Friday, 21 October 2016

Will jobs exist in 2050?

Sophisticated machines are fast outpacing jobs. What does this mean for the future of work? And if there are no jobs, what we will do with our time?

Robotic hand using a laptop computer.


As we develop artificial intelligence, what will happen to future jobs? Photograph: KTS Design/Getty Images/Science Photo Library RF

By  /The Guardian/Thursday 13 October 2016

Blogger Ref

There’s no question that technology is drastically changing the way we work, but what will the job market look like by 2050? Will 40% of roles have been lost to automation – as predicted by Oxford university economists Dr Carl Frey and Dr Michael Osborne – or will there still be jobs even if the nature of work is exceptionally different from today? To address these issues, the Guardian hosted a roundtable discussion, in association with professional services firm Deloitte, which brought together academics, authors and IT business experts.
The future of work will soon become “the survival of the most adaptable”, says Paul Mason, emerging technologies director for Innovate UK. As new technologies fundamentally change the way we work, the jobs that remain will be multifaceted and changeable.
“Workers of the future will need to be highly adaptable and juggle three or more different roles at a time,” says Anand Chopra-McGowan, head of enterprise new markets for General Assembly. So ongoing education will play a key role in helping people develop new skills.
It may be the case that people need to consistently retrain to keep up-to-date with the latest technological advances, as jobs are increasingly automated and made redundant. The idea of a “job for life” will be well and truly passé. “There will be constant new areas of work people will need to stay on top of. In 2050 people will continually need to update their skills for jobs of the moment, but I have an optimistic view that there will continue to be employment if these skills are honed,” adds Chopra-McGowan.

However, Mark Spelman, co-head of future of the internet interactive, member of the executive committee for the World Economic Forum, says there will be winners and losers in this new world. “The idea of continuous training is optimistic – I imagine there will be one-day training blitzes where people learn new skills quickly, and then are employed for a month while they’re needed.”
This means the workforce is more likely to shift towards more part-time, freelance-based work, says Julia Lindsay, chief executive of iOpener Institute. “Employers won’t think in terms of employees – they’ll think in terms of specialisms. Who do I need? And for how long? Future work may also be focused around making complex decisions – using creativity, leadership and high degrees of self management.”
For businesses, this means keeping on top of the latest technological advances. “It comes back to how we use technology to inform young people about jobs. Data plays an important role – how can we engage children at school in technology, and give them more support early on in their career? It’s important that there is a cycle drive to foster a better digital environment,” says Mervin Chew, digital attraction manager for Deloitte.
The problem with needing highly specialised roles is that it will isolate parts of the population who are unable to continuously adapt and retrain. “We can’t all be knowledge workers,” says Dan Collier, chief executive of Elevate. “So there will be a lot of unemployment – and perhaps no impetus to help these people. There will end up being a division between the few jobs that need humans, and those that can be automated.”
We’re essentially heading towards a two-tier society, agrees Dave Coplin, chief envisioning officer for Microsoft UK. This feeling was echoed by all of our panel, who saw a potential divide between high-level, leadership roles and then less highly-specialised jobs that can be automated.
“This is either going to be very good or very bad – and either way there’s not going to be much in the way of work,” says Richard Newton, author of The End of Nice: How to be human in a world run by robots. The defining factor to whether there will be a two-tier society of mass unemployment, or a society of leisure, will be what society places value on. “The social contract of work has been ripped up, and people will be left with nothing for as long as businesses and corporations value productivity,” adds Newton.
The cheapest and most productive thing to do will be to automate the workforce, so if productivity is what shareholders place value on, there will be mass unemployment. “But if you use technology to reduce accidents, produce food for people and save time – that provides a great societal value,” says Spelman. It doesn’t fit with today’s idea of maximising profits, but these are important things we will need from society. “So in future we need to put societal and shareholder value together,” adds Spelman.

The idea of productivity was forged in the industrial revolution, so it’s no surprise that this may soon become an outdated way of viewing work. “There’s no shortage of work in society – there’s loads of jobs like caring, looking after children and volunteer work, for which we do not assign a value,” says Magdalena Bak-Maier, founder and managing director of Make Time Count.
However, we need to move away from this idea of working for a pay packet. “There also needs to be a shift away from the stereotype of men working and women staying at home,” adds Clare Ludlow, director of Timewise Foundation.
Coplin agrees that even if we can automate all the services we need (and thus eliminate most jobs) we will continue to have huge societal problems that need attention. “We are on a burning platform – a key issue of the future will be: how will we feed everyone?” So there’s an idea that as we continue to evolve and find new boundaries, work will be confined to working on the next human step. “First we need to tackle food and healthcare and transport issues, then we need to make the way we treat the earth more sustainably – and finally we will even look at reaching other planets,” Coplin says.

