Abstract

Mining the Near Earth Asteroids has been proposed by a number of individuals and corporations and most recently by the well-funded start-up firm Planetary Resources Inc. But does it really make economic sense to propose extracting minerals from minor planetary bodies outside of Earth’s atmosphere? How can the actual costs for such an endeavor be calculated, and how realistic, or conservative do these calculations have to be to represent reality sufficiently accurately to be meaningful to investors? Costs and man-hours are well documented for the Apollo program and the Space Shuttle operations. There are accurate comparisons of Space Shuttle costs versus multistage disposal rockets that can be used to project costs for Near Earth Asteroid missions. Launch and operations costs for telecommunication satellites are also known and provide a business based economic model that is not inflated by a predominantly scientific and exploration model. These costs are analyzed against the expected mission parameters for identification, rendezvous, mineral extraction and return to earth in order to provide a baseline of costs for economic analysis. What parameters, if changed, will radically alter the economic basis? Manned versus robotic missions create very different mission profiles and economics. Use of nuclear thermal rockets, and available modular fission power reactors can also radically improve the overall performance but may be constrained by significant regulatory hurdles. These alternatives are analyzed on the cost side of the economic analysis.

Is the only market available the terrestrial economy and the need for precious metals and rare earth elements for advanced technologies on earth? This is as critical a question to answer as identifying the costs associated with acquiring and returning the valuable materials to Earth. The short answer is yes, that Earth’s economy must be the driving force and the ultimate customer for mining the NEA’s. But an overriding factor is the investment horizon. Most projects on Earth look at investment horizons of a few years to perhaps 7 to 10 years for recovery of the initial investment and return of a reasonable profit. The time horizon for a NEA mining mission from planning to launch is an estimated 5 to 7 years, at a minimum and then an estimated 3 to 5 years from launch to return. If an average mission is assumed to be ten years, will a market arise in geosynchronous orbit for construction materials for solar power satellites, or for a refueling station for missions to the outer planets using in space generated hydrogen and oxygen fuels from icy asteroids?

The costs and returns from a basic asteroid mining mission are initially analyzed to serve as a baseline analysis for general profitability, internal rate of return and net present value for a ten year mission. The costs and advantages of manned versus robotic missions, and the utility of providing construction materials in earth orbit for solar power satellites, refueling and reprovisioning missions to the outer planets and support to permanent stations on the moon are included as market opportunities. This study concludes that the returns for investors for all of these mission profiles exceed most typical investment opportunities on earth. There are risks but these are able to be addressed through the use of proven technologies, where available, and innovative insurance programs such as are provided for communication satellites.