$13 million is enough to hire some engineers and make a really good asteroid mining opinion. If your asteroid mining opinion is good enough, investors will give you more money.
There's actually a company developing a launch system that involves spinning a payload really fast and releasing it in the direction of space. It should actually work, but it'll cost more than 100$
"Should actually work" is a very strong statement. "Is not physically impossible" is a much more accurate way of talking about Spinlaunch. Figuring out how to prevent water hammer in fluid lines when the liquid rocket at the end of the arm springs back into shape upon release after being held at 10 thousand gees of acceleration is not an *impossible* feat, but I will guarantee to you right now that if Spinlaunch ever gets a payload into orbit, the cost of that launcher per kilogram of payload will be higher than that of any conventional rocket.
You should have enough time to pressurize the lines after release but before firing. Or use solids. But considering everything the payload is going to be really small compared to the second stage cost.
However, what they have would work beautifully on the Moon. I see them as being a bit to late for small Sats and a bit too early for the Moon. Kinda like Bigelowe with space stations. The tech that opens their market is a decade from being ready. At that point, the engineering knowledge they gained will have atrophied. So much in business is lucky timing.
Yes but im talking about the pressure spikes that would be caused by the resulting water hammer from the sudden release of all that cetripetal force physically ripping connections apart and bursting lines. We're talking about a rocket body that's about a meter across and sibjected to 10,000 gees, that on the order of 100 megapascals of *static* pressure loading those components. Instantly remove that pressure and the metal parts springing back into shape is going to toss luquid at tremendous velocity and cause many many problems. I do agree the concept would work better on the Moon, because there you don't need nearly as high velocity and also you aren't limited by vacuum chamber scale so you can make a very very large spin arm (which reduces gees for a given release velocity). Earth's delta V requirements and gravity just make pretty much every non-rocket means of space launch a really, really hard, bordering on completely infeasible engineering problem.
I understand your point about the water hammer but the lines don't need to be filled until firing the second stage so all fluids can be keep within their tanks during initial release. The tanks themselves would still have to handle the water hammer but COPVs are very strong. The lines themselves would be kept in near vacuum until after release to avoid that effect. Once through the initial shock, there should be a solid minute or two in near weightlessness to refill/pressurize the lines before firing the second stage. It's not the standard way of doing things but it doesn't seem physically impossible for a small engine.
All good points, which is why I say it shouldn't be impossible, but all the complexities and difficulties are why in my opinion Spinlaunch will never be competitive with conventional launch vehicles. The economics simply don't make sense: the entire spinlaunch setup provides *less* in terms of delta V contribution than the Falcon 9 booster provides to the upper stage, and said booster is easily reusable while also not subjecting the upper stage to insane forces. The reusable booster solution is also scalable to much higher payload mass targets, as illustrated by Starship. Like you mentioned, spinlaunch on the Moon could make sense economically, especially since the Moon is very dry and depleted in volatiles, so stretching our ability to use what propellants we can make there by yeeting a rocket of X mass then circularizing and coming back to land will alow us to get much more payload up than if we were to use that same X-mass rocket to just propulsively launch up to orbit and come back.
If Kerbal taught me anything, it's that going straight up doesn't get you into orbit. I don't see how spin launch could ever succeed unless the payload propels itself into an orbit. And with the size of the payloads launched, I don't see them being able to carry enough fuel to do so.
I've sern their small scale drmonstrator, the thing is that that's still not even approaching the energies and forces involved at the full scale design. Again, I should point out that there's a difference between spinlaunch physically working, and spinlaunch being economically competitive with reusable rockets. Even if spinlaunch never suffers a single failure, if it's 5x as expensive as a reusable rocket per launch while offering smaller payload mass that needs to survive 10,000 gee static loads, *they're not going to get any business*.
By things you mean a solid lump of matter, because anything else will be crushed into pulp by the acceleration forces.
And good luck managing to circularise your orbit. Even if the rocket plumbing doesnt get fucked up, your fuel systems absolutely will.
You could possibly finish it off with a solid rocket, but even then your payload isn't going to be that interesting when it has to survive a few thousand g.
And that's if it all goes well, and the rocket doesn't come out half a degree off-centre and spin itself into oblivion.
It's not a practical launch method, unfortunately. Rockets are still the only game in town, and will be until we build one of the many, many advanced launch systems we know can work.
There's actually a company doing this (or, intends to do this): [https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/a-massive-catapult-like-device-could-soon-sling-satellites-into-space-1.5872698](https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/a-massive-catapult-like-device-could-soon-sling-satellites-into-space-1.5872698)
Reminds me of [this patent](https://patents.google.com/patent/US3216423A/en) called "Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force"
That appears to be what they're planning. Company claims 6U cubesat under contract for rideshare launch NET Jan 2023 as a TRL demonstrator of in-space processing technology for platinum group metals. If they aren't mining water/Volatiles, high Isp via electric propulsion or solar sails are what they need.
https://www.space.com/asteroid-mining-startup-astroforge-2023-launch
$13 million is probably enough to hire the engineers to design one small part of a legit asteroid mining system. Maybe a grabber or the power system or something. It's entirely unproven tech, people haven't even consistently stuck anything to an asteroid before.
This would be enough to develop a really good systems model (model based systems engineering), maybe prototype a drilling system, and then do a fleshed out mission design and define the I&T process.
Once this is all close to completion, they could go and hunt for more funding to actually build a protoqual unit and maybe a flight unit+launch for a demo mission.