It may seem that some of these conversations are premature, as we are decades away from creating a working artificial intelligence. “There’s a huge potential for robotics, but you must remember that making a robot is hard,” says Dr Sabine Hauert, lecturer in robotics for the University of Bristol. “For example, if you wanted to create a robot and ask it to fetch you some water, that is amazingly complex. First, the robot needs to understand the home environment, then see the glass, and then locate you. These challenges are extremely hard to solve one by one, and at the moment they’re almost impossible to solve altogether.”
However, Hauert warns that we will see robots and algorithms programmed to do highly specific tasks. “Robots can be programmed to do specific tasks, rather than doing everything.”
One thing we need to remember is that the defining factor for what computers will be designed and created to do, is what humans want. “The change will come from what we want to happen. People make the planet work, so new advances will respond to how people want technology to change,” explains Mason.
But we have to be wary of creating things superior to us, warns Mark Eltringham, workplace expert and consultant for Insight Publishing. “The descent of man under machines is something to be wary and fearful of – it has the potential to be damaging in ways we haven’t thought of before.”

In the past we have used technology to replicate old ways of working – as a way to simply make old practices quicker and cheaper, but now we are about to enter a third computational wave where machines can learn and adapt. “This will have a huge economic impact – businesses will think: should I take the saving that automating the workforce will make, and run? Or should I take the saving and then work with it to create new jobs?” says Coplin.
“I used to think that creative skills would provide a ‘safe space’ as a refuge – but as technology continues to develop, I’m not so sure,” adds Newton. Indeed there is evidence that computers will eventually be able to replicate creative tasks, and even learn to create music, art and write novels.
But Newton is optimistic that this won’t devalue human accomplishments. “I think increasingly we will start to value the journey a human has been on, their personal struggle for achieving something great, even if a robot can do it better. For example, with a musician, we will value how long it took him to learn to produce such amazing music. It’s that human journey and struggle which will become important.”
Though the future of work is unclear, the panel agreed that one thing is for certain: “The nature of work is going to change – the jobs of tomorrow won’t be the same as jobs of today.”

Corporations Running the World Used to Be Science Fiction - Now It's a Reality

Corporations Running the World Used to Be Science Fiction - Now It's a Reality
A view of New York City's business skyscrapers Randy Pertiet under a Creative Commons Licence
By Aisha Dodwell /
Imagine a world in which all of the main functions of society are run for-profit by private companies. Schools are run by multinationals. Private security firms have replaced police forces. And most big infrastructure lies in the hands of a tiny plutocratic elite. Justice, such as it is, is meted out by shady corporate tribunals only accessible to the rich, who can easily escape the reach of limited national judicial systems. The poor, on the other hand, have almost no recourse against the mighty will of the remote corporate elite as they are chased off their land and forced into further penury.
This sounds like a piece of dystopian science fiction. But it’s not. It’s very close to the reality in which we live. The power of corporations has reached a level never before seen in human history, often dwarfing the power of states.

Today, of the 100 wealthiest economic entities in the world, 69 are now corporations and only 31 countries.* This is up from 63 to 37 a year ago. At this rate, within a generation we will be living in a world entirely dominated by giant corporations.
As multinationals increasingly dominate areas traditionally considered the primary domain of the state, we should be afraid. While they privatise everything from education and health to border controls and prisons, they stash their profits away in secret offshore accounts. And while they have unrivalled access to decision makers they avoid democratic processes by setting up secret courts enabling them to bypass all judicial systems applicable to people. Meanwhile their raison d’etre of perpetual growth in a finite world is causing environmental destruction and driving climate change. From Sports Direct's slave-like working conditions to BP's oil spill devastating people's homes, stories of corporations violating rights are all too often seen in our daily papers.
Yet the power of corporations is so great within our society that they have undermined the idea that there is any other way to run society. We are all too familiar with hearing about the threat of ‘losing corporate investment’ or companies taking their business somewhere else as if the government's number one task is to attract corporate investment.
It is this corporate agenda that permeates the governing institutions of the global economy, like the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, whose policies and operations have given more importance to the ‘rights’ of big business than the rights and needs of people and the environment.
The problem of unrestrained corporate power is massive, and it requires a massive solution. That is why Global Justice Now is launching a petition to the UK government demanding that it backs the new UN& initiative for a legally binding global treaty on transnational corporations and human rights.
This UN treaty is the result of campaigning by countries from across the global south for international laws to regulate the activities of TNCs. In June 2014 they successfully got a resolution passed in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) establishing the need for such a treaty.
A working group of member states has been set up to take the treaty forward, chaired by Ecuador, they have met once already in 2015, and have the next meeting scheduled for October 2016 to discuss the scope and content of the treaty. Meanwhile, civil society groups from across the world have come together and formed the Treaty Alliance movement which aims to make sure the treaty comes in to being with truly meaningful content.
Although it may sound like a boring technical process, this treaty is something we should be excited about because it provides a huge opportunity in the fight to restrain corporate power. It has massive potential to withdraw the privileges that corporations have gained over recent decades and force them to comply with international human rights law, international labour law and international environmental standards. It would oblige governments to take the power of corporations seriously, and hold them to account for the power they wield. This would standardise how different governments relate to multinationals which means that rather than allowing them to play countries off against one another in a race to the bottom, it would force minimum standards.

