/sci/ - Science & Math

http://www.planetaryresources.com/

...And another space fanboy opens a thread and fantasizes about being a miner, when he can't even find the key to the basements exit

>>4617290
I never said anything about being a miner, I'm just saying that this is probably the "second giant leap for mankind"

>>4617296
and its like the 50th time we had this thread

>>4617290
No one is becoming a miner, I swear it's like you fags haven't even listened to the video that you are so hyped up with; they are focusing on automated robotic mining.

>>4617299
>>4617299
BECAUSE ITS SO COOL RIGHT

what are they going to harvest anyway ?

>>4617334
Water for use in space.

>>4617337
they make all of this just to harvest water ? how is that any fucking profitable ?

>>4617334
Platinum and related elements (palladium, iridium, etc.)
According to <website>, the medium-large-er asteroids can have up to 350 tons of platinum, which could bring in about $6 billion

>>4617351
Water can be separated into hydrogen and oxygen to provide fuel for spaceships, as well as keep them habitable

>>4617351
It's the only thing that is profitable. bringing water, air and propellent to orbit is very expensive. They aim to circumvent the massive cost of launch, lots of people have proposed doing this before.

>>4617352
If you check their website their short target is water not platinum. They mention the possibly of moving on to metals but that is a long way away.

is it possible to discover a new metal which isn't in our periodic chart on the asteroids ?

>>4617383
It'd be unstable. It is safe that we have all stable elements. There might be other forms of matter or configurations of it though.

>>4617383
we didn't find anything on the moon that was an addition to our periodic table. i hardly think its possible to discover something new on asteroids. we already know what are going to find on the asteroids pretty much

>>4617383
probably not. all the elements that could theoretically be found on an asteroid are found on earth (though sometimes in tiny proportions).

when is this going to start happening ? (like the first launch). It doesn't give a time table for anything yet

>>4617408
It will be years before they launch even the demonstration satellite / telescope. This is not something that is going to happen quickly.

>>4617408
The timetable is that for step 1, which is small probes meant only to observe and collect data on the asteroids from orbit, should be launched (or really, piggyback other launches) in 2013. Right now, they are designing and building these probes.

>>4617414
>2013
Noooooooooooo.
They have only just started. The first step is a telescope to prove their ability to make spacecraft, that alone will take years. The probes are even later.

>first great piece of news of the century

>>4617414

Oooooh, yeah, because that must be what's lacking here: More data. DERP HERP DERP.

What a crock of shit. Probes? CHOOSE A FUCKING ASTEROID AND GO FUCKING GET IT. How hard is that?

The sure sign that this is all a fucking SCAM is that they are doing all this robotic probe SHIT. We already know where the asteroids are. We also have a good fuckin' idea what they are made of. So what's the delay, chums? JUST SEND THE MINING CREW ALREADY.

God, you people are so easy to bamboozle. Cameron and crew saw you coming several AUs away. And 20 years from now, when all this crap is just a memory, having achieved nothing but investors cryin' in their beer, another sharpie rich boy from Hollywood will GATHER UP THE NEXT PACK OF FOOLS.

>>4617760
>JUST SEND THE MINING CREW ALREADY.
>crew

>He think humans will be involved

>>4617760
>CHOOSE A FUCKING ASTEROID AND GO FUCKING GET IT. How hard is that?

pretty fucking hard, how many asteroids do you have?

>>4617760
>It's unmanned because anything else is unprofitable.
>The systems required to do this unmanned are very complex.
>It's best to stage development in order to fly as much flight proven technology as possible.
>There have been two asteroid landings and nether are the right type of asteroid.

>>4617780
>>4617787
>>4617795

You can't conduct an industrial process remotely. Nothing like that happens on Earth, even in remote locations where you'd think it was cheaper just to send a robot.

That's because real people (not the people who commonly post and herp derp derp to /sci/) have to run the equipment on-site. Our industrial processes require Human involvement and intervention.