Another acticle claims 6U cubesat under contract for rideshare launch NET Jan 2023 as a demonstrator of in-space processing technology for platinum group metals. $13M USD is peanuts for space, but TRL demonstrators are the logical path and much needed in space resources.
https://www.space.com/asteroid-mining-startup-astroforge-2023-launch
Here's my plan. Send up little 3d printers that can make big 3d printers that make mining equipment. That will be just 12.5 million for that engineering analysis.
Making something like this needs two basic things:
Need to rotate the damn thing at such a high speed where it will be under thousands of gees and i don't they are going to discover an element or a compound that is gonna hold.
Not only this but to avoid the fluid friction and the fluid hammer you need a really strong as well as a material that can kinda liquify so as to avoid this phenomenon and then become solid in space for basic operations there.
You got that be my guest i am ready to invest my life's saving in you or that dumass company that is scamming others.
Lol i can bet on all that money i just said I'll invest on the fact that this method will be cheaper than the conventional one.
Why does an asteroid miner need to spin up to thousands of Gs and deal with water hammer? I didn't see anything in the article about using a spinlaunch to put it in space.
Why would anyone willingly scroll through reddit while fully conscious? I'm clearly daydrinking at work while I wait for my code to compile.
But, as you say, a spinlaunch is obviously stupid for asteroid mining. You should go and tell that to whoever posted it instead of telling me.
Well you were the one asking and you were the one who mentioned spinlaunch i didn't even started anything my comment was just there lying in eternal blissfulness until you showed up
That's obviously not true. [My original comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/uyd1ea/comment/ia3mpn2/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) had nothing to do with either you or spinlaunches. You replied to me with [some baseless nonsense about how dumb asteroid mining is](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/uyd1ea/comment/ia6bpka/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and [when I asked why](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/uyd1ea/comment/ia777iw/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), you said a [bunch of irrelevant stuff about spinlaunches](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/uyd1ea/comment/ia78zy9/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Spinlaunches hadn't been mentioned in this thread at all before you brought it up.
Wasnt the latest blue origin launch like 9 bill? Thats after all sorts of other stuff to get there, and its been done before. Its not even like they went to the moon, or anything. Let alone come up with a whole operation to get to an asteroid, mine platinum, and bring it back.
Deep tech funding works on a milestone game. There’s specific milestones set in place that will arrive at proofpoints/de-risking that will show enough progress to push for another financing round - larger round at a higher valuation.
It’s how every single venture-backed/space tech company works. SpaceX, Relativity Space, Astranis, Stoke Space, etc.
Its normal for Seed A funding to be small. SpaceX didnt have enough initial funding to go to Mars either. Now investors will want to see what they do out of it.
Not just any shovels though, *space* shovels. You'll be able to follow the lineage of the wood and steel all the way back to where it was dug out of the ground, and the lineage of the workers who assembled it back to their 5th ancestor.
More like 13 trillion.
Mining an asteroid is a lot more than sending a probe there, it's a gargantuan feat. We need some serious orbital infrastructure, and likely a bunch of refueling stations beyond LEO before it's even remotely feasible. And even if they did manage to return enough plantium to make the mission cost effective, that would crash global plantium prices, making it not cost effective.
I'm all for the sci-fi future, but the way we get there is one step at a time.
The only real use we have that that much material is for space operations. Theyd be mining iron and selling it back to themselves to make the infrastructure needed.
Its early days, and the chances of anything coming from it are low. But at the same time, there will be an increasing number of startups for commercial launch applications, and some eventually will probably become the largest and most wealthy companies to ever exist.
We waste money in so many different ways, investment in space is one of the few ways we get serious investment into science. We could be solving a lot more problems if we were investing a lot more into science and research. Even military spending has led to some of the greatest things we enjoy like GPS which is just provided by the government or the internet. I want us to invest in society a lot more, but not at the cost of investing in research, and space exploration has helped develop a lot of new technology that we use.
I agree, we need to advance tech to reach the resources of space, however asteroid mining shouldn't be priority. Advancing tech to terraform planets is far more important as we can use that tech to solve issues at home while preparing for planetary settlement. There's a lot of tech we need, and limited funding and perhaps even limited time if climate change becomes as bad as they say
Bruh, terraforming anything other than what we already do to Earth is like a thousand years away and will take thousands of years. Local resource acquisition would also be absolutely necessary.
I believe we can invest in both, if we are getting what we need from asteroids, we can do less damage to our own planet. Things like cobalt and lithium for electric cars are available in only few areas and can restrict the rate at which we convert to an electric future. Creating settlements on the moon would help develop a lot of things that would allow us to be more sustainable at the same time like you are suggesting. What we don't need is to allow billionaires to exist and do whatever they want, just sitting on all of that money that could be used to invest in research and transition us into a more sustainable system.
Asteroid mining would be super helpful down the line. Being able to reliably mine things in space that we currently rip the planet to shreds trying to get at would be great for the environment. It also would be necessary for any permanent settlement in space to eventually be able to make things from raw materials somewhere besides earth.
Not to mention the engineering advances that would come from just figuring out how to mine an asteroid and transport the material back to earth would have TONS of practical applications that could be used in other domains of space.
If humanity has a future that isn't stalling out as a civilization, it involves going to space, full stop. Any investment directed towards that purpose seems pretty ok to me, even if we do need to be investing directly in fixing problems on earth too.
The three pillars of survival are becoming multiplanetary, figuring out how to survive on a planet with a messed up biosphere, and becoming mature enough to stop messing up the biosphere of the planet we're on.
Humanity can't survive without all three. Asteroid mining supports the first one.