But the UK government, well known for its cosy relationship with corporations, has so far refused to take part in this UN treaty. And the UK are not alone, most other EUcountries are also opposed to the treaty.
We need to make sure our government doesn’t pass up on this rare opportunity to provide genuine protection for the victims of human rights abuses committed by multinational corporations and place binding obligations on all governments to hold their corporations to account for their impacts on people and the planet.
That’s why groups across the continent are joining forces to make sure their leaders participate in the Geneva talks this October. The petition launched today, urging governments across Europe to participate in the Geneva talks will be delivered to national and EU leaders on 12 October.
Of course, the battle against corporate power has many fronts and the UN treaty is only one part of it. At the same time, we need to continue to develop alternative ways to produce and distribute the goods and services we need. We need to undermine the notion that only massive corporations can make the economy and society ‘work’. Food sovereignty and energy democracy are just two examples of how it is possible to build an economy without corporations. But as long as corporations do play a role in our economy, we need to find ways to control their activity and prevent abuses. This is why we need to fight for this UN treaty.
The alternative is that we continue to rush towards the dystopian vision of unchallenged corporate power. We cannot allow this to happen. We must fight back.

You can sign the petition on Global Justice Now’s website.
* These figures have been taken from a direct comparison of the annual revenue of corporations and the annual revenue of countries. Sources: CIA World Factbook 2015and Fortune Global 500

Joseph Stiglitz proposes co-op models as an alternative to trickle-down economics


A changing political landscape and economic challenges mean we are witnessing “interesting” but “unsettling” times, warned economist Joseph Stiglitz at the International Summit of Cooperatives in Quebec.
The Nobel Prize laureate was a keynote speaker at the three-day conference, which brings together over 3,000 delegates from across the world to discuss the future of the co-operative economy.
A world-renowned academic, Prof Stiglitz teaches at Columbia University and has written extensively about inequality, trade agreements and the main issues affecting the world economy.
At the Summit he looked at the key challenges facing the global economy and the role of co-ops in addressing them.
He said that alongside changes in the political landscape, such as Brexit and the upcoming elections in the USA, the world faced economic issues which are beyond the control of individuals and even national governments.
“These are problems which the private sector won’t solve – partly because the private sector created these problems,” he said. “Co-ops and the social economy provide a key third pillar. That’s one of the reasons why I was particularly happy to address you this morning.”
Many countries are witnessing growing inequality which was the result of “the laws of men”, he added.
“Growing inequality is a result of how we have structured the market economy – in particular how we have restructured it in the last third of a century,” he said. “Inequality has been a choice.”
Prof Stiglitz gave the example of the USA, where the income share of the richest 1% (not including capital gains) equals that of the bottom 90%. Another aspect revealing inequality is the rise in executive pay, he added, with the salaries of chief executives rising by more than 300 times than that of the average US worker.
“If CEOs are taking a larger share of income then there is less and less for reinvestment in the company,” he warned.
Medium household income in the USA has also stayed relatively constant since 1998, he said. That year, income reached USD $58,301, while in 2015 it amounted to only USD $56,516.
He said inequality also manifested itself as a lack of access to health services, opportunities and justice. A study by economist Angus Deaton from 2015 shows that death rates have risen over the last years for white USA citizens.
This shorter life expectancy, argued Prof Stiglitz, was the result of social diseases, alcoholism, suicide and drugs – and are a sign that trickle-down economics is not working.
Financialisation has also resulted in more inequality and short term thinking, said Prof Stiglitz.
“Financial integration was supposed to lead to faster growth and more stability,” he said. “This, in turn, has economic and political consequences.
“Citizens know that the establishment has either lied to them or been totally incompetent. They feel that the economic system is rigged. They have lost trust in government and in the fairness of the political and economic system.”
What is the role of co-ops in addressing this inequality? Prof Stiglitz thinks they represent a better way of responding to the risks presented by the society.
“There are alternatives to the current system, even if some suggest there are not,” he said. “Some suggest at most we need minor tweaks on the system. But problems are deep and fundamental. Minor tweaks won’t solve it.”
He criticised economist Milton Friedman’s approach, emphasizing the pursuit personal interest which indirectly contributed to the well-being of society. He believes this “selfish” pursuit is what caused the 2008 financial crisis as well as the emissions scandal at Volkswagen.
“We should learn from co-ops,” he said. “If we do, we can reshape our economy, reshape globalisation and who we and our children are.
“These alternatives make a very big difference. I believe we can construct a world where the economy performs better for all, based on solidarity”.
Joining a panel discussion on the future of the global economy, Prof Stiglitz also raised concerns over using GDP as a measure for social well-being.
“Some governments cut down on social security to grow GDP,” he said, “but the really important aspect is well-being. People actually feel better when they co-operate rather than being selfish.”
Prof Stiglitz predicts that the co-operative model will take a larger share of the economy in some countries.
“There is going to be volatility, and co-ops are better able to manage risks than the private sector,” he said, adding that the Democratic US presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, was sympathetic to the idea of having more worker voice and participation in enterprises. Prof Stiglitz is an adviser to Ms Clinton.
Another panellist, Jean-Yves Duclos, Canada’s Minister of Family, Children and Social Development, agreed that co-operatives could help promote inclusiveness and build a stronger democracy. He sees co-ops as particularly important actors in meeting the housing needs of Canadians.
Asked how much co-operatives could achieve while surviving in competitive markets, Prof Stiglitz warned that they “cannot ignore the laws of the economy”.
By not wanting to take advantage of customers, co-ops ran the risk of being at a disadvantage, he said.
“It’s essential to have good government regulation to prevent an un-level playing field,” he added.
Another challenge is that large corporations are often those making legislation and regulations. Large corporations represented in international organisations such as the B20 often argue for particular frameworks, and Prof Stiglitz thinks that giving representation for co-ops on these platforms will address this issue.
“The rules of the game are being set by those who are at the table, for their own interest,” he said, “so it’s very important to have the co-op movement there as a reminder to big corporations about the dangers of excessive selfishness – and to keep the idea that there are alternative forms of organisation that ought to be discussed, that isn’t just the issue of government vs private sector.”
  • For more of our coverage of the International Summit of Co-operatives, visit

