May 1, 2012
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers*
The near-Earth asteroid, Eros.
There’s quite a buzz in space policy circles over the recent announcement of the creation of a new company that intends to survey, study and mine near Earth asteroids (NEAs). Given my previous advocacy regarding the desirability of learning how to extract and use off-planet resources, many people have asked me to weigh in with my opinion of their proposed business plan. I’d like to frame my remarks around Michael Listner’s recent piece on the possible legal issues involved in the plan as he has illuminated an interesting angle on the project.
The roll-out of the business plan of Planetary Resources Inc. made a big media splash, as is typical for many of these “New Space” private operations. Close examination reveals the outline of a plan, but the technical details are rather fuzzy. Given that no business should reveal too much detail about their plans lest they lose their competitive advantage, the company’s reticence is not too surprising. To summarize it in broad terms, the plan is to launch a space-based telescope, dedicated to identifying candidate NEAs; at least initially, the main interest seems to be metal asteroids (presumably those rich in metallic elements of economic value, including gold and platinum) and water-bearing asteroids. The former would have significant economic value in terrestrial markets, providing the possibility of high, near-term payback for investors. The latter would have value for future in-space operations and could be sold to both national governments and to the private sector, presuming that such markets develop.
The next step involves sending robotic prospectors to the best candidate bodies to survey them, determine their physical, chemical and mineralogical make up, and identify the best targets for resource extraction. The last step involves snagging a small asteroid (possibly several tons in total mass) and tow it back to cislunar space where Earth-based, teleoperated robotic machines can process and refine the material for sale. This last step contains the most open questions. Although such a mission can be envisioned in principle, it is technically out of reach at the present time. However, I envision no particular show stoppers here – practical details of the material processing and handling these materials in microgravity are the biggest unknowns, but even these issues can be addressed and mitigated before any NEA is retrieved through the execution of some carefully designed experiments in low Earth orbit.
But then what? This – as always is the case when human endeavors begin in earnest – is where the lawyers come in.
Listner’s article suggests that the proposed activity of capturing and processing an asteroid falls outside the current bounds of any outer space legal regime. He recalls that the terms of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (to which the United States is a signatory) prohibits claims of national sovereignty over extraterrestrial objects. Space mining companies will be subject to the laws of the nation in which they are incorporated and thus, bound to the terms of any international treaty that nation has ratified. While national ownership of outer space assets is prohibited by the 1967 treaty, the treaty is silent on private ownership. Thus, the treaty is open to interpretation and subject to the philosophical and economic predilections of the parties involved. One thing is certain however – if anyone ever does this, they are guaranteed to face protracted litigation that will no doubt take years (and many billable hours) to wind its way through the courts.
Listner goes on to describe issues with liability, mostly in relation to possible damages caused by future space operations or to existing space-based assets. However, other more alarming scenarios are possible (e.g., suppose a retrieved NEA collides with the Earth during its arrival in cislunar space?) Although no specific conclusions are drawn, the foreshadowing is a prerequisite for private companies to post a surety bond, one potentially of enormous scale. If nothing else, such a requirement would certainly put a crimp in many new commercialization plans.
The infamous (at least in space circles) Moon Treaty is the last legal issue discussed by Listner. In brief, this treaty prohibits private ownership of space bodies and demands that any profits from resource extraction from these bodies be “distributed” amongst the nations of the world. This document was submitted to the United States Senate in 1980 for ratification and was defeated, thanks to a vigorous educational campaign by the L-5 Society. Thus, thirty-two years ago, the United States (and also other major space faring nations, including Russia and China) rejected the Moon Treaty. However, from the standpoint of most lawyers, the treaty has been ratified by 17 nations, giving it the full force of international law. Considering the multinational make-up of many companies and that their corporate assets can be frozen or in some extreme cases seized (sometimes for entirely specious or arbitrary reasons), the legal status of the use and ownership of extracted space resources must be considered seriously.
Where does this legal confusion leave the prospects for the economic development of the Solar System? That is unclear at the moment. In broad terms, business does not like legal uncertainty to a degree usually in direct proportion to the amount of money involved. For both technical and legal reasons, it is highly unlikely that there will be a “gold rush in space.” The technical issues are substantial (particularly for the Planetary Resources Inc. plan) but the legal ones are no less so. In part, this is why I favor making the determination of how to extract and use off-planet resources a central goal of the American civil space program. Note well: I do not say that we should turn NASA into a space mining company. Rather, the role of government is to undertake technically risky ventures with the aim of determining how difficult they might be and to settle any thorny legal issues that may arise. Questions of international law can only be addressed and settled by national governments – through agreements, treaties, new law and if need be, by stronger actions. No private sector corporation has this inherent ability – only national governments can resolve these issues. If such issues are resolved, the private sector can then successfully proceed and grow their businesses and governments will profit too.
