Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Mining the Gas Giants: How to Maximize Profit?

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fri, 2013-01-11 20:05
#1
Alkahest Alkahest's picture
Mining the Gas Giants: How to Maximize Profit?
(A spinoff of this thread.) I thought it would be interesting to have a thread where we could discuss atmospheric mining (primarily of helium-3) in Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, and which planet is actually most profitable in the long run. Here's the thing: The gas giant closest to the Inner System (Jupiter) is also the one with the greatest gravity. Uranus has the lowest gravity, but is an insane distance from most potential buyers. Saturn is middle of the road in both aspects. Fuck Neptune. Using a Hohmann transfer orbit (the most energy-efficient travel path), here are the travel times and delta-v required to go from orbit around the various gas giants to Mars orbit: Jupiter-Mars: 37 months. 21,956 m/s --- 100% J, 100% J Saturn-Mars: 78.5 months. 16,392 m/s --- 212 % J, 75% J Uranus-Mars: 200.1 months. 13,177 m/s --- 541% J, 60% J Neptune-Mars: 376.3 months. 14,093 m/s --- 1017% J, 64% J Getting to orbit from "mining height" should require roughly the same proportions of delta-v. (With some exceptions: See below.) So far, it seems like Uranus wins in the long run thanks to lower reaction mass costs, right? That's what I thought! But then NewtonPulsifer made me aware of the blatantly obvious fact that if we're using hydrogen as reaction mass, we can simply get it from the same place we get the helium-3 (since the atmospheres are, you know, over 80% hydrogen). It can't be a huge cost. If the cost of creating metallic hydrogen is small enough, it seems that Jupiter wins in terms of profitability, to the cheer of greedy biocons everywhere. Still, most recent suggestions for helium-3 extraction I've seen discussed in the scientific literature seems to favor Saturn and Uranus over Jupiter, due to Jupiter's gravity and magnetic field. It feels like I'm missing something, possibly due to the gap between EP-technology and the technology being discussed today. In addition to gravity and distance, there are the following factors to consider: Jupiter: +: Not as windy as Saturn. -: Has far more erratic weather than Uranus and Neptune. -: Murderous magnetic field of doom. Saturn: +: You spin me right round; rapid rotation period makes it easier to get into orbit. -: Has far more erratic weather than Uranus and Neptune. -: Much faster winds than Jupiter. -: Rings might pose navigational problems. Uranus: +: Has more predictable weather than Jupiter and Saturn. +: Has calmer winds than Neptune. +: Very, very cold: Makes liquefying helium easier? -: Weird axial tilt. Neptune: +: Has more predictable weather than Jupiter and Saturn. -: Has faster winds than Uranus. In addition to all this, we have the composition of the atmospheres themselves to think about! Jupiter: Hydrogen 89.8%, helium 10.2%. Saturn: Hydrogen 96.3%, helium 3.3%. Uranus: Hydrogen 82.5%, helium 15.2%, methane 2.3%. Neptune: Hydrogen 80.0%, helium 19.0%, methane 1.0% Oh, and of course we must also take into consideration the price of both helium-3 and the ships themselves (not to mention maintenance of the entire infrastructure). And probably a thousand other factors I haven't mentioned and/or considered. It's like it's rocket science or something. Does anyone have any idea how to sort this all out, and how to figure out which planet is, in the long run, the most profitable to invest in?
—
President of PETE: People for the Ethical Treatment of Exhumans.
Top
Mon, 2013-01-14 16:05
NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture
The truth might be it is
The truth might be it is cheapest to ship through the Pandora gates. That sort of data isn't going to be relevant for people's EP Universes that don't have Pandora gates, though, right? So we'd actually have to calculate all the Pandoran exo-planets in that scenario too. Then there's the calculation of how much energy it takes to generate 1 newton-meter of thrust with a fusion rocket. The real-life VASIMR ion rocket is 100 kilowatts per newton (plasma rockets in EP are presumably powered by fission with fuels like xenon and cesium?) with an ISP of 3,000-12,000 seconds - I believe the prototype was 6000 seconds. EP is 3.33x better than that for ISP (20,000 seconds) but we don't know the power per thrust (EP tech might simply be successfully dumping more joules per ion due to a higher specific power fission plant design) or it might be a re-engineered simply more efficient design. Probably both (just to complicate things). Jsnead has EP has fusion beating fission/plasma by 5x in terms of Delta-V. What that implies in terms of actual joules used per newton of thrust is hard to say - we'd need to wild-ass guess it and run with that number. Data from this post: http://eclipsephase.com/comment/9523#comment-9523 EDIT: Jupiters murderous magnetic field is analagous to the Van Ellen belts around Earth - which are sort of doughnut shaped (although Jupiter's are much bigger). Inside of Jupiters atmosphere (or coming at it from the poles) I think you're clear of it.
—
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto
Top
Mon, 2013-01-14 15:47
Rags Rags's picture
While on a purely rational
While on a purely rational physics point of view you make good arguments. However currently your operating in a vacuum in which that is the only important variable. Systempolitics are just as important. Jupiter has the republic and the rest of the gas giants have either a lot of autonomists or a few autonomists, brinkers and exhumans. Not to mention pirates. Shifts in that may very well make different planets more or less profitable more than say more efficient engines.
Top
Mon, 2013-01-14 16:29
NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture
That's a fair point.
That's a fair point. If a planet became particularly inhospitable to business, you could just boost your aerostat into space and move it to a planet that....wasn't. As GM design your geopolitical (heliopolitical?) problem, and the natural consequence is aerostats are then fleeing to greener pastures.
—
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto
Top
Tue, 2013-01-15 12:05
Alkahest Alkahest's picture
Personally, I tend to
Personally, I tend to disregard the more "super-science-y" parts of canon (like magic mind powers and magic portals) in favor of a more restrained headcanon, but that's just because I'm boring like that.
—
President of PETE: People for the Ethical Treatment of Exhumans.
Top
Tue, 2013-01-15 13:36
Rags Rags's picture
Heliopolitical. I like that
Heliopolitical. I like that one, doesn't take into account the exoplanets but I still like it. Not just boosting aerostats for greener pastures but initial development, investment and insurance. As well as R&D focused on specific planets. Plus off course how nobody wants to depend on the Jovians for their fuel, or the PC on Saturn and the Commonwealth. Or the Ultimates on Uranus(though their dominion their is mostly by tenuous default in my opinion).
Top
Tue, 2013-01-15 18:57
NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture
Rags wrote:
Rags wrote:
Not just boosting aerostats for greener pastures but initial development, investment and insurance. As well as R&D focused on specific planets. Plus off course how nobody wants to depend on the Jovians for their fuel, or the PC on Saturn and the Commonwealth. Or the Ultimates on Uranus(though their dominion their is mostly by tenuous default in my opinion).
We've already established a rough 2.5x to 5x advantage for Jupiter over Uranus for Mars customers in the last thread (based on your assumptions on the cost of compressing hydrogen at the aerostat). If you suppose huge investment/insurance/development costs, then that just makes the difference that much *worse* vs. Uranus as you would need better profit margins to recoup your investment. Jupiter then looks even better in that case. In a scenario of low cost for investment/insurance/development (say there are more aerostats around than actually needed - a bunch are mothballed - and they go for super cheap) Jupiter wins. It just wins even more in a scenario of very high "other" costs.* * We're assuming an EP universe without Pandora gates.
—
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto
Top
Wed, 2013-01-16 09:07
Alkahest Alkahest's picture
NewtonPulsifer wrote:We've
NewtonPulsifer wrote:
We've already established a rough 2.5x to 5x advantage for Jupiter over Uranus for Mars customers in the last thread (based on your assumptions on the cost of compressing hydrogen at the aerostat).
Well, Rags never said anything in the other thread, and if you're talking to me I don't remember establishing anything like that. If we had, I wouldn't have started this thread. :-) We can't ignore the factors that point in the favor of the outer gas giants. Robert Zubrin and most scientists I've read seem to prefer Saturn, Uranus and Neptune to Jupiter for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I don't pretend to be a rocket scientist, so I trust those who are and try to understand as well as I can. I guess a main deciding factor is how expensive the "spaceships" needed to transport the helium-3 are. If one can get away with strapping relatively cheap rockets onto giant tanks, having to buy more ships to match the rate of delivery (to the inner system) might not be too big of a problem, as the advantages of Saturn and Uranus pay off in the long run. Then again, they might not. I honestly have no idea. There's also the fact that we probably have to use different mining methods in different atmospheres. While aerostats seem like the best method in the atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune, Jupiter and Saturn might require "heavier than air"-aircrafts due to weather conditions. If aerostats are significantly cheaper than "airplanes", that's another financial hurdle for the inner gas giant-miners. And of course, we're still assuming that we're shipping it all to the inner system. The more people settle rimwards, the better things are looking for Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. (Unless they settle in the frikkin' Kuiper belt when mentioned planets are on the other side of the frikkin' Solar System. That would suck.) Edit: Ah, there, I found the paper I was looking for: Atmospheric Mining in the Outer Solar System (PDF file). It's a good introduction to the subject, in my opinion.
—
President of PETE: People for the Ethical Treatment of Exhumans.
Top
Thu, 2013-01-17 12:56
NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture
You can assume He-3 fusion
You can assume He-3 fusion reactors (and fusion rockets) are actually very cheap. That assumption leads to the conclusion that one should just use tritium-deuterium fusion rockets (even cheaper) instead and just throw the fusion motor away when they become too irradiated. So in that case why use He-3 at all?
—
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto
Top
Thu, 2013-01-17 13:43
Alkahest Alkahest's picture
NewtonPulsifer wrote:You can
NewtonPulsifer wrote:
You can assume He-3 fusion reactors (and fusion rockets) are actually very cheap. That assumption leads to the conclusion that one should just use tritium-deuterium fusion rockets (even cheaper) instead and just throw the fusion motor away when they become too irradiated. So in that case why use He-3 at all?
I'm not sure I understand.
—
President of PETE: People for the Ethical Treatment of Exhumans.
Top
Thu, 2013-01-17 14:38
NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture
I'm saying there's multiple