Tuesday, 11 October 2016

Stephen Hawking on the Future of Capitalism and Inequality

Black & White photo of Hawking at NASA.



Pic Wikipedia

Last Thursday, the acclaimed physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, dropped a truth-bomb about capitalism and the future of inequality. With the rapid technological advancements of the past few decades (e.g. computer technology, robotics), we have seen economic inequalities grow at alarming rates, and a kind of plutocratic class of owners — that is, capitalists — become immensely wealthy. Hawking believes that, if machines do end up replacing human labor and producing all of our commodities, and we continue on the current neoliberal route, we are on our way to becoming a sort of dystopia of a top ownership class, with immeasurable wealth, and a bottom ownerless class — that is, the masses — living in abject poverty. In a Reddit Ask Me Anything session, Hawkins wrote:
“If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.”
The replacement of human labor by machines has always been a fear for working class people. Back in the midst of the industrial revolution, it resulted in a worker backlash known as the luddite movement, where in England, textile workers protested layoffs and economic difficulties by destroying industrial equipment and factories. Today, we see this with the elimination of many previously stable manufacturing jobs in cities like Baltimore and Detroit, replaced largely by automation. This kind of technological innovation that we see throughout the history of capitalism is what Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction,” which he describes as a “process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.” Schumpeter called this process “the essential fact about capitalism.”
Creative destruction has always garnered a net positive for society. While innovations eliminate jobs for many, new technologies historically create new industries and new jobs that come with them. This inherent process of capitalism rapidly increases worker productivity and therefore makes once luxurious goods available to a wider spectrum of the population. New technologies help produce significantly more products, which then flushes the supply, and pushes down the price to meet demand.
As I said above, historically, creative destruction ends up producing new jobs after eliminating old ones. But today, it seems we may finally be heading in another direction, and technology has already begun to eliminate more jobs than it creates. Nothing exemplifies this more than the “big three” automakers back in 1990 (GM, Ford, Chrysler) compared to the big three tech companies of today. In 1990, the American automakers brought in $36 billion in revenue altogether, and employed over one million workers, compared to Apple, Facebook, and Google today, which together bring in more than one trillion dollars in revenue, yet employee only 137,000 workers.
And how about American manufacturing compared to the financial industry? Since the 1950’s, the financial industry has gone from enjoying around 10 percent of domestic corporate profits to around 30 percent today(with a high of 40 percent at the start of the century), while manufacturing has dropped from close to 60 percent of corporate profits to around 20 percent. But what is really telling is each industries domestic employment. The financial industry’s employment has remained quite steady over the past sixty years, at under 5 percent, while manufacturing has dropped from 30 percent to under 10 percent. This has a lot to do with the financialization of the American economy, but also the rise of automation. And it’s not about to get any better. According to an Oxford University study from 2013, up to 47% of jobs may be computerized in the next 10 to 20 years.
The middle class has been hit the hardest over the past few decades, and it will continue to be hit hard in the coming decades at this rate. From 1973 to 2013, for example, a typical workers compensation only increased by 9.2 percent, while their productivity increased by about 74.4 percent. Compare this to the post-war period (1948-1973), where productivity rose by 96.7 percent and worker compensation by 91.3 percent. At the same time, the top one percent wage has grown by 138 percent since 1979, while the ownership class has seen their wealth accelerate at a rapid clip. During the late ‘70s, the top 0.1 percent owned just 7.1 percent of household wealth in America, while in 2012 that number had more than tripled to 22 percent, which is about equal to the bottom 90 percents household wealth. Think about that. Just 0.1 percent of a population owns as much wealth as 90 percent.
Now, as Hawking’s said, there seem to be two possibilities. The future may become even more unequal as technology continues to replace labor and leave the masses unemployed and ownerless (currently, this seems more probable), or, if wealth is more evenly distributed, everyone could enjoy “luxurious leisure,” or as Karl Marx famously put it:
“In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”
The influential economist, John Maynard Keynes, believed that the future of capitalism (as oppose to socialism or communism, as Marx believed) would bring this leisurely existence to human beings. In his 1930 essay, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren,” he predicted that the growth and technological advancements that capitalism provided would lower the average working week to fifteen hours within a century, making what to do with one’s free time our biggest concern. On money, Keynes provided a hopeful prediction with the singing prose he became known for (barring his exceptionally dry General Theory).
“The love of money as a possession -as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life -will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.”
Keynes made some prophetic predictions in his day, but this was not one of them. Today, it seems Marx’s analysis of capitalism better fits the great economic inequalities and the global mobility of capital.
Still, nothing is set in stone. The rise of Bernie Sanders, for example, reveals a growing movement ready to combat the neoliberal status quo that has come to dominate American (and global) politics. If the economy continues on the road it is on, the question of wealth distribution will no longer be just a moral question of how great a level of inequality we as a society are willing to accept, but a question of political and economic stability. The ownership of capital will ultimately determine this future, but there are other movements and policy ideas with this future in mind, such as a guaranteed basic income, where all citizens, once they reach a certain age, are provided a stipend, which would likely replace traditional safety nets. Switzerland may be the first country to enact this policy, and a vote will likely come in 2016. The proposed plan would provide a guaranteed monthly income of $2,600, or $31,200 annually; in other words, enough for everyone to survive and pursue work that they actually enjoy. For those on the right getting ready to scream the S-word, it should be noted that many conservatives and even libertarians, such as F.A. Hayek, have endorsed this idea. It has a surprising history of bi-partisan support, and would, at the very least, prevent extreme poverty in the future, as robots and computer technology continue to take human jobs.
The growing inequality around the world can no longer be ignored, and addressing this and the other problems of capitalism, such as environmental degradation, is not only the morally right thing to do, but the pragmatic thing to do.