You guys are lost in your stupid fucking scifi books or something. That Hollywood sharpie Cameron saw you coming a long, LONG way away. ANY proposal to conduct space operations without Human involvement, is a SCAM.

>>4617760
>>CHOOSE A FUCKING ASTEROID AND GO FUCKING GET IT
and then you show up and there's no water there and then you're screwed.

>>We also have a good fuckin' idea what they are made of.
We don't. We currently only have 1 physical sample from 1 asteroid and it's not much. We have a handful of micrometer size grains from the asteroid Itokawa. And that didn't really tell us much.

And we know pretty much nothing about the icy asteroids they want to mine.

>>JUST SEND THE MINING CREW ALREADY.
It costs more than 1 million dollars a day to keep people alive on the international space station. People are expensive in space.

Not to mention, there aren't any manned private spacecraft as of yet, much less any that can operate beyond LEO or go on long deep space missions to asteroids.

And as far as mining water goes, it could be a pretty simple operation, not requiring much human intervention. You just put a bag around the asteroid, heat up the stuff inside the bag, and collect the water that evaporates.

>>4617812
>>You can't conduct an industrial process remotely.
air liquefaction plants are run remotely with no humans needed onsite

>>4617351
Because when water costs $50,000 a gallon to launch from Earth, alternatives start to look very appealing.

>>4617812
>ANY proposal to conduct space operations without Human involvement, is a SCAM.
So GEO communication satellites are a scam. Space telescopes a scam. All major ground based telescopes and communication centres have people so obviously we need people for these in space.

It's cheaper sending people to a mine is no more expensive than sending equipment sending people to space however is very fucking expensive.

Also the initial goal is not industrial mining it's water extraction for use in space. Guess what there are automated water extraction systems on earth.

>>4617352
Barking up the wrong tree. If you're gonna be a space-miningfag, you better get it straight what's actually worth mining from asteroids and what's not.
(Hint: If the only market/destination for it is on Earth, then it's going to be cheaper to just find and mine it on Earth than to go find it on a fucking asteroid and bring it back. Always always.)

So how do they plan to use this water? Are they going to swing by Earth again and aerobrake it down to the altitude of the ISS or something? Because even the market for essentials like WATER in space is small at best.

>>4617859
>You don't need aerobreaking the delta v required is small.
You can use it to make air and propellent.

>>4617859
The ISS will be long gone before they start bringing water back

>>4617867
>I wouldn't be so sure.
There are no plans to abandon it.

>>4617868
>The ISS is funded until 2020, and may operate until 2028
Don't expect water coming back before 2030

>>4617871
1 the original spcaestation greatly exceeded any plans for operation

2 what makes you think that by 2028 we wont put up another space station with double the world GDPm actually well probably have 2 one for china, also the militarization of space is going to mean a huge market for water propellant ect that doesn't have to be launched form earth

>>4617875
They'll be much more capable than the ISS, and probably at a high altitude. Or not in orbit at all

>>4617871
Like Mir it will most likely operate until it can't any longer , that could be a long time given it was a collision which caused the damage. 18 years is a long time and the basic principle of water extraction isn't too hard. I agree the ISS can't be relied upon but their major focus is propellent depots and there will probably be an ISS successor (perhaps not as large).

>>4617882
>Perhaps not as large
1 launch, 1400 cubic meters larger than the entire ISS. Although it would take the SLS to launch it

>>4617891
>Concept.
Size isn't everything.

>>4617897
It's not hard to scale something like an inflatable module up

>>4617273
>I don't know about you, but I think this asteroid mining mission is possibly the first great piece of news of the century.

:I

http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/Home.asp
http://www.neptuneminerals.com/
http://www.kona-blue.com/

>>4617900
The Ocean is boring

>>4617898
I didn't say it was impossible I just meant it isn't wanted. In terms of replacing the space station what's needed is labs not empty space.
Also genesis doesn't have lots of things you would need.

>>4617905
No but the BA330 does, you can fill the empty space with shit

>>4617907
But it launches compacted. all that space in the pic is not there in launch, you can't fill it with stuff at launch and getting those large set-up's up there is very hard.

