The ACR mission would go after a water-rich C-type, or carbon-rich, asteroid. These bodies contain up to 20 percent water and up to 6 percent organic material that's similar to black, asphalt-like tar sands. The water and light elements in these bodies would be valuable as propellants, drinking water, breathing oxygen, and industrial chemicals for an off-planet economy. Plus, the residue left behind from further extraction of nickel and iron would be rich in prized cobalt and platinum-group elements. Altogether, a 7-meter C-type asteroid with a mass of 500 tons could produce up to 200 tons of water, 90 tons of metal (83 tons of iron, 6 tons of nickel, and 1 ton of cobalt), plus 200 tons of silicate rock valuable for their semiconductor elements and radiation shielding. Brophy says that an existing Atlas V booster is powerful enough to place the 18-ton robot craft into low Earth orbit to start its solar-powered journey. If it snared and returned 500 tons of asteroid material, the mass multiplication factor (or payback ratio) would be at least 28:1.
Comment:
The launch cost of getting the spacecraft to do this mission multiplied by the payback ratio could lead to the mass value in dollars alone to be $4,200,000,000. That's assuming a hundred and 50 million dollar launch cost- comparable to a Falcon 9 heavy launch. Mind you, this isn't the real value of what is being captured, but its value returned in terms of its mass. It could be much more valuable than that. And that would be just the beginning, as the article points out.
So, why hasn't this been done already? Probably because it makes too much sense.
Seriously. Why is it that the most expensive things get done, but those that are economical and could provide an actual return are not done?
No comments:
Post a Comment