Share
Stuart Nathan
Features editor
Asteroid mining: disaster movie, or the shape of things to come?
The extraordinary announcement yesterday of the formation of Planetary Resources, the billionaire-backed venture which aims to mine valuable minerals from asteroids, triggered an attack of deja-vu. It reminded me of my reaction when I first heard about the plans for Virgin Galactic’s maiden flight.
In an early publicity coup for the space tourism venture, Virgin announced that the passengers for the first flight SpaceShipTwo would include Richard Branson and his parents, plus Victoria Principal and Stephen Hawking. Hang on, I thought. The maverick and possibly hubristic tycoon owner of the ship, so confident that he’s brought vulnerable members of his own family along? The glamorous (but slightly B-list) actress, her glory days in the past? The wheelchair-bound genius scientist? This isn’t a news story, I thought. It’s the plot of a 70s disaster movie.
Then I felt slightly guilty about that, and tried to stop thinking it.
But my efforts were unsuccessful, because Planetary Resources — whose backers include Google CEO Larry Page and executive chairman Eric Schmidt; Peter Diamandis, who created the X-Prize Foundation; real estate magnate Ross Perot Jr (the son of the former US presidential candidate) and, almost inevitably, film director and undersea adventurer James Cameron — sounds like it was ripped straight from a science fiction movie. They’re planning on going into space? And strip-mining asteroids of precious metals like gold and platinum? And bringing it back to Earth? What could possibly go wrong?
Twitter, always a good place to go for amusing sarcasm, didn’t disappoint. ‘Oh, great,’ one commenter said, ‘now rich people are going to own space as well.’ Others asked whether these celebrity moneybags might like to solve world hunger before they started in on the asteroid belt.
Several pointed out that they couldn’t have found a more sinister-sounding name if they’d tried. To paraphrase a line from one of Cameron’s own films, you could easily imagine a dubious company representative telling the hero of our putative movie that ‘I’m from Planetary Resources, but don’t let that fool you; I’m actually an OK guy,’ before some sudden yet inevitable betrayal.
And that’s before you start thinking about the business plan — gold and platinum cost currently cost just over £1000 per ounce, and an upcoming mission to return two ounces of material from an asteroid for scientific study is costed at about £600,000. How can costings like that possibly turn a profit?
But when you look at Planetary Resources’ plans, cracks start to appear in the cynicism. For a start, the people in charge know what they’re doing. The president and chief engineer of Planetary Resources is Chris Lewicki, who was flight director for NASA’s Mars Spirit and Opportunity rover missions and mission manager for the Phoenix lander’s surface activities.
Moreover, the strategy is broken down into logical stages. The first is to launch small telescopes into orbit to survey near-Earth asteroids for useful substances, with volatiles like water, oxygen and nitrogen top of the list. The first of these is already under construction, and they can be launched on current rockets, piggy-backing with satellite launches; moreover, they can be spun around and leased out for Earth observation.
The second stage is to send out probes to tap these resources and place them into in-space supply depots. The thinking is that these substances are vital for deep-space missions but difficult to launch into space, especially water, which is heavy and incompressible. Future missions would need them, as propellants and to sustain crews, so collecting them and storing them in space, perhaps sending them out to a point where the mission could collect them, is a logical idea.
The third stage is the one which actually involves mining an asteroid, and there are several long-term visions for how this might be accomplished. With the experience of the previous two stages, you can imagine how costs could be driven down; but whether the economics stack up still seems far-fetched.
Is this another example of rich men’s hobbies getting out of hand? We’ve already commented on the example of James Cameron’s trip down to the Mariana Trench, along with Richard Branson’s upcoming attempt at the same feat (what is it with these two?) — in an upcoming issue, you’ll be able to read an interview with the designer of Branson’s submarine. Should we have to rely on the super-rich to have the vision and develop the technology to achieve these feats?