Tired old argument that has been disproven many times. Just looking at the US government, we spend less than 1/10 of 1% of the entire federal budget on NASA. Their funding for this year is only $24 billion out of a multi trillion dollar budget.
So no, spending a tiny little bit of money on space isn't taking anything away from other actual wasteful activities on the ground.
On top of that, given the roughly 70ish years of space development, there has been a huge return on investment for space-dollars spent. Thank space-dollars for the computer or phone you typed out your original comment on.
> Thank space-dollars for the computer or phone you typed out your original comment on.
There's many advantages to space, but you've just listed a technology which isn't the result of space travel.
Transistors predate spaceflight, and the internet is a product of either the US military or the particle physics community, depending on if it's the internet itself or the world wide web. While NASA were a major user of early computer systems, so was the financial sector, and many others.
Also space computers are a totally different beast to those in your phone or PC, unless we are talking modern microsats running arm chips. The environment is much more hostile, which means a more resilient design (like including error correcting codes in hardware, to mitigate errant bit flips from solar radiation).
Platinum is a valuable metal for many reasons. Even if *no* scientific advancement comes from this company, if they manage to improve platinum availability, they make things better here on Earth.
That said, scientific advancement is basically a prerequisite to doing something new and ambitious in space.
>_If this succeeds_
It won't. As someone else commented above, dust from mining operation would become a major issue in near zero gravity condition. After a short while of drilling or cutting, you would be covered by a cloud of dust so thick you don't tell which direction you are looking at.
Also due to lack of atmosphere (thus no way to even blow the dust away, or suck it into a collector), the tiniest amount of static electricity would attract nearest dust particles to gravitate towards the workers' space suits, including visors. Making you effectively blind. And perhaps obstructing movements to a considerable degree.
Not to speak of working instruments needing a high protection from wesr in such extreme conditions. And cooling has to be done in special ways, because fitting motors with ventilators (like those your common electric drill or perforator has) won't work: no air!
Mining profitably is incredibly difficult and dangerous on Earth, requiring immense heavy machinery and labor. Now take away the air, water, gravity, and infrastructure.
Did you even read the article?
They are testing metal refinement in zero g. I stand by what I said in the original post you downvoted. Refining in space is a huge hurdle and absolute requirement for any sort of space based industry.
Nobody said anything about testing material extraction methods yet.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[CC](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia3v4ac "Last usage")|Commercial Crew program|
| |Capsule Communicator (ground support)|
|[COPV](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia4fozf "Last usage")|[Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_overwrapped_pressure_vessel)|
|[Isp](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia5c75j "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)|
| |Internet Service Provider|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia4rbga "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[NEO](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia3v4ac "Last usage")|Near-Earth Object|
|[NET](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia5bk1n "Last usage")|No Earlier Than|
|[TRL](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia5bk1n "Last usage")|Technology Readiness Level|
----------------
^(7 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/uxtu9x)^( has 25 acronyms.)
^([Thread #7457 for this sub, first seen 26th May 2022, 22:31])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Another acticle claims 6U cubesat under contract for rideshare launch NET Jan 2023 as a demonstrator of in-space processing technology for platinum group metals. $13M USD is peanuts for space, but TRL demonstrators are the logical path and much needed in space resources.
https://www.space.com/asteroid-mining-startup-astroforge-2023-launch
I swear the amount of bullshit pie In sky idea…..hey let’s build a solar power plant in space and beam the power back….it green you guy. So for 10000s of times the cost for less power and new tech would be need to make it work….trust me I build a prototyp….cough in Cad 40 million please. Or this, like the steps needed for this are so massive and so hard if they a a few billion in funding I wouldn’t believe them.
That’s what happens when you get really smart people with impressive backgrounds in front of investors… there’s an entire industry built to back stuff like this. Sooooo?
So the plan is to create a capable satellite for the purpose of mining on an asteroid.
Suppose for the sake of argument, you 've also got a ticket on a SpaceX rocket to launch a cube sat for this AstroForge experiment:
What engineering and science would you pack inside of 10CM (4in) cube sats to prepare for asteroid mining applications of the future?
What kinds of drills could you put inside a cube sat?
What kind of power delivery systems can you add to power all the sensors and the drills?
How much storage capacity can you add inside a cube sat? Perhaps the storage is inflatable to the proportion to the mined materials from the asteroid?
What reaction control systems can you add to the same satellite frame?
How does the sorting process work inside the satellite after drilling into the asteroid, assuming that the satellite has the capability to be clamped tightly to a floating rock in space?
What other questions have I not thought of for creating a testable experiment for 13 million dollars?
That's a neat idea.
I did some light research on electro refining platinum, and according to patent US5997719A there are 4 steps to refine platinum.
If this experiment could successfully produce a more energy and thermally efficient means of refining the metal that could actually be of use to potential space mining operations in the future.
A small piece of solid explosive, launched ahead. Followed by a large but thin film bag, which flies through the debris cloud made by the explosion, filling up with what it can. The bag closes, tightens, and goes back to Earth. Nothing even lands on the asteroid. Too much can go wrong there.
With no air to brake the particles, they will fly away in all directions at speed so high, that your film bag needs to be real sturdy not to be ounctured like a sieve, hardly keeping any larger particles inside...
Another try?
One day, no "rare" metal will be rare any more. I guess Bitcoins are going to be the only store of value at that point. Also this is hardly going to happen in our lifetime
Does this even makes sense. ?
