super highway and calculate low energy transfers. Orbital assist using the moon in fact gives access to the whole solar system.

That may take a lot longer than you are hoping for, considering that its drifting
tactically rather than cruising along, but considering that the moon requires escape energy to get back up, that means that in effect the moon is always more expensive then any given asteroid.

[joertexas]

you are having impatient calculations. Use the interplanetary super highway and calculate low energy transfers. Orbital assist using the moon in fact gives access to the whole solar system.

That may take a lot longer than you are hoping for, considering that its drifting
tactically rather than cruising along, but considering that the moon requires escape energy to get back up, that means that in effect the moon is always more expensive then any given asteroid.

The unmanned probes we send out use gravity assists to get to their destinations, this is true. However, a manned mission requires supplies, fuel, and a way back home if things go bad. The mass of several years' worth of fuel, water, food and sufficient radiation shielding to keep the crew alive would nearly equal the fuel required to make the trip in minimum time.

I'm not quibbling about the asteroids being important, but it's a case of first things first. We have to learn how to live and work in space before we can venture out much away from earth.

JR

[prometheuspan]

first things first says asteroids first, for twenty reasons.

but never mind. All i wanted was to draw. There isn't enough energy here to make a design process happen. Somehow, the two sides of the argument have sucked the life and enthusiasm out of each other, and now whats left is two sides apathetically waving their arms at each other in the "okay i give up, you do it and show me" motion.

Neither side is going to much of anything, the moon centered folks are too dumb to do math and the asteroid centered folks are tired of arguing.

The end result is there is less energy here about space exploration than there is on say yahoo answers- by a wide margin.

[joertexas]

first things first says asteroids first, for twenty reasons.

but never mind. All i wanted was to draw. There isn't enough energy here to make a design process happen. Somehow, the two sides of the argument have sucked the life and enthusiasm out of each other, and now whats left is two sides apathetically waving their arms at each other in the "okay i give up, you do it and show me" motion.

Neither side is going to much of anything, the moon centered folks are too dumb to do math and the asteroid centered folks are tired of arguing.

The end result is there is less energy here about space exploration than there is on say yahoo answers- by a wide margin.


I've written extensively about my research, and the ensuing spreadsheets and drawings that I'm personally working on. I admit that I'm one person, but I'm devoting all the energy I can afford to divert to this project. I also have definitive plans in motion to accomplish a lot more. Mark, Sam, and others have contributed considerable sums of money to this site, and more hours that I'd care to tally.

As for my math skills, I'm smart enough to go find a computer program written by professionals and use it to verify the fuel requirements for an asteroid mission from LEO using fuel boosted from Earth vs the cost of boosting that same fuel from Luna. I've also shared that data in my posts here.

If you have any hard data to present, then do so.

JR