SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

[Robert Clark]

SpaceX has said two Falcon Heavy launches would be required to carry
a manned Dragon to a lunar landing. However, the 53 metric ton payload
capacity of a single Falcon Heavy would be sufficient to carry the 30
mT (Earth departure stage + lunar lander system) described below. This
would require 20 mT and 10 mT gross mass Centaur-style upper stages.
This page gives the cost of a ca. 20 mT Centaur upper stage as $30
million:

Centaur IIA.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cenuriia.htm

A 10 mT Centaur-style stage would be somewhat less than this, so the
total for both less than $60 million.

The 53 mT to LEO capacity of the Falcon Heavy would also allow large
lunar cargo transport using two of the 20 mT gross mass Centaurs that
already exist either using the Dragon to carry the cargo or by
carrying somewhat more cargo just within a lightweight container.

An important cargo delivery to the Moon would be in-situ resource
utilization (ISRU) equipment, specifically for producing propellant
from the water discovered to lie within the shadowed craters near the
lunar poles. Elon Musk has said a key goal of his is to mount a manned
Mars mission within 1 to 2 decades. Such a mission could be mounted
more cheaply if the large amount of propellant required did not have
to be lofted from the Earth's deep gravity well but could be taken
from the Moon.

Another important cargo delivery would be to carry a rover that could
do a sample return mission from the near polar locations. Lunar
orbiter observations suggest there may be valuable minerals
concentrated in such locations:

SCIENCE -- October 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM EDT
Moon Blast Reveals Lunar Surface Rich With Compounds.
BY: JENNY MARDER
"There is water on the moon ... along with a long list of other
compounds, including, mercury, gold and silver. That's according to a
more detailed analysis of the chilled lunar soil near the moon's South
Pole, released as six papers by a large team of scientists in the
journal, Science Thursday."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/10/its-confirmed-there-is-water.html

If these tentative detections could be confirmed then that could
possibly form a commercial market for flights to the Moon.

In this vein note there is even stronger evidence for large amounts
of valuable minerals on asteroids. Observations suggest that even a
small size asteroid could contain trillions of dollars (that's
trillions with a 't') worth of valuable minerals:

Riches in the Sky: The Promise of Asteroid Mining.
Mark Whittington, Nov 15, 2005
http://voices.yahoo.com/riches-sky-promise-asteroid-mining-8776.html

It is quite important to note then that since the delta-V
requirements to some near Earth asteroids is less than that to the
Moon, that the sample return version of the lunar lander could also be
used to return samples from the near Earth asteroids. If these
asteroidal detections could be definitively confirmed by a sample
return mission then that would provide further justification for
private investment in lunar propellant production installations.

SpaceX expects to launch the first Falcon Heavy in 2013. Because the
required Centaur stages already exist it is possible that a lunar
lander could be formed from such mated together stages within this
time frame at least for a unmanned cargo version.

It is important though that such a lander be privately financed.
Because the required stages already exist I estimate a lander could be
formed from them for less than a $100 million development cost. This
is based on the fact that SpaceX was able to develop the Falcon 9
launcher for about $300 million development cost, and this required
development of both the engines and the stages for a 300 mT gross mass
and 30 mT dry mass launcher. But for this lunar lander, the engines
and stages already exist for a total 40 mT gross mass and 4 mT dry
mass system.

If the system were to be government financed then based on the fact
that SpaceX was able to develop the Falcon 9 for 1/10th the
development cost of usual NASA financed systems, the cost of the
lander would suddenly balloon to a billion dollar development.

Note that while the evidence for valuable minerals in the lunar
shadowed craters is not yet particularly strong, the evidence for such
minerals in the asteroids is. So there is a strong financial incentive
for forming such a lunar lander as it could also be used for the
asteroidal lander.
But asteroidal mineral retrieval flights could be launched much more
cheaply if the propellant could be obtained from the Moon. Then there
is a strong financial incentive to produce ISRU installations on the
Moon which would require lunar return missions from the shadowed
crater regions to assess the best means of harvesting this lunar water
for propellant. If such return missions also confirm the presence of
valuable minerals in the shadowed craters then that would be like
icing on the cake for justification of private investment in such
missions.



Bob Clark


===========================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, sci.astro, sci.physics,
sci.space.history
From: Robert Clark <***@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 10:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.

The Orion spacecraft and Altair lunar lander intended for a manned
Moon mission are large craft that would require a heavy lift launcher
for the trip. However the Dragon spacecraft is a smaller capsule that
would allow lunar missions with currently existing launchers.
The idea for this use would be for it to act as a reusable shuttle
only between LEO and the lunar surface. This page gives the dry mass
of the Dragon capsule of 3,180 kg:

SpaceX reveals first Dragon engineering unit.
DATE:16/03/07
By Rob Coppinger
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/16/212634/picture-spacex-reveals-first-dragon-engineering-unit.html

The wet mass with propellant would be higher than this but for use
only as a shuttle between LEO and the Moon, the engines and propellant
would be taken up by the attached propulsion system. With crew and
supplies call the capsule mass 4,000 kg.
On this listing of space vehicles you can find that the later versions
of the Centaur upper stage have a mass ratio of about 10 to 1:

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/alpha/alpndexc.htm

The Isp's given for the RL-10A engines used on these stages are
around 450 s, but an updated version with a longer, extensible nozzle
has an Isp of 465.5 s:

RL10B-2.
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/StaticFiles/Pratt%20&%20Whitney%20New/Media%20Center/Assets/1%20Static%20Files/Docs/pwr_RL10B-2.pdf

This page gives the delta-V's needed for trips within the Earth-Moon
system:

Delta-V budget.
Earth–Moon space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth.E2.80.93Moon_space

The architecture will be to use a larger Centaur upper stage to serve
as the propulsion system to take the vehicle from LEO to low lunar
orbit. This larger stage will not descend to the surface, but will
remain in orbit. A smaller Centaur stage will serve as the descent
stage and will also serve as the liftoff stage that will take the
spacecraft not just back to lunar orbit, but all the way to back to
LEO. The larger Centaur stage will return to LEO under its own
propulsion, to make the system fully reusable. Both stages will use
aerobraking to reduce the delta-V required to return to LEO.
For the larger Centaur, take the gross mass of the stage alone as
30,000 kg, and its dry mass as 1/10th of that at 3,000 kg. For the
smaller Centaur stage take the gross mass as 10,000 kg and the dry
mass as 1,000 kg. The "Delta-V budget" page gives the delta-V from LEO
to low lunar orbit as 4,040 m/s. In calculating the delta-V provided
by the larger Centaur stage we'll retain 1,000 kg propellant at the
end of the burn for the return trip of this stage to LEO:
465.5*9.8ln((30,000 + 10,000 + 4,000)/(3,000 +10,000 + 4,000 + 1,000))
= 4,077 m/s, sufficient to reach low lunar orbit. For this stage alone
to return to LEO, 1,310 m/s delta-V is required. The 1,000 kg retained
propellant provides 465.5*9.8ln((3,000 + 1,000)/3,000) = 1,312 m/s,
sufficient for the return.
The delta-V to go from low lunar orbit to the Moon's surface is 1,870
m/s. And to go from the Moon's surface back to LEO is 2,740 m/s, for a
total of 4,610 m/s. The delta-V provided by this smaller Centaur stage
is 465.5*9.8ln((10,000 + 4,000)/(1,000 + 4,000)) = 4,697 m/s,
sufficient for lunar landing and the return to LEO.
The RL-10 engine was proven to be reusable for multiple uses with
quick turnaround time on the DC-X. The total propellant load of 40,000
kg could be lofted to LEO by two 20,000+ kg payload capacity
launchers, such as the Atlas V, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, and Proton.
The price for these launchers is in the range of $100-140 million
according to the specifications on this page:

Expendable Launch Vehicles.
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/elvs.shtml

So two would be in the range of $200-$280 million. The Dragon
spacecraft and Centaur stages being reusable for 10+ uses would mean
their cost per flight should be significantly less than this. This
would bring the cost into the range affordable to be purchased by most
national governments.
Still, it would be nice to reduce that $200 million cost just to bring
the propellant to orbit. One possibility might be the heavy lift
launchers being planned by NASA. One of the main problems in deciding
on a design for the launchers is that there would be so few launches
the per launch cost would be too high. However, launching of the
propellant to orbit for lunar missions would provide a market that
could allow multiple launches per year thus reducing the per launch
cost of the heavy lift launchers. For instance, the Direct HLV team
claims their launcher would cost $240 million per launch if they could
make 12 launches per year:

JULY 23, 2009
Interview with Ross Tierney of Direct Launch by Sander Olson.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/interview-with-ross-tierney-of-direct.html

This launcher would have a 70,000 kg payload capacity. However, if you
removed the payload fairing and interstage and just kept the
propellant to be launched to orbit in the ET itself and considering
the fact that the shuttle system was able to launch 100,000+ kg to
orbit with the shuttle and payload, it's possible the propellant that
could be launched to orbit could be in the range of 100,000 kg. Then
the cost per kg to orbit would be $2,400 per kg, or about a $100
million cost for the propellant to orbit.
Reduction of the per launch cost for the heavy lift launchers would
then allow affordable launches of the larger spacecraft and landers
for lunar missions.

