Asteroid Mining

ThatDrGuy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17827347

How can guys so smart be so daft?

stoneill

I don't see it as daft - I see it as a very challenging, difficult and expensive enterprise, not daft though.

deandean

'cos anyone brilliant enough to design that stuff invariably has no business sense whatsoever?

Chemistry Ftw

They seem pretty confident that they'll make money from it Even if they don't, it's still a really cool idea

Rhys Essien

Would it make more sense if they put their money towards a Mars mission or trip to one of Jupiters moons.

All this is boiling down to is GREED.

Clamball

I think it is a wonderful idea. Just wondering how someone would claim ownership of an asteroid. There have been many examples in SiFi of asteroid mining and many concepts written about first in SiFi have come into fruition.

ThatDrGuy

Science fiction is all it is. Trying to get to an asteroid, extract ore, refine ore and transport it back to earth is unbelievably uneconomical. Maybe a million times more expensive than current earth prices. It would be cheaper to extract these elements via seawater filtering or neutron bombardment ( and those methods are insanely uneconomical to start with ) On another site they mention their plan is to put an asteroid into lunar orbit to mine it. The asteroid has to be very small to get anyone to agree to it , less than 10m in diameter - so it would burn up if misdirected. This gives very little scope for profit.
Assuming these guys with no launch experience, no mission experience and no launch mechanism of their own can actually get the asteroid into lunar orbit, how to you get the metals to the ground safely ? Add another layer of complexity and expense. The whole thing sounds like a bond villain plot.

Actually reminds me of Twain's famous definition of a gold mine : A hole in the ground with a liar on top

Rubecula

If they can get the technology to mine in space they can get the technology to smelt the ore in space too I would think. Then perhaps a manufacturing plant in space. You never know, it may work. From small acorns mighty oaks grow as the saying goes.

shizz

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Would it make more sense if they put their money towards a Mars mission or trip to one of Jupiters moons.

All this is boiling down to is GREED.

I wouldn't call it greed to be honest. They want to do something that hasn't been done before and it is going to cost an awful lot of money if it's even feasible. Going to Mars as a private company doesn't make much sense if it's a "woop we did it" mission. Not to mention that Space X has that in the pipeline regarding a colonisation plan.

Something like this needs to be done or at least attempted if we are to see any leaps in the space industry. Routine missions to ISS just wont cut it any more for major advancements and the only way a government is going to put a lot of money into something like this is if there's a threat ( ie. the Apollo missions).

If these guys do pull it off and show it's economically possible, you can bet that only good things could follow.

Myrddin

shizz wrote: »

Something like this needs to be done or at least attempted if we are to see any leaps in the space industry

I agree, but these guys are dreaming. Spotting asteroids with valuable minerals, changing their orbital trajectory for lunar orbit, mining ore, & safe return to Earth? This is a long, long, long way off.

All endeavors begin with a dream for sure, but this is generations away

Yakuza

It'll happen when Unobtainium rises to $20million a kilo.

shizz

EnterNow wrote: »

I agree, but these guys are dreaming. Spotting asteroids with valuable minerals, changing their orbital trajectory for lunar orbit, mining ore, & safe return to Earth? This is a long, long, long way off.

All endeavors begin with a dream for sure, but this is generations away

I for one would be much more up for a push on a lunar base. This sort of endeavour would do so much better if there was a base on the moon:

• During the process of setting up the lunar base we will develop the techniques involved in asteroid mining
• It would be a safe haven in case anything goes wrong
• If they want to mine it in lunar orbit it seems obvious for this to be set up first
• It would be super coolz

Myrddin

shizz wrote: »

I for one would be much more up for a push on a lunar base. This sort of endeavour would do so much better if there was a base on the moon:

• During the process of setting up the lunar base we will develop the techniques involved in asteroid mining
• It would be a safe haven in case anything goes wrong
• If they want to mine it in lunar orbit it seems obvious for this to be set up first
• It would be super coolz

Agreed, it'd certainly be a logical first step.

AugustusMinimus

I think the main point here is that a number of wealthy individuals are spending cash on space technology development.

It's beyond me why anyone with an interest in space could be against this.

If they make this work (and I'd be very doubtful they will) then it's a will be a massive leap forward. Once there is money in going into space, it will open up space infinitely compared to our current situation.