Perhaps not, but history is littered with examples of how what could be described as rich men’s hobbies blossoming into real science and engineering that affects everyone’s lives. Two of the most obvious are astronomy — originally the preserve of nobles and time-rich clergymen — and flight, whose early days as ballooning and the swashbuckling beginnings of powered aviation were solely the preserve of what must have seemed like rich idiots.
Page, Schmidt, Perot, Diamandis, Cameron et al are swimming in cash and if this is how they want to spend it, that’s their business. Of course, you could argue that they ought to be spending it on something else. You can definitely argue that they should pick a better name for their venture. But there’s no way that a government agency could possibly commit to such an ambitious venture, especially in the middle of a seemingly endless recession. And, as we’ve said numerous times, projects such as this grab the attention, bring glamour to engineering, excite future engineers, and make people think about and debate humanity’s aspirations and capabilities — and all of those are good things.
At the very least, it might stop James Cameron making another film. He hasn’t made a decent one since Aliens.
Readers' comments (28)
Maurice Lee | 25 Apr 2012 1:00 pm
Might Planetary Resources just be a collection of PR stunts ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25 Apr 2012 1:02 pm
Cracking Idea, Gromit. Maybe they would like to invest in a proper Space Shuttle for deep space investigation (or even just lunar). It is a sure bet the US and UK won't be doing it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Carolyn Knight | 25 Apr 2012 1:12 pm
It's all rather gltizy, but there's nothing wrong with having long-term ambitions. Western governments are pretty much out of the manned space travel business, so it is time for the private sector (and, therefore, folk with very deep pockets) to give it a go.
Virgin Galactic has yet to come up with a workable flying rocket-motor after how many years?
They're all going to discover just how difficult and unpredictable these ventures are.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
alan howarth | 25 Apr 2012 1:26 pm
this will be progress, they should stop the high speed rail and invest the money on asteroid mining instead, it has a big future.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Jenvey | 25 Apr 2012 1:28 pm
Spend it elswhere - where? Poverty is not caused by a shortage of resources yet - more by a shortage of sense and compassion - but it will be. We need people like this to advance our technology, focus our attention, and obtain the materials that we will surely need in the future. It is win-win for the human race.
As for rich men owning space; no-one owns it, but if they can use it to the advantage of all, rich and poor will both benefit. And all at someone else's expense and effort. We owe them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25 Apr 2012 1:50 pm
Perhaps a new market will open up for extraterrestrial minerals with exceptional purity or other as yet undiscovered properties, which will give a good rate of return for the venture
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ed Turney | 25 Apr 2012 2:26 pm
Win-win for the human race my "expletive deleted"!
Huge waste of finite terrestrial resources to bring back some rather common elements. If they were going for rare earth minerals it might be different, but then that would be significantly political because it would threaten China's dominance.
And they wouldn't be "rare earth" as such.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments | 25 Apr 2012 2:26 pm
Rare-earth elements are among Planetary Resources' targets.
O Pearson | 25 Apr 2012 2:44 pm
Best news in years!
The probable technological advances from this enterprise will benefit engineering for many years and will provide gainful employment for hundreds of engineers.
Even if it fails!
And if it suceeds then the sky is no longer the limit.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
alan howarth | 25 Apr 2012 3:04 pm
It's not a huge waste of resources and the risk reward must be quite big, its only a matter of time before it gets done on an industrial scale the sooner we start the better.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25 Apr 2012 3:48 pm
Sooner or later this rock we all cling to WILL burn up, so for the human race to survive space has to be explored, and as world govenments have run out of cash why not let the uber-rich have a go, the technology they prove out will be of huge benefit globally in the long run.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25 Apr 2012 4:54 pm
A good Idea?? Has anyone considered the change in the asteroids weight caused by mining & the effect this will have on its trajectory potentially causing a collision with our planet or something larger resulting in a billiard ball effect?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mm | 25 Apr 2012 5:14 pm
Am I the only one concerned by long term stability of planetary orbits? What proportion of asteroids and near earth bodies contribute to planetary orbit stability? If mass is transferred within the solar system what is the effect? The company states 19,500 asteroids are potential targets, what mass do they have? Any ideas how many can be moved before an effect is observable?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave | 25 Apr 2012 9:09 pm
When this was first considered in 1969 by Gerard K. O'Neill there was a willingness to consider the benefits of an extended space infrastructure. The Reactionaries began to chip away at the dream citing cost versus first US Poverty and then Cost versus Global Poverty.
