News Is James Cameron launching an asteroid mining company? (Planetary Resources thread)

But also on the consumer behavior ;)
 
RGClark said:
...
And of course also if such scarcity estimates are valid, then this clearly would have a major impact on the question of the profitability of the space mining ventures. ;)

Bob Clark
Click to expand...

Planetary Resources co-founder Eric Anderson talks to Science Friday here:

APR. 27, 2012
Mining Quarries Millions of Miles from Earth.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/04/27/2012/mining-quarries-millions-of-miles-from-earth.html

Interestingly he says at present world usage growth rates, several of the important metals for high technology such as platinum will run out within decades.

This article also says the platinum group metals will run out on short time scales:

Go Beyond Gold and Look at Silver and Platinum.
by ARI CHARNEY on MARCH 12, 2012
http://www.investingdaily.com/14823/go-beyond-gold-and-look-at-silver-and-platinum


Bob Clark
 
Last edited:
I might sound petty of me to note this, but after going through the (sparse) info Planetary Resources provides, it would appear that James Cameron is but a high profile mouthpiece for the group, not the guy "launching" the business. He's not even listed as an investor, but as an "adviser."

I wonder if they are paying him, or if he's just in it for the publicity?
 
Universe Today: The Most Profitable Asteroid Is…:
With the recent announcement of the asteroid mining company, Planetary Resources, some of the most-asked questions about this enticing but complex endeavor include, what asteroids do we mine? Which are the easiest asteroids to get to? Could it really be profitable?

While Planetary Resources officials said they hope to identify a few promising targets within a decade, the initial answers to those questions are available now on a new website that estimates the costs and rewards of mining rocks in space. Called Asterank, the website uses available data from multiple scientific sources on asteroid mass and composition to try and compute which asteroids would be the best targets for mining operations.

So, which asteroids are most profitable, valuable, easily accessible and cost effective?

The winners are, according to Asterank:
  • Most Profitable: 253 Mathilde, a 52.8 km-diameter nickel-iron asteroid.
  • Most Cost Effective: 2000 BM19, a very small O-type asteroid (less than 1 km wide) that makes several close approaches to Earth.
  • Most Valuable: 253 Mathilde
  • Most Accessible: 2009 WY7, another small asteroid with regular close approaches of less than 1 AU. This is an S-type asteroid, a silicaceous or “stony” object.

{...}
Click to expand...
 
I think Mars One stands a better chance than this. Also I love how they are somehow needing a Kickstarter effort for their own PR :rolleyes:

If it is one thing that can kill newspace. It is a constant barrage of powerpoint projects spending millions on parties and 3D animations and of course ending after later somehow determining that the the idea was "Not economically feasible"

I think space mining has it's place. However, Ocean mining has FAR more potential to have an impact on the economy far sooner. Refinement technologies that get more from worse ore can have an even greater impact.
 
Last edited:
I think Mars One stands a better chance than this.
Click to expand...

Mars One? I have a far harder time believing Mars One than I do believing this. The way they claim they are going to go about their plans is far less believable.

...but perhaps that's simply because they're more descriptive about their plans.

Planetary Resources seems to be going a very incremental route, starting out with space telescopes to study NEOs. Even if they never get anywhere close to mining an asteroid, what they might achieve with their Arkyd spacecraft could still end up bolstering knowledge of space.
 
I do not believe because I do not see the point. There is no way to make much money from space fuels because NASA and other space programs are hugely budget limited. And metals from space will not see them the profit they think they can expect. Especially as Earth mining technology advances.

They are already working on refinement methods to get more Rare Earths from US mines. I doubt we are truly at the limit of mining technology on Earth.
 
There is no way to make much money from space fuels because NASA and other space programs are hugely budget limited.
Click to expand...

If space-based propellants can be made profitable in the near term at all...

And metals from space will not see them the profit they think they can expect.
Click to expand...

That depends on how cheaply they can refine and return the metals they seek. Assuming the cost of the metals in question remains fairly constant, technology is the biggest problem.

They make claims of completely changing the market for metals like platinum though, and greatly reducing its cost to consumers- and that is arguably a proposition on the scale of absurdity of Mars One (and in terms of overall magnitude of the claim, far greater). But at least Planetary Resources has a more believable method of funding (a bunch of rich people, rather than "reality TV contracts"), and a more believable approach (incrementally building spacecraft to perform certain tasks, rather than "getting SpaceX etc to build all this hardware for us!!!1!1!111"). Even if Planetary Resources never achieves their stated goal, they may still produce or achieve things of value. Which is far more than can be said of Mars One.

It may end up that, even if it is someday possible to mine exo-platinum profitably, PR's mid-term goal of mining asteroids for their ice will fail due to an insufficient market, and debunk the oft-cited notion that extraterrestrial resources are ensured to bring about some form of revolution. PR's failure could serve as an ominous lesson as to overenthusiasm on the value of a particular area or environment.
 
Let me put it the same way I put it for Mars One.

The issue is these big lofty plans and their failures are used by Oldspace to attack Newspace where it counts. Congress and the Military. If it weren't for that I would say "Ok then have fun"

Now that they have said what they are going to do a Kickstarter space telescope is not going to cut it. If they don't return a reasonable amount of asteroid material back to Earth it will be touted as another reason NASA should go with oldspace.
 
I think Mars One stands a better chance than this. Also I love how they are somehow needing a Kickstarter effort for their own PR
Click to expand...

They don't need it. The kickstarter is part of the PR. The easiest way to get a long-term interest in your project is to give people the opportunity of investment (by work or by finances).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top