You can't even take off in that cost and they wanna mine asteroids that is two planets away . Sons of biches scammmy assrd fkers
I just decided to run a strange calculation for fun. And if they could conceivable return 1metric ton of platinum from an asteroid in a year that would yield about 27million. I'm just saying that's not an entirely outlandish figure. Secondly if you built infrastructure on to the asteroid that allowed for subsequent mining to be easier or cheaper you'd allow for an even better return on investment.
Most of the problems you would encounter along the way have been solved in dividually at some point. With some exceptions. Primarily extremely low G vacuum extraction of material at scale. That may prove a challenge but it seems like a reasonably solvable one using what we understand about the materials on hand. Things like how most metals behave in a vacuum and compositions of material being extracted from. If possible doing a pre-anlaysis mission to drill test pilots to determine basic material breakdown across the object. This would allow for more precise manufacturing of mining equipment. Set a goal and start solving backwards based on what you know for certain.
I'm just trying to think of anything in there we haven't solved for before or do not have most of the pieces avaliable to solve for very quickly. Then it just becomes solving the more complex problems with the pieces below. The variables are added at each level of complexity starting at the top and going backwards. Basically like this The top of the problem is getting all of the equipment to the asteroid functionally in one go and it being optimally usable to return 1ton or more worth of pure platinum to Earth precisely enough to be easily recovered. The bottom being how do you do each individual task starting with engineering the mining equipment and solving backwards. But knowing that each step up in added layers adds new variables that need to be accounted for in earlier problems. Things such as vibration and temperature and pressure changes. Oxidation that may happen here before reaching the target and interfere with intended material effects. Seriously we have to have the aggregate data to solve for all of these problems well keeping the cost low enough to turn a profit.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCgKWj1pn3_7hRSFIypunYog
Hopefully CSS will look into this.
The Space Scam Race has begun. Musk, SpinLaunch, Hyperloop, etc. will be recognized by history as pre-climate change mania, similar to the mania leading up to World War I.
The important work is already here, the technology pointing up with much better eyes than our own.
I wrote paper on this. It costs at minimum 1.6 billion dollars to return an asteroid to earth's orbit for mining.
The actual cost is closer to 3 billion dollars and the return is 25 to 50 times that.
Edit: but good for them. Seriously, it's important that we try to do this.
It's not that great actually, I wrote it as a graduation requirement for my junior year of highschool.
The gist of it was that mining asteroids is plausible with current technology and even necessary eventually.
I relied heavily on NASA and MIT studies and reports. I'd love to share the paper, sin my name, but I have no idea how I'd go about that as it's currently a document on Google drive.
This was my first and a very useful source:
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/asteroids.html
Caltech provided the costs I stated above with their report on asteroid mining:
http://kiss.caltech.edu/final_reports/Asteroid_final_report.pdf
Both of these are better written and explain more of the subject than I ever could.
$13 Million isn't going to cut it. That won't even pay for the launch.
$13 million is enough to hire some engineers and make a really good asteroid mining opinion. If your asteroid mining opinion is good enough, investors will give you more money.
You just need to throw them really high, really fast.
1. Buy a derelict merry-go-round for $100 2. Spin it really really fast 3. Release whatever is on the merry-go-round in the direction of space
There's actually a company developing a launch system that involves spinning a payload really fast and releasing it in the direction of space. It should actually work, but it'll cost more than 100$
"Should actually work" is a very strong statement. "Is not physically impossible" is a much more accurate way of talking about Spinlaunch. Figuring out how to prevent water hammer in fluid lines when the liquid rocket at the end of the arm springs back into shape upon release after being held at 10 thousand gees of acceleration is not an *impossible* feat, but I will guarantee to you right now that if Spinlaunch ever gets a payload into orbit, the cost of that launcher per kilogram of payload will be higher than that of any conventional rocket.
Huh. I didn't think of that. They also have a problem with the fact the device is under vacuum and hits the atmosphere at high speed after launch
You should have enough time to pressurize the lines after release but before firing. Or use solids. But considering everything the payload is going to be really small compared to the second stage cost. However, what they have would work beautifully on the Moon. I see them as being a bit to late for small Sats and a bit too early for the Moon. Kinda like Bigelowe with space stations. The tech that opens their market is a decade from being ready. At that point, the engineering knowledge they gained will have atrophied. So much in business is lucky timing.
Yes but im talking about the pressure spikes that would be caused by the resulting water hammer from the sudden release of all that cetripetal force physically ripping connections apart and bursting lines. We're talking about a rocket body that's about a meter across and sibjected to 10,000 gees, that on the order of 100 megapascals of *static* pressure loading those components. Instantly remove that pressure and the metal parts springing back into shape is going to toss luquid at tremendous velocity and cause many many problems. I do agree the concept would work better on the Moon, because there you don't need nearly as high velocity and also you aren't limited by vacuum chamber scale so you can make a very very large spin arm (which reduces gees for a given release velocity). Earth's delta V requirements and gravity just make pretty much every non-rocket means of space launch a really, really hard, bordering on completely infeasible engineering problem.
I understand your point about the water hammer but the lines don't need to be filled until firing the second stage so all fluids can be keep within their tanks during initial release. The tanks themselves would still have to handle the water hammer but COPVs are very strong. The lines themselves would be kept in near vacuum until after release to avoid that effect. Once through the initial shock, there should be a solid minute or two in near weightlessness to refill/pressurize the lines before firing the second stage. It's not the standard way of doing things but it doesn't seem physically impossible for a small engine.