These same parties ignored the insights gained from Earth Observation satellites and Deep Space Probes. The former resulting in the Gaia Hypothesis and the latter revealing the stark warning of Nuclear Winter. Data on asteroid minimg programmes showed the programme originally designed to move power generationh of planet, would be in profit after 24 years.
Since then we have been thwarted in our efforts to manage planetary resources and truly make a sustainable difference to earths citizens.
Politics both nationally and Internationally has been hampered by resource based conflicts and an inability to think three dimensionally to generate efficient solutions.
We have unlimited Resources located in and on the solar system.
We have opportunity to generate varied solutions and to gain new percpectives on Earths problems and systems.
Yet we cannot or will not think of future generations preferring the comfort of solutions and politics of the past .
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Armin Faltl | 25 Apr 2012 11:01 pm
As someone who made a very good program for orbital motion prediction
pointed out to me, the total effect of asteroids on earth orbit is
negligible in the short term (less than a few million years).
And look at the situation now:
we have no control whatsoever on asteroid/NEO motions yet.
Near encounters with asteroids and comets send those rocks into
random directions but the earth is so much heavier, that it doesn't
matter. Actually this is the recent scientific criterion for
what constitutes a planet which cost Pluto it's status: that a planet
clears it's orbit from smaller bodies without getting affected.
If significant amounts of material are artificially moved that change
the path of a very light asteroid, the engineers have a lot of control when
and where to send it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26 Apr 2012 1:26 am
This is great news, vision and ambition like this will always bring rewards and who knows what we will learn, keep up the good work! Could do with a better name though, maybe Space Venture or something more catchy... answers on a postcard. The only thing I am saddened by is the negative responses to this story.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave reynolds | 26 Apr 2012 7:40 am
"At the very least, it might stop James Cameron making another film. He hasn’t made a decent one since Aliens."
Have you not seen Avatar? S'all about mining space as well!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments | 26 Apr 2012 7:40 am
I have seen Avatar. It's Ferngully: The Last Rainforest crossed with Smurfs in Space. — SN
Anonymous | 26 Apr 2012 10:38 am
Brilliant idea & all new ventures have to start somewhere so why not with the guys & girls who have lots of unused dosh! Maybe they could look to collecting & recycling all the man made junk currently left in orbit at the same time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
randydutton | 26 Apr 2012 5:34 pm
Watch this video to understand why it really is a valuable goal. http://www.planetaryresources.com/2012/04/planetary-resources-press-conference-webcast-archive/.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Emmett | 26 Apr 2012 7:01 pm
@Anonymous. The man-made junk would be higher quality 'ore'.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris Wood | 27 Apr 2012 9:41 am
I'm all for it, hopefully it will open up employment opportunities that are not nationality restricted...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andrew Mooney | 28 Apr 2012 10:37 pm
I am surprised to discover that the editor of this column thinks that Aliens is a good film but nothing James Cameron has done since is any good.
"Aliens" is actually just "Avatar" with creatures that don't look or behave nicely. Otherwise, the two films are virtually identical. There are Marines, a mining company, corporate interests....and the local wildlife.
His best film is actually "Terminator 2" because it is quite subversive. It illustrates how scruffy the morality of many engineers actually gets once they get working upon a project. They no longer care about whether what they are doing is morally correct or not.
Miles Dyson has a flash house, a well paid job and has clearly not thought through any of the consequences of rushing to sell the Skynet chip to the military and removing humans from nuclear defence. He's like a lot of engineers in that he is so engrossed in the details of an interesting problem that he does not realise what the consequences of solving it might be.
"Avatar" is actually quite subversive as well. It suggests that if you place a group of humans in a place where no-one else will see them, they will act like savages if the local wildlife has something that they want.
