AsterAnts

Undoubtedly, the startup cost to
* Engineer an AsterAnts retrieval probe, launch it, and monitor it while it does its job
* Send tools etc to HEO to prepare for the arrival of asteroidal materials
* Process the asteroidal materials, and ship the finished products to point of use in GEO, HEO, or LEO

would be quite large. This very large cost would undoubtedly swamp the benefit if we are only talking about the retrieval of one or a handful of 1-meter asteroids.

AsterAnts --- or for that matter, any other extraterrestrial resource utilization scheme, be it asteroidal or lunar --- will only begin to make economic sense if the mass of returned materials to HEO becomes high. Otherwise, the startup costs kill the economics. In order for the AsterAnts idea to be viable, hundreds or thousands of identical, mass-produced retrieval probes would have to be built, ensuring a steady stream of incoming mass to the processing facility. And AsterAnts would not be a viable if the retrieval probes lasted for one and only one retrieval mission --- each would have to be able to retrieve many meteroids during its expected lifetime.

Products that could be produced include:
* Propellants for LEO to HEO transport
* Bulk materials for solar power satellites, GEO antenna farms, space hotels, and other space structures
* Life support materials such as water, air, dirt.

There's a 20-to-1 or so advantage in terms of energy for using extraterrestrial materials in space versus using materials lifted from Earth. But whether or not the cost differential of these products on-orbit vis a vis lifting them from Earth can justify the startup costs of the processing operation is the great conundrum of the extraterrestrial resources community. You can't get the 20-to-1 energy advantage unless you build the infrastructure, but it costs a whole lot to build that infrastructure. If the infrastructure for doing so existed already, then there would already be dozens or hundreds of people visiting space hotels.

Ron Menich

"Huebner, Jay"
09/18/01 03:26 PM

Mike Combs is right for use of materials in space, in that any material from a low cost extraterrestrial source in space could save $ 10,000 per pound (or more) over the cost of lifting it from Earth's surface, providing it can be made into the desired products (form) in space. But the "machine tools" needed to put raw asteroidal material into usable forms will likely have significant mass. So using extraterrestrial materials could significantly lower the cost of construction and operations in space if the tools are there, which would suggest a large operation, not on a few tons. Lowering the cost of some operation does not make a profit. It can help if there are other "sales", but what are the quantities to be sold? Maybe this was not what Ron Menich (and the others) had in mind.
Sincerely, Jay Huebner