Mar 4, 17 / Ari 07, 01 06:50 UTC

Mining the universo (asteroid's)  

The idea is try to mining the asteroids, and this is a good source of Money for the nation. All nations have a good source of money, Asgardia need one important source to solve short and long terms, because what asgardians want in the future?, we know all projects are expensive, but in the space they'll be more expensive.

Mar 4, 17 / Ari 07, 01 11:11 UTC

Done right, this is something that should be able to be made to pay almost entirely - if not entirely - for itself.

IHMO it's something that would require to be done anyway as the sheer mass that would require to be lifted from Earth's gravity would be cost prohibitive, and take thousands of years of lifting from the surface to be able to account for the population, let alone safely.

I personally maintain that we should develop a network of ground-based "seed factories" - a collection of equipement that combined results in a reasonable array of productive capacity - enough to replicate itself, or at least expand/upgrade itself to the point of self-replication. Once it is capable of high enough quality output then it's productive capacity can be rented to the general public and private firms and in theory this can recover the initial devel costs and costs of operating the machinery. It could also theoretically pay for a production run wherin it clones all it's own parts and these then get shipped (with instructions) to "lesser fortunate" Asgardians for assembly - two machines becoming four machines, becomming eight machines, sixteen, thrity two, sixty four.... within 10 generations of cloning there should be quite a few dotted about and those that have upgraded themselves to the requisite capacities can then get fed plans - distribute the production run across the network and build what we put into orbit literally overnight - ship to launch site and assemble.

Once we can put this sort of equipement - plus some basic recycling facilities - into orbit, we just need to start feeding it LEO scrap in order that it can gain enough matter to mostly clone itself, but this time with ore processing facilities - and that then can get thrown out past Mars to the asteroid belt to begin mining and to start throwing raw product back. Operating costs of this phase may be possible to be met by the act of LEO cleanup - some companies/governments will pay to have their scrap removed, and once we have eqiupment in place and operational then costs can be rendered "competitive. If it throws back 70% of it's haul from the belt, and retains 30% for building new tooling and cloning itself it should require to be sent a lot less parts to keep operating and eventually there will be two operating. Then four, then eight, then sixteen... Eventually this will result in getting resources back to Earth orbit a lot faster than we can be realistically lifting it from the floor. In less than two decades this should of overtaken any floor-lift strategy (assuming no anti-gravity technology becomes viable) and result in ability to sensibly consider construction of residential facilites about three to five millenia shorter. Whilst awating this, the Earth-side facilities should continue cleanup operations of LEO and use that matter to begin construction of productive ability still absent and expand capacites.

As to the actual mining itself, I'm currently operating under the assumption that resonance can be used to break into smaller chunks with minimal thermal and kinetic excess(reducing heat required to dissipate and launching debris in the mining process) and smaller chunks can be mechanically ground into almost powder. Centrafugal force and vibration should be able to sort via mass - and if a uniform gain size is achieved this should result in material. This can be further centrafuged to sort by isotope.

In the interests of reducing debris fabricated in the process, ideally the entire asteroid would be contained - something giving me a headache for the larger examples. Initially smaller targets will make sense, then the not quite as small but made out of gravel... This should gain mass enough to fabricate some sort of container that can be pushed around the larger rocks, then moved in to close around it - then we can start scaling up the rocks we eat.

If of the mass that returns to Earth orbit, we was to sell 60% to Earth, then that should in theory pay for the operating costs of this phase - which should steadily drop as more machines spawn and return more resources. The 40% that remains should soon add up - to assume 10tonne cargo pods that'd mean every three pods we've 10 more tonnes up there. This can be then used to feed the orbital manufacturing and actually produce the components required to construct facilities, pretty much for free and without the hassle of fighting Earth's gravity or raping Earth dry of resources in the attempt and enable operations to be measured in decades, as opposed to millenia.