Bob Clark
===================================================
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/e9250c7b90588f45?hl=en

[Alan Erskine]

Post by Robert Clark
SpaceX has said two Falcon Heavy launches would be required to carry
a manned Dragon to a lunar landing. However, the 53 metric ton payload
capacity of a single Falcon Heavy would be sufficient to carry the 30
mT (Earth departure stage + lunar lander system) described below. This
would require 20 mT and 10 mT gross mass Centaur-style upper stages.
This page gives the cost of a ca. 20 mT Centaur upper stage as $30

Landing's only one half of the mission; the other half is the return = 2
x FH launchers - one for the crew and one for the return propellant, ala
Apollo Lunar Surface Return.

[Robert Clark]

Post by Alan Erskine

  SpaceX has said two Falcon Heavy launches would be required to carry
a manned Dragon to a lunar landing. However, the 53 metric ton payload
capacity of a single Falcon Heavy would be sufficient to carry the 30
mT (Earth departure stage + lunar lander system) described below. This
would require 20 mT and 10 mT gross mass Centaur-style upper stages.
This page gives the cost of a ca. 20 mT Centaur upper stage as $30

Landing's only one half of the mission; the other half is the return = 2
x FH launchers - one for the crew and one for the return propellant, ala
Apollo Lunar Surface Return.

The calculation in the bottom half provided for the return trip.
BTW in regards to the necessity of making it privately financed
there's this:

SpaceX Might Be Able To Teach NASA A Lesson.
May 23, 2011
By Frank Morring, Jr.
[Quote] “I think one would want to understand in some detail . . .
why would it be between four and 10 times more expensive for NASA to
do this, especially at a time when one of the issues facing NASA is
how to develop the heavy-lift launch vehicle within the budget profile
that the committee has given it,” Chyba says.
He cites an analysis contained in NASA’s report to Congress on the
market for commercial crew and cargo services to LEO that found it
would cost NASA between $1.7 billion and $4 billion to do the same
Falcon-9 development that cost SpaceX $390 million. In its analysis,
which contained no estimates for the future cost of commercial
transportation services to the International Space Station (ISS)
beyond those already under contract, NASA says it had “verified” those
SpaceX cost figures.
For comparison, agency experts used the NASA-Air Force Cost Model
—“a parametric cost-estimating tool with a historical database of over
130 NASA and Air Force spaceflight hardware projects”—to generate
estimates of what it would cost the civil space agency to match the
SpaceX accomplishment. Using the “traditional NASA approach,” the
agency analysts found the cost would be $4 billion. That would drop to
$1.7 billion with different assumptions representative of “a more
commercial development approach,” NASA says.[/Quote]
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/05/23/AW_05_23_2011_p36-324881.xml


Bob Clark

[Alan Erskine]

Post by Robert Clark
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/05/23/AW_05_23_2011_p36-324881.xml
Bob Clark

Oh, I agree completely that NASA is off-track and SpaceX can do the same
job for considerably less. What I was saying is that I doubt that even
SpaceX can get a crew back to Earth (from the Moon) with only one Falcon
Heavy launch.

I came up with a concept for Lunar return I call Apollo NG (Next
Generation or New Generation - I've never come up with a catchy title
like Orion or Constellation). In that, it would require seven launches
per year (in this sequence for the first year):
1 Accommodation Module (capable of supporting six crew for unlimited time)
2 Experiment Module (title says it all)
3 Power Module (uses PV for sunlight times and fuel cells for dark-time
operations)
4 Gas Processing Module (used to separate O2 from Lunar materials)
5 Engineering Systems (crane, mini-loader with a variety of attachments,
jaw crusher, vibratory screen [for separating Lunar material into
different sizes], mini-truck and trailer)
6 Logistics Module (similar in size to the original MPLM concept, but
with four hatches and 'docking units' around the base so it can be used
as a 'hub' or 'node')
7 Crew Transport Vehicle (similar in concept to Big Gemini, but more
advanced [50 years more advanced!]

CTV doesn't launch until all previous modules are safely on the surface.

I estimated total costs to be around $5 billion per year and first human
landing within six years of program start. Development would would be
include a Delta V (based on Delta IV systems but with a New Core Stage
with two engines and the same burn time as the CBC as well as four CBCs
and a new upper stage - payload is around 55 tonnes LEO). Cost for each
vehicle would be around $300 million - $2.1 billion per year just for LVs.

Then, along came Falcon Heavy and Dragon - costs would be considerably
lower, or flight rate could be increased to 10-11 per year for the same
total outlay. Even if Dragon proved unsuitable due to internal volume
(3 days in that would be the upper limit and it might need to be
longer), costs are still $175 million less per launch for vehicle only -
$1.225 billion per year less!

So, taking SpaceX into account, my concept would run at around $3.5 - $4
billion per year. Unlike Constellation, there would be a virtually
permanent presence on the Moon from the end of the first flight year.

Subsequent years would enable more equipment and personnel to be sent to
the Moon with at least 3 crews (18 personnel) on a one-year rotation
within four years of first landing.

If you send me an email, I'll zap you off a copy of it (about 200kb Word
document). It's not complete, but you'll see it's not all that
difficult to get back to the Moon.

[Robert Clark]

Post by Alan Erskine
...
I estimated total costs to be around $5 billion per year and first human
landing within six years of program start.  Development would would be
include a Delta V (based on Delta IV systems but with a New Core Stage
with two engines and the same burn time as the CBC as well as four CBCs
and a new upper stage - payload is around 55 tonnes LEO).  Cost for each
vehicle would be around $300 million - $2.1 billion per year just for LVs.
Then, along came Falcon Heavy and Dragon - costs would be considerably
lower, or flight rate could be increased to 10-11 per year for the same
total outlay.  Even if Dragon proved unsuitable due to internal volume
(3 days in that would be the upper limit and it might need to be
longer), costs are still $175 million less per launch for vehicle only -
$1.225 billion per year less!
So, taking SpaceX into account, my concept would run at around $3.5 - $4
billion per year.  Unlike Constellation, there would be a virtually
permanent presence on the Moon from the end of the first flight year.
Subsequent years would enable more equipment and personnel to be sent to
the Moon with at least 3 crews (18 personnel) on a one-year rotation
within four years of first landing.
If you send me an email, I'll zap you off a copy of it (about 200kb Word
document).  It's not complete, but you'll see it's not all that
difficult to get back to the Moon.

You can send it to this email address. What are you using for your
Earth departure stage and lunar lander stage?


Bob Clark

[Alan Erskine]

Post by Robert Clark
You can send it to this email address. What are you using for your
Earth departure stage and lunar lander stage?
Bob Clark

They're on their way, via the ether.

[Alan Erskine]

Post by Robert Clark
You can send it to this email address. What are you using for your
Earth departure stage and lunar lander stage?
Bob Clark

Forgot to add - Nothing exists that's powerful enough for what I call a
Trans-Lunar injection (see, nothing original there either) stage, but
I've used two MB-60/RL-60 engines.

[Robert Clark]

Post by Alan Erskine

  You can send it to this email address. What are you using for your
Earth departure stage and lunar lander stage?
   Bob Clark

Forgot to add - Nothing exists that's powerful enough for what I call a
Trans-Lunar injection (see, nothing original there either) stage, but
I've used two MB-60/RL-60 engines.

I looked over your presentations. Looks good. I definitely think your
low cost estimates to go back to the Moon are doable.
However, about your Trans Lunar Injection stage, my understanding is
that since that is launching from LEO in zero G, you don't need the
engine thrust to exceed this upper stage's gross mass. Usually in fact
for upper stages it does not, even for stages sending a satellite to
GEO, which is a comparable delta-V requirement to that of sending a
satellite to low lunar orbit.


Bob Clark

[Alan Erskine]

Post by Robert Clark

Post by Alan Erskine

Post by Robert Clark
You can send it to this email address. What are you using for your
Earth departure stage and lunar lander stage?
Bob Clark

Forgot to add - Nothing exists that's powerful enough for what I call a
Trans-Lunar injection (see, nothing original there either) stage, but
I've used two MB-60/RL-60 engines.

I looked over your presentations. Looks good. I definitely think your
low cost estimates to go back to the Moon are doable.
However, about your Trans Lunar Injection stage, my understanding is
that since that is launching from LEO in zero G, you don't need the
engine thrust to exceed this upper stage's gross mass. Usually in fact
for upper stages it does not, even for stages sending a satellite to
GEO, which is a comparable delta-V requirement to that of sending a
satellite to low lunar orbit.
Bob Clark

I'll have a look at it. If that's the case and you are right, it's a
big mass saving and further increases payload; that'd be very very handy!

[Robert Clark]

 SpaceX has said two Falcon Heavy launches would be required to carry
a manned Dragon to a lunar landing. However, the 53 metric ton payload
capacity of a single Falcon Heavy would be sufficient to carry the 30
mT (Earth departure stage + lunar lander system) described below. This
would require 20 mT and 10 mT gross mass Centaur-style upper stages.

Edit. That should say 40 mT gross mass for the (Earth departure stage
+ lunar lander) system that was originally described with 30 mT and 10
mT Centaur-style stages.


Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

Just saw this discussed on Nasaspaceflight.com

Elon Musk on SpaceX’s Reusable Rocket Plans.
February 7, 2012 6:00 PM
[quote]The key, at least for the first stage, is the difference in
speed. "It really comes down to what the staging Mach number would
be," Musk says, referencing the speed the rocket would be traveling at
separation. "For an expendable Falcon 9 rocket, that is around Mach
10. For a reusable Falcon 9, it is around Mach 6, depending on the
mission." For the reusable version, the rocket must be traveling at a
slower speed at separation because the burn must end early, preserving
enough propellant to let the rocket fly back and land vertically. This
also makes recovery easier because entry velocities are slower.
However, the slower speed also means that the upper stage of the
Falcon rocket must supply more of the velocity needed to get to orbit,
and that significantly reduces how much payload the rocket can lift
into orbit. "The payload penalty for full and fast reusability versus
an expendable version is roughly 40 percent," Musk says. "[But]
propellant cost is less than 0.4 percent of the total flight cost.
Even taking into account the payload reduction for reusability, the
improvement is therefore theoretically over a hundred times."[/quote]
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/elon-musk-on-spacexs-reusable-rocket-plans-6653023

Then for the Falcon 9, the payload would be reduced from 10 mT to 6
mT. If the reduction in payload really is this high, then maybe it
would be better to recover the first stage at sea. The loss in payload
is coming from the reduction in the speed of staging as well as the
need to retain a portion of the fuel for the return to base.
Recovering at sea would not have these disadvantages because you could
let the first stage make its usual trajectory at returning to the sea
but use just small amount of propellant for the final slowdown before
the sea impact.
In this article Musk does mention that returning back to the launch
point allows the turnaround time at least for the first stage to be
just hours. But will we really need that short a turnaround time at
this stage of the game? A turnaround time of a few days would seem to
be sufficient.
Perhaps the idea that retrieval at sea would be so expensive comes
from the experience of the shuttle with the SRB's. But these were
quite large and heavy at ca. 90 mT dry compared to that of the Falcon
9 first stage at less than 15 mT. Also, it is well known the labor
costs for the shuttle were greatly inflated compared to a privately
funded program.
The only additional requirement is that you would need a cover that
could be extended to cover the engine section and would be watertight.


Bob Clark

[Jeff Findley]

In article <ba228d9e-b64d-475a-801e-
***@gi10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, ***@yahoo.com
says...

Post by Robert Clark
Just saw this discussed on Nasaspaceflight.com
Elon Musk on SpaceX?s Reusable Rocket Plans.
February 7, 2012 6:00 PM
[quote]The key, at least for the first stage, is the difference in
speed. "It really comes down to what the staging Mach number would
be," Musk says, referencing the speed the rocket would be traveling at
separation. "For an expendable Falcon 9 rocket, that is around Mach
10. For a reusable Falcon 9, it is around Mach 6, depending on the
mission." For the reusable version, the rocket must be traveling at a
slower speed at separation because the burn must end early, preserving
enough propellant to let the rocket fly back and land vertically. This
also makes recovery easier because entry velocities are slower.
However, the slower speed also means that the upper stage of the
Falcon rocket must supply more of the velocity needed to get to orbit,
and that significantly reduces how much payload the rocket can lift
into orbit. "The payload penalty for full and fast reusability versus
an expendable version is roughly 40 percent," Musk says. "[But]
propellant cost is less than 0.4 percent of the total flight cost.
Even taking into account the payload reduction for reusability, the
improvement is therefore theoretically over a hundred times."[/quote]
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/elon-musk-on-spacexs-reusable-rocket-plans-6653023
Then for the Falcon 9, the payload would be reduced from 10 mT to 6
mT. If the reduction in payload really is this high, then maybe it
would be better to recover the first stage at sea.

Oh hell no! Dunking a launch vehicle in salt water is not a good idea.
This introduces a host of new problems related to salt water corrosion.
That's on top of the expense of maintaining the boat(s) necessary to
recover the first stage. All of this adds up to additional cost.

Post by Robert Clark
The only additional requirement is that you would need a cover that
could be extended to cover the engine section and would be watertight.

Don't forget the requirement for recovery boat(s), divers, and assorted
other trained crew members.

Jeff

[Robert Clark]

Post by Robert Clark
 ...
On this listing of space vehicles you can find that the later versions
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/alpha/alpndexc.htm
 The Isp's given for the RL-10A engines used on these stages are
around 450 s, but an updated version with a longer, extensible nozzle
RL10B-2.http://www.pratt-whitney.com/StaticFiles/Pratt%20&%20Whitney%20New/Me...
This page gives the delta-V's needed for trips within the Earth-Moon
Delta-V budget.
Earth–Moon space.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth.E2.80.93Moon_space
...
The RL-10 engine was proven to be reusable for multiple uses with
quick turnaround time on the DC-X. The total propellant load of 40,000
kg could be lofted to LEO by two 20,000+ kg payload capacity
launchers, such as the Atlas V, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, and Proton.
The price for these launchers is in the range of $100-140 million
Expendable Launch Vehicles.http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/elvs.shtml
...

The original architecture was to use two of the 20 mT to LEO
launchers currently available with two Centaur upper stages to get a 4
mT Dragon to the Moon and back.
What can we do with a single one of these launchers currently
available? Using a single one of these launchers to carry a single
Centaur upper stage we could carry about 1 mT to the Moon and back:
From the delta-V table, you need 4.04 km/s to go from LEO to low lunar
orbit, 1.87 km/s to go from low lunar orbit to the lunar surface, and
2.74 km/s with aerobraking to go from the lunar surface back to LEO
for a total of 8.65 km/s delta-V for a single stage making the round-
trip.
Then with a 465.5 s Isp, 20 mT total mass including payload, 2 mT dry
mass, and 1 mT payload we get: 465.5*9.8ln(20,000/(2000 + 1000)) =
8,650 m/s, sufficient for the round-trip.

This would suffice to carry a lunar rover to operate in the
permanently shadowed regions of the lunar poles or for an NEO
asteroid:

Lunar Prospecting Robot To Be Field Tested On Hawaii's Mauna Kea
ScienceDaily (Oct. 14, 2008)
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081014134111.htm[/
url]

This university developed robot probably cost no more than a few
million dollars. The single Centaur upper stage costs in the range of
$30 million. And the 20 mT to LEO launchers cost in the range of
$100-140 million, according to the Spaceandtech.com site estimates,
for a total in the range of $200 million. This is a fraction of the
amount spent by mining interests on exploration:

Explore Mining.
[quote]World non-ferrous expenditures for all exploration in 2007 are
estimated to be about $10.4 Billion dollars.[/quote]
[url]http://www.holden.house.gov/comm/explore-mining/exploration/[/
url]

This same site also indicates that mining exploration is by nature
high risk:

[quote]So just what is exploration?
It’s the collection of processes that gather information about the
presence or absence of mineral deposits
The over-riding goal of exploration is to find deposits that can be
worked as profitable mining operations.
It is a time-consuming, multi-stage investment in information
different gathering processes.
It’s also an expensive, high-risk investment, unlike ordinary
businesses investments.
[i]Depending on the literature source, the success rate for finding
profitable mining operations (when weighed against the total number of
mineral properties examined by a company) have ranges from a high of 4
in 100 (that’s a 4% success rate!), to less than 1 in 100 and as low
as 1 in 1000 (that’s a .1% success rate!)[/i].[/quote]

For any investment venture a cost/risk/benefit analysis has to be
made. Compared to the cost already spent by mining interests yearly
the cost is relatively low especially for a consortium of mining
interests funding the mission together.
The risk is composed of the risk of the mission failing and of it not
finding the high amounts of precious minerals. At least for the
asteroid missions the risk of it not finding the high value minerals
is low as there are several independent lines of evidence that
precious metals are located uniformly on asteroids. So that leaves the
risk of the mission failing. Considering the amount of U.S. experience
with planetary missions, this risk is considerably better than the 1
in 1,000 chance of success some estimates put on Earth bound mining
exploration.
However, quite important when measuring cost and risk, are the
benefits to justify them. The possible benefits are more mineral
wealth in a [i]single[/i] asteroid than all that mined in all of human
history.
Indeed the likelihood of the high amounts of precious minerals is so
good, and the benefits of success are so extraordinarily high, that it
would pay to do several missions if there are failures.
That is for the asteroid missions. However, if such asteroid mining
missions are to be profitable then it would be much cheaper if the
large amount of propellant needed to carry out the transport could be
obtained from the Moon rather than by lofting it from Earth's deep
gravity well. Then to insure that propellant could be obtained from
the Moon's polar regions sample return missions to the lunar poles
would have to be mounted as well. The nice thing about these missions
is that the same rovers and spacecraft could be used for the asteroid
sample return missions. Then these lunar sample return missions could
be regarded as test missions to give further assurance of the
technology for returning the samples from asteroids. And if the lunar
polar samples show the high precious metal amounts tentatively
detected by LCROSS then so much the better.
As I said to keep costs low these missions should be privately
financed. NASA is planning to launch an asteroid sample return mission
in 2016. This would not return the samples though until 2023 and is
budgeted at $800 million without even launch costs:

NASA to Launch Asteroid-Sampling Spacecraft in 2016.
Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 25 May 2011 Time: 07:10 PM ET
[url]http://www.space.com/11788-nasa-asteroid-mission-osiris-rex-1999-
rq36.html[/url]

When you add on launch costs and considering the usual NASA cost
overruns this will probably wind up being a billion dollar mission.
Also, since some proposed human missions to asteroids would have a
duration of 5 to 6 months, these sample return missions could return
their samples in months rather than the seven years planned for the
NASA mission.


Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

[quote=RGClark]...
As I said to keep costs low these missions should be privately
financed. NASA is planning to launch an asteroid sample return mission
in 2016. This would not return the samples though until 2023 and is
budgeted at $800 million without even launch costs:

NASA to Launch Asteroid-Sampling Spacecraft in 2016.
Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 25 May 2011 Time: 07:10 PM ET
[url]http://www.space.com/11788-nasa-asteroid-mission-osiris-rex-1999-
rq36.html[/url]

When you add on launch costs and considering the usual NASA cost
overruns this will probably wind up being a billion dollar mission.
Also, since some proposed human missions to asteroids would have a
duration of 5 to 6 months, these sample return missions could return
their samples in months rather than the seven years planned for the
NASA mission.
[/quote]

Note that all the components for such a mission already exist, the
launcher, the spacecraft, and the rover. All that is required is to
mate them together. On that basis such a mission probably could be
launched within a year. Note also all of the U.S., Russia, and Europe
have the required 20 mT launcher, and the upper or space stage capable
of the space traverse. And China will also with the introduction of
the Long March 5 in 2014. Then the question arises, who will be first?

A common complaint leveled at the space program is what is it good
for? If the U.S. government fully financed the mining operation then
based on an estimated $20 trillion value for the minerals on a single
asteroid, this would have enough value to retire the entire U.S.
debt(!) Preferably though the U.S. would only be a partial investor to
retain the costs savings of a privately financed venture. Even then as
a minority investor, the return in value to the U.S. government could
be in the trillions.

However, it may indeed be possible that a fully NASA financed venture
could maintain the low costs of a privately financed one - with the
right management. I consider the LCROSS lunar impactor to be the
perfect NASA mission because it returned such profoundly important
results and at low cost, only $79 million without launch costs, which
is like pocket change for planetary missions:

Inside NASA's Plan to Bomb the Moon and Find Water.
By Michael Milstein
October 1, 2009 12:00 AM
[quote]Typically, 10 to 15 percent of a spacecraft's budget goes into
instruments; on LCROSS, it's roughly 3 percent, or $2 million. When
Anthony Colaprete, NASA's lead scientist for the mission, went to big
aerospace companies for instruments, they laughed at his budget. So he
turned to small outfits instead. He bought near-infrared spectrometers
from a company that makes them for breweries to test the alcohol
content of beer on assembly lines. He resisted agency reviewers who
wanted him to put an anodized coating on the aluminum storage boxes.
"One of their arguments was, `It's not very expensive--just do it,'"
he says. "I'm like, `Well, I want to save that $1000. I'm very
cheap.'"[/quote]
[url]http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4277592[/url]

LCROSS: A HIGH-RETURN, SMALL SATELLITE MISSION.
Daniel Andrews, LCROSS PM
NASA-Ames Research Center, MS 240-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
[url]http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/
20100028203_2010030093.pdf[/url]

Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership.
Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS).
[quote]The Good Enough Spacecraft.
From Andrews's perspective, the LCROSS spacecraft had to be --faster,
good enough, cheaper.|| He made clear to his team from the beginning
that LCROSS was not about maximum performance. --It was about cost
containment,|| Andrews said. --LCROSS was not about pushing the
technical envelope. It was about keeping it simple - keeping it good
enough.||
The LCROSS team had 29 months and $79 million to build a Class D
mission spacecraft. (See below for a brief explanation of NASA mission
risk classifications.) The low-cost, high-risk tolerance nature of the
project led to a design based on heritage hardware, parts from LRO,
and commercial-off-the-shelf components.[/quote]
[url]http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/
474589main_LCROSS_case_study_09_23_10.pdf[/url]

LCROSS rode piggyback on the LRO mission so did not have to pay for
the Centaur space stage, but even if you include this that would only
be an additional $30 million or so.

LCROSS Program Manager Daniel Andrews and lead scientist Anthony
Colaprete deserve major kudos for using innovative methods to
accomplish such a successful mission under cost saving constraints.
If we were to have NASA financed asteroidal and lunar prospector
landers then they would be my choice to manage those missions.

Note now that if NASA funded these exploratory lander missions that
proved definitively that asteroids or even the Moon contained such
extraordinary mineral wealth, then under the principle that the
government has the authority to grant mining rights to private
companies, the U.S. government could sell these rights for a total of,
say, $1 trillion, while only having to have spent ca. $200 million for
the lander missions.


Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

Post by Robert Clark
[quote=RGClark]...
 As I said to keep costs low these missions should be privately
financed. NASA is planning to launch an asteroid sample return mission
in 2016. This would not return the samples though until 2023 and is
NASA to Launch Asteroid-Sampling Spacecraft in 2016.
Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 25 May 2011 Time: 07:10 PM ET
[url]http://www.space.com/11788-nasa-asteroid-mission-osiris-rex-1999-
rq36.html[/url]
 When you add on launch costs and considering the usual NASA cost
overruns this will probably wind up being a billion dollar mission.
Also, since some proposed human missions to asteroids would have a
duration of 5 to 6 months, these sample return missions could return
their samples in months rather than the seven years planned for the
NASA mission.
[/quote]
  Note that all the components for such a mission already exist, the
launcher, the spacecraft, and the rover. All that is required is to
mate them together. On that basis such a mission probably could be
launched within a year. Note also all of the U.S., Russia, and Europe
have the required 20 mT launcher, and the upper or space stage capable
of the space traverse. And China will also with the introduction of
the Long March 5 in 2014. Then the question arises, who will be first?
 A common complaint leveled at the space program is what is it good
for? If the U.S. government fully financed the mining operation then
based on an estimated $20 trillion value for the minerals on a single
asteroid, this would have enough value to retire the entire U.S.
debt(!) Preferably though the U.S. would only be a partial investor to
retain the costs savings of a privately financed venture. Even then as
a minority investor, the return in value to the U.S. government could
be in the trillions.
 However, it may indeed be possible that a fully NASA financed venture
could maintain the low costs of a privately financed one - with the
right management. I consider the LCROSS lunar impactor to be the
perfect NASA mission because it returned such profoundly important
results and at low cost, only $79 million without launch costs, which
Inside NASA's Plan to Bomb theMoonand Find Water.
By Michael Milstein
October 1, 2009 12:00 AM
[quote]Typically, 10 to 15 percent of a spacecraft's budget goes into
instruments; on LCROSS, it's roughly 3 percent, or $2 million. When
Anthony Colaprete, NASA's lead scientist for the mission, went to big
aerospace companies for instruments, they laughed at his budget. So he
turned to small outfits instead. He bought near-infrared spectrometers
from a company that makes them for breweries to test the alcohol
content of beer on assembly lines. He resisted agency reviewers who
wanted him to put an anodized coating on the aluminum storage boxes.
"One of their arguments was, `It's not very expensive--just do it,'"
he says. "I'm like, `Well, I want to save that $1000. I'm very
cheap.'"[/quote]
[url]http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4277592[/url]
LCROSS: A HIGH-RETURN, SMALL SATELLITE MISSION.
Daniel Andrews, LCROSS PM
NASA-Ames Research Center, MS 240-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
[url]http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/
20100028203_2010030093.pdf[/url]
Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership.
Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS).
[quote]The Good Enough Spacecraft.
From Andrews's perspective, the LCROSS spacecraft had to be --faster,
good enough, cheaper.|| He made clear to his team from the beginning
that LCROSS was not about maximum performance. --It was about cost
containment,|| Andrews said. --LCROSS was not about pushing the
technical envelope. It was about keeping it simple - keeping it good
enough.||
The LCROSS team had 29 months and $79 million to build a Class D
mission spacecraft. (See below for a brief explanation of NASA mission
risk classifications.) The low-cost, high-risk tolerance nature of the
project led to a design based on heritage hardware, parts from LRO,
and commercial-off-the-shelf components.[/quote]
[url]http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/
474589main_LCROSS_case_study_09_23_10.pdf[/url]
 LCROSS rode piggyback on the LRO mission so did not have to pay for
the Centaur space stage, but even if you include this that would only
be an additional $30 million or so.
 LCROSS Program Manager Daniel Andrews and lead scientist Anthony
Colaprete deserve major kudos for using innovative methods to
accomplish such a successful mission under cost saving constraints.
If we were to have NASA financed asteroidal and lunar prospector
landers then they would be my choice to manage those missions.
 Note now that if NASA funded these exploratory lander missions that
proved definitively that asteroids or even the Moon contained such
extraordinary mineral wealth, then under the principle that the
government has the authority to grant mining rights to private
companies, the U.S. government could sell these rights for a total of,
say, $1 trillion, while only having to have spent ca. $200 million for
the lander missions.