ThatDrGuy

EnterNow wrote: »

All endeavors begin with a dream for sure, but this is generations away

Id say this type of thing was for generations passed. Only back in the day did rich nations have enough control of the earths (abundant then) resources relative to their populations to throw the vast amounts needed into grandiose space missions. A lunar base is pure fantasy and politically impossible when 1 in 4 of your working ( yes working! ) population is on food stamps for survival. I doubt we will ever again have the vast amounts of surplus needed to indulge the dreams of the 60's - lunar colonies, mars missions , 2001 space odyssey type stuff :mad:

k.p.h

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

Id say this type of thing was for generations passed. Only back in the day did rich nations have enough control of the earths (abundant then) resources relative to their populations to throw the vast amounts needed into grandiose space missions. A lunar base is pure fantasy and politically impossible when 1 in 4 of your working ( yes working! ) population is on food stamps for survival. I doubt we will ever again have the vast amounts of surplus needed to indulge the dreams of the 60's - lunar colonies, mars missions , 2001 space odyssey type stuff :mad:

The resources are in Space, if you go get them then you have the resources to go get them again. All it takes is the first step..

Disappointed with some of the responses here TBH.

It is almost inevitable that the human race will have to venture from our own planet for survival.It will happen at some stage, it's a certainty. Anyone citing cost as reason it won't happen is completely ignoring the fact that cost is a human creation. We either have the materials or we don't, we either have the technology or we don't we don't and we either have the man power or we don't.

All associated costs would be irrelevant if we needed to go, and we will need to go ...!

A huge amount of our technology relating to sustainable energy generation relies and rare earths, the possibility of every computer in the future rare earths is likely. Rare Earths are as there name states rare, and we need them. As it stands it looks like the technological future of the human race depends on them.

The population of the planet is growing by about 80m people a year, if growth rates continue as expected in 30 years we are going to have a population increase of about 3 billion people. That's the more than the population of China and India combined..!

These guys are not silly or dreaming, hardly even innovating to be fair. They just see a gap in the market, a big gap. If there is demand there will need to be a supply.

Calling it greed is not fair either. Ventures like this will eventually benefit everyone on the planet in some way or another.Someone has to get the ball rolling..

ThatDrGuy

k.p.h wrote: »

The resources are in Space, if you go get them then you have the resources to go get them again. All it takes is the first step..

Disappointed with some of the responses here TBH.

It is almost inevitable that the human race will have to venture from our own planet for survival.It will happen at some stage, it's a certainty. Anyone citing cost as reason it won't happen is completely ignoring the fact that cost is a human creation. We either have the materials or we don't, we either have the technology or we don't we don't and we either have the man power or we don't.

All associated costs would be irrelevant if we needed to go, and we will need to go ...!

A huge amount of our technology relating to sustainable energy generation relies and rare earths, the possibility of every computer in the future rare earths is likely. Rare Earths are as there name states rare, and we need them. As it stands it looks like the technological future of the human race depends on them.

The population of the planet is growing by about 80m people a year, if growth rates continue as expected in 30 years we are going to have a population increase of about 3 billion people. That's the more than the population of China and India combined..!

These guys are not silly or dreaming, hardly even innovating to be fair. They just see a gap in the market, a big gap. If there is demand there will need to be a supply...

The resources we are running out of the fastest and will desperately need for a growing population
are fresh water, fossil fuels and food - none of which exist in space( no pedantry please). In 1960
America was providing a first world lifestyle to 180 million people. Oil "Texas tea" was as cheap as water. The cost of living
was cheap and employment was near universal. The marginal tax rate was near 90%. This left a massive surplus
of resources which enabled the space race. Today the USA is trying to provide a first world lifestyle to 310+ million people,
its oil and natural resource reserves are largely depleted, employment has taken major hits and billionaires pay less tax than their
secretaries. There is little to no surplus to invest in space. Other countries have similar problems. Exponential
growth will direct more and more of our non depleted resources just to trying to maintain the status quo - running to stay still.

Historically exponential growth has only ever had one outcome and its one of the reasons 99.998% of every species
that have ever existed is extinct.

Cost is simply a reflection of scarcity and need. A better statistic is EROI - energy return on energy invested.
Its the reason we dont use gerbil wheels in our generating plants.

Its bad because its misguided. It reinforces cornucopian thinking - if we just harvest more and more we will be fine.
Their energies would be much better directed down here on earth.

slade_x

k.p.h wrote: »

The resources are in Space, if you go get them then you have the resources to go get them again. All it takes is the first step..