They have obvious potential for crew space and for some lab space but they are not yet a replacement for rigid modules.

>>4617901
>The Ocean is boring

Space is boring.

>>4617917

>>4617917

Lost a bunch of respect I had for you right there.

>>4617917
Don't turn this into a pissing contest. You just did that mars society thing. Don't be so defensive and ignore the trolls.

>>4617919

Welp

>>4617925
>Mars is boring
space=/=mars

>>4617925
But in space you can find WHOLE NEW OCEANS TO EXPLORE.
Space is awesome because there oceans in it.

>>4617925

Come on man, please don't do this to me.

>>4617921
>Lost a bunch of respect I had for you right there.

Hey, I support it as a practical necessity for the continued survival of the human species. For me it's a sensible obvious conclusion as to what our species has to do in order to still be around a thousand years from now. I understand it's a romantic "wouldn't it be cool" thing for others but I don't think those reasons are as compelling.

Even in space, oceans are where the life is.

>Don't turn this into a pissing contest. You just did that mars society thing. Don't be so defensive and ignore the trolls.

Was't being defensive. I seriously see colonization of other planets as a practical necessity. It seems amazing now but when it's actually happened it will lose that quality and just sort of be a mundane reality that everyone, hindsight being 20/20, understands needed to be done.

I will fight alongside all of you till my dying breath to ensure that it happens but I personally wouldn't want to live there. I'd only go if the mission were contingent upon my participation. All other things being equal I'd have them send someone else. That is, if it was a one way trip.

>>4617931
wouldn't you rather see a whole new ocean being formed before your eyes while Mars terraforms?

>>4617928
>But in space you can find WHOLE NEW OCEANS TO EXPLORE.
>Space is awesome because there oceans in it.

Yeah, totes, I agree. Even in space, oceans are where the life is. I'm 100% aggressively pro space exploration, and specifically colonization. But if oceans are where we wind up going for resources on Earth it'll play out the same way on any other planet with an ocean. That's where all the good stuff is, space travel is just how you get to it.

>>4617933

Of course. There's been a misunderstanding. I am strongly strongly pro colonization of Mars. Just not because I think it's cool. It's incredibly challenging obviously and inspiring from that standpoint but I find the prospect of living there to be dull. It's just something we need to do in order to survive in the long run and it should be defended from that angle, not the "PEW PEW SPACESHIPS AND ALIUMS" angle.

If you want to sell people on terraforming talk about how we can't stop destroying natural capital on Earth, for instance cutting down forests faster than they can regrow and how in the long run if we can't win the fight to legislate against that kind of self destructive practice our only other alternative is to create more natural capital. The value of a habitable planet is almost impossible to calculate and represents the ultimate long term investment for anyone willing to support it.

>>4617931
Nobody said anything about colonisation, I know dozens of astronomers and I don't think one thinks colonisation is a good idea / will happen. That dosen't mean they think space is boring. You were being defensive. It's not a competition.

>>4617939
>You were being defensive. It's not a competition.

I apparently can't convince you otherwise. But I was entitled to answer his post with my own.

>>4617942
Yes you're "entitled" but he was just trying to provoke you. You could have responded with something about the wealth of medical stuff we get from the sea or something but you respond to tat with tit

>>4617917

mad scientist officially idiot

go play in the bath with your water toys

>>4617964

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope we can still both enjoy this board together.

To clarify I did not mean space itself is boring but rather that living there would be. Ad I am still in the dark as to why he could blast shit at me but I was expected not to blast shit in return. Is there now a moratorium on shitblasting?

To clarify I did not mean the contents of space are boring but rather that living there would be. And I am still in the dark as to why he could blast shit at me but I was expected not to blast shit in return. Is there now a moratorium on shitblasting?

>>4617985

what for you is boring can be fun for others

Think of all the jobs it will create. It will demand a lot of highly technically skilled people to do it successfully with an organisation similar to if not much larger than NASA itself.