I'm saying there's multiple fusion fuels.

Why use He-3?

In economic terms it means other fusable fuels can be used instead of He-3.

In fact if you check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Neutronicity.2C_confinement_...

you'll see Tritium-Deuterium fusion is far and away the best power density, but also generates a lot of neutrons. Those neutrons would eventually make your fusion rocket radioactive - to the point you couldn't use it any more. So if ditching the fusion motor and getting a new one is cheap, there's no need to use He-3.

If you could get He-3+He-3 fusion working there would be zero neutrons. One problem with that is a He-3 only fusion reactor creates most of its energy as x-rays, not alpha particles. You'd need a good/clever way to contain and convert those x-rays to usable heat and power.

However I think EP may be using He-3/Deuterium fusion in their ships, not He-3 only. I'm not sure.

—
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto
Top
Thu, 2013-01-17 15:01
Alkahest Alkahest's picture
Could you please be a bit
Could you please be a bit more explicit with what you're trying to say? I'm afraid I still don't follow. Do you mean that the helium-3 barges themselves should not use helium-3 fusion reactors or that there shouldn't be a market at all for helium-3, so this whole exercise is pointless?
—
President of PETE: People for the Ethical Treatment of Exhumans.
Top
Thu, 2013-01-17 15:53
NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture
I'm saying fusion rockets
I'm saying fusion rockets (and therefore a signification portion of a ship's cost) *has* to be very expensive relative to the cost of He-3. If fusion rocket ships are cheap, people won't use (relatively) expensive He-3. So ships are expensive, He-3 is reasonably priced. This was to cover the question (quote below) re: cheap ships.
Alcahest wrote:
If one can get away with strapping relatively cheap rockets onto giant tanks, having to buy more ships to match the rate of delivery (to the inner system) might not be too big of a problem, as the advantages of Saturn and Uranus pay off in the long run. Then again, they might not. I honestly have no idea.
So delivery is a problem. Another problem: You can fuse deuterium with more deuterium. The output is 50% tritium and 50% He-3. The tritium is much more reactive so presumably would continue to fuel the fusion burn. However, the He-3 would not. You could extract it. You don't need to collect He-3 in the wild. You can extract it from a deuterium reactor (habs, moons, stations,planets don't care so much about the extra weight of the additional shielding required for a deuterium-deuterium reactor). EDIT: This puts a ceiling on how much one can charge for He-3.
—
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto
Top
Thu, 2013-01-17 16:05
Alkahest Alkahest's picture
Aaah, okay, now I understand.
Aaah, okay, now I understand. Thanks for clarifying for me. By the way, did you have a chance to read the paper I linked to? I'd love to hear your thoughts on how applicable you think it is to the EP setting.
—
President of PETE: People for the Ethical Treatment of Exhumans.
Top
Mon, 2013-01-21 17:45
NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture
A cool link, thanks for that.
A cool link, thanks for that. I still like Jupiter. First, capture orbits seem to be much better choice than Hohmann transfer orbits. The "magnetic field of doom" of Jupiter is mostly charged particles. Throw out a lightweight superconducting loop (a magnetic sail) and make it go around you. Yes, the delta-v to get stuff off of Jupiter is high, but at the same time you have: 1. Winds are in predictable bands (directional) and don't get above 50 meters per second at +30 and -30 degrees above and below the equator. Go down to -80 and its even easier. Go all the way down to -75/+75 and its pretty much no wind: A graph of Jupiter's winds: [img=400x280]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wind_speeds_on_Jupiter.png/800px-Wind_speeds_on_Jupiter.png[/img] HOLD ON you say. 50 meters per second is 180km/h! Yes, but it is hydrogen wind. There's a lot less kick than our N2/O2 atmosphere (17.6 atomic units vs. say 1.4 - that's a 3.6x difference of their square roots - so it "feels" more like a 50km/h wind). 