Conor Lynch is a writer and journalist living in New York City. His work has appeared on Salon, Alternet, The Hill, and CounterPunch. 

Einstein supported a one-world government and was a Socialist

from Braincrave Second Life staff
Aug 23, 2011
Click here to start Second Life Intellectual Discussion Group via IRC - no membership requiredBlogger Ref

...........Albert Einstein supported a one-world government and was a Socialist.
Einstein's passionate commitment to the cause of global peace led him to support the creation of a single, unified world government. Einstein thought that patriotic zeal often became an excuse for violence: "As a citizen of Germany," he wrote in 1947, "I saw how excessive nationalism Zoom in on document can spread like a disease, bringing tragedy to millions." To combat this "disease," Einstein wanted to eliminate nationalistic sentiments-first by erasing the political borders between countries and then by instituting an international government with sovereignty over individual states. During World War I, Einstein supported the formation of the "United States of Europe." He later endorsed the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations. But Einstein worried that the United Nations did not have enough authority to ensure world peace...

Einstein saw world government as the only way to ensure lasting world peace. But he was skeptical that an organization like the United Nations-which answered to the national governments of its member states-could prevent future wars. In Einstein's view, world peace would be guaranteed only when the leaders of individual nations answered to a single, supranational government.

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is...

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor-not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules...

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense...

Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?  Video link on above subject

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Central Bank Digital Currencies: A Revolution in Banking?


But Ben Broadbent, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, puts a more positive spin on it. He says Central Bank Digital Currencies could supplant the money now created by private banks through “fractional reserve” lending – and that means 97% of the circulating money supply. Rather than outlawing bank-created money, as money reformers have long urged, fractional reserve banking could be made obsolete simply by attrition, preempted by a better mousetrap.  The need for negative interest rates could also be eliminated, by giving the central bank more direct tools for stimulating the economy.
The Blockchain Revolution
How blockchain works was explained by Martin Hiesboeck in an April 2016 article titled “Blockchain Is the Most Disruptive Invention Since the Internet Itself“:
The blockchain is a simple yet ingenious way of passing information from A to B in a fully automated and safe manner. One party to a transaction initiates the process by creating a block. This block is verified by thousands, perhaps millions of computers distributed around the net. The verified block is added to a chain, which is stored across the net, creating not just a unique record, but a unique record with a unique history. Falsifying a single record would mean falsifying the entire chain in millions of instances. That is virtually impossible.
In a speech at the London School of Economics in March 2016, Bank of England Deputy Governor Ben Broadbent pointed out that a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) would not eliminate physical cash. Only the legislature could do that, and blockchain technology would not be needed to pull it off, since most money is already digital. What is unique and potentially revolutionary about a national blockchain currency is that it would eliminate the need for banks in the payments system. According to a July 2016 article in The Wall Street Journal on the CBDC proposal:
[M]oney would exist electronically outside of bank accounts in digital wallets, much as physical bank notes do. This means households and businesses would be able to bypass banks altogether when making payments to one another.
Not only the payments system but the actual creation of money is orchestrated by private banks today. Nearly 97% of the money supply is created by banks when they make loans, as the Bank of England acknowledged in a bombshell report in 2014. The digital money we transfer by check, credit card or debit card represents simply the IOU or promise to pay of a bank. A CBDC could replace these private bank liabilities with central bank liabilities. CBDCs are the digital equivalent of cash.
Money recorded on a blockchain is stored in the “digital wallet” of the bearer, as safe from confiscation as cash in a physical wallet. It cannot be borrowed, manipulated, or speculated with by third parties any more than physical dollars can be. The money remains under the owner’s sole control until transferred to someone else, and that transfer is anonymous.
Rather than calling a CBDC a “digital currency,” says Broadbent, a better term for the underlying technology might be “decentralised virtual clearinghouse and asset register.” He adds:
But there’s no denying the technology is novel.  Prospectively, it offers an entirely new way of exchanging and holding assets, including money.
Banking in the Cloud
One novel possibility he suggests is that everyone could hold an account at the central bank. That would eliminate the fear of bank runs and “bail-ins,” as well as the need for deposit insurance, since the central bank cannot run out of money. Accounts could be held at the central bank not just by small depositors but by large institutional investors, eliminating the need for the private repo market to provide a safe place to park their funds. It was a run on the repo market, not the conventional banking system, that triggered the banking crisis after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.
Private banks could be free to carry on as they do now. They would just have substantially fewer deposits, since depositors with the option of banking at the ultra-safe central bank would probably move their money to that institution.
That is the problem Broadbent sees in giving everyone access to the central bank: there could be a massive run on the banks as depositors moved their money out. If so, where would the liquidity come from to back bank loans? He says lending activity could be seriously impaired.
Perhaps, but here is another idea. What if the central bank supplanted not just the depository but the lending functions of private banks? A universal distributed ledger designed as public infrastructure could turn the borrowers’ IOUs into “money” in the same way that banks do now – and do it more cheaply, efficiently and equitably than through banker middlemen.
Making Fractional Reserve Lending Obsolete
The Bank of England has confirmed that banks do not actually lend their depositors’ money. They do not recycle the money of “savers” but actually create deposits when they make loans. The bank turns the borrower’s IOU into “checkable money” that it then lends back to the borrower at interest. A public, distributed ledger could do this by “smart contract” in the “cloud.” There would be no need to find “savers” from whom to borrow this money. The borrower would simply be “monetizing” his own promise to repay, just as he does now when he takes out a loan at a private bank. Since he would be drawing from the bottomless well of the central bank, there would be no fear of the bank running out of liquidity in a panic; and there would be no need to borrow overnight to balance the books, with the risk that these short-term loans might not be there the next day.
To reiterate: this is what banks do now. Banks are not intermediaries taking in deposits and lending them out. When a bank issues a loan for a mortgage, it simply writes the sum into the borrower’s account. The borrower writes a check to his seller, which is deposited in the seller’s bank, where it is called a “new” deposit and added to that bank’s “excess reserves.” The issuing bank then borrows this money back from the banking system overnight if necessary to balance its books, returning the funds the next morning. The whole rigmarole is repeated the next night, and the next and the next.
In a public blockchain system, this shell game could be dispensed with. The borrower would be his own banker, turning his own promise to repay into money. “Smart contracts” coded into the blockchain could make these transactions subject to terms and conditions similar to those for loans now. Creditworthiness could be established online, just as it is with online credit applications now. Penalties could be assessed for nonpayment just as they are now. If the borrower did not qualify for a loan from the public credit facility, he could still borrow on the private market, from private banks or venture capitalists or mutual funds. Favoritism and corruption could be eliminated, by eliminating the need for a banker middleman who serves as gatekeeper to the public credit machine. The fees extracted by an army of service providers could also be eliminated, because blockchain has no transaction costs.
In a blog for Bank of England staff titled “Central Bank Digital Currency: The End of Monetary Policy As We Know It?”, Marilyne Tolle suggests that the need to manipulate interest rates might also be eliminated. The central bank would not need this indirect tool for managing inflation because it would have direct control of the money supply.
A CBDC on a distributed ledger could be used for direct economic stimulus in another way: through facilitating payment of a universal national dividend. Rather than sending out millions of dividend checks, blockchain technology could add money to consumer bank accounts with a few keystrokes.
Hyperinflationary? No.
The objection might be raised that if everyone had access to the central bank’s credit facilities, credit bubbles would result; but that would actually be less likely than under the current system. The central bank would be creating money on its books in response to demand by borrowers, just as private banks do now. But loans for speculation would be harder to come by, since the leveraging of credit through the “rehypothecation” of collateral in the repo market would be largely eliminated. As explained by blockchain software technologist Caitlin Long:
Rehypothecation is conceptually similar to fractional reserve banking because a dollar of base money is responsible for several different dollars of debt issued against that same dollar of base money. In the repo market, collateral (such as U.S Treasury securities) functions as base money. . . .
Through rehypothecation, multiple parties report that they own the same asset at the same time when in reality only one of them does—because, after all, only one such asset exists. One of the most important benefits of blockchains for regulators is gaining a tool to see how much double-counting is happening (specifically, how long “collateral chains” really are).
Blockchain eliminates this shell game by eliminating the settlement time between trades. Blockchain trades occur in “real-time,” meaning collateral can be in only one place at a time.
A Sea Change in Banking
Martin Hiesboeck concludes:
[B]lockchain won’t just kill banks, brokers and credit card companies. It will change every transactional process you know. Simply put, blockchain eliminates the need for clearinghouse entities of any kind. And that means a revolution is coming, a fundamental sea change in the way we do business.
Changes of that magnitude usually take a couple of decades. But the UK did surprise the world with its revolutionary Brexit vote to leave the EU. Perhaps a new breed of economists at the Bank of England will surprise us with a revolutionary new model for banking and credit.
Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at She can be heard biweekly on “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM.

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

Asteroid Mining


Jump to: navigation, search
Artist's concept of asteroid mining
433 Eros is a stony asteroid in a near-Earth orbit
Asteroid mining is the exploitation of raw materials from asteroids and other minor planets, including near-Earth objects.[1] Minerals and volatiles could be mined from an asteroid or spent comet then used in space for in-situ utilization (e.g. construction materials and rocket propellant) or taken back to Earth. These include gold, iridium, silver, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium and tungsten for transport back to Earth; iron, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, aluminium, and titanium for construction; water and oxygen to sustain astronauts; as well as hydrogen, ammonia, and oxygen for use as rocket propellant.
Due to the astronomically high costs of current space transportation, extraction techniques still being developed and lingering uncertainties about target selection, terrestrial mining is currently the only means of raw mineral acquisition today.


Based on known terrestrial reserves, and growing consumption in both developed and developing countries, key elements needed for modern industry and food production could be exhausted on Earth within 50–60 years.[2] These include phosphorus, antimony, zinc, tin, lead, indium, silver, gold and copper.[3] In response, it has been suggested that platinum, cobalt and other valuable elements from asteroids may be mined and sent to Earth for profit, used to build solar-power satellites and space habitats,[4][5] and water processed from ice to refuel orbiting propellant depots.[6][7][8]
Although asteroids and Earth accreted from the same starting materials, Earth's relatively stronger gravity pulled all heavy siderophilic (iron-loving) elements into its core during its molten youth more than four billion years ago.[9][10][11] This left the crust depleted of such valuable elements until a rain of asteroid impacts re-infused the depleted crust with metals like gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium and tungsten (some flow from core to surface does occur, e.g. at the Bushveld Igneous Complex, a famously rich source of platinum-group metals). Today, these metals are mined from Earth's crust, and they are essential for economic and technological progress. Hence, the geologic history of Earth may very well set the stage for a future of asteroid mining.
In 2006, the Keck Observatory announced that the binary Jupiter trojan 617 Patroclus,[12] and possibly large numbers of other Jupiter trojans, are likely extinct comets and consist largely of water ice. Similarly, Jupiter-family comets, and possibly near-Earth asteroids that are extinct comets, might also provide water. The process of in-situ resource utilization—using materials native to space for propellant, thermal management, tankage, radiation shielding, and other high-mass components of space infrastructure—could lead to radical reductions in its cost.[1] Although whether these cost reductions could be achieved, and if achieved would offset the enormous infrastructure investment required, is unknown.
Ice would satisfy one of two necessary conditions to enable "human expansion into the Solar System" (the ultimate goal for human space flight proposed by the 2009 "Augustine Commission" Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee): physical sustainability and economic sustainability.[13]
From the astrobiological perspective, asteroid prospecting could provide scientific data for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Some astrophysicists have suggested that if advanced extraterrestrial civilizations employed asteroid mining long ago, the hallmarks of these activities might be detectable.[14][15][16] Why extraterrestrials would have resorted to asteroid mining in near proximity to earth, with its readily available resources, has not been explained.

Asteroid selection[edit]

Comparison of delta-v requirements for standard Hohmann transfers
Earth surface to LEO8.0 km/s
LEO to near-Earth asteroid5.5 km/s[note 1]
LEO to lunar surface6.3 km/s
LEO to moons of Mars8.0 km/s
An important factor to consider in target selection is orbital economics, in particular the change in velocity (Δv) and travel time to and from the target. More of the extracted native material must be expended as propellant in higher Δv trajectories, thus less returned as payload. Direct Hohmann trajectories are faster than Hohmann trajectories assisted by planetary and/or lunar flybys, which in turn are faster than those of the Interplanetary Transport Network, but the reduction in transfer time comes at the cost of increased Δv requirements.[citation needed][clarification needed]
Near-Earth asteroids are considered likely candidates for early mining activity. Their low Δv makes them suitable for use in extracting construction materials for near-Earth space-based facilities, greatly reducing the economic cost of transporting supplies into Earth orbit.[17]
The table above shows a comparison of Δv requirements for various missions. In terms of propulsion energy requirements, a mission to a near-Earth asteroid compares favorably to alternative mining missions.
An example of a potential target[18] for an early asteroid mining expedition is 4660 Nereus, expected to be mainly enstatite. This body has a very low Δv compared to lifting materials from the surface of the Moon. However it would require a much longer round-trip to return the material.
Multiple types of asteroids have been identified but the three main types would include the C-type, S-type, and M-type asteroids:
  1. C-type asteroids have a high abundance of water which is not currently of use for mining but could be used in an exploration effort beyond the asteroid. Mission costs could be reduced by using the available water from the asteroid. C-type asteroids also have a lot of organic carbon, phosphorus, and other key ingredients for fertilizer which could be used to grow food.[19]
  2. S-type asteroids carry little water but look more attractive because they contain numerous metals including: nickel, cobalt and more valuable metals such as gold, platinum and rhodium. A small 10-meter S-type asteroid contains about 650,000 kg (1,433,000 lb) of metal with 50 kg (110 lb) in the form of rare metals like platinum and gold.[19]
  3. M-type asteroids are rare but contain up to 10 times more metal than S-types[19]
A class of easily recoverable objects (EROs) was identified by a group of researchers in 2013. Twelve asteroids made up the initially identified group, all of which could be potentially mined with present-day rocket technology. Of 9,000 asteroids searched in the NEO database, these twelve could all be brought into an Earth-accessible orbit by changing their velocity by less than 500 meters per second (1,800 km/h; 1,100 mph). The dozen asteroids range in size from 2 to 20 meters (10 to 70 ft).[20] Many authors[who?] have pointed out, however, the human error or technological failure might alter asteroid orbits to create disastrous asteroid strikes.