If there are materials available in space to help ease the energy crisis we might finally get a chance to stabilise Earth a little better and everyone can calm the fuck down.

>>4618012
>what for you is boring can be fun for others

Tell that to this guy: >>4617901

I'm not the bad guy here. He took a shot so I shot back.

Where is the love?

>>4618016

I don't care who started it, get back to space mining or stfu.

Holy shit, stop the fucking space - ocean war before it gets ugly.

>>4617910

>and getting those large set-up's up there is very hard.

>They have obvious potential for crew space and for some lab space but they are not yet a replacement for rigid modules.

Why is that hard? The single greatest barrier to efficient spacelaunch is the empty space you carry in rigid modules.
Getting the shit up there would be easy, since you only carry compact deflated modules or supplies, not air or empty space.

Also, SpaceX rockets. Bigelow modules plus Falcon rockets would cut the costs of space habitats many times.

>>4618048
How many rigid modules are launched a year? None this year and that somehow affects the efficiently of space launch as a whole.

Nonsense, for labs you need bulky equipment and not much room, inflatable modules cannot be filled on the ground so you have to carry the stuff up some other way which adds complexity. And you still have to launch the bulky instruments.
I didn't claim they didn't have their place but for labs they aren't suitable.

>>4618065

You can of course send an inflatable module up with stuff in it. It only collapses to a cylindrical volume, the core is rigid, that's where the contents are stored. The internal structure and initial contents stay collapsed/folded away into the core until the hab is inflated.

And besides, any space station you build will frequently be visited by service modules, so it's not an additional complication in any sense.

>>4618075
Yes but for a lab you want lots of equipment not lots of empty space. The core cannot be packed completely with equipment as it has to have access to hatches.

>>4618082
>Yes but for a lab you want lots of equipment not lots of empty space. The core cannot be packed completely with equipment as it has to have access to hatches.

If that core is all removable items, and the core structure that held it all in place is possible to disassemble after the contents are removed, problem solved.

>>4618077
You have to built the equipment to be transferable and have to then integrate it into the spacecraft. That would add serious complexity. The equipment must be then launched in pressurised spacecraft which is quite expensive.

>>4618086

Then send it up in the first supply vessel. That's not added complexity, every space station receives supply vessels. It just seems like you're trying to create problems for inflatables because you have a gut feeling that rigid modules are somehow superior.

>>4618084
So, at best, because you end up with the same volume of equipment being launched. Also it you're going to deconstruct the core everything has to get power and necessary gases and computer hook-ups. And be mounted to a non rigid wall all of which adds complexity. And then it still has to be integrated in space.

>>4618092
No I'm just saying they aren't suitable for labs currently. And the point I was making is sending it up is expensive because you have to build yet another pressure vessel and you have to build your equipment to be able to be taken to pieces and attached to the station which is no small task.

>>4618098
>"So, at best, because you end up with the same volume of equipment being launched"

But more living/storage space. And the potential to add more stuff by supply module.

>"Also it you're going to deconstruct the core everything has to get power and necessary gases and computer hook-ups."

So the core doesn't completely deconstruct. It stays in place but doesn't cover the hatches (You know that little plastic table dealie they use in pizzas to keep the box lid from sagging and touching the pie? Like that) and the gaps where design permits can be used to store the initial supplies.

>>4618102

>No I'm just saying they aren't suitable for labs currently.

But they are, that's why we're adding one to the ISS.

>And the point I was making is sending it up is expensive because you have to build yet another pressure vessel

Why?

>and you have to build your equipment to be able to be taken to pieces and attached to the station which is no small task."

Spaceflight is no small task. This is just a different design. You're talking about it as if anything different from what we have now is impossible and shouldn't be attempted.

>>4618107
Yes they're bigger but they have lots of added complexity.

>So the core doesn't completely deconstruct. It stays in place but doesn't cover the hatches (You know that little plastic table dealie they use in pizzas to keep the box lid from sagging and touching the pie? Like that) and the gaps where design permits can be used to store the initial supplies.
Missed my point, i was saying that the equipment requires power, gases, thermal control computer hook-up and has to be bolted down somewhere, so where do you do this. Any system would be quite complex, you need rigidity in a non-rigid structure.