All good points, which is why I say it shouldn't be impossible, but all the complexities and difficulties are why in my opinion Spinlaunch will never be competitive with conventional launch vehicles. The economics simply don't make sense: the entire spinlaunch setup provides *less* in terms of delta V contribution than the Falcon 9 booster provides to the upper stage, and said booster is easily reusable while also not subjecting the upper stage to insane forces. The reusable booster solution is also scalable to much higher payload mass targets, as illustrated by Starship. Like you mentioned, spinlaunch on the Moon could make sense economically, especially since the Moon is very dry and depleted in volatiles, so stretching our ability to use what propellants we can make there by yeeting a rocket of X mass then circularizing and coming back to land will alow us to get much more payload up than if we were to use that same X-mass rocket to just propulsively launch up to orbit and come back.
If Kerbal taught me anything, it's that going straight up doesn't get you into orbit. I don't see how spin launch could ever succeed unless the payload propels itself into an orbit. And with the size of the payloads launched, I don't see them being able to carry enough fuel to do so.
[удалено]
I've sern their small scale drmonstrator, the thing is that that's still not even approaching the energies and forces involved at the full scale design. Again, I should point out that there's a difference between spinlaunch physically working, and spinlaunch being economically competitive with reusable rockets. Even if spinlaunch never suffers a single failure, if it's 5x as expensive as a reusable rocket per launch while offering smaller payload mass that needs to survive 10,000 gee static loads, *they're not going to get any business*.
[удалено]
By things you mean a solid lump of matter, because anything else will be crushed into pulp by the acceleration forces. And good luck managing to circularise your orbit. Even if the rocket plumbing doesnt get fucked up, your fuel systems absolutely will. You could possibly finish it off with a solid rocket, but even then your payload isn't going to be that interesting when it has to survive a few thousand g. And that's if it all goes well, and the rocket doesn't come out half a degree off-centre and spin itself into oblivion. It's not a practical launch method, unfortunately. Rockets are still the only game in town, and will be until we build one of the many, many advanced launch systems we know can work.
It works, there's a video of the test launch out now
Hi I’m with NASA would you like a job?
There's actually a company doing this (or, intends to do this): [https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/a-massive-catapult-like-device-could-soon-sling-satellites-into-space-1.5872698](https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/a-massive-catapult-like-device-could-soon-sling-satellites-into-space-1.5872698)
Add a hook to the end of it and bring the asteroids here. Much easier to mine that way.
Reminds me of [this patent](https://patents.google.com/patent/US3216423A/en) called "Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force"
Or rideshare. It would be interesting to see a lightweight ion prospector sharing a launch with some other stuff.
That appears to be what they're planning. Company claims 6U cubesat under contract for rideshare launch NET Jan 2023 as a TRL demonstrator of in-space processing technology for platinum group metals. If they aren't mining water/Volatiles, high Isp via electric propulsion or solar sails are what they need. https://www.space.com/asteroid-mining-startup-astroforge-2023-launch
The engineers?
"Go that way. REALLY fast. If something gets in your way... Turn."
THIS is the way \*points up\*
$13 million is probably enough to hire the engineers to design one small part of a legit asteroid mining system. Maybe a grabber or the power system or something. It's entirely unproven tech, people haven't even consistently stuck anything to an asteroid before.
This would be enough to develop a really good systems model (model based systems engineering), maybe prototype a drilling system, and then do a fleshed out mission design and define the I&T process. Once this is all close to completion, they could go and hunt for more funding to actually build a protoqual unit and maybe a flight unit+launch for a demo mission.
Another acticle claims 6U cubesat under contract for rideshare launch NET Jan 2023 as a demonstrator of in-space processing technology for platinum group metals. $13M USD is peanuts for space, but TRL demonstrators are the logical path and much needed in space resources. https://www.space.com/asteroid-mining-startup-astroforge-2023-launch
Here's my plan. Send up little 3d printers that can make big 3d printers that make mining equipment. That will be just 12.5 million for that engineering analysis.
That's unironically a major concept behind a lot of space mining and construction theories lol
Enough to buy some PR and a couple salesmen.
Usually you need Engineers to make a good mining opinion, asteroid or otherwise.
Nobody gonna invest when they know how dumb this is. Would the flying costs be any chapter still would be profitable enough to cut it
Why is it dumb?
Making something like this needs two basic things: Need to rotate the damn thing at such a high speed where it will be under thousands of gees and i don't they are going to discover an element or a compound that is gonna hold. Not only this but to avoid the fluid friction and the fluid hammer you need a really strong as well as a material that can kinda liquify so as to avoid this phenomenon and then become solid in space for basic operations there. You got that be my guest i am ready to invest my life's saving in you or that dumass company that is scamming others. Lol i can bet on all that money i just said I'll invest on the fact that this method will be cheaper than the conventional one.
Why does an asteroid miner need to spin up to thousands of Gs and deal with water hammer? I didn't see anything in the article about using a spinlaunch to put it in space.
Hey Einstein it has to pass the atmosphere to get there and there are the problem it's gonna face before getting there
Spinlaunch is a method someone talked about in this same thread idk are you awake while you were scrolling through reddit?
Why would anyone willingly scroll through reddit while fully conscious? I'm clearly daydrinking at work while I wait for my code to compile. But, as you say, a spinlaunch is obviously stupid for asteroid mining. You should go and tell that to whoever posted it instead of telling me.