No argument there, Although i envision using resources not sourced from earth in space to advance that frontier, eventually we will transition to non earth based manufacturing. In much the same way we have exploited earths resources on earth we will hopefully one day be capable of exploiting the resources of other planets, moons, asteroids etc to explore them and progress

k.p.h wrote: »

It is almost inevitable that the human race will have to venture from our own planet for survival.It will happen at some stage, it's a certainty.

The requirement to venture away from earth for survival is inevitable someday but whether the vast majority of us truly realise it is another thing

k.p.h wrote: »

Rare Earths are as there name states rare, and we need them.

Rare earths are in fact not rare but abundant on earth, they are just not found in high concentrations in small deposits

Nova have an interesting and worthwhile documentary that feature rare earth minerals, what they are, how they are found, how they are mined etc. called Hunting the Elements
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/hunting-elements.html

youtube preview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bENV1arP0g

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

The resources we are running out of the fastest and will desperately need for a growing population
are fresh water, fossil fuels and food - none of which exist in space( no pedantry please).

The resources we are running out of and what will be needed for a growing population are not these select billionaires problem to solve. Water can be sourced in space. Continued reliance on fossil fuels do not make for a better tomorrow and solutions for eventual food shortages for a growing population are already being researched and taken seriously. These are a select few of billionaires, not all of them.

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

Its bad because its misguided.

After reading the entire article i wouldnt say their actions are misguided, no one has any idea of the true fruits of this in the long term. Their long term plan as stated in the article is to push that frontier by using resources of space in space.

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

if we just harvest more and more we will be fine.

Eventually wont it be like as the saying goes flogging a dead horse, further investing in unrenewable resources that may already be spreading thin or are very difficult to procure. Take petroleum oil for example, Im sure BP could use a lot more R&D to prevent disasters or fix them rapidly before they become disasters under conditions that they are not used to for its extraction. Easily accessible sites to exploit for such extraction are becoming rarer. And disasters like the deepwater horizon oil spill come with a very steep learning curve with an extraordinary cost. We will have to venture deeper and deeper and costs will get higher and higher and all for an unrenewable fuel source that we can no longer be so dependent on

Progress in viable Fusion power generation has been slow. Much slower than if it had been generously funded. The understanding and concept has been there since the 60's or even a little further back. The funding to innovate in this sector was not.

Funneling ever increasing amounts of time, resources and money to procure dwindling resources (not just petroleum oil) will get very uneconomical in time.

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

Their energies would be much better directed down here on earth.

The same have been said for NASA.

Their energies would be much better directed wherever they feel there interests lie. It is not for anyone else to say what a select few individuals should be doing. This is not government funded its a private venture. And they have a right to pursue it if they see fit. They are under no illusion of instant returns or solutions. Nor was bill gates when he funded his charity with many billions to fight suffering in developing countries. There are plenty of billionaire philantropists in the world. It would be unrealistic to assume they all should be.

deandean

They are talking about mining the wrong things! What's their email address so I can put them right.

- Put a value on water in the middle of the desert to a man dying of thirst?

- Put a value on a bottle of oxygen to someone at the summit of Everest?

Is space, you want to be mining for water 'cos that gives you rocket fuel and keeps you alive (oxygen, hydrogen). Gold, silver etc - essentially valueless up there.

Out of interest, if an ounce of gold costs $1600, what price would you get for an ounce of asteroid rock? Not gold; just certified asteroid rock mined from an asteroid and returned to planet Earth

Zubeneschamali

deandean wrote: »

Is space, you want to be mining for water 'cos that gives you rocket fuel and keeps you alive (oxygen, hydrogen). Gold, silver etc - essentially valueless up there.

Read the story again, they are talking about mining for water, making air and fuel up there etc.

They also mention gold and platinum, but this is start-up hype, not their business plan. Note that they say they plan to make money from the start: this suggests that they'll be doing anything but digging for gold in practice.

Myrddin

k.p.h wrote: »

Someone has to get the ball rolling..

I don't think anyone here is realistically against such a proposal. But that ball is gonna have to roll for a loooong time before we see this as any form of reality.

You'd also have to worry about the dangers of bringing asteroids into lunar orbit, a degree or two off could seriously threaten a lot of lives on Earth. Then there's also the risk of polluting space with millions of tiny rocks that pose a huge threat to satellites/manned missions in space/orbit.