Astrobotic Technology Reveals Design for Robot to Prospect at Moon’s
Poles.
April 3, 2012 – 8:00 pm|Releases
[quote]PITTSBURGH, PA – April 3, 2012 – Astrobotic Technology unveiled
its new Polaris lunar rover design, which will prospect for
potentially rich deposits of water ice, methane and other resources at
the moon’s north pole in three years.
A powerful Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX will launch Polaris from Cape
Canaveral in late October 2015. Four days later Polaris will land
during north pole summer, when patches of ground that are in cold
shadow most of the year get brief illumination. This is where ice will
be found closest to the surface, and when a solar-powered robot will
get the sunlight needed to sustain exploration. Polaris will search
for ice for the next 12 days until sundown in early November.[/quote]
http://astrobotic.net/2012/04/03/astrobotic-technology-reveals-design-for-robot-to-prospect-at-moons-poles/

Such missions are very important to further quantify the amount of
water and other minerals suggested by orbiter missions to lie within
the polar regions of the Moon. They are a key first step, though there
is nothing better than having the actual sample in your hands for
geologists to assay and determine if there really are such valuable
minerals as gold and silver tentatively identified by the LCROSS
mission.


Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

Post by Robert Clark
...
Astrobotic Technology Reveals Design for Robot to Prospect at Moon’s
Poles.
April 3, 2012 – 8:00 pm|Releases
[quote]PITTSBURGH, PA – April 3, 2012 – Astrobotic Technology unveiled
its new Polaris lunar rover design, which will prospect for
potentially rich deposits of water ice, methane and other resources at
the moon’s north pole in three years.
A powerful Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX will launch Polaris from Cape
Canaveral in late October 2015. Four days later Polaris will land
during north pole summer, when patches of ground that are in cold
shadow most of the year get brief illumination. This is where ice will
be found closest to the surface, and when a solar-powered robot will
get the sunlight needed to sustain exploration. Polaris will search
for ice for the next 12 days until sundown in early November.[/quote]http://astrobotic.net/2012/04/03/astrobotic-technology-reveals-design...
 Such missions are very important to further quantify the amount of
water and other minerals suggested by orbiter missions to lie within
the polar regions of the Moon. They are a key first step, though there
is nothing better than having the actual sample in your hands for
geologists to assay and determine if there really are such valuable
minerals as gold and silver tentatively identified by the LCROSS
mission.

I was informed that they are changing the original plans for their
Google Lunar X Prize entry, essentially to turn it into a prospector
mission:

Monday, April 9, 2012
Astrobotic changes plans, aims for lunar north.
http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/2012/04/astrobiotic-changes-plans-aims-for.html


Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

Post by Robert Clark
...
Astrobotic Technology Reveals Design for Robot to Prospect at Moon’s
Poles.
April 3, 2012 – 8:00 pm|Releases
[quote]PITTSBURGH, PA – April 3, 2012 – Astrobotic Technology unveiled
its new Polaris lunar rover design, which will prospect for
potentially rich deposits of water ice, methane and other resources at
the moon’s north pole in three years.
A powerful Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX will launch Polaris from Cape
Canaveral in late October 2015. Four days later Polaris will land
during north pole summer, when patches of ground that are in cold
shadow most of the year get brief illumination. This is where ice will
be found closest to the surface, and when a solar-powered robot will
get the sunlight needed to sustain exploration. Polaris will search
for ice for the next 12 days until sundown in early November.[/quote]http://astrobotic.net/2012/04/03/astrobotic-technology-reveals-design...
 Such missions are very important to further quantify the amount of
water and other minerals suggested by orbiter missions to lie within
the polar regions of the Moon. They are a key first step, though there
is nothing better than having the actual sample in your hands for
geologists to assay and determine if there really are such valuable
minerals as gold and silver tentatively identified by the LCROSS
mission.

 I was informed that they are changing the original plans for their
Google Lunar X Prize entry, essentially to turn it into a prospector
Monday, April 9, 2012
Astrobotic changes plans, aims for lunar north.http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/2012/04/astrobiotic-changes-plans-a...

The Astrobotic rover is built by the same Carnegie Mellon robotics
lab that built the Scarab lunar polar rover. The Astrobotic rover will
be launched on just a Falcon 9 so this is a smaller and cheaper lander/
rover than one that would require the heaviest 20 mT capacity
launchers. Though it will not be sample return, it can certainly
confirm the large amounts of water suggested by the orbital studies.
It may also be able to confirm the tentative detections of precious
metals such as gold and silver found by LCROSS.
Again because the delta-V requirements to a NEO are less than those to
the Moon, this lander/rover could also serve as a prospector for
asteroid missions. There was a recent article discussing the idea that
a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty might allow private land claims
on outer space bodies:

Loophole Could Allow Private Land Claims on Other Worlds.
By Adam Mann | April 5, 2012 | 6:30 am | Categories: Space
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/moon-mars-property/

Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost
rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral
exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?

Bob Clark

[bob haller]

Post by Robert Clark
...
Astrobotic Technology Reveals Design for Robot to Prospect at Moon’s
Poles.
April 3, 2012 – 8:00 pm|Releases
[quote]PITTSBURGH, PA – April 3, 2012 – Astrobotic Technology unveiled
its new Polaris lunar rover design, which will prospect for
potentially rich deposits of water ice, methane and other resources at
the moon’s north pole in three years.
A powerful Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX will launch Polaris from Cape
Canaveral in late October 2015. Four days later Polaris will land
during north pole summer, when patches of ground that are in cold
shadow most of the year get brief illumination. This is where ice will
be found closest to the surface, and when a solar-powered robot will
get the sunlight needed to sustain exploration. Polaris will search
for ice for the next 12 days until sundown in early November.[/quote]http://astrobotic.net/2012/04/03/astrobotic-technology-reveals-design...
 Such missions are very important to further quantify the amount of
water and other minerals suggested by orbiter missions to lie within
the polar regions of the Moon. They are a key first step, though there
is nothing better than having the actual sample in your hands for
geologists to assay and determine if there really are such valuable
minerals as gold and silver tentatively identified by the LCROSS
mission.

 I was informed that they are changing the original plans for their
Google Lunar X Prize entry, essentially to turn it into a prospector
Monday, April 9, 2012
Astrobotic changes plans, aims for lunar north.http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/2012/04/astrobiotic-changes-plans-a...

 The Astrobotic rover is built by the same Carnegie Mellon robotics
lab that built the Scarab lunar polar rover. The Astrobotic rover will
be launched on just a Falcon 9 so this is a smaller and cheaper lander/
rover than one that would require the heaviest 20 mT capacity
launchers. Though it will not be sample return, it can certainly
confirm the large amounts of water suggested by the orbital studies.
It may also be able to confirm the tentative detections of precious
metals such as gold and silver found by LCROSS.
Again because the delta-V requirements to a NEO are less than those to
the Moon, this lander/rover could also serve as a prospector for
asteroid missions. There was a recent article discussing the idea that
a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty might allow private land claims
Loophole Could Allow Private Land Claims on Other Worlds.
By Adam Mann | April 5, 2012 | 6:30 am | Categories: Spacehttp://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/moon-mars-property/
 Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost
rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral
exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?
    Bob Clark

that might be a good thing, it would permit a profit from space
activities, thats badly needed

[Robert Clark]

Post by Robert Clark
...
Again because the delta-V requirements to a NEO are less than those to
the Moon, this lander/rover could also serve as a prospector for
asteroid missions. There was a recent article discussing the idea that
a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty might allow private land claims
Loophole Could Allow Private Land Claims on Other Worlds.
By Adam Mann | April 5, 2012 | 6:30 am | Categories: Spacehttp://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/moon-mars-property/
 Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost
rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral
exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?

There is debate among legal scholars about the Outer Space Treaty:

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
2222 (XXI). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in
the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies.
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_21_2222.html

While it does ban national ownership, there is debate on whether it
bans private ownership. This article on The Space Review site
discusses the issue in more detail:

Staking a claim on the Moon.
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 9, 2012
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2058/1

The opposing view to Simberg's is expressed here:

How the U.S. Can Lead the Way to Extraterrestrial Land Deals.
By Berin Szoka and James Dunstan April 9, 2012 | 1:58 pm | Categories:
Space, Wired Opinion
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/opinion-space-property-rights/

I don't agree with the argument that Szoka and Dunstan give that
Article VI of the treaty bans private use of outer space bodies. This
article in the treaty states:

[quote]Article VI
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility
for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other
celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by
governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for
assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with
the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-
governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other
celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing
supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When
activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other
celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for
compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international
organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in
such organization.[/quote]

This article in the treaty only seems to be talking about that the
uses shall only be for peaceful purposes and that rescue operations
need to be undertaken for other nations manned missions if needed,
etc.

However, another part of the Szoka/Dunstan argument I do find
compelling: that different countries would grant overlapping land
claims. Then it would appear such claims would have to be granted by
an international organization.

It is important to note the treaty most certainly does not ban
private, financial use of space resources. The big debate has been
about *ownership*, but you don't even need ownership for private,
financial use! The situation would be quite analogous to mining rights
granted on public lands. The mining companies have the right to
extract even valuable minerals from the ground but they still do not
*own* the land.


   Bob Clark

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

Post by Robert Clark

Post by Robert Clark
...
Again because the delta-V requirements to a NEO are less than those to
the Moon, this lander/rover could also serve as a prospector for
asteroid missions. There was a recent article discussing the idea that
a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty might allow private land claims
Loophole Could Allow Private Land Claims on Other Worlds.
Spacehttp://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/moon-mars-property/
Then the intriguing question arises: could landing of such a low cost
rover on a NEO allow the Astrobotic backers to claim full mineral
exploitation rights on potentially a $20 trillion asteroid?