I applaud both the vision and the chutzpah of Planetary Resources Inc. For now, their plan to launch and operate a space-based telescope to map asteroids and locate promising prospects is a good start. They may even manage to eventually send a probe of two for a close-up examination of a couple of NEAs. As for the last piece of their plan, at this writing, color me skeptical.
* Henry VI Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2. Yes, I am aware that lawyers claim that this phrase is taken out of context (i.e., it is actually an ironic assertion that if one wants a poorly run, bad society, eliminate the rule of law), but it is simply too good not to use here.
44 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
Here are some of the most interesting parts of the Outer Space Treaty:
Article 1
1. The provisions of this Agreement relating to the Moon shall also apply to other celestial bodies within the solar system, other than the Earth, except insofar as specific legal norms enter into force with respect to any of these celestial bodies.
Article 4
1. The exploration and use of the Moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. Due regard shall be paid to the interests of present and future generations as well as to the need to promote higher standards of living and conditions of economic and social progress and development in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 11
1. The Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind, which finds its expression in the provisions of this Agreement, in particu- lar in paragraph 5 of this article.
2. The Moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of sove- reignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
3. Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, interna- tional intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national orga- nization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The place- ment of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the Moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of own- ership over the surface or the subsurface of the Moon or any areas thereof.
5. States Parties to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an interna- tional regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon as such exploitation is about to become feasible. This provision shall be implemented in accordance with article 18 of this Agreement.
7. The main purposes of the international regime to be established shall include:
(a) The orderly and safe development of the natural resources of the Moon;
(b) The rational management of those resources;
(c) The expansion of opportunities in the use of those resources;
(d) An equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived
from those resources, whereby the interests and needs of the developing countries, as well as the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the exploration of the Moon, shall be given special consideration.
Article 12
1. States Parties shall retain jurisdiction and control over their personnel, vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on the Moon. The ownership of space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installa- tions shall not be affected by their presence on the Moon.
Article 17
Any State Party to this Agreement may propose amendments to the Agreement. Amendments shall enter into force for each State Party to the Agreement accepting the amendments upon their acceptance by a majority of the States Parties to the Agreement and thereafter for each remaining State Party to the Agreement on the date of acceptance by it.
The complete text of the Outer Space Treaty can be found at: http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 1, 2012 @ 3:50 pm
Paul, my first reaction to the suggestion that planned progress in asteroid resource mining logistics and technology become national space policy, directed to NASA, is learned skepticism. Considering how that policy has been amended, just since 2004, and particularly with regard to preparations for extended human activity on the Moon, has me wondering how groups like Planetary Resources avoid becoming politicized. Short of a bold expenditure of political capital by a president who follows it up by being assassinated I frankly can’t imagine how tinkering with long term space policy can be avoided. Would Apollo 11 have happened before 1975, following the Apollo 204 fire, if John Kennedy had been fighting Senator Mondale and winding down after an expensive, stormy second term in 1968? What political climate or inevitable disaster would be necessary in the immediate future for bureaucrats and their enablers to close the commercial window into orbit that was opened by Ronald Reagan?
Perhaps the best the civil space program might have accomplished on behalf of commercial and state-run in situ resource utilization was perfecting our way past that last 100 kilometers from lunar orbit to the surface and back. I can stretch myself to make political excuses for dropping a brand name like Constellation, or “Hoover” dam, but Congress bringing a halt to Altair and establishing a kind of permanent uncertainty over the future of robotics on the Moon is maddening.
Planetary Resources’ team claims to understand the stakes and the need for methodical, steady and timely progress, sooner rather than later, but the wisdom of choosing to hurry after asteroids over the Moon confuses me.
Comment by Joel Raupe — May 1, 2012 @ 5:43 pm
[...] blogs.airspacemag.com – Today, 4:08 PM [...]
Pingback by The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers* | The Once and Future Moon | The NewSpace Daily | Scoop.it — May 1, 2012 @ 6:08 pm
Joel,
my first reaction to the suggestion that planned progress in asteroid resource mining logistics and technology become national space policy, directed to NASA, is learned skepticism
That’s fine, but I’m not suggesting that. As I have previously written, I believe that the first extraterrestrial resource processing should occur on the Moon and its object should be the creation of a cislunar transportation system. I am stating in this post my belief that because of both its technical difficulty and its nebulous legal status, such an effort should be undertaken under government auspices.