He is therefore quite an interesting choice to have on an asteroid mining project, as at least he knows about the consequences of acting in an immoral fashion. This is contrasted with Google's upper management, who have "Don't Be Evil" as their corporate motto, and yet want to spy upon everything that you do online....And don't see anything wrong with it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments | 28 Apr 2012 10:37 pm
Point of order: there's nothing local about the wildlife in Aliens. They are, as Ripley clearly states to the board of enquiry, not indigenous to planet LV-426.
Anonymous | 30 Apr 2012 2:12 pm
It makes a change for technology to be driven not by warefare and politics but through adventure. Like the good ole days of NASA (well sort of). I wish these gents well, we need these people with the vision and means to move us onwards.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
dave reynolds | 1 May 2012 2:32 pm
joking about films apart I think the idea is great as far as it will drum up new enthusiasm, potential employment and is a massive scope for finding out more about our less local surroundings. Thinking a bit more down to earth, (which the 'rich' probably arent) is it really a viable and worthwhile effort in this current stage of our technological evolution? How much does it cost to send a rocket into space? How much resource/ money/ manpower? And they want to send a whole mining community/communities? Heavy machinery etc etc etc. Space flight isnt cheap and the technology to make it so isnt here yet, so i suggest we should spend the money on trying to solve earth's energy worries so we have chance to evolve as an engineering community for long enough to make space dreams more plausible. But then its not our money.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Dickinson | 2 May 2012 12:56 pm
Avatar is a decent movie. Obvious plot, but well acted, lovely to look at and definitely worth watching.
Oddly enough it's all about an unscrupulous corporation strip mining another world. Reality emulating fiction?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ben Jensen | 2 May 2012 1:00 pm
A good place to start would be the orbiting scrap heap of space debris found above our planet. Plenty of very valuable pure metals and alloys up there, and a lot easier to 'mine' than asteroids.
Material mass is still difficult to cope with in space, so we need a step change in rocket motor efficiency for this to have a chance of working commercially. Also, figuring out how to slow down and de-orbit tonnage weights of ore in a controlled way is going to be real fun...
Great concept and good luck to the team at Planetary Resources (‘Dead Space’ never popped into my mind once ;>))!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Moran | 2 May 2012 8:50 pm
At last, someone is getting serious about exploring space instead of wasting the last 30 years since we left the moon.
OK, so it's a few rich kids doing it - so what? At least they are prepared to do it, unlike the mangy politicians who just want to feather their own beds and leave us all the crumbs from their tables.
I say good on them - just do it faster so I can see it happen in my lifetime or, better still, so out there with them - what an experience ...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3 May 2012 1:34 pm
Mr Mooney,
I do not think Mr Dyson was thinking of an AI controlled nuclear arsenal without human control when he designed the chip (neural net processor). As he said to his wife... "Imagine a jet airliner with a pilot that never gets tired, never makes mistakes ....does not turn up to work with a hangover;.....here is the pilot" -- pointing to the chip); his mission was to develop something that benefits mankind. Indeed, when he finally learns of the eventual fate of humanity he expresses shock and surprise (his project, like so many other big tech/engineering projects was later 'militarised' by the government). Much the same thing happened in the film 'Contact' ..a major scientific discovery is made ...then in wades the military .. who clearly have other plans from those who made the discovery, but alas Mr S.R. Haddon, an engineer (played by john hurt) actually sees more noble and just reasons to use the discovery and he helps the heroine (jodie foster).
Sorry for going off into 'cinema land' ... but sometimes films such as terminator and the like do show that sometimes, as well intentioned as our work may be; there are others who may seek to use it for more sinister ends or to gain power over others.
Please feel free to comment on my thoughts.
Regards,
An Engineer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John | 4 May 2012 3:18 pm
Ahh remember the days of the asteroid game on Atari and Pac Man, it all comes to pass!!
Really though great stuff, let's have something to aspire to, there isn't a lot of joy around at the moment is there? Who knows what may come of it after all!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment