…on the moon.
It doesn’t make much sense to even speculate on the economic potential until we solve the launch-cost problem, though, and there is little in current space policy that even attempts it.
65 thoughts on “Rare Earth”
Comments are closed.
…on the moon.
It doesn’t make much sense to even speculate on the economic potential until we solve the launch-cost problem, though, and there is little in current space policy that even attempts it.
Comments are closed.
solve the launch-cost problem
What launch cost problem? Do you mean the $5000 kg to orbit cost or the $100,000 per kg launch cost to get that same kg to the Moon?
It absolutely amazes me that we continue to beat that dead horse of launch costs when it is only a small part of the overall issue.
Solve the first and you are well on your way to solving the second. Solve the second and you’re still stuck with government only manned spaceflight. Rand is focussing on exactly the right problem. ISRU is not as important as cheap lift. It may be the second most important problem, but cheap lift is the most important one.
How will we ever solve the “launch cost problem” without an established market for large numbers of launches?
PS — Without “speculation” concerning the future economic benefits arising from a significant human presence in space, why would anyone invest significant money into lowering launch costs?
It is the chicken egg conundrum.
It is the chicken egg conundrum.
Actually it isn’t, we have not even tried to skin the chicken, we have been talking about making cheaper eggs for 25 years.
Yes, its not the cost to orbit or even to the lunar surface, its the total cost to deliver the Rare Earths to market.
If launch costs were nil then much of the other costs could be converted to launch costs and therefore to nil.
Yes, its not the cost to orbit or even to the lunar surface, its the total cost to deliver the Rare Earths to market.
It’s not that. It’s the marginal cost (cost from our point of view) of adding rare earths mining and delivery to whatever infrastructure exists already on the Moon. Currently, that means you have to do it all: develop infrastructure to put stuff on the Moon, develop infrastructure for doing serious industrial work on the Moon, and develop infrastructure to return stuff from the Moon. Current rare earths are orders of magnitude too cheap to justify that kind of work.
A century from now, there might be a near completely automated infrastructure for delivering materials from the Moon. Then the marginal cost of years or decades of rare earth extraction might be paying a programmer to put in some lines of code and a little extra shipping and handling on the Earth-side end.
Funny. The article talks about “strategic resources” and you go off about chickens and eggs, and launch costs ?
Can you put a value on something that is strategic ?
IMO, this is an EXCELLENT example of where your local space agency should be spending its cycles and budget, this actually COULD BECOME a national security issue.
Where are all the prospector robots ?
If China does have a de facto monopoly position on terrestrial rare earths, the strategic value of lunar rare earths is far in excess of market price.
“… China recently blocked the export of rare earth elements to Japan for use in an array of products; from wind turbines and glass for solar panels to use in hybrid cars…”
Oh, no, not wind turbines, solar panels, and hybrid cars!!!??? How can we go on without THOSE???!!!!
There is no market for minerals in space if there is no system to retrieve them. No one will make a system to retrieve them if they don’t know they are there or can’t make money off them if there are.
So in a way, it is like the chicken and the egg.
Karl,
[[[It’s not that. It’s the marginal cost (cost from our point of view) of adding rare earths mining and delivery to whatever infrastructure exists already on the Moon.]]]
But currently there is zero infrastructure so a mining venture has to consider that as part of the costs of developing this resource. And that includes exploration since we have only a vague notion of where the best ore bodies are located.
In the American west the infrastructure was developed by government funding and subsidies. While the government also did the mapping and surveying. At least there are some efforts being made to map the Moon better by NASA, although its driven by science more then economic development, but who going to pay for building the lunar infrastructure?
Mfk,
[[[Oh, no, not wind turbines, solar panels, and hybrid cars!!!??? How can we go on without THOSE???!!!!]]]
Also mobile phones, computers, HD TV, and basically anything using integrated circuits and/or a monitor. But I guess we could do without those as well.
We already know plenty about the resources of the Moon. This argument is obsolete. What we don’t know is all to the upside.
As for the cost to the Moon, using solar electric propulsion we can get payloads to the Moon for about $29,000 per kg (first mission, including the launch of the SEP) declining to $16,000 per kg for subsequent missions.
Now which is more beneficial, reducing costs to LEO by 50% or the cost to the Moon by 80%?
As for the cost to the Moon, using solar electric propulsion we can get payloads to the Moon for about $29,000 per kg (first mission, including the launch of the SEP) declining to $16,000 per kg for subsequent missions.
Now which is more beneficial, reducing costs to LEO by 50% or the cost to the Moon by 80%?
The former. The latter costs will come down somewhat proportionately to the former (including solar electric).
$16k/kg to the moon is still too expensive to open the flood gates, the entry barrier must first come down.
And once those flood gates open, ISRU will follow. Or actually, if NASA were to do an ISRU program using commercially launched propellant the two could proceed simultaneously.
The former. The latter costs will come down somewhat proportionately to the former (including solar electric).
Amazing.
The numbers that I provided included the cost to loft the hardware and payloads to LEO.
I am more than astonished that people would argue that lowering costs by 80% is not as good as lowering a cost by 50%.
Everyone waiting for this magical day that launch costs decline by the amount that you claim they have to will never get what you want. If you work to lower the system costs, which includes the LEO–BEO transportation and the cost of the payloads, then Your low cost launch will follow, simply from demand.
We have been going round and round on this since at least 1990 and to continue to insist that you must have this until progress is made, simply makes no sense.
I am more than astonished that people would argue that lowering costs by 80% is not as good as lowering a cost by 50%.
Easy. ISRU doesn’t lower launch costs for space tourism by 80%. They would remain unchanged at 100%, which means we still cannot tap a new source of funding.
The numbers that I provided included the cost to loft the hardware and payloads to LEO.
The cost of the payload goes away if you reuse your landers. In doing that you are converting lander construction costs into propellant launches. If launch costs are reduced by an order of magnitude, then mission costs are reduced by an order of magnitude. And reusable landers without cheap lift are roughly equally expensive as expendable landers without cheap lift.
We have been going round and round on this since at least 1990 and to continue to insist that you must have this until progress is made, simply makes no sense.
Who says we need to wait for cheap lift? We need to go ahead as soon as possible and produce a market for RLVs in the process. In that way ISRU doesn’t have to wait for cheap lift and cheap lift doesn’t have to wait for ISRU. Best of both worlds. If both are successful, you and I might live to see lunar commerce.
I am more than astonished that people would argue that lowering costs by 80% is not as good as lowering a cost by 50%.
That 80% counts for nothing if the initial entry barriers are still too high.
Is $16k/kg to the moon really cheap enough to close the business case? What would potential investors say?
Dennis, can you give a rough estimate as to how much it would cost to establish the lunar mining and transport infrastructure required and how long it might take?
I am more than astonished that people would argue that lowering costs by 80% is not as good as lowering a cost by 50%.
I’m not. The 50% reduction applies to a far larger economy than the 80% does.
The total cost approach to logistics looks at taking cost savings where ever they are found in the supply chain based on the cost/benefits. If the greatest savings are from LEO to lunar surface that is where the focus will be.
Also remember, the cost of putting a Kilogram on the Moon is not the same as shipping a Kilogram from the Moon to the Earth so the high costs from the Earth to the Moon will have their major impact in setting up the mine, in short as part of the start up investment. Once the mine is operational they may well be a minor factor.
Hi All,
FYI here is a USGS fact page on REE.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs087-02/
Some key points.
[[[In 1999 and 2000, nearly all (more than 90%) of the separated REE used in the United States was imported either directly from China or from countries that imported their plant feed materials from China. The surprisingly rapid progression from self-sufficiency prior to about 1990 to nearly complete dependence on imports from a single country today involves a number of causative factors. These include much lower labor and regulatory costs in China than in the United States; continued expansion of electronics and other manufacturing in Asia; the favorable number, size, and HREE content of Chinese deposits; and the ongoing environmental and regulatory problems at Mountain Pass. China now dominates world REE markets (fig. 1), raising several important issues of REE supply for the United States:
(1) The United States is in danger of losing its longstanding leadership in many areas of REE technology. Transfer of expertise in REE processing technology and REE applications from the United States and Europe to Asia has allowed China to develop a major REE industry, eclipsing all other countries in production of both ore and refined products. The Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology recently announced a new national basic research program. Among the first group of 15 high-priority projects to be funded was “Basic research in rare earth materials” (Science, Dec. 18, 1998, p. 2171).
(2) United States dependence on imports from China comes at a time when REE have become increasingly important in defense applications, including jet fighter engines and other aircraft components, missile guidance systems, electronic countermeasures, underwater mine detection, antimissile defense, range finding, and space-based satellite power and communication systems.]]]
Easy. ISRU doesn’t lower launch costs for space tourism by 80%. They would remain unchanged at 100%, which means we still cannot tap a new source of funding.
I have not even used the ISRU argument in this thread. This is based upon using a 500 kW class solar electric transportation vehicle such as we designed in 2005.
Who says we need to wait for cheap lift? We need to go ahead as soon as possible and produce a market for RLVs in the process. In that way ISRU doesn’t have to wait for cheap lift and cheap lift doesn’t have to wait for ISRU. Best of both worlds. If both are successful, you and I might live to see lunar commerce.
Uh, that is what Rand said in his opening post in this thread and that is what you are implying in your second sentence. We are going to live to see lunar commerce, one way or another.
As for the landers, landers don’t have to look like what NASA is doing. There was an interesting idea in the mid 60’s for the Lunar Gemini study that would have an open cockpit single stage lander/lifter. It would work great for an outpost and if you made the engine pressure fed, it would last for quite a while.
Dennis, can you give a rough estimate as to how much it would cost to establish the lunar mining and transport infrastructure required and how long it might take?
That is a very interesting question. The answer is dramatically different, depending on whether or not you have any government money. Lets be interesting and say that there are no government dollars available to you until you get to the lunar surface and are there for a year.
First of all, the company would have to be private, funded by visionary investors and not schlocks from wall street. Second, you don’t go straight to the Moon, you build a business in GEO with large on orbit assembled communications satellites (built in LEO at ISS). These are modular and serviceable. So you make money doing that and use the design as a template for a large solar electric tug.
The tug, built at ISS takes payloads that are ferried up by whatever vehicle you can cut a deal with and then takes them to the Moon. Since you are already a purchaser of launch vehicles for your main business you get price breaks.
The first 60 ton payload carries a large lander for cargo and power system components. You build the tug in such a way that it can be disassembled in LUnar orbit and landed with the large cargo module. As valuable as the tug is, it is more valuable providing power on the surface (landing on the rim of Peary crater in the North). Also with you is a smaller lander that takes down a couple of light rovers, an ISRU unit, and an inflatable hab, along with supplies for six months for two humans.
You send a light lander with an extra fuel supply on an Atlas V heavy, Proton, Ariane V, or Delta IV heavy. Send that into a free return trajectory and you launch the lunar Soyuz and its booster at the same time. Meet up in high cislunar space and use the lander, which separates from the Soyuz on the back side of the Moon, and power down to the surface. You have to time this right to do the plane change to lunar polar on the way.
Once you are down, with just two people, you do your setup and have robotic support to help do things, which start with setting up the full power system and ISRU. After they are down you send a couple of DIV heavies to the Moon with landers carrying supplies, a machine shop and industrial lasers/welders.
You immediately use a magnetic rake to get free iron and Ni/Fe that is in all of the regolith of the Moon and melt it to make flat plate. Using your rovers, small cranes, and the welders, you make a large living space (10x 10x 30 meters) along with an open garage for the machine shop and repair of rovers.
More supplies come and more ISRU processing equipment. You get to the limit of the 500 kW system but now you are making vehicle bodies (don’t tell me you can’t do it if a 12 year old kid can on the earth) and have things like motors, computers, and the like shipped up from the Earth. Now you can actually start to do things as you take the enclosed living space and start growing your food, make more living space, landing pads, railroads, to expand your area of use, and other things.
The schedule to do this. It could be all done in less than a decade.
The cost? It could certainly be done for no more than $10 billion dollars, probably somewhat less. IF you are making money in GEO, that could offset some, most, or all of the cost, depending on how much business you have there.
That is how I would/will/ do it.
“Also mobile phones, computers, HD TV, and basically anything using integrated circuits and/or a monitor. But I guess we could do without those as well.”
Jeez, no f*****g sense of humor at all.
[Hint: They could have listed things people actually care about, but instead listed a whole bunch of PC crap…and I was being, like, sarcastic.]
$10b and 10 years does not seem unreasonable to make a good start on the lunar base you suggest, though details always seem to cost more and take longer – and there are a lot of details. But this is still some distance away from economically mining precious metals on the moon and transporting them back to Earth for financial return. Ten years till cash flow is the outside for private investment, and I would have to advise against any step that exceeded this – one step at a time.
I really like the solar tug and initially using it for the satellite market, though I am not sure where the propellant might come from (and what it might be) or whether it would want to be capable of an aerobraking maneuver back into LEO.
This is based upon using a 500 kW class solar electric transportation vehicle such as we designed in 2005.
All very good, but very ambitious. Why not start with a much smaller tug only for lander fuel and later exported ISRU propellant? Look, I’m all in favour of SEP, a lunar base ISRU, reusable landers and I have energetically advocated for all of those. And all those are compatible with starting with propellant transfer in order to jump start cheap lift. Possibly that means launching more propellant, but that could easily be offset by more rapidly dropping launch prices. And the prize I’m after is LEO commerce, not a lunar base. We could debate which of the two is more strategically important, but I don’t think it’s obvious it’s the lunar base.
I really like the solar tug and initially using it for the satellite market, though I am not sure where the propellant might come from (and what it might be) or whether it would want to be capable of an aerobraking maneuver back into LEO.
Solar electric tugs don’t do aerobraking, it is powered flight all the way except….
We are looking at the possibility of a lunar flyby to lop off a bunch of dV to cut the time back to LEO.
The propellant is xenon and is lifted from the surface of the earth in tanks that you simply swap out with the old ones.
Why not start with a much smaller tug only for lander fuel and later exported ISRU propellant?
Yep, the SETV is modular and the modules are about 60kW BOL power. A single module and fuel can be lofted to ISS in one flight of a light vehicle such as the falcon 9/Dragon and still have payload left over for NASA purposes.
But this is still some distance away from economically mining precious metals on the moon and transporting them back to Earth for financial return.
Not far at all actually. The key item, the pacing item, the enabling feature, is power. After that it is manufacturing capability. Following that is living area. This plan provides the minimum necessary for expansion of all three.
This plan would enable the minimum production of hundreds of tons of Ni/Fe/Co and iron simply from the lunar regolith. On top of that you skew your more involved ISRU processes toward the production of Aluminum and Silicon, which are both abundant in the highlands regions of the lunar North pole. With the amount of power available you should be able to get tens of tons of both per year with the amount of equipment available.
You get the next critical piece to the Moon in your supply runs by making structural components out of Boron metal, that is then used with the silicon to make solar cells locally. With the quality of the vacuum you should be able to get really nice monocrystalline cells at about 18-20% efficiency. Use your aluminum for the backing and for the wires and you should be able to make about 500 kW worth of solar panels per year there. This is when it starts to get interesting.
The DC power straight from the panels can be used in the ISRU process for Aluminum allowing for production increases. The oxygen from the AL2O3 decomposition is stored in aluminum cylinders made from the ISRU process.
Water is harvested from the local materials in the tons quantities and the hundreds of tons quantities from small craters in the floor of Peary. By growing their own food locally, the two people initially working can eat very well with meat supplies imported from the Earth.
Some things that can be done almost immediately would be large telescopes made from local aluminum and silicon dioxide (glass). I used to discount lunar telescopes until I saw the quality of what Lunar Orbiter original images of the Earth looked like. The Hubble Telescope can image the Moon at about 100 meter resolution from Low Earth Orbit. A group of moderately sized (3 meter) telescopes should easily equal that resolution and could successfully compete with some terrestrial weather satellites for remote sensing and weather. That is a revenue stream.
Companies would also pay for secure data storage on the Moon and this could pay for the importation of lots of Flash drives, lightweight and the secure, terrorist proof storage of data would be valuable.
Laser communications between the Moon and the Earth would be valuable as well for extremely high data rate services during the time that the Moon is in sight.
Since we now have manufacturing capability on the Moon, and propellant, we can build satellites ON THE MOON to augment the laser capability of the lunar system. These satellites would be far less complex than their terrestrial counterparts and laser satellite relays at L1,L3,L4, and L5 would bring tons o money into the company.
Oh, also, with this capability you could completely replace the DSN on the Earth with a high data rate antenna farm on the Moon that would be far larger and far more capable than the current DSN, with the Earth fed the data through the laser links. Copies of the laser satellites could then be launched from the Moon and sprinkled between the Earth and Mars to enable tens of gigabits/sec data rates for Mars or anywhere else in the solar system.
Oh, and by this time we would be more than likely self sufficient or break even as we could offer to clean up all the debris, first in GEO, then LEO using lunar derived propellants and simply built spacecraft.
Then we could start having fun with the exportation of metals from the Moon to the Earth.
Think Different About The Moon.
OK, let me describe what I have in mind and see how it fits with your goals. I think it fits rather well and that is not a coincidence since it is informed by your writings:
NASA does exploration with propellant transfer as soon as possible. The main goals of that exploration are 1) to stimulate commercial development of LEO by channeling the demand for propellant launches through the market and 2) to establish a sustainable government funded off-world presence. Note the differences between the goals. The first one would only require NASA to stimulate such development, not to ensure it and it would be restricted to LEO only. The second requires NASA to establish a presence, not merely stimulate it, but relaxes the requirement to government funded missions only, not private activity. The first would be hands-off, while the second would have very strong NASA involvement. Still no duplication of efforts of course, use Bigelow habs instead of newly developed NASA habs for instance.
The second goal would lead NASA to follow a Flexible Path to L1/L2, then SEL-2, then either NEOs or the moon, probably the latter. In the mean time robotic precursors could start work on lunar ISRU and NEO prospecting missions. After that priority should be given to a permanent moon base whose main goal is to make each subsequent crew arrival both cheaper and more valuable. This obviously includes doing ISRU for propellant, maybe greenhouses etc. It would also include settings up ever more habitat space, maintenance facilities etc. While doing all this, the base would engage in any science of convenience, such as lunar geology. This second goal seems entirely compatible with what you have been writing about.
The first goal would start by buying propellant in LEO (providing a market for existing launch vehicles and newly developed tiny RLVs) and L1/L2 as well as propellant transport services between the two. The latter could provide someone like you with a business case for developing a privately financed SEP tug for at least propellant, which could evolve into something more spectacular. No politician or civil servant would have to decide whether SEP tugs or RLVs are more efficient, what kind of propellant should be used etc.
This approach would try to reduce costs on three fronts: reducing IMLEO, increasing reuse and reducing launch costs. The market would make most of the decisions. NASA would still have a leading role in exploration while not involving itself with things it is ill-suited for namely establishing a viable space transport and logistics infrastructure.
The first goal would start by buying propellant in LEO (providing a market for existing launch vehicles and newly developed tiny RLVs)
These two goals are mutually incompatible. Using the existing vehicles are fine but since the fuel you need to get to the Moon is 80% of the IMLEO mass, this simply won’t work.
However, if you have the lunar infrastructure developing as listed above, RLV’s start to make sense in that they haul undifferentated cargo (i.e. motors, lasers, computers, meat) for the lunar installation. These cargo’s are aggregated at the station and sent on their way via SEP. The SEP mass needed per 60 ton payload for a round trip is 25 tons of xenon (krypton), which is what a DIVH can deliver to ISS.
addendum
You could make money off of NASA in the same way that Bigelow wants to make money off of other countries, providing passage to space.
If NASA wants to send a couple of scientists to the Moon for six month we would be more than happy to do so for $5 billion dollars.
This would be way cheaper than their program.
Everything else would take care of itself in the commercial market.
These two goals are mutually incompatible. Using the existing vehicles are fine but since the fuel you need to get to the Moon is 80% of the IMLEO mass, this simply won’t work.
I think the goals are perfectly compatible. You can reduce IMLEO by an order of magnitude and you can reduce launch cost/kg by an order of magnitude. Both would lead to significant reductions in mission cost. If you start with the first, then it is very difficult to achieve the second. If you start with the second, the first will become much easier.
The SEP mass needed per 60 ton payload for a round trip is 25 tons of xenon (krypton), which is what a DIVH can deliver to ISS.
25 tons of xenon is about half the world’s annual production. How many trips per year do you envision? Can xenon production be ramped up quickly enough to support this rate?
25 tons of xenon is about half the world’s annual production. How many trips per year do you envision? Can xenon production be ramped up quickly enough to support this rate?
I have a letter from the world’s largest Xenon producer that says with a 36 month lead time they are more than capable of doubling or tripling production. Xenon production is a byproduct of liquid oxygen production.
Argon can be used as well if necessary.
The current value of REE ores is a few dollars per pound of REE content. Even if chunks of 100% rare earth oxides could just be picked up on the lunar surface, the cost of sending them back to earth would greatly exceed this.
Reserves (not resources) of REEs are estimated at about 100 million tons, with much of that in the US.
Undiscovered resources are likely much larger.
We can conclude rare earth elements make a very poor candidate for mining on the moon. If prices rose enough to make moon mines feasible, they’d make vast new terrestrial resource feasible too (and these would be cheaper.)
We can conclude rare earth elements make a very poor candidate for mining on the moon. If prices rose enough to make moon mines feasible, they’d make vast new terrestrial resource feasible too (and these would be cheaper.)
The REE’s are probably more valuable on the Moon than back here on the Earth.
Now do this for Platinum Group Metals. Look at the amount that you need to convert our entire global automobile fleet to fuel cells. And don’t give us any hoo haa about substitutes unless you have done a LOT of work to quantify the relative value of each.
> The REE’s are probably more valuable on the Moon than back here on the Earth.
Yes, because of all the manufacturing enterprises there waiting to buy the ores, and all the cash-rich lunar customers lining up to buy their products.
I’m sure if I was allowed to introduce imaginary markets I could make the price of REEs on Earth go up too.
Serious lunar resource development, processing and utilization would seem to me to require a village. A lunar village would seem to me to require much lower launch costs, as it would need scale. Maybe it is theoretically possible to achieve everything you say with only a couple of people on the moon, but I myself do not see it as being practically possible. This gets into a very long discussion…
“Undiscovered resources are likely much larger.”
Yes: 357.2 million tons.
I’m sure if I was allowed to introduce imaginary markets I could make the price of REEs on Earth go up too.
Yes and if a frog had wings he would not bump his rear end when he jumps either.
I think the goals are perfectly compatible. You can reduce IMLEO by an order of magnitude and you can reduce launch cost/kg by an order of magnitude. Both would lead to significant reductions in mission cost. If you start with the first, then it is very difficult to achieve the second. If you start with the second, the first will become much easier.
I do think that RLV’s will be the ticket as lunar industrialism takes hold but not for propellant.
Addendum
The most valuable REE is not strictly a REE but is found in association with them, and it is Thorium. A local source of Thorium would preclude the kind of battle that is fought with environmentalists over the launch of nuclear materials. Thorium batteries would dramatically increase the power available to a lunar industrial outpost and would be the true transformation and beginning of a solar system spanning civilization.
Serious lunar resource development, processing and utilization would seem to me to require a village. A lunar village would seem to me to require much lower launch costs, as it would need scale. Maybe it is theoretically possible to achieve everything you say with only a couple of people on the moon, but I myself do not see it as being practically possible. This gets into a very long discussion…
You would start with a couple of people but you are right human presence would have to grow soon thereafter. On thing that is intriguing me greatly right now is the amazing advances in robotics that is happening without anyone noticing. This will allow for an amazing expansion of productivity of the people that are there and will allow for a much greater telepresence fraction of the labor force.
In the beginning there would be a couple of people on the Moon, expanding as it was affordable, but there would be a room full of people on the Earth operating hardware on the Moon. The expansion of people on the Moon must be done in a cost effective manner that we can’t really envision yet but I do think that you would start out with one year stints or even two year for the people on the Moon itself. Everything is paced by how much power you have. This is why the early focus on Aluminum and silicon for ISRU as well as the inexpensive magnetic raking of the regolith to get the easily accessable Ni/Fe/Co and non meteoric iron.
One thing to think about is just how much we have to over-engineer things here on the Earth that are going to space. So much of the effort of building things for space today is centered around making it so that they can handle the launch environment. Once you are out there making things on the Moon everything changes. Very quickly you would almost completely dispense with large Earth integrated payloads and go for sending up parts. That will have the effect of lowering launch costs as much as the development of an RLV. Everyone is focused on fire and smoke but it is actually a small part of the total systems cost today of any payload larger than a microsat.
This is a systems of systems argument and until we start thinking in this manner we are doomed to repeat our launch vehicle mistakes. Even today, to get a comsat to GEO, launch is only ~19% of the cost. It does not change a single comsat deal to drop that price by 50%. However, if I can change the cost of my system to lower it by 50% I am doing something. I just had a chat today with an executive that is trying to get a major comsat operator to lower their price by double digits. There is huge pressure for cost savings today and if space does not get off its duff and figure out how to do this then in 20 years we will have far less capability to launch payloads than we do today.
Reserves (not resources) of REEs are estimated at about 100 million tons, with much of that in the US.
So. When chinese stop selling, and the price of a pound hits infinity ( sorry .. hits whatever the cost of recycling ends up being .. ) . Where do you start digging ? And why exactly is noone digging yet ?
BTW, has anyone looked at the prices of Tellurium over last decade ? Stragegic resource ? Hardly so, but ..