Sorry that my meaning was unclear. I have no problem with what Planetary Resources Inc. are proposing, except to the extent that their model relies on government funding. If it’s their dollar and their rocket, more power to them. I am just suggesting that even if they are able to solve the technical issues, it may all be for naught if litigation takes away their property and right to operate.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 1, 2012 @ 6:12 pm
Great article and thanks for mentioning my article in Space Safety Magazine.
Michael
Comment by Michael Listner — May 1, 2012 @ 6:45 pm
Paul:
Looking at the bigger picture, there is a serious battle happening between development of a BEO-capable NASA HLV and vested business interests that want to redirect NASA funding their way. So, to a certain extent, the Planetary Resources announcement is a ruse.
The Achilles heel for NewSpace ideology is a lack of any real BEO commercial market demand. Despite wealthy backers, PR’s annual budget is tiny. Their headcount is minimal. The mass of their satellite is only 20 kg, and it has the optical resolution of a low-end backyard astronomer. Why not just buy ununsed time from academic ground-based observatories?
What is most telling, however, is that they do not say how they will mine asteroids. This is not due to competitive concerns. There is no competition. It is because they do not know IF they can make it work profitably.
On the other hand, their approach does make sense. They have hired top experts, rather than a few bored computer programmers. They have also identified possible sources of revenue for the next few years that could match their minimalist budget. And their incremental unmanned swarm approach could be cost-effective at identifying potential NEOs.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/04/27/how-billionaire-asteroid-miners-make-money-without-mining-asteroids/
My non-expert assumption is that they could use solar-thermal processing to extract Platinum Group Metals at the NEO, and use solar thermal propulsion of generated volatiles to make 10mT shippments of the product in spherical reentry capsules that would splash down in the ocean. H2O extraction would require considerably less effort, but an immediate, real customer does not yet exist.
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — May 1, 2012 @ 6:47 pm
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 1, 2012 @ 6:12 pm
“I have no problem with what Planetary Resources Inc. are proposing, except to the extent that their model relies on government funding.”
There was some initial confusion on this point, but Planetary Resources has said that they don’t plan to rely upon government funding. From their website, they state:
“We are not constrained by federal budget cycles or the ever-changing political landscape.”
I can see the government buying time on their telescopes, or even buying data and samples from their missions (if they get that far). But at this point they appear to be investor supported.
Although this brings up a question – why would you have a problem with a partially government funded asteroid resource processing operation, but not have a problem with a 100% government funded lunar resource processing operation? Isn’t less government involvement better?
Comment by Coastal Ron — May 1, 2012 @ 7:51 pm
Hi Paul — I tend to agree with your assessment. As one that attended the Planetary Resources press conference last week, the biggest revelation for me was the recognition that asteroid resources might be accessed through a fairly lean organzation. So I have to admit that I’m very intrigued.
Over the past several years, I’ve been impressed that we are gradually confirming the very real lunar resource potential. If this group can accomplish something similar for asteroid resources, as I’m sure you will agree, it will be nice to have two classes of options available!
Comment by Robert Wegeng — May 1, 2012 @ 7:56 pm
A quick back-of-envelope calculation:
Platinum melting point: 2045 K
Specific Heat of Platinum: 0.13 kJoules/kg K
Heat required to melt Platinum: 265.85 kJoules/kg
20 meter parabolic reflector area: 314 m2
Solar constant: 1.366 kW/m2
Thermal output of reflector: 429 kW = 429 kJoules/hour
Time required to melt 1 kg of Platinum: 37 minutes
Time required to melt 10 mT of Platinum: 258 days
Current market value of 10 mT of Platinum: $512M
Unfortunately, platinum group meals constitute only a miniscule fraction of the mass of NEOs…
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — May 1, 2012 @ 8:24 pm
Asserting all the usual caveats about whether mining (Moon, Asteroids, any place else) can be done entirely with tele-robotics only, it should also be noted that mining operations around an Asteroid (mili-gravity) would be considerably more challenging than on the Moon (1/6 gravity). I say that as someone who’s first serious interest in space was the book Islands in Space by Cole/Cox, which proposed something very similar.
Note the paper linked below, it seems to be the technical basis for this proposal (at least a lot of the illustrations from the news accounts obviously come from it). It proposes the capture of an Asteroid in the 500,000 kg range and human missions to it in order to experiment with how mining could be accomplished.
http://kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf
Comment by Joe — May 2, 2012 @ 10:25 am
“The last step involves snagging a small asteroid (possibly several tons in total mass) and tow it back to cislunar space where Earth-based, teleoperated robotic machines can process and refine the material for sale.”
You linked to the KISS study. The design we came up with there was for moving a 500,000-kg asteroid (500 metric ton, not several tons).
