A $20 Trillion Rock That Could Turn a Startup Into Earth’s Richest Company

Does anyone know of any good hard science fiction that deals with such "first generation of space exploration" themes?<p>This might be way off base, but something like the future East India Company of space, where corporations end up colonizing planets and asteroids and get immensely wealthy and powerful in the process.

The price of the metals is based on Earth's supplies. If the expedition was successful, the supply would increase dramatically and the equilibrium would shift.

This strikes me more as billionaires wanting to play big adventure games with their cash then as a real business opportunity. But I can't blame them, if I had the cash I would want big toys too. Or maybe I'd go the Bill Gates route. On the other hand, it really feels like we are living in another guilded age with Robber Barons gracing us with the equivalent of Carnegie's libraries or Rockerfeller's universities.

Sooner or later, this sort of money is just going to become completely meaningless. There is no "$20tril check waiting to be cashed", there is an economic bomb in the form of a massive space rock. I'm still very excited and hope they get results but there going to be some pretty large, unforeseen consequences if they succeed.

Has everybody forgotten that it's REALLY expensive to get into space? Per the BBC,<p>They struggle to see how it could be cost-effective, even with platinum and gold worth nearly £35 per gram ($1,600 an ounce). An upcoming Nasa mission to return just 60g (two ounces) of material from an asteroid to Earth will cost about $1bn.<p>(<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17827347" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17827347</a>)<p>So a back of the envelope calculation: Assuming that it costs as much to haul gold from orbit to Earth, and the Space X Falcon can haul 6.4+ tons per flight, we could bring down $167,116,800 of gold per flight. Since each launch costs $80M+, we're down to $80M of profit. However, this assumes we're just plucking gold out of orbit, not hauling asteroids to orbit, harvesting and processing the gold, and dealing with all of the logistics of this operation - which are bound to be very expensive. It's ambitious to be sure, but we're very far away from platinum as the new aluminum.<p>Price of gold per ounce: <a href="http://goo.gl/htL7b" rel="nofollow">http://goo.gl/htL7b</a> Falcon launch costs: <a href="http://goo.gl/SWZlw" rel="nofollow">http://goo.gl/SWZlw</a>

I'm seeing lots of comments talking about how they will bring all this platinum down and it won't be worth anything but not very many people talking about using platinum as a raw material for something worth far more than just platinum.<p>What if Planetary Resources creates a lab to have the world's best researchers across a variety of fields be able to invent with a nearly unlimited source of free platinum?<p>Could they make a product that is worth more than the raw platinum (or whatever else they pull down)?

Firstly, this isn't the first time Amun 3554 mining has come up [1].<p>Look, I'm a sci-fi fan like so many other HNers but the economic reality just doesn't add up.<p>Amun 3554 has a highly eccentric orbit [2], even though it does cross Earth's orbit. JPL has data [3].<p>You need to consider that:<p>1. It's expensive to get into orbit. Even at SpaceX's prices, you're talking ~$1000/kg for LEO insertion;<p>2. You need to get equipment to the asteroid;<p>3. You need to get to the asteroid. Proximity to Earth isn't the problem here. The problem is the delta-V required to match velocities;<p>4. You either need to bring back the entire asteroid, which would require a massive amount of delta-V, or you need to mine the asteroid, which would take a massive amount of equipment;<p>5. If you get raw materials back to Earth orbit, depending on the application, you may then need to get them back to Earth, which granted is significantly easier than escaping Earth's gravity; and<p>6. If you get a massive quantity of some valuable material it'll change the economics. That $20 trillion won't be $20 trillion with the added supply.<p>I am assuming this would be an automated operation as the cost of manned spaceflight is significantly higher and automated systems should hopefully improve in the intervening years.<p>Now, compare this to some other materials we have on Earth. Iron is pretty abundant (both on Earth and in the universe, due to it's energy relationship with fusion). On Earth, we dig up iron for under $30/ton and can ship it anywhere on Earth for another $50-100/ton (IIRC).<p>For the cost of a single SpaceX launch you'd need to bring back about a million tons of iron to be on the same scale.<p>Obviously that's why they're targeting much more valuable materials like platinum but I hope that puts things in perspective.<p>Our society is built on cheap and plentiful resources (fossil fuels, metals and minerals). As abundant as they might be in space, increasing the cost of iron 1000 times is going to have profound implications for our entire species. At some point of course recycling makes more economic sense but that's just a temporary cushion (eg you lose materials through corrosion).<p>I believe we're coming to a resources-crunch within the next 100-200 years that will result--one way or another--in a massive drop in population and a fundamental change in our society. Let's just hope we survive it.<p>As much as I'd wish otherwise I have a hard time envisioning space mining or even prolonged living in space as being economically viable in any way, shape or form.<p>[1]: <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/27/technology/business2_guidetospaceintro/index.htm?cnn=yes" rel="nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/27/technology/business2_guideto...</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3554_Amun" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3554_Amun</a><p>[3]: <a href="http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=3554+Amun" rel="nofollow">http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=3554+Amun</a>

&#62; You couldn’t offload all those metals on the world market at once, for fear of crashing their prices<p>If you have a disruptive innovation (such as cheaply bringing tons of Platinum from space), prices will just settle at the new equilibrium. You wouldn't be able to sell a million tons of Platinum at US$ 1500 an ounce, but, as long as you make a profit, you're good.<p>But how about the Moon? It's nearby (making remote operation feasible) and bringing back stuff doesn't require more than a large railgun that can be built and powered locally. There is gravity and vacuum (a combination that's very good for working with metals - they fall towards the ground and they don't react with the atmosphere). And we already have soil samples. Plus, people can live there and repair equipment that breaks down.<p>And for the science types, the far side is an excellent place to put a radiotelescope.