>But they are, that's why we're adding one to the ISS.
There are proposals to add one as crew space not as a lab.

>Why?
Because your equipment couldn't be flown in the module so it has to be sent up in supply space craft which is not easy for big pieces of equipment.

>Spaceflight is no small task. This is just a different design. You're talking about it as if anything different from what we have now is impossible and shouldn't be attempted.
Did I say it was impossible? No, I said countless times it adds needless complexity to lab spaces, they do not require vast amounts of space. Habitat spaces are different but that wasn't what I said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VLzKjxglNyE

Faggots.Look at this.

>>4617864
Are you stupid? There's some 3,200 m/s of delta-V. That's not small, not by a long shot.

Besides, why the hell would you WANT to waste propellant when there's a perfectly good atmosphere sitting right next to your destination?

God once I get my degree I definitely want to go to work in this industry.

I can see profits just waiting on the horizon.

All until there is some major space accident and it all goes to hell that is.

>>4618967
But for the next 50 years energy is what we need - oil is going to get expensive. Unless there's something out in space that's desperately needed for energy (like maybe helium-3), this isn't going to be a huge thing until after the energy crisis passes.

>>4618980
Haha damned ironic. That was the second field I wanted to go into, energy research.

Turning humanity into a Type 1 Civilization is my lifes sole purpose.

They were founded more than two years ago, have yet to release any kind of development timetable and the only thing we've heard from them as far as their plans go is the intention to launch a series of "prospectin' space telescopes" to identify metal-rich asteroids.

That last point is particularly odd given
a) NASA already has several very thorough and publicly available databases of asteroids, and metal rich asteroids could easily be identified from such databases
b) Unless James Cameron is going to suddenly pull the world's most advanced infrared space telescope out of his ass, nothing they produce will be able to compare to telescopes which are already available.

All of this reeks of a bunch of wealthy entrepreneurs sitting around one night smoking a bowl and one of them suddenly saying "Woah... dudes... you know what would be like, fuckin' awesome, is if we like, made a company that mined asteroids or whatever."

>>4619137

>Unless James Cameron is going to suddenly pull the world's most advanced infrared space telescope out of his ass, nothing they produce will be able to compare to telescopes which are already available.

James Cameron wasn't there. He didn't speak. I think they only mentioned his name once. Did you even watch the presentation? No. You just heard that wacky movie guy was wanting to mine asteroids and then decided to post a list of obvious duh problems that the group of engineers probably thought of day one.

My biggest problem with this is that the public thinks "but how will you get it back earth? how will you solve this problem or that one?" is smart criticism.

And their fucked on time anyways. If they sat down and came up with a deadline, and didn't meet it then everyone would bitch no matter how valid the reason was. And if they take the smart route, admit that it's not responsible to set a deadline for something they can't account for, then people bitch for not having a hard itinerary.

Mining asteroids seems so absurd. Why not mine the Moon like others have done before.

>>4618980

If they can import expensive metals that could be used to make better and efficient batteries it would drive the prices down making electric cars cheaper and more feasible. No it wouldn't really change mass power production but it would at least start to curb use of gasoline. Or maybe materials for solar panels would improve and become cheaper.

High-quality materials are expensive. Some of that expense comes from the materials being hard to work with. Some of it comes from scarcity.

These guys aren't trying to solve every problem the world has. It's unfair to call it a waste of time because they don't solve the energy crisis and world hunger. Neither do sex toys or video games but that doesn't stop the majority of 4chan from supporting those industries. They're trying to come up with a way to reduce scarcity while funding space exploration.

The ocean is not fun because you can't see anything and then things will try to eat you.
Space is cool because you can see everything and you get to pretend to be superman because of microgravity.

>Build orbital elevator
>500 times easier to traffic minerals, fuel, etc.

Why don't they do this as well?

>>4619304
Not feasible with current technology. I hear the Japanese are taking a look, though.