2. The temperatures are much nicer on Jupiter - it has t-shirt weather at some altitudes. Uranus is like 49 Kelvin. Brrrr! EDIT: That's bad enough to freeze into a solid [i]every[/i] gas except for neon, helium and hydrogen. Temperature vs. Altitude: [img=400x258]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Structure_of_Jovian_atmosphere.png/400px-Structure_of_Jovian_atmosphere.png[/img] 3. Jupiter has chemical energy (hydrazine). I like this one because [i]you don't actually need a fusion reactor to harvest He-3 on Jupiter[/i]. It's also a nice backup in case you totally lose access to nuclear power. Now Uranus [i]might[/i] end up have some sort of energetic monopropellant hanging out in the atmosphere like the hydrazine of Jupiter - but I doubt it. Jupiter's hydrazine is created by interaction with solar energy. There's very very little of that at Uranus. So your big problem is boosting the He-3 up. However, this is solvable. You can A. Have re-usable rockets/shuttles that use Jovian compressed metallic hydrogen. B. Fire your electromagnetic gun from as high in the atmosphere as you can get to (with bullets full of He-3). If you use a capture orbit to a ship/station that grabs it in a highly eliptical orbit you do not need to have the "full" delta-v. The recieving party "grabs" it when the cannonball reaches its apex, but before it begins accelerating back down. This is also nice for the reciever as they can retain more of their momentum. C. Like B, but use something like a skyhook station.
—
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto
Top
Mon, 2014-02-24 22:42
Hop_David Hop_David's picture
NewtonPulsifer wrote:First,
NewtonPulsifer wrote:
First, capture orbits seem to be much better choice than Hohmann transfer orbits.
NewtonPulsifier, thanks for linking to my blog. I would like to clarify something. My figures assume a Hohmann orbit. The difference between my figures and what's normally shown is nature of parking orbits about the planet. Many delta V budgets assume departing a low circular orbit from one planet to a low circular orbit on another planet. I assume departing a capture orbit from one planet to a capture orbit on the destination planet. But between one planetary capture orbit and destination planetary capture orbit is the heliocentric Hohmann ellipse.
Top
Mon, 2014-03-10 14:37
NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture
Thanks so much for the blog
Thanks so much for the blog and the clarification!
—
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto
Top
Fri, 2014-03-21 01:00
Hoarseman Hoarseman's picture
Why He3?
Just tossing it out there, if your ships are manned, even by synths/infomorphs, you will need shielding if your engines generate a significant amount of radiation, both biologicals and advanced electronics are not fans of ionizing radiation. Shielding will add to mass, and if the cost of He3 is less than the associated mass penalty then it could easily be economical.
Top
Fri, 2014-03-21 12:27
NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture
helium3-helium3 fusion is
helium3-helium3 fusion is aneutronic, and neutrons are the most difficult to shield. Ionized alpha and beta particles are magnetically shieldable, leaving the bremsstrahlung x-rays, which can be reflected by (almost perfect) diamond mirrors. And finally, even if you used a highly neutronic tritium-deuterium reactor, you could just stick it on a truss a kilometer behind you with a parabola shaped radiation shield and let the rest leak into space unshielded. Habs and stations wouldn't let your ship come close, but you could shuttle back and forth.
—
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto
Top