"Of course, there’s a catch. You couldn’t offload all those metals on the world market at once, for fear of crashing their prices. But the company would still own that much in equity, which would allow them to borrow against it. They would be that wealthy, to all intents and purposes. That’s just how capitalism works."<p>You don't have equity to borrow against unless you can liquidate and transfer to the lender.<p>You can't liquidate and transfer to the lender unless you can bring it all down here (destroying the market and making the equity worth much less), or transfer any on-going and steady operation that is bringing it down little by little (show me the money), or by bring us up there in the form of widespread operations across multiple companies.<p>If we go up there in a big way, well, precious metals aren't so precious.

I think the comments here have a lot of logical, well thought out ideas. The thing is, who cares whether they will ever be able to do it or what the implications would be if they succeeded? The fact that someone is seriously thinking about this type of thing is just awesome. Regardless of whether they succeed or fail, the most valuable output of this won't be the precious metals. It will be the technical innovations that would be created in order to attempt to achieve the goal.<p>It's sort of like how the value of going to the moon was not just the PR and historical significance, but all of the technical innovations like satellites that ultimately came from that effort.

How do they know what's under the surface of these asteroids?

I'm skeptical about this. Lets see in 8 years[1] if i was right.<p>[1]<a href="http://predictionbook.com/predictions/6696" rel="nofollow">http://predictionbook.com/predictions/6696</a>

If a huge supply of platinum became available, its price would plummet. If one company figures out a way to mine asteroids, competition would soon follow. So they won't be able to control the supply and hence price of platinum. So even if they do succeed in mining and transporting the metal, they are not going to make anywhere near the money they're claiming.

&#62; You couldn’t offload all those metals on the world market at once, for fear of crashing their prices.<p>So instead of lowering the price of gold and palladium, metals that have innumerable uses in technology, revolutionizing the industry, you should create an artificial scarcity?

Could this work?<p>A large mirror planted on the astroid focuses sunlight onto a small point. The heat from the mirror blasts off (ionizes? vaporizes?) bits of rock. Over a long time period, the rock gradually sails into a more accessible orbit.

The $20 Trillion valuation is dubious.<p>Platinum has industrial uses, but it is also a Veblen good--the price decrease due to increased supply wouldn't be the only factor; the abundance of a Veblen good affects the <i>demand curve</i> itself.

I wonder how exploitation rights are handled. Can any company just send robots up there to mine it? Or will there be a remote war fought on the asteroid over the resources?

Crazy question for hobbyists probably not otherwise suitable for Hacker News:<p>Could a large body like an asteroid be used to clean up space junk? Or would that just be way too risky?

See, why is it that the mining companies are seemingly keeping quiet as some new innovative entrants are gonna wreck their market, and why is it that the music/film industry cry like babies when a "similarly" technologically inventive disruption happen to them? I'm not trying to twist this into an argument against the MPAA, just observing how differently capitalism can unfold itself.

Can you really just bring back the whole Asteroid? I mean without even knowing what exactly is inside and extraterrestrial hazard? But As somebody pointed out the operation cost does not yet make this feasible. The RAW materials inside are priced by supply and demand. While the cost of mining is pretty much fixed for a long period of time.

Sooner or later these gigantic resources will be the reason for armed spacecrafts and intergalactic conflicts :)

I've wondered if we could simply controlled crash asteroids into deserted parts of earth and then cheaply mine them?<p>I'm wondering if you could build some kind of shock absorbing device to "catch" the asteroid and prevent a crater, or other adverse effects?<p>I don't see why it wouldn't work in principle.

There isn't any real claim to ownership of that asteroid though, so it really sort of a land-grab? Couldn't China build a system to go retrieve the asteroid first?

Well, may be the USS Enterprise will become a reality.

The main problem with this 'rock' is that Planetary Resources' plan only allows for ~10m diameter asteroid. This one is over a mile large!

It's a cute concept, but apparently the visionaries have little sense of supply and demand. The high prices on rare earth metals are dependent on their extreme scarcity. If the supply is bolstered (in this case, to the tune of $20,000,000,000,000), the selling price will decrease. It's simple economics.<p>I'm not saying it's anything but amazing. However, if the founders think they're going to get today's prices for every last ounce, as the article seems to imply, they are in for a realization.

An interesting thought I just had: Suppose we did bring back voluminous quantities of raw material back to earth, what could the environment impact of this be over hundereds of years? Could we bring back so much that we change the weight of the world to shift to a different orbit? or to wobble more or less (the cause of seasons) What forms of energy do we loose by importing these new forms (assuming conservation of energy applies) Ie fuel for material.

This much extra metal will surely crash the markets. Remember the Ducktales episode of "soda caps in the valley".

EVE is coming to real life. Watch out for space pirates out there man.<p>"2mil ISK OR PODDED"

Do we trust some billionaires with a massive asteroid in earth orbit?

This is what is needed to finally get real private money into space exploration. With those kinds of resources waiting out there, private companies have significant incentive to pick up where NASA left off.