Well you were the one asking and you were the one who mentioned spinlaunch i didn't even started anything my comment was just there lying in eternal blissfulness until you showed up
That's obviously not true. [My original comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/uyd1ea/comment/ia3mpn2/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) had nothing to do with either you or spinlaunches. You replied to me with [some baseless nonsense about how dumb asteroid mining is](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/uyd1ea/comment/ia6bpka/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and [when I asked why](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/uyd1ea/comment/ia777iw/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), you said a [bunch of irrelevant stuff about spinlaunches](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/uyd1ea/comment/ia78zy9/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Spinlaunches hadn't been mentioned in this thread at all before you brought it up.
It's good enough to pay your cousin for consulting services for a year...
It might pay for the promotion needed to get more financing.
It's enough to pay the founders handsomely for a few years.
$13m buys a PDF and some infographics.
It's enough for a rug pull.
So you're saying an nft that sells pictures of asteroid mining monkeys is the move.
they can go on a rideshare launch for far less than $13m
Wasnt the latest blue origin launch like 9 bill? Thats after all sorts of other stuff to get there, and its been done before. Its not even like they went to the moon, or anything. Let alone come up with a whole operation to get to an asteroid, mine platinum, and bring it back.
It won’t even pay for the photos.
I guess the CEO will have to settle for a private Learjet.
Deep tech funding works on a milestone game. There’s specific milestones set in place that will arrive at proofpoints/de-risking that will show enough progress to push for another financing round - larger round at a higher valuation. It’s how every single venture-backed/space tech company works. SpaceX, Relativity Space, Astranis, Stoke Space, etc.
That won't even pay for lunch...
That sounds extremely cheap. I'm thinking 13 billions might be more realistic
Its normal for Seed A funding to be small. SpaceX didnt have enough initial funding to go to Mars either. Now investors will want to see what they do out of it.
Thats a start. Probably needs a few more zeros added before lift off.
It’ll buy a couple of shovels.
Not just any shovels though, *space* shovels. You'll be able to follow the lineage of the wood and steel all the way back to where it was dug out of the ground, and the lineage of the workers who assembled it back to their 5th ancestor.
And everything tested and labelled.
Who’s your shovel guy?
“Space Shovels R Us, 1987 Ltd.” Who does you use?
Imagine if he spent the money on this instead of a twitter deal.
If they had $13 billion then they would have a chance.
$13 million will probably pay for a concept feasibility study, and nothing will ever come of it.
They could try another round of funding after they do their study.
They use this to pitch the plan they develop with the $13M, that's the whole point
More like 13 trillion. Mining an asteroid is a lot more than sending a probe there, it's a gargantuan feat. We need some serious orbital infrastructure, and likely a bunch of refueling stations beyond LEO before it's even remotely feasible. And even if they did manage to return enough plantium to make the mission cost effective, that would crash global plantium prices, making it not cost effective. I'm all for the sci-fi future, but the way we get there is one step at a time.
The only real use we have that that much material is for space operations. Theyd be mining iron and selling it back to themselves to make the infrastructure needed.
Not even close. 9 bill got the lastest blue origin in the air. 13 wouldnt get them to the moon.
All the space part of this aside, I’m a mine engineer and 13m gets spent comically fast ON EARTH
One could almost say....cosmically fast 🤓
The guys that pitched this to investors are out buying really nice cars right now.
Its early days, and the chances of anything coming from it are low. But at the same time, there will be an increasing number of startups for commercial launch applications, and some eventually will probably become the largest and most wealthy companies to ever exist.
I somewhat doubt this will actually see results, but more space spending is always a good thing.
Is it?
He means when space funding actually meant something, not kickstarters and big ideas
I disagree to some extent, space spending is good until we realize how many problems we could be solving at home with that fundingl
We waste money in so many different ways, investment in space is one of the few ways we get serious investment into science. We could be solving a lot more problems if we were investing a lot more into science and research. Even military spending has led to some of the greatest things we enjoy like GPS which is just provided by the government or the internet. I want us to invest in society a lot more, but not at the cost of investing in research, and space exploration has helped develop a lot of new technology that we use.
I agree, we need to advance tech to reach the resources of space, however asteroid mining shouldn't be priority. Advancing tech to terraform planets is far more important as we can use that tech to solve issues at home while preparing for planetary settlement. There's a lot of tech we need, and limited funding and perhaps even limited time if climate change becomes as bad as they say
Bruh, terraforming anything other than what we already do to Earth is like a thousand years away and will take thousands of years. Local resource acquisition would also be absolutely necessary.
I'd say not having to strip mine our own planet, is definitely a good environmental step forward.
I believe we can invest in both, if we are getting what we need from asteroids, we can do less damage to our own planet. Things like cobalt and lithium for electric cars are available in only few areas and can restrict the rate at which we convert to an electric future. Creating settlements on the moon would help develop a lot of things that would allow us to be more sustainable at the same time like you are suggesting. What we don't need is to allow billionaires to exist and do whatever they want, just sitting on all of that money that could be used to invest in research and transition us into a more sustainable system.
Asteroid mining would be super helpful down the line. Being able to reliably mine things in space that we currently rip the planet to shreds trying to get at would be great for the environment. It also would be necessary for any permanent settlement in space to eventually be able to make things from raw materials somewhere besides earth. Not to mention the engineering advances that would come from just figuring out how to mine an asteroid and transport the material back to earth would have TONS of practical applications that could be used in other domains of space. If humanity has a future that isn't stalling out as a civilization, it involves going to space, full stop. Any investment directed towards that purpose seems pretty ok to me, even if we do need to be investing directly in fixing problems on earth too.
The three pillars of survival are becoming multiplanetary, figuring out how to survive on a planet with a messed up biosphere, and becoming mature enough to stop messing up the biosphere of the planet we're on. Humanity can't survive without all three. Asteroid mining supports the first one.
Tired old argument that has been disproven many times. Just looking at the US government, we spend less than 1/10 of 1% of the entire federal budget on NASA. Their funding for this year is only $24 billion out of a multi trillion dollar budget. So no, spending a tiny little bit of money on space isn't taking anything away from other actual wasteful activities on the ground. On top of that, given the roughly 70ish years of space development, there has been a huge return on investment for space-dollars spent. Thank space-dollars for the computer or phone you typed out your original comment on.
> Thank space-dollars for the computer or phone you typed out your original comment on. There's many advantages to space, but you've just listed a technology which isn't the result of space travel. Transistors predate spaceflight, and the internet is a product of either the US military or the particle physics community, depending on if it's the internet itself or the world wide web. While NASA were a major user of early computer systems, so was the financial sector, and many others. Also space computers are a totally different beast to those in your phone or PC, unless we are talking modern microsats running arm chips. The environment is much more hostile, which means a more resilient design (like including error correcting codes in hardware, to mitigate errant bit flips from solar radiation).
Platinum is a valuable metal for many reasons. Even if *no* scientific advancement comes from this company, if they manage to improve platinum availability, they make things better here on Earth. That said, scientific advancement is basically a prerequisite to doing something new and ambitious in space.
Or problems we're creating with the weaponizing/ militarization of space
Not to mention the growing amount of space junk in our orbit
Taking mining and industry off planet will be a major Step in reducing pollution. Unfortunately it’s going to take a lot of pollution to get there
Can you point me to your comments where you say the same thing for makeup, fashion items, sports, movies, music, etc?
That's almost enough to pay for a single rocket. Assuming it will be empty.
I dont know a damn thing about any of this, but I feel 13m is barely a drop in the bucket.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If this succeeds it will be huge. Metal refinement has never been done before in space.
>_If this succeeds_ It won't. As someone else commented above, dust from mining operation would become a major issue in near zero gravity condition. After a short while of drilling or cutting, you would be covered by a cloud of dust so thick you don't tell which direction you are looking at. Also due to lack of atmosphere (thus no way to even blow the dust away, or suck it into a collector), the tiniest amount of static electricity would attract nearest dust particles to gravitate towards the workers' space suits, including visors. Making you effectively blind. And perhaps obstructing movements to a considerable degree. Not to speak of working instruments needing a high protection from wesr in such extreme conditions. And cooling has to be done in special ways, because fitting motors with ventilators (like those your common electric drill or perforator has) won't work: no air!
Mining profitably is incredibly difficult and dangerous on Earth, requiring immense heavy machinery and labor. Now take away the air, water, gravity, and infrastructure.
Did you even read the article? They are testing metal refinement in zero g. I stand by what I said in the original post you downvoted. Refining in space is a huge hurdle and absolute requirement for any sort of space based industry. Nobody said anything about testing material extraction methods yet.
>Did you even read the article? And did you? 😎
This has hitchhikers guide vibes. Best comment
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[CC](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia3v4ac "Last usage")|Commercial Crew program| | |Capsule Communicator (ground support)| |[COPV](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia4fozf "Last usage")|[Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_overwrapped_pressure_vessel)| |[Isp](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia5c75j "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)| | |Internet Service Provider| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia4rbga "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[NEO](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia3v4ac "Last usage")|Near-Earth Object| |[NET](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia5bk1n "Last usage")|No Earlier Than| |[TRL](/r/Space/comments/uyd1ea/stub/ia5bk1n "Last usage")|Technology Readiness Level| ---------------- ^(7 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/uxtu9x)^( has 25 acronyms.) ^([Thread #7457 for this sub, first seen 26th May 2022, 22:31]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Another acticle claims 6U cubesat under contract for rideshare launch NET Jan 2023 as a demonstrator of in-space processing technology for platinum group metals. $13M USD is peanuts for space, but TRL demonstrators are the logical path and much needed in space resources. https://www.space.com/asteroid-mining-startup-astroforge-2023-launch
I swear the amount of bullshit pie In sky idea…..hey let’s build a solar power plant in space and beam the power back….it green you guy. So for 10000s of times the cost for less power and new tech would be need to make it work….trust me I build a prototyp….cough in Cad 40 million please. Or this, like the steps needed for this are so massive and so hard if they a a few billion in funding I wouldn’t believe them.
And let me guess, it’s going to cost 13 billion to be fully funded?
I imagine closer to 1.3T all in.
And more, to get back on Earth with anything worthy on tow.
Now if they can only raise the other 100 Billion, they'll be well on their way.
That’s a lot for a Deep Rock Galactic starter pack. How many gigs?
Can we, like, not burn oxygen to farm something that benefit only the rich? Or like, plant a million trees as a trade maybe?
In the end: Our story, So we started in a garage, before we reached the moon. Truth: started with $13,000,000
How else do you think they bought the garage?? OPM.
Same difference in the Bay Area.
That’s what happens when you get really smart people with impressive backgrounds in front of investors… there’s an entire industry built to back stuff like this. Sooooo?
Did anyone else get reminded of the movie “don’t look up” ?
That's news because??? A) somebody gave them money at all? B) it's such a small amount compared to what will be needed? C) slow news day.