I've seen very little debate among actual legal scholars. I've seen debate
between space activists and legal scholars.

Post by Robert Clark
It is important to note the treaty most certainly does not ban
private, financial use of space resources. The big debate has been
about *ownership*, but you don't even need ownership for private,
financial use! The situation would be quite analogous to mining rights
granted on public lands. The mining companies have the right to
extract even valuable minerals from the ground but they still do not
*own* the land.

Except in those cases the GOVERNMENT (or someone else) owns the land and
leases it.

The legal scholars I've seen who have weighed in on this debate basically
say in modern law, the concept of private ownership w/o a government
involved is pretty much pointless.

In addition, since spaceflight is under the legal authority of a
nation-state, it's doubtful that a private individual could make a claim w/o
involving their origin nation.

Personally, I think the treaties may need to be reworked.

I think the concept of "for the common good of mankind" is a noble one, but
as is, isn't practical.

Post by Robert Clark
Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

Post by Robert Clark
[quote=RGClark]...
 As I said to keep costs low these missions should be privately
financed. NASA is planning to launch an asteroid sample return mission
in 2016. This would not return the samples though until 2023 and is
NASA to Launch Asteroid-Sampling Spacecraft in 2016.
Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 25 May 2011 Time: 07:10 PM ET
[url]http://www.space.com/11788-nasa-asteroid-mission-osiris-rex-1999-
rq36.html[/url]
 When you add on launch costs and considering the usual NASA cost
overruns this will probably wind up being a billion dollar mission.
Also, since some proposed human missions to asteroids would have a
duration of 5 to 6 months, these sample return missions could return
their samples in months rather than the seven years planned for the
NASA mission.
[/quote]
  Note that all the components for such a mission already exist, the
launcher, the spacecraft, and the rover. All that is required is to
mate them together. On that basis such a mission probably could be
launched within a year. Note also all of the U.S., Russia, and Europe
have the required 20 mT launcher, and the upper or space stage capable
of the space traverse. And China will also with the introduction of
the Long March 5 in 2014. Then the question arises, who will be first?
 A common complaint leveled at the space program is what is it good
for? If the U.S. government fully financed the mining operation then
based on an estimated $20 trillion value for the minerals on a single
asteroid, this would have enough value to retire the entire U.S.
debt(!) Preferably though the U.S. would only be a partial investor to
retain the costs savings of a privately financed venture. Even then as
a minority investor, the return in value to the U.S. government could
be in the trillions.
 However, it may indeed be possible that a fully NASA financed venture
could maintain the low costs of a privately financed one - with the
right management. I consider the LCROSS lunar impactor to be the
perfect NASA mission because it returned such profoundly important
results and at low cost, only $79 million without launch costs, which
Inside NASA's Plan to Bomb the Moon and Find Water.
By Michael Milstein
October 1, 2009 12:00 AM
[quote]Typically, 10 to 15 percent of a spacecraft's budget goes into
instruments; on LCROSS, it's roughly 3 percent, or $2 million. When
Anthony Colaprete, NASA's lead scientist for the mission, went to big
aerospace companies for instruments, they laughed at his budget. So he
turned to small outfits instead. He bought near-infrared spectrometers
from a company that makes them for breweries to test the alcohol
content of beer on assembly lines. He resisted agency reviewers who
wanted him to put an anodized coating on the aluminum storage boxes.
"One of their arguments was, `It's not very expensive--just do it,'"
he says. "I'm like, `Well, I want to save that $1000. I'm very
cheap.'"[/quote]
[url]http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4277592[/url]
LCROSS: A HIGH-RETURN, SMALL SATELLITE MISSION.
Daniel Andrews, LCROSS PM
NASA-Ames Research Center, MS 240-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
[url]http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/
20100028203_2010030093.pdf[/url]
Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership.
Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS).
[quote]The Good Enough Spacecraft.
From Andrews's perspective, the LCROSS spacecraft had to be --faster,
good enough, cheaper.|| He made clear to his team from the beginning
that LCROSS was not about maximum performance. --It was about cost
containment,|| Andrews said. --LCROSS was not about pushing the
technical envelope. It was about keeping it simple - keeping it good
enough.||
The LCROSS team had 29 months and $79 million to build a Class D
mission spacecraft. (See below for a brief explanation of NASA mission
risk classifications.) The low-cost, high-risk tolerance nature of the
project led to a design based on heritage hardware, parts from LRO,
and commercial-off-the-shelf components.[/quote]
[url]http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/
474589main_LCROSS_case_study_09_23_10.pdf[/url]
 LCROSS rode piggyback on the LRO mission so did not have to pay for
the Centaur space stage, but even if you include this that would only
be an additional $30 million or so.
 LCROSS Program Manager Daniel Andrews and lead scientist Anthony
Colaprete deserve major kudos for using innovative methods to
accomplish such a successful mission under cost saving constraints.
If we were to have NASA financed asteroidal and lunar prospector
landers then they would be my choice to manage those missions.
 Note now that if NASA funded these exploratory lander missions that
proved definitively that asteroids or even the Moon contained such
extraordinary mineral wealth, then under the principle that the
government has the authority to grant mining rights to private
companies, the U.S. government could sell these rights for a total of,
say, $1 trillion, while only having to have spent ca. $200 million for
the lander missions.
    Bob Clark

Google billionaires, James Cameron backing space resource venture.
By Alan Boyle
[quote]Today's media alert says the new company "will overlay two
critical sectors — space exploration and natural resources — to add
trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will
create a new industry and a new definition of 'natural resources.'"
"That sounds like asteroid mining," Christopher Mims writes on MIT
Technology Review's "Mims' Bits" blog. "Because what else is there in
space that we need here on earth? Certainly not a livable climate or a
replacement for our dwindling supplies of oil."
Parabolic Arc's Doug Messier, meanwhile, writes that the venture
will be an "extraterrestrial mining company."
Diamandis has said on more than one occasion that he's intrigued
by the idea of digging into asteroids, for materials ranging from
water (for fuel as well as for astronauts) to precious metals such as
platinum. The Verge points to a TED talk in 2005 where Diamandis
discusses his dream, while Forbes magazine has brought up the subject
with him more than once in the past few months.[/quote]
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/18/11273238-google-billionaires-james-cameron-backing-space-resource-venture


Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

Post by Robert Clark

Post by Robert Clark
[quote=RGClark]...
 As I said to keep costs low these missions should be privately
financed. NASA is planning to launch an asteroid sample return mission
in 2016. This would not return the samples though until 2023 and is
NASA to Launch Asteroid-Sampling Spacecraft in 2016.
Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 25 May 2011 Time: 07:10 PM ET
[url]http://www.space.com/11788-nasa-asteroid-mission-osiris-rex-1999-
rq36.html[/url]
 When you add on launch costs and considering the usual NASA cost
overruns this will probably wind up being a billion dollar mission.
Also, since some proposed human missions to asteroids would have a
duration of 5 to 6 months, these sample return missions could return
their samples in months rather than the seven years planned for the
NASA mission.
[/quote]
  Note that all the components for such a mission already exist, the
launcher, the spacecraft, and the rover. All that is required is to
mate them together. On that basis such a mission probably could be
launched within a year. Note also all of the U.S., Russia, and Europe
have the required 20 mT launcher, and the upper or space stage capable
of the space traverse. And China will also with the introduction of
the Long March 5 in 2014. Then the question arises, who will be first?
 A common complaint leveled at the space program is what is it good
for? If the U.S. government fully financed the mining operation then
based on an estimated $20 trillion value for the minerals on a single
asteroid, this would have enough value to retire the entire U.S.
debt(!) Preferably though the U.S. would only be a partial investor to
retain the costs savings of a privately financed venture. Even then as
a minority investor, the return in value to the U.S. government could
be in the trillions.
 However, it may indeed be possible that a fully NASA financed venture
could maintain the low costs of a privately financed one - with the
right management. I consider the LCROSS lunar impactor to be the
perfect NASA mission because it returned such profoundly important
results and at low cost, only $79 million without launch costs, which
Inside NASA's Plan to Bomb the Moon and Find Water.
By Michael Milstein
October 1, 2009 12:00 AM
[quote]Typically, 10 to 15 percent of a spacecraft's budget goes into
instruments; on LCROSS, it's roughly 3 percent, or $2 million. When
Anthony Colaprete, NASA's lead scientist for the mission, went to big
aerospace companies for instruments, they laughed at his budget. So he
turned to small outfits instead. He bought near-infrared spectrometers
from a company that makes them for breweries to test the alcohol
content of beer on assembly lines. He resisted agency reviewers who
wanted him to put an anodized coating on the aluminum storage boxes.
"One of their arguments was, `It's not very expensive--just do it,'"
he says. "I'm like, `Well, I want to save that $1000. I'm very
cheap.'"[/quote]
[url]http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4277592[/url]
LCROSS: A HIGH-RETURN, SMALL SATELLITE MISSION.
Daniel Andrews, LCROSS PM
NASA-Ames Research Center, MS 240-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
[url]http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/
20100028203_2010030093.pdf[/url]
Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership.
Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS).
[quote]The Good Enough Spacecraft.
From Andrews's perspective, the LCROSS spacecraft had to be --faster,
good enough, cheaper.|| He made clear to his team from the beginning
that LCROSS was not about maximum performance. --It was about cost
containment,|| Andrews said. --LCROSS was not about pushing the
technical envelope. It was about keeping it simple - keeping it good
enough.||
The LCROSS team had 29 months and $79 million to build a Class D
mission spacecraft. (See below for a brief explanation of NASA mission
risk classifications.) The low-cost, high-risk tolerance nature of the
project led to a design based on heritage hardware, parts from LRO,
and commercial-off-the-shelf components.[/quote]
[url]http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/
474589main_LCROSS_case_study_09_23_10.pdf[/url]
 LCROSS rode piggyback on the LRO mission so did not have to pay for
the Centaur space stage, but even if you include this that would only
be an additional $30 million or so.
 LCROSS Program Manager Daniel Andrews and lead scientist Anthony
Colaprete deserve major kudos for using innovative methods to
accomplish such a successful mission under cost saving constraints.
If we were to have NASA financed asteroidal and lunar prospector
landers then they would be my choice to manage those missions.
 Note now that if NASA funded these exploratory lander missions that
proved definitively that asteroids or even the Moon contained such
extraordinary mineral wealth, then under the principle that the
government has the authority to grant mining rights to private
companies, the U.S. government could sell these rights for a total of,
say, $1 trillion, while only having to have spent ca. $200 million for
the lander missions.
    Bob Clark

