https://www.space.com/30213-asteroid-mining-planetary-resources-2025.html " Asteroid mining could shift from sci-fi dream to world-changing reality a lot faster than you think. Planetary Resources deployed its first spacecraft from the International Space Station last month, and the Washington-based asteroid-mining company aims to launch a series of increasingly ambitious and capable probes over the next few years. The goal is to begin transforming asteroid water into rocket fuel within a decade, and eventually to harvest valuable and useful platinum-group metals from space rocks. "
if there is much then would you not have the issue of debasing the value of the ore and the financial feasibility of bringing it back...what would happen to the price of diamonds or platinum if you literately found a mountain of the stuff?...scarcity and demand are what drive price and profits... this would be like oil prices...as long as the supply of oil is controlled by a cartel they can also control the price, but if a newer supplier comes along and undercuts the cartel flooding the market the price drops to the point where it's no longer economical to mine it...
Never mentioned platinum or diamond. It would have to be something in demand or related to national security.
private corporations are going after what brings them the most cash, that may not be what the government wants...
Earth is nifty. Plate tectonics and biological processes concentrate elements into ores. Space? Things haven't changed since those asteroids congealed out of dust. The platinum or gold is here, but it's spread incredibly thin, much thinner than ore veins on earth. There are no asteroids out there that have concentrated precious metals. Hence, it's really not profitable to mine in space for the purpose of returning precious metals to earth. The purpose of mining asteroids would be to get iron and nickel and cobalt, the plentiful elements, to use in space.
Mining gold would be more than to make rings and watches; they're great for electronics. That's not to say the other materials aren't necessary too. Moving tons of material around the Solar System is easier than lifting it off the Earth or any other planet. Ergo for a space or off-planet colony, mining the asteroid belt would be easier than launching it from Earth. https://sciencing.com/gold-platinum-recovery-methods-5370486.html Gold is used extensively in computer components. Circuit boards and computer chips both contain the precious metal. Though PCs and laptops certainly contain more gold, bits of cyber high technology are found in everything from coffeemakers to cars. According to recent estimates, more scrap gold was recovered in one year from electronics components than from actual ore and mining waste. Gold in old or obsolete devices is not only useless, but if found in landfills is also considered hazardous by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act....
Sure, it could be cheaper for a space colony to catch an asteroid instead of paying to launch something from earth. Of course, the asteroid will be raw material and if something gets launched from earth it's sure to be far more than raw material. Still, there might be an advantage to do the smelting and fabrication in space rather than launch the critical piece from earth. But, I'm still way back here in the cheap seats wondering why we would have a "space colony". I know Bigalow is trying to build space habitats and Branson is working on low earth orbit tourism, but fun and games aside, I'm not so sure we need a "space colony".
It would be cheaper. Although you make a good point about refined materials, a smelter in space is relatively easy. Unlimited solar energy and a square mile mylar parabolic mirror would smelt anything. EDIT: add to this, nothing would be wasted, even rock which can be used for a solar radiation and meteor shield. Our planet has had 5 mass extinction events. Do you really want to wait for the sixth? We're one impact event or supervolcano away from seeing mice as the dominant mammalian species on the planet.
A space colony would have to exist for a long time with no support from Earth in order to survive an extinction event. The Campanian Ignimbrite eruption was not a super volcano, but is thought to have caused damage that lasted for centuries. It's hard for me to believe that a space colony of modern design could outlast the devastation of an event that would kill all humans. We would be far better off if we focused on Earth.
Everybody has to start somewhere. Look at the colonization of the Americas. I suspect it could take over a century to build a self-sustaining colony. It's not just the structure, but the tech. The NG show "Mars" was interesting in that it tackled a lot of those issues. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/mars/
I strongly doubt those space suits would keep those people alive. The space suit in "The Martian" was well known to be totally inadequate. But, I'm not particularly worried about this. It's not as if our NASA budget is going to threaten to balloon our national debt!
Hint: it was a fictional tv show. "The Martian" was a movie. Unfortunately true. IIRC, it's half a cent for every Federal dollar spent. Best speech ever to raise NASA funding:
There is money to be made from space tourism and certain kinds of manufacturing can benefit from a near zero gravity environment. The Pharma and electronics industries, both very wealthy, are likely to be the initial exploiters.
I predict it'll start space tourism but mining Helium 3 for fusion purposes will be the thing that takes it mainstream. Musk will not go to Mars in 7 years lol.
You can determine content of asteroids by looking at wavelength etc. From Wikipedia: This left the crust depleted of such valuable elements until a rain of asteroid impacts re-infused the depleted crust with metals like gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium and tungsten (some flow from core to surface does occur, e.g. at the Bushveld ...
Agreed. Another reason to be interested in comets. Wrangling one of those and putting it into a stable orbit would provide decades worth of resources. Especially considering those materials could be recycled.
Most rocky (non-metallic) asteroids contain large amounts of H2O along with various mineral/Metal deposits and would provide abundant resources depending on size. The Largest such as Ceres likely have liquid subterranean oceans as well and could literally become colonies unto themselves. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/ceres/overview/
The problem is any technology to move a comet to a stable orbit can also weaponise it. During the heavy bombardment phase the earth was hit so hard by comets and asteroids that it blasted the atmosphere off the planet many times and turned the surface molten for millions of years at a time. It's very possible life started and was wiped out more than once. Without the comets though we wouldn't have the water. There is only one feasible way for man to wipe all life out on the earth with near technology and that's with comets/asteroids just need the right "Dr. Evil"
Actually it is likely the asteroids provided our oceans as the chemical composition of water in the comets we have tested does not match our oceans and the asteroids generally do. If fact the moon Enceladus is almost a perfect match orbiting Saturn.
Yes, it could. Shades of Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". The thing about mankind is that we can weaponise anything. One of our fun little quirks. Example: A person can carry a medium sized Bible then swing it laterally using the book corner to strike a person in the temple and kill them.