Mar 13, 17 / Ari 16, 01 09:59 UTC

I agree that your idea of these orbiting mafufactorums are one of the better ideas on how we as asgardia can achieve a viable independence and best chance of obtaining the goal of a space nation. However I have been thinking on the issue and I am having trouble working out how this can be achieved, I have some experience with CNC machines and the like. But the units you are describing afaik would have to be of considerable size and that is without the maintenance equipment the units would require to replace worn and broken tooling. I am certainly no expert on the subject although your concept interests me greatly. Do you have any info you can share?

Mar 13, 17 / Ari 16, 01 15:43 UTC

Yes, to be of use they will require to be of applicable sizes - but this can be built bigger by the machines themselves over time. By my guestimate we can launch something that unfolds to about the size of a garden shed which should be able to eventually use mostly LEO debris to pop off a copy of itself plus some extra mining capacity. Once this clone starts throwing resources back, the copy that remains in orbit can either use that to expand itself, or build a much bigger copy of itself that will allow for larger scale of operation with ease.

What I'm talking would have CNC capacity (I'm also toying with the idea of carving using laser, not just cutting, but original concept and initial incarnation is likely to be mechanical grinding) but it would be so much more than a CNC machine. A sensible design to the machine would allow it to replace it's own tooling - as these are going to feature obvious wear. They would also be designed to perform maintainence upon themselves - timed by production run/hrs of operation and by monitoring things like the time each component takes to complete the calibration cycle compared to the last time it completed it, and the time before - Or the time taken to provide a specific movement, temperatures achieved in performing said movement, fluxuations in RPM of motors, etc. As most things tend to exhibit "warning signs" (even if incredibly subtle) indiscrepancies can be noted before failure occurs and replacements scheduled.

One of the first things such a machine should rightly be building is it's own tooling. It's going to wear the tooling out doing this but if you can make five copies of the tooling in the process then you've just increased tooling supply by 4x. And obviously similar attention should be paid to equally "disposable" parts it can sort it self out with. I've been personally toying with the idea of diamond (synthetic) tooling grown from a single crystal for it's long service life. A little difficult to source this from LEO debris I think, with tungsten and titanium being pretty common, but once a greater mining initative rolls out there should be plenty available and possibly viable to convert carbon » diamond via high energy ultrasound or via CVD.

3D printing via metal isn't particularly difficult - the large metal panels that will make up most of the mass fed into LEO seed are not suitable for every purpose in that form and as such much would minimally require smelting and setting into a more suitable shape. Thermal dissipation is a concern, but looking at the open source 3D printer that uses a household microwave to be melting the aluminium pushed through the extruder it should be possible to melt the metal and set it in moulds or print with it directly. It might be possible to render it into powder and then use SLS though I suspect microgravity will be problematic, it's possible to centrafuge. Another option, although I suspect it to be unsuitable for the inital stages as I am unsure of the re-usability, but disolving the metals into a hyperconcentrate should allow for them to be placed into a 3D printed mould along with a seed crystal, slowly cooled past the point of being a solid and then being lent the kinetic energy required to recombine the crystaline lattice into a solid the shape of the mould.

I might have lots of information to share - specific information is easier to provide for.

  Updated  on Mar 13, 17 / Ari 16, 01 15:46 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: typo

Mar 13, 17 / Ari 16, 01 16:49 UTC

I assume you mean to use 3d printed pieces as replacements for cast parts and then further machine these with CNC equipment like grinders or lasers? while this sounds feasible to me, I am struggling to picture a system like this fitting in a garden shed or more specifically these kind of system and all of it support and maintenance systems. I admit this may be due to my lack of experience with anything other than industrial machines. A unit of this size and complexity may require constant attention and maintenance carried out, making these system part of the unit means that if the unit did sustain damage then I doubt it would be able to repair itself. Tools shattering under load is not uncommon and the damage it would do may be greater than it is capable of repairing for example. Not to be a nay sayer like I said I personally see potential and would like to assist with the concept

Mar 13, 17 / Ari 16, 01 20:57 UTC

Yeah, it's unlikley any single method will end»end result in product with multiple techniques employed to result in completion. For most examples. I'm using current industrial hardware as a "guide" but initially intended on a smaller scale. Size IMHO is not as much as a problem as complexity. There's a lot of room in space, and it can get bigger once it's up there, the word "unfold" was chosen carefully.