Google billionaires, James Cameron backing space resource venture.
By Alan Boyle
[quote]Today's media alert says the new company "will overlay two
critical sectors — space exploration and natural resources — to add
trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will
create a new industry and a new definition of 'natural resources.'"
    "That sounds like asteroid mining," Christopher Mims writes on MIT
Technology Review's "Mims' Bits" blog. "Because what else is there in
space that we need here on earth? Certainly not a livable climate or a
replacement for our dwindling supplies of oil."
    Parabolic Arc's Doug Messier, meanwhile, writes that the venture
will be an "extraterrestrial mining company."
    Diamandis has said on more than one occasion that he's intrigued
by the idea of digging into asteroids, for materials ranging from
water (for fuel as well as for astronauts) to precious metals such as
platinum. The Verge points to a TED talk in 2005 where Diamandis
discusses his dream, while Forbes magazine has brought up the subject
with him more than once in the past few months.[/quote]http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/18/11273238-google-billi...

In regards to the reason for this endeavor, several studies have shown
many of the important metals for high technology such as platinum at
present global growth rates, especially in the emerging economies such
as China, will be depleted within decades:

Earth's natural wealth: an audit
23 May 2007
NewScientist.com news service
David Cohen
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm

If these reports are true, and there is some uncertainty in the
estimates, then such asteroid mining missions, might turn out to be
not merely amusing topics of discussion, but actual necessities.


Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

Post by Robert Clark

Post by Robert Clark

Post by Robert Clark
[quote=RGClark]...
 As I said to keep costs low these missions should be privately
financed. NASA is planning to launch an asteroid sample return mission
in 2016. This would not return the samples though until 2023 and is
NASA to Launch Asteroid-Sampling Spacecraft in 2016.
Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 25 May 2011 Time: 07:10 PM ET
[url]http://www.space.com/11788-nasa-asteroid-mission-osiris-rex-1999-
rq36.html[/url]
 When you add on launch costs and considering the usual NASA cost
overruns this will probably wind up being a billion dollar mission.
Also, since some proposed human missions to asteroids would have a
duration of 5 to 6 months, these sample return missions could return
their samples in months rather than the seven years planned for the
NASA mission.
[/quote]
  Note that all the components for such a mission already exist, the
launcher, the spacecraft, and the rover. All that is required is to
mate them together. On that basis such a mission probably could be
launched within a year. Note also all of the U.S., Russia, and Europe
have the required 20 mT launcher, and the upper or space stage capable
of the space traverse. And China will also with the introduction of
the Long March 5 in 2014. Then the question arises, who will be first?
 A common complaint leveled at the space program is what is it good
for? If the U.S. government fully financed the mining operation then
based on an estimated $20 trillion value for the minerals on a single
asteroid, this would have enough value to retire the entire U.S.
debt(!) Preferably though the U.S. would only be a partial investor to
retain the costs savings of a privately financed venture. Even then as
a minority investor, the return in value to the U.S. government could
be in the trillions.
 However, it may indeed be possible that a fully NASA financed venture
could maintain the low costs of a privately financed one - with the
right management. I consider the LCROSS lunar impactor to be the
perfect NASA mission because it returned such profoundly important
results and at low cost, only $79 million without launch costs, which
Inside NASA's Plan to Bomb the Moon and Find Water.
By Michael Milstein
October 1, 2009 12:00 AM
[quote]Typically, 10 to 15 percent of a spacecraft's budget goes into
instruments; on LCROSS, it's roughly 3 percent, or $2 million. When
Anthony Colaprete, NASA's lead scientist for the mission, went to big
aerospace companies for instruments, they laughed at his budget. So he
turned to small outfits instead. He bought near-infrared spectrometers
from a company that makes them for breweries to test the alcohol
content of beer on assembly lines. He resisted agency reviewers who
wanted him to put an anodized coating on the aluminum storage boxes.
"One of their arguments was, `It's not very expensive--just do it,'"
he says. "I'm like, `Well, I want to save that $1000. I'm very
cheap.'"[/quote]
[url]http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4277592[/url]
LCROSS: A HIGH-RETURN, SMALL SATELLITE MISSION.
Daniel Andrews, LCROSS PM
NASA-Ames Research Center, MS 240-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
[url]http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/
20100028203_2010030093.pdf[/url]
Academy of Program/Project & Engineering Leadership.
Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS).
[quote]The Good Enough Spacecraft.
From Andrews's perspective, the LCROSS spacecraft had to be --faster,
good enough, cheaper.|| He made clear to his team from the beginning
that LCROSS was not about maximum performance. --It was about cost
containment,|| Andrews said. --LCROSS was not about pushing the
technical envelope. It was about keeping it simple - keeping it good
enough.||
The LCROSS team had 29 months and $79 million to build a Class D
mission spacecraft. (See below for a brief explanation of NASA mission
risk classifications.) The low-cost, high-risk tolerance nature of the
project led to a design based on heritage hardware, parts from LRO,
and commercial-off-the-shelf components.[/quote]
[url]http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/
474589main_LCROSS_case_study_09_23_10.pdf[/url]
 LCROSS rode piggyback on the LRO mission so did not have to pay for
the Centaur space stage, but even if you include this that would only
be an additional $30 million or so.
 LCROSS Program Manager Daniel Andrews and lead scientist Anthony
Colaprete deserve major kudos for using innovative methods to
accomplish such a successful mission under cost saving constraints.
If we were to have NASA financed asteroidal and lunar prospector
landers then they would be my choice to manage those missions.
 Note now that if NASA funded these exploratory lander missions that
proved definitively that asteroids or even the Moon contained such
extraordinary mineral wealth, then under the principle that the
government has the authority to grant mining rights to private
companies, the U.S. government could sell these rights for a total of,
say, $1 trillion, while only having to have spent ca. $200 million for
the lander missions.
    Bob Clark

Google billionaires, James Cameron backing space resource venture.
By Alan Boyle
[quote]Today's media alert says the new company "will overlay two
critical sectors — space exploration and natural resources — to add
trillions of dollars to the global GDP. This innovative start-up will
create a new industry and a new definition of 'natural resources.'"
    "That sounds like asteroid mining," Christopher Mims writes on MIT
Technology Review's "Mims' Bits" blog. "Because what else is there in
space that we need here on earth? Certainly not a livable climate or a
replacement for our dwindling supplies of oil."
    Parabolic Arc's Doug Messier, meanwhile, writes that the venture
will be an "extraterrestrial mining company."
    Diamandis has said on more than one occasion that he's intrigued
by the idea of digging into asteroids, for materials ranging from
water (for fuel as well as for astronauts) to precious metals such as
platinum. The Verge points to a TED talk in 2005 where Diamandis
discusses his dream, while Forbes magazine has brought up the subject
with him more than once in the past few months.[/quote]http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/18/11273238-google-billi...

In regards to the reason for this endeavor, several studies have shown
many of the important metals for high technology such as platinum at
present global growth rates, especially in the emerging economies such
Earth's natural wealth: an audit
23 May 2007
NewScientist.com news service
David Cohenhttp://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_005.htm
 If these reports are true, and there is some uncertainty in the
estimates, then such asteroid mining missions, might turn out to be
not merely amusing topics of discussion, but actual necessities.

In that New Scientist article the author seems to be implying the
uncertainties in the estimates of impending scarcity come from how the
producers are reporting their stocks and available mine-able ore. That
is, they may be underreporting them to artificially keep prices high.
But with some of these key minerals predicted to run out within two
decades clearly this is something that needs to be determined
*definitively*. Maybe we need to send in UN inspectors into their
accounting departments and into their actual mines like we send in
inspectors for rogue nuclear states.