>>4619304
because labor costs will include benefits, danger pay, hazard pay, follow government safety regulations, etc, etc.

>>4619313
If we really wanted to do it, we could.

But, we've seemed to have subject ourselves to decay.

Here's hoping the Japanese can do it.

>>4619192
My less-than-subtle jab at Cameron's involvement aside, it's still a valid point. Why spend millions of dollars building, launching, and operating infrared telescopes intended to 'scope out' metal-rich asteroids when NASA, using the most advanced infrared telescopes available, has already done so?

There's no point.

If they were serious they'd look at launching compact probes loaded with instruments to asteroids already known to be rich in metals and map the surface composition in the same was as NASA's Dawn mission.

NASA's already shown us where to look, we should be focusing on where to dig, not reconfirming existing results.

>>4617273
evolutionarily it makes sense because it will allow our DNA to change to adapt to space breathing conditions.

you believe in evolution dont you?

>>4619369

Because only a small portion have been cataloged and asking that is like asking 'Why have your own car when the City already has a really efficient mode of transport?" They probably want to scan whatever asteroids they want and/or get more detailed results. They probably don't want to share a telescope with every other person on the list waiting to use Nasa's tech for research. You do know there's a waiting list on that stuff right? You have to submit and application to use it? A company can't just pop in and use when they want. Why restrict your ability to collect data when you want, where you want and how long you want?

>>4619398
NO telescope in existence, not even any of NASA's has enough resolution to map the surface composition in any detail from orbit.

The best you could possibly do WITHOUT sending a dedicated probe to a given asteroid would be to look at a broad spectrum of the asteroid and determine its spectral type and whether it was metal-rich or not.

WHICH NASA HAS ALREADY DONE.

So no, it's not like saying "Why own a car when the city already has a bus", it's like saying "Why spend millions of dollars building and launching telescopes that won't be able to acquire more accurate data than is already publicly available"

>>4619428

NASA has scanned EVERY Asterioid? and it's publicly available? Please give me a link to that database.

>No telescope is that great

[citation needed]

>>4619230

guys i think we should all start designing our spaceminer outfits so everyone knows we're super serious.

>>4619428
because previously the asteroids which were looked at were large ones, here the goal is to for small ones.

>The best you could possibly do WITHOUT sending a dedicated probe to a given asteroid would be to look at a broad spectrum of the asteroid and determine its spectral type and whether it was metal-rich or not.

You can determine it's surface chemistry with great precision with spectroscopy do try to make it out like it's bad.

>>4619912

I almost did a robotic arm to repair asteroid mining equipment for my college project but decided I couldn't be fucked with the effort and wouldn't be able to complete it well enough and did something easier.

I did gather a nice collection of reading material on the subject which I may dig out and share.

>>4619912
>It's unmanned.

>>4619931

I decided I couldn't do it well enough after I saw what the ESA were currently working on. Some day in the future I'd like to try again and see if I can do it then.

http://www.esa.int/TEC/Robotics/SEM1IRNSP3F_1.html#subhead5

>>4619954
>mfw that accuracy

>>4617387
>>4617394
>>4617390
While it's extremely(very much so) improbable, we might find something that exists in the hypothetical island of stability.

>>4619935
>everyone is going to work naked.

>>4619931

what type of grabber were you going to use?

>>4619980
No I'm saying there will be no space miners.
Or do you need a crash helmet to work at a company.

>>4620007

so your spaceminer outfit would include a crash helmet? see, we're finally getting somewhere!

>>4619986

I was focusing more on the motion and motors of the joints rather than the grabber itself and investigating how to make it reliable for long term space exposure and zero gravity mining environment.

I wanted to figure out what position each of the 4 motors needs to be in to have a tool-tip touching a point and along a specified axis on the xy plane.

I just couldn't quite get my head around it so I moved onto something else.

>>4620029

If anyone would like to have a go at my problem, be my guest. I'd love to see what someone could come up with.

>>4617273
Dude, Planetary Resources looks like its just five engineers in a room. I'll be impressed when I see large facility full of prototype machines.