The mention of laser was as a "carving method" for forming 3D shapes entirely within itself tho lacking experience I'm unaware of how practical this may be. It's likely mechanical grinding will generate much less thermal residue and thusly be able to be dissipated easier. I consider it more of a "stretch goal" than a "feature".

Constant attention should be supplied by itself. As this system is made of lots of other systems, first each individual system must be made aware of itself. A common problem with repetative action within the industrial sector is "unexpected" input - Something is in the way, or has become misaligned. Or has failed to operate as intended. As I'm sure you're aware things like infrared beams, hall sensors, ultrasonic devices to measure volume/distance are currently and commonly used to detect such, and we can do similar. Less common is visual processing - this is another field in rapid development(with a lot of good work being open sourced) and should certainly be employed by us to detect "anomalies" - most of which it should be able to handle autonomously, and anything it's not absolutly positive about it can ask for help. There then should exist "above" this a "control layer" that understands how each piece works and can provide sensible vague instructions, which the layers below operate on(ie: unit 001, print /blueprints/vessel/tug/main_chassis and then the applicable device looks at the file and figures out what it needs to pull it off - puts in a request to the controller, which then submits a request to "stores", delivers required or returns err. Materials get fed in, in sequence) alongside it another layer that watches all the telemetrics and metadata from subcomponents. I specifically mentioned things like calibration cycle to collect metadata because this is something that for a given design should be reasonably consistent. All models should exhibit behaviours within a window, and each individual model should exhibit behavours like itself. For example, the first 2D CNC I'm planning on building a little later this year is little more than an etch-a-sketch mechanism(but larger scale) but with stepper motors instead of knobs. Nothing fancy or complex, but excellent PoC and lets me play with things like jitter and vibrational compensation(as well as giving me some more tooling to build better things). The bars I've for runners at the moment are 600mm. I've not got as far as actually constructing a design but at a loose guess shave 5cm each side for mounting(way over-estimate) and lose 10cm for the slide brushings, should have about 580mm². Whilst not massive, this isn't entirely useless, either. 10cm around the edges for table/case and 610mm³ isn't overly encumbersome. However this is not going to be it's final form. Rather than doing math and re-writing firmware for each generational improvement(like increasing runner length, or putting more teeth on the cog driving the belt) I'd considered instead each mechanical operation can be measured to completion in a "calibration cycle". Ie: the X-axis runner moves 'till it hits the near limit sensor, then counts steps on the stepper motor, RPM, and time until it hits the far limit sensor. Armed with such a baseline it can "measure itself" as it changes, and if this data is regularly observed it can also generate pre-failure reports as an action that used to take 1.354 seconds now fluxuates between 1.354 and 1.367. Something that used to heat up to 35.1°C±0.1°C now heats up to 36.5°C. Something that consumed 48W over a cycle now eats 51W etc...

The likes of tools shattering I'd not expect to be common. There's a reason things like this happen, manufacturing defects are one and inappropriate environmental stresses another. I'd like to think much can be avoided, approached "correctly". However when it does inevitably occur I'd expect the damages caused by this to be quite minimal, cosmetic at best. Quite simply because this should be expected to occur and provisions made. Shielding springs to mind - there should be little requirement to expose anything particularly damageable. A bit braking up @ high RPM can end up a projectile, but there's only so much kinetic energy it's possible to transfer. Even if we need to coat the inside of the cutting area in a MgAl3 foam with a non-newtonian fluid as insulational barrier between the two - if a .45 will turn to powder on impact I'm sure a titanium / tungsten carbide machining bit will just bounce off.