In any case, here are some peer-reviewed papers that discuss this
issue:

Metal stocks and sustainability.
R. B. Gordon*,
M. Bertram†,‡, and
T. E. Graedel†,§
PNAS January 31, 2006 vol. 103 no. 5 1209-1214.
[Quote]
Abstract
The relative proportions of metal residing in ore in the lithosphere,
in use in products providing services, and in waste deposits measure
our progress from exclusive use of virgin ore toward full dependence
on sustained use of recycled metal. In the U.S. at present, the copper
contents of these three repositories are roughly equivalent, but metal
in service continues to increase. Providing today's developed-country
level of services for copper worldwide (as well as for zinc and,
perhaps, platinum) would appear to require conversion of essentially
all of the ore in the lithosphere to stock-in-use plus near-complete
recycling of the metals from that point forward.[/quote]
[url]http://www.pnas.org/content/103/5/1209[/url]

An impending platinum crisis and its implications for the future of
the automobile.
Chi-Jen Yang
Energy Policy.
Volume 37, Issue 5, May 2009, Pages 1805-1808.
[Quote]
Abstract
The global demand for platinum has consistently outgrown supply in the
past decade. This trend likely will continue and the imbalance may
possibly escalate into a crisis. Platinum plays pivotal roles in both
conventional automobile emissions control and the envisioned hydrogen
economy. A platinum crisis would have profound implications on energy
and environment. On the one hand, inadequate platinum supply will
prevent widespread commercialization of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.
On the other hand, expensive platinum may enhance the competitiveness
of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery-powered electric cars.
Policymakers should weigh the potential impacts of a platinum crisis
in energy policy.[/quote]
[url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0301421509000457[/url]

And of course also if such scarcity estimates *are* valid, then this
clearly would have a major impact on the question of the profitability
of the space mining ventures. ;-)


Bob Clark

[Robert Clark]

...
 What can we do with a single one of these launchers currently
available? Using a single one of these launchers to carry a single
From the delta-V table, you need 4.04 km/s to go from LEO to low lunar
orbit, 1.87 km/s to go from low lunar orbit to the lunar surface, and
2.74 km/s with aerobraking to go from the lunar surface back to LEO
for a total of 8.65 km/s delta-V for a single stage making the round-
trip.
 Then with a 465.5 s Isp, 20 mT total mass including payload, 2 mT dry
mass, and 1 mT payload we get: 465.5*9.8ln(20,000/(2000 + 1000)) =
8,650 m/s, sufficient for the round-trip.
 This would suffice to carry a lunar rover to operate in the
permanently shadowed regions of the lunar poles or for an NEO
Lunar Prospecting Robot To Be Field Tested On Hawaii's Mauna Kea
ScienceDaily (Oct. 14, 2008)
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081014134111.htm[/
url]
...

There will be a media demonstration of the Scarab lunar rover using a
new fuel-cell technology on Wednesday, Feb .29th at the NASA Glenn
center:

Media Invited to NASA Glenn to See New Fuel Cell Demonstration on
Mobile Rover.
Source: Glenn Research Center
Posted Thursday, February 23, 2012
[Quote]
CLEVELAND - A demonstration of a fuel cell that will allow rovers on
extraterrestrial surfaces to go farther and last longer will be
conducted at NASA's Glenn Research Center on Feb. 29 at 11 a.m.
The new type of fuel cell will extend the range of surface
operations for rovers that will explore new worlds as part of future
NASA missions. Unlike a conventional fuel cell that needs a pump to
remove the water produced inside the device, this non-flow-through
fuel cell uses capillary action to wick away the water. By eliminating
the pump, a non-flow-through fuel cell is simpler, lighter, and more
reliable.
The rover that will demonstrate the fuel cell in Glenn's Simulated
Lunar Operations (SLOPE) facility is called SCARAB. It was developed
by Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute, Pittsburgh, under a grant from
Glenn, and is regularly used for Human Robotic systems project
mobility research in SLOPE.[/quote]
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=36206

Perhaps one of the reporters will inquire when the test vehicle can
be turned into a flight ready version.


Bob Clark

[Brad Guth]

Post by Robert Clark
 ...
On this listing of space vehicles you can find that the later versions
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/alpha/alpndexc.htm
 The Isp's given for the RL-10A engines used on these stages are
around 450 s, but an updated version with a longer, extensible nozzle
RL10B-2.http://www.pratt-whitney.com/StaticFiles/Pratt%20&%20Whitney%20New/Me...
This page gives the delta-V's needed for trips within the Earth-Moon
Delta-V budget.
Earth–Moon space.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth.E2.80.93Moon_space
...
The RL-10 engine was proven to be reusable for multiple uses with
quick turnaround time on the DC-X. The total propellant load of 40,000
kg could be lofted to LEO by two 20,000+ kg payload capacity
launchers, such as the Atlas V, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, and Proton.
The price for these launchers is in the range of $100-140 million
Expendable Launch Vehicles.http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/elvs.shtml
...

 The original architecture was to use two of the 20 mT to LEO
launchers currently available with two Centaur upper stages to get a 4
mT Dragon to the Moon and back.
 What can we do with a single one of these launchers currently
available? Using a single one of these launchers to carry a single
From the delta-V table, you need 4.04 km/s to go from LEO to low lunar
orbit, 1.87 km/s to go from low lunar orbit to the lunar surface, and
2.74 km/s with aerobraking to go from the lunar surface back to LEO
for a total of 8.65 km/s delta-V for a single stage making the round-
trip.
 Then with a 465.5 s Isp, 20 mT total mass including payload, 2 mT dry
mass, and 1 mT payload we get: 465.5*9.8ln(20,000/(2000 + 1000)) =
8,650 m/s, sufficient for the round-trip.
 This would suffice to carry a lunar rover to operate in the
permanently shadowed regions of the lunar poles or for an NEO
Lunar Prospecting Robot To Be Field Tested On Hawaii's Mauna Kea
ScienceDaily (Oct. 14, 2008)
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081014134111.htm[/
url]
 This university developed robot probably cost no more than a few
million dollars. The single Centaur upper stage costs in the range of
$30 million. And the 20 mT to LEO launchers cost in the range of
$100-140 million, according to the Spaceandtech.com site estimates,
for a total in the range of $200 million. This is a fraction of the
Explore Mining.
[quote]World non-ferrous expenditures for all exploration in 2007 are
estimated to be about $10.4 Billion dollars.[/quote]
[url]http://www.holden.house.gov/comm/explore-mining/exploration/[/
url]
 This same site also indicates that mining exploration is by nature
[quote]So just what is exploration?
It’s the collection of processes that gather information about the
presence or absence of mineral deposits
The over-riding goal of exploration is to find deposits that can be
worked as profitable mining operations.
It is a time-consuming, multi-stage investment in information
different gathering processes.
It’s also an expensive, high-risk investment, unlike ordinary
businesses investments.
[i]Depending on the literature source, the success rate for finding
profitable mining operations (when weighed against the total number of
mineral properties examined by a company) have ranges from a high of 4
in 100 (that’s a 4% success rate!), to less than 1 in 100 and as low
as 1 in 1000 (that’s a .1% success rate!)[/i].[/quote]
 For any investment venture a cost/risk/benefit analysis has to be
made. Compared to the cost already spent by mining interests yearly
the cost is relatively low especially for a consortium of mining
interests funding the mission together.
 The risk is composed of the risk of the mission failing and of it not
finding the high amounts of precious minerals. At least for the
asteroid missions the risk of it not finding the high value minerals
is low as there are several independent lines of evidence that
precious metals are located uniformly on asteroids. So that leaves the
risk of the mission failing. Considering the amount of U.S. experience
with planetary missions, this risk is considerably better than the 1
in 1,000 chance of success some estimates put on Earth bound mining
exploration.
 However, quite important when measuring cost and risk, are the
benefits to justify them. The possible benefits are more mineral
wealth in a [i]single[/i] asteroid than all that mined in all of human
history.
 Indeed the likelihood of the high amounts of precious minerals is so
good, and the benefits of success are so extraordinarily high, that it
would pay to do several missions if there are failures.
 That is for the asteroid missions. However, if such asteroid mining
missions are to be profitable then it would be much cheaper if the
large amount of propellant needed to carry out the transport could be
obtained from the Moon rather than by lofting it from Earth's deep
gravity well. Then to insure that propellant could be obtained from
the Moon's polar regions sample return missions to the lunar poles
would have to be mounted as well. The nice thing about these missions
is that the same rovers and spacecraft could be used for the asteroid
sample return missions. Then these lunar sample return missions could
be regarded as test missions to give further assurance of the
technology for returning the samples from asteroids. And if the lunar
polar samples show the high precious metal amounts tentatively
detected by LCROSS then so much the better.
 As I said to keep costs low these missions should be privately
financed. NASA is planning to launch an asteroid sample return mission
in 2016. This would not return the samples though until 2023 and is
NASA to Launch Asteroid-Sampling Spacecraft in 2016.
Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior WriterDate: 25 May 2011 Time: 07:10 PM ET
[url]http://www.space.com/11788-nasa-asteroid-mission-osiris-rex-1999-
rq36.html[/url]
 When you add on launch costs and considering the usual NASA cost
overruns this will probably wind up being a billion dollar mission.
Also, since some proposed human missions to asteroids would have a
duration of 5 to 6 months, these sample return missions could return
their samples in months rather than the seven years planned for the
NASA mission.
  Bob Clark

A global excise tax of averaging one dollar per month per person would
bring in $7 billion per month. So, where's the problem?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”