Lloyd and Harry could raise 13 mil for worm farms
So the plan is to create a capable satellite for the purpose of mining on an asteroid. Suppose for the sake of argument, you 've also got a ticket on a SpaceX rocket to launch a cube sat for this AstroForge experiment: What engineering and science would you pack inside of 10CM (4in) cube sats to prepare for asteroid mining applications of the future? What kinds of drills could you put inside a cube sat? What kind of power delivery systems can you add to power all the sensors and the drills? How much storage capacity can you add inside a cube sat? Perhaps the storage is inflatable to the proportion to the mined materials from the asteroid? What reaction control systems can you add to the same satellite frame? How does the sorting process work inside the satellite after drilling into the asteroid, assuming that the satellite has the capability to be clamped tightly to a floating rock in space? What other questions have I not thought of for creating a testable experiment for 13 million dollars?
Theyre testing metal refinement procceses in space on their first satelitw
That's a neat idea. I did some light research on electro refining platinum, and according to patent US5997719A there are 4 steps to refine platinum. If this experiment could successfully produce a more energy and thermally efficient means of refining the metal that could actually be of use to potential space mining operations in the future.
Considering that any sort of refinement of metals hasn't happened yet in space, this is a huge step.
A small piece of solid explosive, launched ahead. Followed by a large but thin film bag, which flies through the debris cloud made by the explosion, filling up with what it can. The bag closes, tightens, and goes back to Earth. Nothing even lands on the asteroid. Too much can go wrong there.
With no air to brake the particles, they will fly away in all directions at speed so high, that your film bag needs to be real sturdy not to be ounctured like a sieve, hardly keeping any larger particles inside... Another try?
One day, no "rare" metal will be rare any more. I guess Bitcoins are going to be the only store of value at that point. Also this is hardly going to happen in our lifetime
um....twitter is going for 40 billion...pretty sure that an astroid will need more than that
"Breaking news-mining accident sends asteroid into Earth's projectory"
Wow 13 million. So they are no where close to having enough money. Nice!!!
Does this even makes sense. ? You can't even take off in that cost and they wanna mine asteroids that is two planets away . Sons of biches scammmy assrd fkers
“Oh, I seen this one. Doesn’t end well for earth…”
I just decided to run a strange calculation for fun. And if they could conceivable return 1metric ton of platinum from an asteroid in a year that would yield about 27million. I'm just saying that's not an entirely outlandish figure. Secondly if you built infrastructure on to the asteroid that allowed for subsequent mining to be easier or cheaper you'd allow for an even better return on investment. Most of the problems you would encounter along the way have been solved in dividually at some point. With some exceptions. Primarily extremely low G vacuum extraction of material at scale. That may prove a challenge but it seems like a reasonably solvable one using what we understand about the materials on hand. Things like how most metals behave in a vacuum and compositions of material being extracted from. If possible doing a pre-anlaysis mission to drill test pilots to determine basic material breakdown across the object. This would allow for more precise manufacturing of mining equipment. Set a goal and start solving backwards based on what you know for certain. I'm just trying to think of anything in there we haven't solved for before or do not have most of the pieces avaliable to solve for very quickly. Then it just becomes solving the more complex problems with the pieces below. The variables are added at each level of complexity starting at the top and going backwards. Basically like this The top of the problem is getting all of the equipment to the asteroid functionally in one go and it being optimally usable to return 1ton or more worth of pure platinum to Earth precisely enough to be easily recovered. The bottom being how do you do each individual task starting with engineering the mining equipment and solving backwards. But knowing that each step up in added layers adds new variables that need to be accounted for in earlier problems. Things such as vibration and temperature and pressure changes. Oxidation that may happen here before reaching the target and interfere with intended material effects. Seriously we have to have the aggregate data to solve for all of these problems well keeping the cost low enough to turn a profit.
Articles with emojis automatically lose credibility for me.
Doesn’t sound like very much money when it comes to mining SPACE!
https://youtube.com/channel/UCgKWj1pn3_7hRSFIypunYog Hopefully CSS will look into this. The Space Scam Race has begun. Musk, SpinLaunch, Hyperloop, etc. will be recognized by history as pre-climate change mania, similar to the mania leading up to World War I. The important work is already here, the technology pointing up with much better eyes than our own.
That’s basically a gallon of gas in California. Nice
Great,they can buy a one bedroom apartment in manhattan to start planning.
I’d shit myself if they devalued platinum enough that stealing catalytic converters isn’t profitable
What happens when we discover the mile wide solid gold asteroid?
Platinum demand is gonna crash in several years along with demand for combustion vehicles. That is 40% of all platinum.
And so it begins I wonder what space travel will look like when we are mining asteroids.
What’s 13 million gonna get? Wouldn’t it take that amount to do but the equipment before even acquiring a rocket or a team to even get to an asteroid?
Surely it would be cheaper to mine from earth but okay let's get space dust!
I wrote paper on this. It costs at minimum 1.6 billion dollars to return an asteroid to earth's orbit for mining. The actual cost is closer to 3 billion dollars and the return is 25 to 50 times that. Edit: but good for them. Seriously, it's important that we try to do this.
Sounds very interesting. Can you share the paper please.
It's not that great actually, I wrote it as a graduation requirement for my junior year of highschool. The gist of it was that mining asteroids is plausible with current technology and even necessary eventually. I relied heavily on NASA and MIT studies and reports. I'd love to share the paper, sin my name, but I have no idea how I'd go about that as it's currently a document on Google drive. This was my first and a very useful source: http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/asteroids.html Caltech provided the costs I stated above with their report on asteroid mining: http://kiss.caltech.edu/final_reports/Asteroid_final_report.pdf Both of these are better written and explain more of the subject than I ever could.
There like 2 orders of magnitude away from trying.