“This last step contains the most open questions. Although such a mission can be envisioned in principle, it is technically out of reach at the present time.”
The KISS report stated this could be done with “..technology that is or could be available in this decade…”. So although not “present time” but close.
“However, other more alarming scenarios are possible (e.g., suppose a retrieved NEA collides with the Earth during its arrival in cislunar space?) ”
The atmosphere causes burnup of any incoming asteroids/bolides of <10 meters in diameter. The one from KISS was 7 meters in diameter. Presently, we have a frequency of 1 such bolide impacting the Earth's atmosphere a year (Steel 1995) anyway.
Comment by J Fincannon — May 2, 2012 @ 10:49 am
Joe,
it should also be noted that mining operations around an Asteroid (mili-gravity) would be considerably more challenging than on the Moon (1/6 gravity).
Not only that, but the commodities envisioned to be produced are not in pure form; platinum group metals are intimately mixed with iron-nickel and are at low concentration levels and thus, require significant processing in space. Water in NEAs is bound in mineral structures (like clays) and require significant energy to extract. The water ice on the Moon is already in usable form and mixed into the uppermost surface, easily accessible for excavation and processing. My aim here was not to address the technical issues of asteroid mining, but to focus on the legal issues raised in Michael Listner’s article.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 2, 2012 @ 11:42 am
The atmosphere causes burnup of any incoming asteroids/bolides of <10 meters in diameter.
Only those approaching Earth at cosmic r.m.s. velocity, estimated to be about 20 km/sec. A towed asteroid would approach Earth at relatively low velocities (5-10 km/sec) and a significant fraction of its total mass might survive the atmospheric passage.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 2, 2012 @ 11:44 am
Michael,
Thanks for coming by to read my piece and thanks also for writing such a thought-provoking article on mining issues in space law.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 2, 2012 @ 11:45 am
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 2, 2012 @ 11:42 am
“My aim here was not to address the technical issues of asteroid mining, but to focus on the legal issues raised in Michael Listner’s article.”
Understood. I am an engineer not a lawyer. You know the old expression: “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
Comment by Joe — May 2, 2012 @ 12:32 pm
Technically, this would be a meteoroid mission. Meteoroids are rocks in space that are less than 10 meters in diameter. Under their scenario, it would take several years to place a 500 tonne plus meteoroid into lunar orbit.
However, a large reusable IVF (Integrated Vehicle Fluids) LOX/LH2 based lunar tanker about the size of the SLS CPS (Cryogenic Propulsion Stage) and deployed by the SLS and refueled using polar lunar water resources could easily lift more 500 tonnes of material (water or regolith) from the Moon to the Lagrange points after 5 round trips (10 starts of its RL-10 engines) in less than a year.
A permanently manned outpost at one of the lunar poles would probably already be producing water and oxygen for astronauts on the lunar surface and fuel for their reusable lunar shuttles.
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 2, 2012 @ 1:46 pm
Their plan has some parallels with yours. For example, their first mining targets being water deposits.
I’ve been saying for years that water is the most valuable resource. This is a hard notion for a lot of people to grasp. Thinking of gold or platinum as vastly more valuable is a deeply ingrained habit. But I believe the Planetary Resource crowd is having some success is getting out the message that propellant in earth orbit would make space transportation less difficult. And that less expensive space transportation would enable mining asteroid platinum, gold, etc.
If they do convince more people the value of water, the ice in the moon’s polar cold traps becomes an easier sell. And a water rich asteroid parked at EML2 could make lunar access more doable.
I’m very excited about Planetary Resources’ goals. I’m just hoping those darn lawyers don’t chinger things up.
Comment by Hop David — May 2, 2012 @ 5:29 pm
“Only those approaching Earth at cosmic r.m.s. velocity, estimated to be about 20 km/sec. A towed asteroid would approach Earth at relatively low velocities (5-10 km/sec) and a significant fraction of its total mass might survive the atmospheric passage.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AJ….105.1114H
“The fragmentation of small asteroids in the atmosphere”
It does seem like you are right that for some types of low velocity asteroids, some part would likely survive. Its just not clear to me exactly whether this applies to carbonaceous types (which they wanted for the KISS mission). Perhaps they burn up more quickly. I can’t find a reference right now.
Still, I think the orbit desired as specified in the KISS report was a High Lunar Orbit. Loss of propulsion would send it into the Moon. The report states the trajectory design for moving the asteroid toward the Earth region from its starting point would keep it on an non-impact trajectory at all times (even if the flight system fails). Our technology has adequate orbit mechanics to do such a thing.
Comment by J Fincannon — May 2, 2012 @ 5:30 pm
With all this talk about Planetary Resources, I have to wonder why we’ve heard so little (if anything) about Moon Express, which has similar plans except their target is (obviously) the Moon.
