A private space company has a radical new plan to bag an asteroid

Company has previously tested its technology on the International Space Station.

See full article...

 

[NetMage]

Seems like a non-zero risk of the towing craft malfunctioning after nudging the object into a more Earth-unfriendly trajectory.

They are taking about L2, far from Earth where the JWST is located. No reason to ever tow in anyway dangerous to Earth.

 

[baxyp]

Factorio: Space Age comes to mind. From asteroids to solar panels.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

You could use two rocket engines, each pointed somewhat away from the asteroid in a way that their lateral thrusts cancel out.

Or it could push the bag of asteroids.

 

[Statistical]

How much of an asteroid is useful stuff? Why pay to move the not useful portion? Move the processing facility out to where the materials are and process the asteroids in situ. Then pay to move the refined stuff to where it is needed.

Arguably the processing facility would be larger and thus requiring staggering propellant masses to move. Also by bringing rocks to the facility you can avoid downtime once you have multiple tugs.

 

[jonbob_newcastle]

Something similar came up in Saturn’s Children. Take a smallish space rock, put a bag around it, fill it with water and hit it with ultrasound. A month or so later you have a ready supply of easily processed mineral slurry.

 

[dlr(2)]

I can't be the only one picturing a damaged space tractor and a house sized asteroid hurling towards Earth.

 

[danan]

How much of an asteroid is useful stuff? Why pay to move the not useful portion? Move the processing facility out to where the materials are and process the asteroids in situ. Then pay to move the refined stuff to where it is needed.

For at least the first several of these, we don’t know what will be needed to process them. Moving a small asteroid that can then have a bunch of different equipment visit over time may be more cost effective.

 

[wahoo_M1]

The real question here: is this the most cartoonish, least credible render Eric has ever used for an article header image?

 

[jonbob_newcastle]

The real question here: is this the most cartoonish, least credible render Eric has ever used for an article header image?

I just assumed it was what you get when you run Kerbal with DLSS5.

 

[NetMage]

Something similar came up in Saturn’s Children. Take a smallish space rock, put a bag around it, fill it with water and hit it with ultrasound. A month or so later you have a ready supply of easily processed mineral slurry.

I know space isn’t cold, but I’m pretty sure an asteroid probably is. Why wouldn’t the water freeze?

 

[RoyMallard]

Either this works, or it's a bag of hot air.

Okay, potentially the capture method has been solved. This now forces you to tow it. This then creates other problems - your tug's thrust vector can't impinge on the bag, so you either have to route it around or make the tow super long.
That creates other issues - let's assume we have a spacecraft that can appreciably alter trajectories of an asteroid.. How are you going to prevent the thing from playing tug of war with the spacecraft as soon as you need to do a course correction? Questions, questions..

It does seem like car and trailer physics on steroids. I think a rocket engine on a frame type structure, with the bag attached inside would be the best bet, particularly if they are aiming to bring smaller asteroids. I can't imagine any bag being strong enough to stop the mass of a 100ton asteroid.

 

[NetMage]

That creates other issues - let's assume we have a spacecraft that can appreciably alter trajectories of an asteroid..

That seems a pretty big assumption - how much delta-v will it take to adjust even a nearly perfect asteroid to an L2 orbit around the Sun?

 

[Derecho Imminent]

I know space isn’t cold, but I’m pretty sure an asteroid probably is. Why wouldn’t the water freeze?

Would also boil, unless the bag is pressurized.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

There are some awfully creative solutions proposed here to avoid just fixing the bag to the front of the rocket instead of trying to drag it

 

[rhgedaly]

Don't most small asteroids spin or tumble chaotically due to the YORP (sunlight) effect? Seems like bagging a rotating asteroid is going to be a problem.

 

[wagnerrp]

Did anyone else read this and envision the rounds in a clip fired from space, on command, to drop on a city of someone they don't like in a non-radioactive way of beating one's enemies to death? Or was that just me?

Because, despite the entire scope of the article, mining was NOT the first thing I thought of when they said they were parking an asteroid in orbit for later use to mine rocket fuel from.

No. They're talking about capturing a 100t rock. The Chelyabinsk meteor from a decade ago was a 10kt rock and broke some windows.

We just had a lengthy discussion a couple months back detailing why this whole concept was nonsense. Do we need to do it again?

 

[informationsuperhighway]

More like they want to unload bags via SPAC to retail at some point and cash in on the fools.

 

[Shubber Ali]

Did anyone else read this and envision the rounds in a clip fired from space, on command, to drop on a city of someone they don't like in a non-radioactive way of beating one's enemies to death? Or was that just me?