Nay saying is good - as long as it's not just saying nay and instead providing for problems that it's possible to sink teeth into and tear to shreads. The more specific the problem, the more precise the resolution. You might of thought of something someone else hasn't and not saying it isn't going to do anyone any good. The more problems that are able to be identified, earlier, the earlier solutions can be entertained, rationlised, selected/rejected. Which should, in theory, stop a lot of mistakes happening. Thus is the power of "collaboration" - the sum of the whole is greater than all the parts.

Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 11:56 UTC

Ok, I was researching for my article on how to build the space station we'd be living in and I have hit the wall that represents this conundrum. I will repost part of it here and maybe someone will have a better ideas.


Current hopes and dreams about how to feed the thirst of our great Asgardian nation deal with collecting ice from asteroids. While good in theory, there are problems with this in practice.

Finding the ice.

Asteroids thick with ice aren't really in the nearby planetary neighborhood. There are some nearby asteroids, and a whole lot of other man-made stuff up there, but for the most part we'd have to go out and find that ice ourselves. I have Google-fu'd the heck out of the Internet for the past few hours and these links are the best I can come up with about tracking objects near Earth that might have water. So, as of right now, there are no known nearby sources of water outside of the Earth. BUT, being optimistic, let's say we find a handy ice asteroid that happens to be orbiting the Earth at a distance of about 5AU.

Getting to the ice and returning with said ice.

Getting to the ice means needing a vessel and fuel. Right now, our only known fuel for rockets is, well, water. This means we need water to go get water, so we'd have to have a stockpile of water in order to get more of it. Now, I am not an astro-anything, so I can't do the math on how much water would be necessary to collect from a theoretical asteroid that we have found at 5AU from us, but suffice it to say it will take quite a long time to go there and collect the water. In fact, it would be best if we could send this out BEFORE any people get to the station so that the asteroid would be there when the rest of us arrive. This means the ice-collecting drone (for lack of a better term) would have to be lacking a crew and mostly self-contained. Thankfully, it can just go collect an asteroid and return it, but that'd be only useful if the asteroid it returns was mostly water.

Collecting the ice and filtering it.

Now, if we design our space mining drone (SPAMD for short) to go out, identify water on a remote asteroid, collect the water using some sort of drill/collection mechanism, then return with the ice then we don't have to worry as much about collection because the SPAMD will have done it for us. If, however, the SPAMD goes and collects a whole asteroid made mostly of water, then we might have our first space industry: space mining. Either people, or drones, would have to go out to the asteroid and mine out ice and also ferry it back to Asgardia proper. It should be pointed out that none of this has ever been done before, so there are no numbers to estimate how long this might take, or how difficult, or how many lives might be lost. But, if it works, this will solve the water problem as the volume of water returned from even one asteroid should be enough to run Asgardia for a long time. Most asteroids weigh in the neighborhood of metric tons, not kilograms. We might even get some rare metals we could sell back on Earth, or use for our own fabrication processes.

So, in order to be self-sufficient, we need to hammer out the details of space mining, which no one on Earth knows how to actually perform. Getting water from Earth isn't feasible and the improving of water reclamation facilities will only postpone the inevitable. So, big problem, not any real hard and concrete solutions.

Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 14:30 UTC

No to ignore you Phicksur, and I agree with what you say EyeR and the way you described the self checking system gave me an idea for a modular unit that may be feasible, ill upload a concept sketch once I have time but I suspect it may be along the lines of your thinking anyway. And your method of fault identification is what I would have suggested however planning and installing equipment for every eventuality isn't possible and while they may work on the initial unit I suspect that after a few generations then the units sensors and "awareness" may be stretched. And while I have a good idea of the initial concept I am having trouble still on the support system such as the tool store, maintenance equipment/droids, etc. what are your thoughts on this? and how do you plan to replicate the smaller more complicated items like sensors and computer components as manufacture of these is out of my field.

Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 14:34 UTC

@Phicksur, yes I agree with what you are saying, if we are ever to achieve the final goal of a space nation then ideally we must be able to achieve something not possible by other nations on earth. Mining being perhaps one of the most economically viable other than zero G production perhaps

Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 15:20 UTC

I was at no point counting on finding ice - although I had entertained the notion of "capturing" a mostly ice body in order to harvest for fuel - then I got hold of a leak from Eagleworks that suggested the EM-Drive could be feasible.

Continual propellant supply if required is an issue, but not an insurmountable one. Water is certainly not the only source. If forced to employ something like VASMIR or a some generalised ion propulsion then it should be possible to operate a "refuling station" to keep "tugs" topped up. Centrafugal launchers at "key points" can reduce propellant consumption for a given operation. I'd also intend on this being fully automated, so lacking a crew is not within itself a disablement.

For manufacture of water for the long term habitaiton prospect, the deep space mining initative is likely to find much, however you can seperate oxygen from things like sillica dioxide and then recombine that in the correct ratios with hydrogen which I'm to understand is reasonably common.

For getting this back from the belt again centrafugal launchers reduce Delta-V and what it comes back with 60% can be sold to get things like various consumables required in the operation leaving 40% of each haul to build up.

As for more detail into the actual mining, I'm of the opinion smaller matter should be hit first as it's easier to encapsulate this and prevent further debris generation. This should allow to build for larger capture devices out of the 30% retained from each haul on the belt side. Larger lumps can be rendered smaller with resonance to reduce excess thermal and kinetic energies that will later require to be dealt with, and mechanical grinding can render into a finer dust. Vibtation and centrafuge can sort matter.

Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 17:15 UTC

According to my math, a space-based population of 1000 people would use over 2.5 million kg of water per year for drinking, washing, and other water uses, but the vast majority of that would be recycled. This population would require approximately 200,000kg of replacement water per year, due to losses from inefficiencies in recycling. Also, we'd use about 50,000kg of water per year for plants, but that water can be expected to be used purely from recycled water.

So, please consider how to get water to these nice imaginary people. This isn't fuel use, these people are just thirsty.

Also, do bear in mind that Asgardia as a nation is supposed to have over 170,000 people, so multiply all those numbers by 170 and you can see why water is the major catch in this particular plan. So far, I can quantify and account for every other resource we would require in such a habitat, and can scale with population growth, but I cannot figure out how to eliminate all water recycling inefficiencies to make the water cycle completely self-sustaining.

Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 20:31 UTC

Initially, as previously mentioned, unmanned facilities will reduce this requirement. By the time mass habitation is a viable prospect, the deep space mining will of unfolded and spread out significantly. large volumes of water, or things able to be turned into water, are not entirely unfeasible. Especially once this has enabled our Anti-PHA initative to actually go "hunting", and we can capture the likes of comets. Some of which come predictably close with some regularity.

I'm not sure the "loss" from "inefficient recycling" is going to be as high as 200 cubic meters/yr per 1000 - or about 34,200,000 cubic meters/yr over total population - it's a sealed system I'm not entirely certain where this is supposed to "go", and I'm not confident it'd be thrown out in such quantities. I've also been counting "farming" as a seperate initative stabilised before mass habitation in order to provide for mass habitation. By the time our population has expanded to make the supplied insufficient we should of reached the Oort with our mining initatives long ago and the solution inbound.

Ps.

The volume of water likely required is nothing on the volume of coolant likely required. Probably NH3. The thermal dissipation of 172k of organics would possibly require a radiator array you can measure in square miles. More than two hundred. Plus the hundreds of miles of internal hosing - it all needs filling with fluid, and the pumps. There's a lot of cubic meters of NH3 just in the internal loop, let alone the external loop. I would of thought this to represent a larger headache than water. Myself. And the resources available will likely account for this, too.

  Updated  on Mar 14, 17 / Ari 17, 01 20:52 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Additional data