It'll happen eventually, but I think its fair at this particular stage, to call it fantasy for now.

k.p.h

slade_x wrote: »

Rare earths are in fact not rare but abundant on earth, they are just not found in high concentrations in small deposits

I actually knew that, but again my understanding is relatively limited. I was really using them as an example of something we could find use of off planet.

A lot of elements suffer from oxidation though, so dose that mean in space that oxidation dose not have an impact and therefore larger more stable deposits can be found.?

Also when working with heavy elements, especially synthetic heavy elements would working with them in space have any impact on there stability.?

My chemistry/physics understanding is gained from not much more than some documentary's and a few books, so I am really unsure of the implications of chemistry is space. But my thoughts would be that if working with and procuring them in space changed reactions/conditions/availability then moving off planet could be the next big step in materials technology.

Again this is relatively hypothetical, but if anyone had any information I'd love to hear it. My thoughts would be, if I was in anyway right the best way to get this going would be for private industry to get involved.

Just in regard to, the cost and resource problem. Both these problems are inherently man made. Poor economic policy's combined with well .... Just the fact that we are humans... Society in general IMO is an absolute mess, conflict, greed , religion, overpopulation and just general squandering and destruction of resources and our planet are all huge problems.

The thing is even if we concentrated our efforts on solving all these problems we could never do so. 85% of the world claim to be religious or at least believe in God, a huge part of the population is illiterate or uneducated. And worst of all greed seems to be somewhat part of human nature. Even if all the best minds in the world put all there energy in to solving our problems, how far would they get. On what basis do the masses make there decisions..? And that's before all the social science problems are unveiled. The potential for large amounts of people to make the wrong decision is far greater than the potential of an individual to do so.

My point, science in general has raced ahead of society and human kind. What can be done about it, the scientific community and private industry could stop and concentrate efforts to solving these social problems but at what cost.? It would cause scientific discovery to stagnate. If science and discovery stopped to wait for society, we could be left waiting what could be* a very long time..! The only option is to pave ahead, even at the (what seem like) extortionate costs. With each discovery and invention pushing humanity forward, in a better more sustainable and fulfilling manner.

* Despite what seems like the terrible state of the world these days, we are on the verge of a huge social revolution. Computing and Networking (my thing) is changing the state of knowledge and decision making. With the advent of smart phones which are essentially hand held computers, huge country wide wireless networks with relatively little infrastructure. The majority world will have access in the not so distant future.

The shape of knowledge is changing, it used to be top down where someone said: a book, an opinion but now it's starting to become ground up; hypothesis thrown into the pot that is the network and then the best conclusions and decisions made. Within 50 years decisions will be made almost solely by science, because humans will have collective access and input.

In 50 years time, as our understanding gets better I believe science will not just look towards space but rather almost exclusively look to space and beyond. We don't just live on a planet, in a galaxy. We live in a universe ..!

These guys are just getting in first, It's a great move to be the first. That's where the money is at ..

ThatDrGuy

I don't think I'm really making myself understood. Space endeavours are generated by massive surpluses of things people need to survive , not by things that make the display on your iphone a bit sharper. My point is not that it was a bad idea to expand beyond earth, to invest what we have in the virtuous circle of interstellar growth. My point is that it is way way too late. Fossil fuels and natural aquifiers are like winning a lottery jackpot. Now you can take your jackpot and invest it wisely so it will provide for you and your children in perpetuity. Or you can piss it all away on a few years of parties and the high life. We overwhelming chose the latter. We chose to squander the once-off greatest accumulation of energy/synthetic material that has ever existed on endlessly replicating ourselves. Now we like bacteria on an agar dish - with one more doubling our doom approaches.

Investing in fossil fuels is like flogging a dead horse. Absolutely, unfortunately we have no choice. Nothing exists to replace them.Or a better way of putting it - nothing exists that will replace them that is cheaper than them. Remember cost is not a price tag, it is information about resources (scarcity and need). Everything we do is oil and water related. Our entire modern civilisation andeconomic system is built around fossil fuels.You might say - well lets just replace them. Fine but each time you do the alternative is more resource intensive, more labour intensive, not as good. Fossil fuels are not just energy - they are near magic. You can turn them into fertiliser to feed billions, into tooth paste, into medicines, into jet travel, into coke bottles. These are the things of the modern economy. They are what generate the surplus that allowed us to go into space.

Imagine you want a lego brick 30 years from now for example. You go to the lego company . Ok we cant source oil to make the lego brick. But ! we can make a brick from palm oil derived hydrocarbon chains. Great you think. But they tell you, well we have to cut down rain forest to grow the palms. Ohh. And since we are growing palms on arable land that could feed people, well ,there is agitation with the locals, since they are starving(overpopulation and climate change). Ohh. So we need lots of people around to shoot them if needed. Ohh. Since we have no diesel to transport our cargo, we need to use huge nuclear powered vessels to do so. Thats good. Well enjoy it while it lasts, we are rapidly burning through our uranium. Ohh. And the run off pollution has made vast stretches of the sea radioactive, so the fish aren't edible. Which doesnt go down to well with those people who depended on them for their only source of protein. Ohh. Because of all this you understand that it will be around a hundred times the price they once were . Ohh. Still want your lego bricks ? Err no you can keep them. Lego company folds. Unemployment. Happening in a 100 businesses a day everywhere. More and more of peoples incomes going to pay for heat, light, shelter and food - constant economic contraction. Look at the effects of 4 years of austerity in Europe. Imagine what things will be like in another 40. Since our entire economyand by extension political structure is dependent on exponential growth, economic collapse leads to social and political collapse. For the first time in generations the young will have a lower standard of living than those that came before them. The myth of constant progress unwinds.

Back to my point ( little detour ). The problem is not lack of Yttrium, Gold, Palladium etc, it is the system. The same system that produced billionaires in the first place has ensured that our species will never leave this planet (thats another rant ). In short, our days of plenty areover. There are resources in space, they could potentially be harnessed. They are the wrong resources. They are the things a species needs early in the day as it makes the calculated jump to a post fossil fuel economy. Our time to jump has passed. Even if we started today(and had a system that allowed it) there isnt enough time before disaster. More and more and more people, running faster and faster and faster just to stand still. If lego is hard to come by in the near future, you can be damn sure the million components from around the world that go into space craft will be a lot harder. These fairlytale ideas only distract from the problem.

k.p.h

Jaysus Doom and Gloom or what..!! Might as well all roll up in a ball and die ...

Actually the solutions to all the problems you mentioned already exist, the only thing preventing it from happening are political and economic factors. Which are just about the change if you ask me.

Myrddin

k.p.h wrote: »

Jaysus Doom and Gloom or what..!! Might as well all roll up in a ball and die ...

Actually the solutions to all the problems you mentioned already exist, the only thing preventing it from happening are political and economic factors. Which are just about the change if you ask me.

It's not doom & gloom, it's realism. These guys may well get the ball rolling, but it'll be your kids great great grandchildren that might get to see it even take it's first real steps.

Also, not so sure about that imminent change you mention, half the planet has been actively trying to conquer the other half since the middle ages...that aint gonna end any time soon

shedweller

The first thing that came into my mind when i read this is how much money we are pouring down the Black Hole that is our banking system.

For nothing.

If we put a fraction of that money into space exploration (jobs, right?) we could achieve so much more. Until then we are going nowhere except maybe outside to cut sticks to heat the house. Caveman stuff.:mad:

k.p.h

EnterNow wrote: »

It's not doom & gloom, it's realism.

Realism..?? What ..? At no stage did I fail to acknowledge the problems we have.

If you think the statement below is realism then whats the point (of anything) .?

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

Our time to jump has passed. Even if we started today(and had a system that allowed it) there isnt enough time before disaster.

Rubecula

ThatDrGuy wrote: »

There are resources in space, they could potentially be harnessed. They are the wrong resources. They are the things a species needs early in the day as it makes the calculated jump to a post fossil fuel economy. Our time to jump has passed. Even if we started today(and had a system that allowed it) there isnt enough time before disaster. More and more and more people, running faster and faster and faster just to stand still. If lego is hard to come by in the near future, you can be damn sure the million components from around the world that go into space craft will be a lot harder. These fairlytale ideas only distract from the problem.

In what way are the resources wrong?

What disaster do you envisage?

ThatDrGuy

Rubecula wrote: »

In what way are the resources wrong?

What disaster do you envisage?