I consider it an injustice to ignore their efforts.
More should be said about them, to show that a source of off planet resources is closer than most think.
Comment by Grand Lunar — May 2, 2012 @ 5:44 pm
Comment by Hop David — May 2, 2012 @ 5:29 pm
“I’ve been saying for years that water is the most valuable resource. This is a hard notion for a lot of people to grasp. Thinking of gold or platinum as vastly more valuable is a deeply ingrained habit.”
Resources are valuable where they are scarce.
Water is not necessarily scarce on Earth, but it is scarce in readily usable form off Earth (i.e. in space or on the Moon). However there is currently zero market for water in space.
On the other hand, the demand for heavy metals like Platinum is quite large here on Earth – an estimated 8.08 million ounces in 2011.
So as an investor in an asteroid mining company, if you had your choice of going after an asteroid that has water ($0 demand), or one that has Platinum ($12.6B in demand), which would you go after first?
Comment by Coastal Ron — May 2, 2012 @ 7:41 pm
Hop,
I’ve been saying for years that water is the most valuable resource. This is a hard notion for a lot of people to grasp.
Agreed. It is also the resource that has the least number of unanswered questions and potential processing difficulties (although it does have some) and is the resource that has the most utility in space (life-support consumables, radiation shielding, energy storage, propellant).
Do not forget also that bulk regolith on the Moon can also be used to make building materials of a variety of types, from simple soil backfill to advanced ceramics and metals. They allow us to build up material infrastructure in space rapidly and cheaply.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 3, 2012 @ 1:12 pm
“So as an investor in an asteroid mining company, if you had your choice of going after an asteroid that has water ($0 demand), or one that has Platinum ($12.6B in demand), which would you go after first?”
Given existing transportation paradigms, asteroid metals would be a money loser.
Given less expensive space transportation, asteroid metals might enjoy a return on investment. And propellant high on the slopes of earth’s gravity well would enable less expensive transportation.
So definitely the water asteroid.
Comment by Hop David — May 3, 2012 @ 1:36 pm
“With all this talk about Planetary Resources, I have to wonder why we’ve heard so little (if anything) about Moon Express”
And don’t forget Astrobotic. Or the Shackleton Energy Company. Or Orbital Recovery.
Underfunded space ventures are a dime a dozen.
The wealth and track record of its founders makes Planetary Resources noteworthy.
Hopefully they’ll have the money and savvy to put together a strong legal team (attempting to steer the conversation back to the original topic…)
Comment by Hop David — May 3, 2012 @ 1:47 pm
“Agreed. It is also the resource that has the least number of unanswered questions and potential processing difficulties”
From a processing standpoint, would you consider the Moon’s 1/6 gravity to be a big plus or can that be easily overcome using centrifugal force on an asteroid?
Comment by JohnHunt — May 3, 2012 @ 2:26 pm
John,
From a processing standpoint, would you consider the Moon’s 1/6 gravity to be a big plus or can that be easily overcome using centrifugal force on an asteroid?
I consider gravity a huge plus when doing resource processing, considering that we’ve been doing it centuries here on Earth and have never done it in zero-G.
Nobody knows if centrifugal effects can be easily worked into a resource processing stream, but it is another complicating factor and we already have plenty of those.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 3, 2012 @ 3:12 pm
Comment by Hop David — May 3, 2012 @ 1:36 pm
“Given existing transportation paradigms, asteroid metals would be a money loser.”
Wouldn’t that mean that water would be too? Or at least more of a money loser, since the only market for water in space is directly dependent on how much human activity we have in space?
For instance, there is a huge market on Earth willing to pay $1,500/oz for Platinum. Who is going to pay $1,500/oz for water? The U.S. Government?
Alternatives to lunar water already exist – Delta IV Heavy can deliver 50,000 lbs of water to LEO for the equivalent of $563/oz, and when Falcon Heavy becomes operational, that price falls to the equivalent of $67/oz.
Keep this in mind too. If any of the reusable launch systems come online, then the ROI potential for precious metals from asteroids goes up (i.e. lower costs of extraction), and the ROI for lunar water goes down (i.e. Earth sourcing gets less expensive).
“And propellant high on the slopes of earth’s gravity well would enable less expensive transportation.”
I know a number of people feel that the government should pay for a lunar water extraction system that would supply human needs in space, and it’s an idea that is definitely within our near-term capabilities.
However, as long as people are depending on the market forces of supply & demand to determine where they get their water/propellant from, there will be little market incentive to invest in lunar water extraction. Or at least not without a government heavily subsidizing lunar water extraction, and the words “lunar” and “subsidy” would be a non-starters in America’s current political world (i.e. Newt Gingrich & Solyndra).
I agree that water in space is good, but there is no business case for mining it. Not for the foreseeable future.
Comment by Coastal Ron — May 3, 2012 @ 4:06 pm
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 3, 2012 @ 3:12 pm
“John,
I consider gravity a huge plus when doing resource processing, considering that we’ve been doing it centuries here on Earth and have never done it in zero-G.
Nobody knows if centrifugal effects can be easily worked into a resource processing stream, but it is another complicating factor and we already have plenty of those.”
If I might, it is not only the processing itself. It is the extracting and collection of the material to be processed. On Earth there are well established procedures for doing this. Those procedures can be readily adapted to the Moons 1/6 Gravity. The (at best 1/1000) gravity around an asteroid is a much greater challenge.
- How do you attach the mining equipment to the asteroid surface?
- When you are digging into the surface and simultaneously significantly changing the asteroid mass/center of mass, how do you maintain control of its rotational stability?
- Etc.
I am not trying to be negative about this (started out as an asteroid guy), but these challenges will be best addressed when (and the way things are going, sadly if) we have a much better developed in space infrastructure. That will likely only come if we develop lunar resources first.
Comment by Joe — May 3, 2012 @ 5:25 pm
“Wouldn’t that mean that water would be too? Or at least more of a money loser, since the only market for water in space is directly dependent on how much human activity we have in space?”
Ummm…. no.
We have almost 300 billion dollars worth of assets in cislunar space.
Presently most of those satellites are so difficult to reach that it’s cheaper to launch a new satellite than it is to refuel, repair, or upgrade an existing satellite. Something goes wrong with a satellite, it just adds to the growing cloud of space garbage.
Propellant in cislunar space would not only allow us to repair and upgrade our orbital assets, it would also make it easier to deliver new assets to cislunar space.
That you believe the only possible market for water in space is directly dependent on human activity in space demonstrates you don’t read Dr. Spudis’ blog.
Comment by Hop David — May 3, 2012 @ 7:21 pm
“Keep this in mind too. If any of the reusable launch systems come online”
A couple of obstacles on the way to this very large IF.
1) 9 to 10 km/s to LEO. 14 km/s to GEO. These delta V budgets plus Tsiolkovsky’s rocket equation mandate very difficult mass fractions. Presently we achieve these mass fractions by throwing away expendable stages.
2) Shedding 8 km/s re-entry via aerobraking subjects returning vehicles to extreme conditions including very high temperatures.
Given lunar propellant in cislunar space, delta V budgets between “gas stations” would be 5 km/s or less. This delta V allows single stage vehicles. An easily reused vehicle becomes much less difficult.
Given lunar propellant in LEO, an upper stage could use reaction mass to shed some of the 8 km/s re-entry delta V. Given less intense re-entry conditions, recovery of an upper stage become more doable.
Easily reused vehicles would make space travel much more routine. That is the virtue of orbital water. Not giving drinks to thirsty astronauts.
Comment by Hop David — May 3, 2012 @ 7:39 pm
Joe,
I agree. That’s why I advocate developing lunar resources first. That will give us a practical experience base before we tackle the more difficult activities.
I have written on the Moon vs. asteroids for resource extraction earlier on this blog:
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2011/09/destination-moon-or-asteroid-part-iii-resource-utilization-considerations/
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 4, 2012 @ 4:33 am
“Alternatives to lunar water already exist – Delta IV Heavy can deliver 50,000 lbs of water to LEO”
To LEO. Which is the only “market” (space tourism)that some people are concerned with.
“If any of the reusable launch systems come online”
Reusability is a myth.
“there will be little market incentive to invest in lunar water extraction”
There is no market for anything BEO. The people trying to make a buck (largely off tax dollars) are only concerned with one thing- endless circles at very high altitude.
And that goes nowhere and has nothing to do with asteroids or anything else BEO.
Comment by GaryChurch — May 5, 2012 @ 2:16 am
“-the resource that has the most utility in space (life-support consumables, radiation shielding, energy storage, propellant)”
I agree with all of that except possibly propellant. Considering the distances and psychological crew limits- and the shielding to be carried- nuclear propulsion is going to be the only way to get past the moon. And not nuclear thermal which has a truly pathetic ISP for a reaction a million times more powerful than chemicals.
Bombs are the answer- it is just one of those solutions, like tether generated artificial gravity, that a very few people seem able to wrap their heads around.
Comment by GaryChurch — May 5, 2012 @ 4:34 am
@Coastal Ron
Lunar water immediately makes sustaining a permanent manned outpost on the Moon substantially cheaper for NASA since water can be used for washing, drinking, growing food, manufacturing air, and for manufacturing fuel for reusable lunar shuttles. Importing water from Earth to the Moon would increase recurring cost for NASA by billions annually.
These same lunar resources make it a lot cheaper for a private company like Bigelow to set up tourist hotels on the lunar surface since the government would already be producing water on the lunar surface that could be sold to private companies. I have no problem with the government manufacturing and owning water resources since that is what mostly occurs right here on Earth.
Exporting water to the Lagrange points to fuel reusable space tugs could be utilized to transport, repair, and redeploy zombie satellites from LEO and GEO which could be an industry worth billions of dollars annually.
Because platinum typically represents only about one millionth of the mass content of an asteroid, you’re not going to make money from platinum by tugging whole meteoroids into cis-lunar space. The platinum content of a 1000 tonne meteoroid placed into cis-lunar space would probably be worth less than $100,000. The water and oxygen content of that asteroid, however, would be worth billions.
You’d have to process the platinum at the meteoroid or asteroid source and then transport only the platinum in order to possibly make extraterrestrial platinum mining profitable.
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 5, 2012 @ 10:32 pm
Comment by Coastal Ron — May 2, 2012 @ 7:41 pm
“So as an investor in an asteroid mining company, if you had your choice of going after an asteroid that has water ($0 demand), or one that has Platinum ($12.6B in demand), which would you go after first?”
Definitely would prefer the water: if a 1,000 mT CI asteroid had 20% water were dragged back and processed in a 100 mT BA2100, with the water extracted by heating the hydrated iron-magnesium silicates to 500C, then you could hope to get around 130 mT LH2/LO2 propellant (mass ratio 5) that could be sold at an L2 depot for maybe half a billion USD.
If you dragged back a metal NEA, you would be lucky to get 50 ppm Pt average composition. 1000 mT * 50 ppm = 50 kg x $50K/kg = $2.5 million USD.
Comment by Warren Platts — May 8, 2012 @ 1:38 pm
Re: whether national governments can own real estate in space
Although the recent “Keepout Zones” that NASA recently drew around its Apollo sites were couched as “recommendations”, it otherwise looks as if NASA has “posted” its own land.
What is intriguing to me is that in the document that describes the “recommendations”, it rather mysteriously lists the Property Clause of the US Constitution as granting NASA the authorization to designate the keepout zones.
I did a little research, and the only relevant aspect I could decipher are a series of US Supreme Court decisions known as the Insular Cases. It turns out that in the aftermath of the Spanish American War, the US acquired large amounts of land (and people) from Spain. Thus the question was If all this land were now the sovereign territory of the USA, then wouldn’t that make Filipinos US citizens, and as such, illegal to waterboard them?
Clearly, an affirmative answer was unacceptable, so the US Supreme Court ruled that although the Philippines belonged to the USG, the Philippines were not part of the sovereign territory of the USA.
See? So I think NASA is trying to invent a bit of customary law here by making a distinction between “ownership” and “national appropriation”. E.g., if the USG bought some land in China for a school or something, that land would owned by the USG, but (obviously) that land would not be sovereign territory of the USA (as opposed to the land the US embassy sits on, which is technically, supposedly US sovereign territory).
Thus, if nobody challenges NASA’s keepout zones, they will become part of the customary law of space, which thus evidently entails that national governments can in fact “own” real estate in space, and thus be allowed to assert some of perquisites of property rights, but such land would still be the sovereign territory of humanity as a whole.
Comment by Warren Platts — May 8, 2012 @ 2:10 pm
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on TV. It is my opinion though, that instead of the outer space treaty or the moon treaty, we should concentrate on the laws that are in place for international waters (i.e., the oceans and seas far from territorial coastlines). Nations and private companies have been fishing the seas for centuries. The fish don’t really belong to anybody, but if some entity puts up the money and effort to catch the fish, they are then allowed to sell the fish at market. So instead of taking about a ‘gold rush’, maybe a ‘a rush to the sushi bar’ would be a better analogy. One thing I don’t understand though, is why travel all that way for a small rock, when the big ‘ol Moon is only three days away?
Comment by JohnG — May 10, 2012 @ 12:47 pm
Comment by Warren Platts — May 8, 2012 @ 1:38 pm
“Definitely would prefer the water:”
From an investor standpoint, it doesn’t matter what you “prefer”. What matters is how they will make money on their investment. You are making investment choices based on the romance of the idea, but not on real market forces.
For instance, as of today there is really no market for water in space. There is a $12B market for platinum here on Earth. Which investment is lower in risk?