Because, despite the entire scope of the article, mining was NOT the first thing I thought of when they said they were parking an asteroid in orbit for later use to mine rocket fuel from.

“The moon is a harsh mistress” has entered the chat.

 

[Shubber Ali]

More like they want to unload bags via SPAC to retail at some point and cash in on the fools.

Ding ding ding!

 

[wagnerrp]

You almost have to do it that way, otherwise the mass you are throwing backwards is impacting the asteroid and negating a large proportion of your thrust. It may also cause you to "cook off" that part of the asteroid. Because you are thrusting at an angle, you lose efficiency AND you need 2 rocket motors or a motor with 2 nozzles (like the Soviet RD-180), which will cost you some extra dry mass. Your angle is less if your have a long tether, but then you are dealing with a really complex dynamic system that stretches, bounces, and swings around. In any case, any tethered system will almost require you to thrust continuously to maintain tension on the tether.

Electric thrusters do generally thrust continuously for weeks or months on end, so that's not a major concern. Unless you're planning on something exotic, they usually top out at ~10kW, and you're going to want more thrust than that. You're going to want multiple thrusters. Cosine losses are a thing, but you have to get pretty far off angle before they're meaningful. At 10°, you're only losing 1.5% of your thrust.

 

[wagnerrp]

It does seem like car and trailer physics on steroids. I think a rocket engine on a frame type structure, with the bag attached inside would be the best bet, particularly if they are aiming to bring smaller asteroids. I can't imagine any bag being strong enough to stop the mass of a 100ton asteroid.

Mass doesn't matter, only force, and your force can be quite low if you're willing to wait a long time.

 

[wagnerrp]

There are some awfully creative solutions proposed here to avoid just fixing the bag to the front of the rocket instead of trying to drag it

Imagine the asteroid as a bag full of dry sand. What's going to happen when you try to push that bag? You're just going to push chaotically into the middle of it, which is what we've experienced to date from existing asteroid intercepts. Pulling is the far more stable, far more controllable orientation.

 

[YetAnotherAnonymousAppellation]

I have no problem with this going ahead -- as long as they park it in orbit around the moon. Nobody should be allowed to mess around with moving such a potentially deadly object into a position where a f**kup could drop it onto Earth.

 

[Statistical]

I have no problem with this going ahead -- as long as they park it in orbit around the moon. Nobody should be allowed to mess around with moving such a potentially deadly object into a position where a f**kup could drop it onto Earth.

L2 is about 4x further away than the moon. Dropping into the Earth isn't really a concern. From heliocentric orbit you have to slow down to fall into the Earth. The amount of excess DeltaV needed to make that happen is massive. It would be like planning on driving from San Francisco to Los Angeles and accidentally not stopping until you get to Brazil.

 

[jonbob_newcastle]

I know space isn’t cold, but I’m pretty sure an asteroid probably is. Why wouldn’t the water freeze?

To be fair, it's from a science fiction book, but I'm sure that if you could make asteroid bags then a big mirror wouldn't present a problem.

 

[wagnerrp]

L2 is about 4x further away than the moon. Dropping into the Earth isn't really a concern. From heliocentric orbit you have to slow down to fall into the Earth. The amount of excess DeltaV needed to make that happen is massive. It would be like planning on driving from San Francisco to Los Angeles and accidentally not stopping until you get to Brazil.

Moving to a stable LEO would need far more impulse than moving to SEL2 (why not 1? easier to capture?), but the difference between crashing into Earth and missing entirely is quite modest.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Pete Hegseth is interested in knowing whether you could control where it comes down. For safety reasons.

 

[Komarov]

I'm a little surprised that they are going with a bag, as opposed to a fine mesh or net. A fine mesh or net is much lighter and packs tighter.

Have you ever tried to untangle a fishing net?

 

[DougF]

"which could potentially be located at the Earth-Sun L2 point"
Isn't that where the Webb telescope is? I hope they can park more carefully than my ex.

That too, was my worry.
.
.
I mean the L2 location, not necessarily your ex's parking ability...

 

[Komarov]

Will the Champaign still taste the same in a low G location on the moon? Do they have to redesign the glass for the bubbles to behave properly? How far will the cork go if I let it pop?

Who is this Champaign and why do you want to eat it?

 

[NezumiRho]

I dont really get the justification for this mission. If you want to practice mining NEO asteroids in orbit why not just launch a comparable rock or group of rocks from earth? They're only targeting 100 tons which is a couple Falcon Heavies or one Starship once that's available. Aside from the cool factor I dont see any reasons to tow asteroids around either now or in the future.