>>4619438
The JPL small body database has detailed information on about 600,000+ asteroids in the solar system. That's about 70-80% of all asteroids in the main belt larger than a couple hundred meters across, and while new bodies are being discovered (and added to the database) this represent most of the bodies in our solar system that are large enough and bright/warm enough to find with existing instruments.

Let me put it this way - what PR is doing is like putting together one of those cheap children's telescopes you see in a pharmacy or a toy store, looking up at the sky, and expecting to discover a new star.


>>4619925
>You can determine its surface chemistry with great precision with spectroscopy do try to make it out like it's bad.

You can get VERY broad spectral data observing asteroids from this distance... enough to glean some basic physical properties about the asteroid and to determine, in a very general sense, if it's more carbonaceous, silicaceous, or metallic. What you can NOT do (which is what PR appears to be claiming) is make the asteroid-equivalent of a prospecting map using telescopes based on Earth or in Earth orbit.

NO telescope in the world has a high enough resolution to identify exactly what resources are where on the surface of an < 1 km rock several hundred million km away. If you want that level of detail, you need a dedicated probe. Something that can get close enough to observe the surface composition in detail.

>>4620095
But if he's looking for water, wouldn't the asteroid(or dead comet, or dirty snowball, or...) have a diffuse halo of volatiles that would be detectable, especially as close to sun as a NEO would be?

>>4620071
are you the faggot who keeps posting erbullshit

Explain technicalities of picture?

>>4617925
>One inch squared of ocean>one inch squared of space
>All of space>all of ocean

>>4620114
There primary goal isn't water... it's minerals. Metals that go for thousands of dollars an ounce.

No one cares about water when a metric ton of platinum sells for about $50 million

>>4620175

They said very clearly that their main objective is water

>>4620183
Than they're even dumber than I imagined.

Water is an invaluable resource if you've already got an established population in space... but it's worth fuck-all compared to an asteroid made of rare metals.

>>4620183
>>4620191
No, that's just an EARLY goal. First telescopes for surveying, then volatiles like water, then minerals.

>>4620175
Sorry, the last I heard (here, yesterday) was that they were going to look for water at first.

I'd thought that would be reasonable as it is easier to detect, (possibly) easier to mine and has lots of uses in space. My train of thought then went that this would be an exercise before expanding the capability and going for metals (and before building probes to look for said metals).

If they do intend to make probes to look for richer asteroids, maybe they'll look into the astrochicken concept again.

>>4620194
>First telescopes for surveying
see
>>4620095

>>4620212
not him, but see >>4620114

>>4620216
Unless there's a LOT of water vapour, the absorption lines in the spectrum aren't going to be resolvable.

It's the same problem you run into when trying to do spectroscopy on bodies with very very thin atmospheres - the chemical signatures are there but there's very little absorption actually happening.

>>4620095
All they need to know is the composition, for extracting water it will be a case of essentially placing material in a plastic bag and sublimating and collecting the volatiles.You don't need a map they're just loose piles of rubble.

They're building a space telescope because it gives them access to something which can be used to research asteroids but more importantly they need to first build a satellite before they can build a probe.
I haven't seen stuff saying implying they would resolve the asteroid, you don't need to. All the measurements take show asteroids are very homogeneous. The three landing missions to comets / asteroids didn't have a good map of the body before they got there, but they managed, you can do all the surveying when you get there. And they do say probes will be the next step.

>>4620229
That's not true, water is very detectable on asteroids:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103581900555

>>4620229
Okay, but asteroid types have distinctive spectra, so they could simply be looking for spectra hinting at a B-type asteroid, in which case the presence of water, while not certain, would be very probable.

>>4620250
In which case... again... there's no point in sending up new, less capable telescopes.

The JPL database alone has data on nearly 100 B-types

I find myself hard pressed to be optimistic about this initiative, but I'm glad someone is trying nonetheless.

>>4620317
The concept of 'experimental' TOTALLY eludes your grasp, doesn't it?