Warren also said:
“if a 1,000 mT CI asteroid had 20% water were dragged back…” and “If you dragged back a metal NEA, you would be lucky to get 50 ppm Pt average composition.””
Why would they drag back an asteroid before determining whether it was worth mining?
In the real world of resource mining they assess the potential value of what they are mining before they bet the company on extracting it. So it will be with Planetary Resources, where they plan to survey asteroids before committing to visiting them and ultimately mining them.
Look, I’m not saying water in space won’t be a valuable commodity some day – I hope I live long enough to see us expanding our presence into space. But as of today, in the harsh reality of supply and demand, there is a huge, mature, and dependable market for precious metals, and no market to speak of for water in space.
As businessmen who have made their money by addressing the needs of large, established markets, it’s easy to see what they will be looking for first.
Comment by Coastal Ron — May 11, 2012 @ 12:50 pm
Ron, I can show you a memo written by the NASA administrator years ago saying they would love to buy propellant in orbit from a commercial provider. And there is no risk in Pt mining because no one is going to be fool enough to spend $250M to make $2.5M.
As for Listner’s idea that the proposed activity of capturing and processing an asteroid falls outside the current bounds of any outer space legal regime, that coffee’s ice cold: (a) the OST is quite clear the ownership of items constructed in space is not affected either by being in space or on the Earth; and (b) Lunar samples collected by humans on the Moon have already been legally sold and no one complained:
“In one of the shrewdest moves in the history of international relations, the U.S. — rather than trying to establish the principle of private property unilaterally — turned to its archenemy, the Soviet Union, and exchanged Apollo samples for Soviet Luna samples. The Russians subsequently resold some samples, creating a small secondary market, and establishing customary international law.“–Berin Szoka and James Dunston
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/opinion-space-property-rights
Comment by Warren Platts — May 11, 2012 @ 2:04 pm
“As businessmen who have made their money by addressing the needs of large, established markets, it’s easy to see what they will be looking for first.”
It will never be cheaper to mine anything in space than it is on earth. Since there is no market in BEO, the game must be the same as space tourism- to get tax dollars into investor pockets. How they plan on doing this has yet to be seen but rest assured- it will come.
Some of the press releases mention “saving the world” so you can bet the hype will originate from this quarter. Sadly, the best bet for saving the world has two five segment solid rocket boosters and is competing with a cheap and nasty hobby rocket for tax dollars. Billions have already been wasted on endless circles at high altitude while the space clown wannabes continue to scream about the “rocket to nowhere”- when they are the ones actually going nowhere.
Comment by GaryChurch — May 11, 2012 @ 8:02 pm
Once commercial space stations are in orbit, probably before the end of the decade, there will be a market for water within cis-lunar space. Water, of course, can be used for washing, drinking, and the production of air, things required for any stay at a space station.
But platinum mining won’t be profitable until platinum can be processed right on the asteroid itself and then exported back to Earth.
Marcel F. Williams
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 11, 2012 @ 10:58 pm
A quick back-of-envelope calculation:
Find an asteroid with a rough market value of 100-200 billion and send a sample return probe. Return a small sample of Platinum group metals to Establish ownership.
Enter 200 billion on the assets side of the ledger.
Take out loans and also do a IPO.
Comment by Vladislaw — May 12, 2012 @ 10:46 am
Great article. Getting back to the subject as Hop suggested…
Does anybody else see the contradiction here?…
…the treaty is silent on private ownership. Thus, the treaty is open to interpretation… Squirrel!
This is humanity insanity brought about because of the cold war. The entire universe is off limits? That’s insane.
Are we government chattel? I’m American which means not a subject but a citizen.
Planetary Resources will likely find themselves in court. If the ruling is anything but complete ownership of the rock they spent their own resources to get then it should be ignored because that’s the appropriate response to idiocy. If they can’t be ignored, then impeach.
We’re going to find out in Nov. how people feel about marxism as displayed in these space treaties.
Comment by ken anthony — May 12, 2012 @ 3:18 pm
[...] “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers*” [...]
Pingback by Carnival of Space #249 | Riding with Robots on the High Frontier — May 13, 2012 @ 11:36 pm
“38.Once commercial space stations are in orbit, probably before the end of the decade, there will be a market for water within cis-lunar space.”
Sometimes you make sense and sometimes you do not Marcel; mining and transporting water from the moon to LEO is….ridiculous. Unless you are talking about obscene water sports for the ultra-rich (which is what space tourism is really all about)
http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2012/02/branson-hefner-playboy-bunnies-in-space.html
Tax dollars for subsidizing space clowns is a national disgrace- THE HOBBY ROCKET MUST DIE
Comment by GaryChurch — May 14, 2012 @ 8:08 pm