Efficiency in development i would warrant. Towing, mining, position adjustment and more are all things that need to be learned and done; cost-wise, it is cheaper to do each of those in the same mission, and work out specifics later.

As for launching a comparable rock- again, cost efficiency. Why spend 200 tons of payload capacity throwing up tool and stone, when you can throw out a hundred tons of equipment, then spend the rest diverting the right rock-- a mission that will need to be practiced regardless-- into place?

 

[wagnerrp]

That too, was my worry.
.
.
I mean the L2 location, not necessarily your ex's parking ability...

The SEL2 point isn't stable, and you don't place things there. You have them "orbit" around that point, at a distance of several hundred thousand kilometers.

 

[Komarov]

L2 is about 4x further away than the moon. Dropping into the Earth isn't really a concern. From heliocentric orbit you have to slow down to fall into the Earth. The amount of excess DeltaV needed to make that happen is massive. It would be like planning on driving from San Francisco to Los Angeles and accidentally not stopping until you get to Brazil.

Oh come on now. You can have a perfectly good heliocentric orbit that intersects the Earth's at just the right time. No need to slow anything down, and more efficient if you want to make a splash.

 

[DougF]

Could this also capture an enemy satellite...?

Or a dead/unresponsive satellite posing a threat to others. Then charge (somehow) the satellite owners a disposal fee. Or better yet, shift said satellite to the L2 processing area and recycle the materials and any value above the cost of transportation, control, admin, and processing gets repaid to the owners. Of course, a competent bureaucracy will ensure there is never any value in excess of the costs of reclamation, but at least it's out of harm's way, an orbital slot is opened up, and materials are recycled.

 

[DougF]

The SEL2 point isn't stable, and you don't place things there. You have them "orbit" around that point, at a distance of several hundred thousand kilometers.

I'm assuming SEL2 means Sun-Earth Lagrange point 2 to precisely identify it, as opposed to a generic Lagrange point somewhere else?

 

[Statistical]

I'm assuming SEL2 means Sun-Earth Lagrange point 2 to precisely identify it, as opposed to a generic Lagrange point somewhere else?

Correct. Any two bodies have a lagrange point like EML 2 is the L2 point which balances Earth and Moon gravity.

 

[Statistical]

Moving to a stable LEO would need far more impulse than moving to SEL2 (why not 1? easier to capture?), but the difference between crashing into Earth and missing entirely is quite modest.

Yeah sorry I wasn't clear. Yes a small impulse on any asteroid could cause it to hit the earth but it is also possible it was going to hit the earth someday and the small impulse stopped that. Both scenarios are vanishingly unlikely. The most likely scenario is no impact at all. Space is really big.

The exception would be if you were trying to move the asteroid to LEO and failed you could end up with the asteroid in a eccentric Earth orbit and one that is unstable. Now it isn't some long period orbit where there is a very low chance of a collision every couple years but a much higher chance dozens or hundreds of times per year. Worse these orbits due to effects of moon and earth tend to be unstable it would be shifting with each orbit. You might be fine for first 11 orbits and it comes crashing down on the 12th. Over an extended period of time it will either hit the Earth, hit the moon, or be ejected into deep space it isn't going to stay in that orbit.

So if the plan was to bring this to LEO I would be concerned. But going to SEL2 they would have to be comically bad both in the vector not just the direction or impulse but both to end up in an unstable geocentric orbit.

 

[Beckler]

This is exactly what tractor beams were developed for - not sure why they don't just use that.

 

[NezumiRho]

So far we have discussed engineering issues here, but another one not yet mentioned is the political aspect. The riches asteroids can provide is nigh incalculable; the trouble is how do we restrict those materials to in situ use in space? Sadly, many nations suffer from the Resource Curse, where their GDP revolves around extracting a key mineral.

Finding an alternative source among asteroids would be an existential crisis for them immediately, resulting in them opposing such plans almost irrationally.

 

[Statistical]

So far we have discussed engineering issues here, but another one not yet mentioned is the political aspect. The riches asteroids can provide is nigh incalculable; the trouble is how do we restrict those materials to in situ use in space? Sadly, many nations suffer from the Resource Curse, where their GDP revolves around extracting a key mineral.

Finding an alternative source among asteroids would be an existential crisis for them almost immediately, resulting in them opposing such plans almost irrationally.

It doesn't matter if they oppose it unless they are a space power. The DRC is largest exporter of cobalt. Say someone finds an asteroid loaded with thousands of tons of cobalt. A company in the US decides to mine it. The DRC says you can't. The US does it anyways. Then what? What resource does the DRC have?