Ever heard the history of Easter island ? A concise summary: They were a Polynesians civilisation so remote they were completely cut off from the rest of the world. When they settled it (as part of the most phenomanal migration in human history ) it was the land of plenty, lush forests and teaming fishing grounds. They expanded rapidly, as humans do, developing a sophisticated civilisation with a maximum population of around 20,000. In this time they created the famous statues for which they are known. In order to feed and fuel more and more people they cut down the forests. They killed off the birds that pollonised the plants. With the loss of their trees they could no longer make the boats and ropes they needed to fish. Without the forests, precipitation declined and rivers dried up. As they lost their resource surpluses they could no longer support the priests,chieftians and specialised workers that enabled such a complex society. The warrior class took over from the hereditary chiefs. Massive and continuous conflict ensued . The great statues were torn down in the wars. By the time the island was discovered by the western world it was a barren wasteland with only around 10% of its population still surviving and the last statues lying in the mud.


Like the Easter islanders we too face an enormous challenge. The world population has exceeded 7 billion and is growing, growing. We have to make the transition to a much smaller , sustainable population with equality of resources and a vastly diminished standard of living. Whether we like it or not this will be forced upon us by nature. The challenge is to do so with our culture science and technology intact. Can we achieve what they couldnt?

We have already seen the beginning. Already in this century we have seen our first resource wars.We have seen the effects of economic contraction and stagnation on democracy and the social fabric. The disillusionment with mainsteam politics, the gradual and pernicious drift to the extreme left and right. Francis Fujiyama once famously predicted the end of history. That the liberal market and democracy was such an all consuming model that it would spread to all nations of the earth. What he did not understand was that democracy and the consumer economy is contingent on plentiful resources and endless growth.When these are undermined and the myth of boundless growth exposed, all bets are off.

Witness the emergence of radical leaders and parties - all of them promising that their ideology,their way will lead us back to the golden age of unlimited consumption. None of them are capable
of even articulating the problem, nevermind a solution - too many people not enough stuff.

As to why they are the wrong resources. It reminds me of a scene in south park when missionaries arrive in a village handing out bibles. The locals try to eat them and finding them inedible throw them away. Society used to be a pyramid. Many people on the bottom in primary industry supporting a few in tertiary industry (space engineering ) at the top. In 1900 about 50% of the population of the USA worked in primary industry - farming, mining etc. Now around 1% do - the pyramid has turned upside down. What has enabled this are fossil fuels. Fertiliser and pesticides. Diggers, pumps, tractors. One man can do the work of hundreds. This enabled the massive surpluses and extreme specialisation of modern civilisation and by extension the space age. It is tempting to think of such things simply as "Technology" forgetting the resources that enable it.

The resources found in space are what's needed at the top of the pyramid while the overwhelming threat lies at the bottom. Likewise we are guilty of thinking we are better than the Easter Islanders. Our technology is so much more advanced. We have computers, jets and antibiotics. We forget that like them we are an island paradise and no matter how many great statues we build, at the end of the day they wont fill an empty belly.

Rubecula

That is one point of view I suppose, but I do happen to disagree with it in a lot of ways.

If things are so bad on Earth, why not look elsewhere for resources? Or should we all just sit here and die? Personally, if I am faced by a choice between impending doom and a possible way out that may or may not succeed, I am opting to try the possible way out.

I applaud the guys who are putting their money and resources into this project. Yes it is done out of a lot of self interest, but the possible benefits to the rest of us could be immense....IF it succeeds. If it doesn't succeed what has it cost the rest of us? A few moments of poking fun at the "fools" who tried to explore space privately. That's about all.

I hope they go on to make billions out of it, because if they do they will have succeeded and it will help us all.

Resources such as water, iron and nickel are abundant in the asteroids and associated bodies. I am sure they can be of great use if we ever get at them. Probably a lot of other things up there we can find usage for too. But we won't know until we try.

charlemont

I somehow doubt the aliens will be too impressed to see mankind attempt this, Interestingly enough Phoebes seems like it is an asteroid, possibly taken from the asteroid belt and placed in its current position so I'm sure mining one is possible but really pointless though.

shedweller

Here's an interesting place where the possibility of this kind of thing can be discussed in great detail:http://www.bautforum.com/
Thinking caps......ON!!!:)

I think, given our current tech, that it would take way too long to either move an asteroid to a more local orbit to be mined, or just get there and back with the spoils from the dig. Time is money in this case.
So we need to come up with a faster, more powerful type of propulsion. And maybe work on long term shielding for the crew. Stepping stones on the journey to much longer trips through space.

But for now it will remain a dream. Grrr....

_Tombstone_

Luxembourg to support space mining