Asteroid cataloging[edit]

Main article: B612 Foundation
The B612 Foundation is a private nonprofit foundation with headquarters in the United States, dedicated to protecting Earth from asteroid strikes. As a non-governmental organization it has conducted two lines of related research to help detect asteroids that could one day strike Earth, and find the technological means to divert their path to avoid such collisions.
The foundation's current goal is to design and build a privately financed asteroid-finding space telescope, Sentinel, to be launched in 2017–2018. The Sentinel's infrared telescope, once parked in an orbit similar to that of Venus, will help identify threatening asteroids by cataloging 90% of those with diameters larger than 140 metres (460 ft), as well as surveying smaller Solar System objects.[21][22][23]
Data gathered by Sentinel will be provided through an existing scientific data-sharing network that includes NASA and academic institutions such as the Minor Planet Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Given the satellite's telescopic accuracy, Sentinel's data may prove valuable for other possible future missions, such as asteroid mining.[22][23][24]

Mining considerations[edit]

There are three options for mining:[17]
  1. Bring raw asteroidal material to Earth for use.
  2. Process it on-site to bring back only processed materials, and perhaps produce propellant for the return trip.
  3. Transport the asteroid to a safe orbit around the Moon, Earth or to the ISS.[8] This can hypothetically allow for most materials to be used and not wasted.[5] Along these lines, NASA has proposed a potential future space mission known as the Asteroid Redirect Mission, although the primary focus of this mission is on retrieval. The House of Representatives recently deleted a line item for the ARP budget from NASA's FY 2017 budget request.
Processing in situ for the purpose of extracting high-value minerals will reduce the energy requirements for transporting the materials, although the processing facilities must first be transported to the mining site.
Mining operations require special equipment to handle the extraction and processing of ore in outer space.[17] The machinery will need to be anchored to the body,[citation needed] but once in place, the ore can be moved about more readily due to the lack of gravity. However, no techniques for refining ore in zero gravity currently exist. Docking with an asteroid might be performed using a harpoon-like process, where a projectile would penetrate the surface to serve as an anchor; then an attached cable would be used to winch the vehicle to the surface, if the asteroid is both penetrable and rigid enough for a harpoon to be effective.[25]
Due to the distance from Earth to an asteroid selected for mining, the round-trip time for communications will be several minutes or more, except during occasional close approaches to Earth by near-Earth asteroids. Thus any mining equipment will either need to be highly automated, or a human presence will be needed nearby.[17] Humans would also be useful for troubleshooting problems and for maintaining the equipment. On the other hand, multi-minute communications delays have not prevented the success of robotic exploration of Mars, and automated systems would be much less expensive to build and deploy.[26]
Technology being developed by Planetary Resources to locate and harvest these asteroids has resulted in the plans for three different types of satellites:
  1. Arkyd Series 100 (The Leo Space telescope) is a less expensive instrument that will be used to find, analyze, and see what resources are available on nearby asteroids.[19]
  2. Arkyd Series 200 (The Interceptor) Satellite that would actually land on the asteroid to get a closer analysis of the available resources.[19]
  3. Arkyd Series 300 (Rendezvous Prospector) Satellite developed for research and finding resources deeper in space.[19]
Technology being developed by Deep Space Industries to examine, sample, and harvest asteroids is divided into three families of spacecrafts:
  1. FireFlies are triplets of nearly identical spacecraft in CubeSat form launched to different asteroids to rendezvous and examine them.[27]
  2. DragonFlies also are launched in waves of three nearly identical spacecraft to gather small samples (5–10 kg) and return them to Earth for analysis.[27]
  3. Harvestors voyage out to asteroids to gather hundreds of tons of material for return to high Earth orbit for processing.[28]
Asteroid mining could potentially revolutionize space exploration. The C-type asteroids's high abundance of water could be used to produce fuel by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. This would make space travel a more feasible option by lowering cost of fuel, although cost of fuel is a relatively insignificant factor in the overall cost of a manned space mission.

Extraction techniques[edit]

Surface mining[edit]

On some types of asteroids, material may be scraped off the surface using a scoop or auger, or for larger pieces, an "active grab."[17] There is strong evidence that many asteroids consist of rubble piles,[29] making this approach possible.

Shaft mining[edit]

A mine can be dug into the asteroid, and the material extracted through the shaft. This requires precise knowledge to engineer accuracy of astro-location under the surface regolith and a transportation system to carry the desired ore to the processing facility.

Magnetic rakes[edit]

Asteroids with a high metal content may be covered in loose grains that can be gathered by means of a magnet.[17][30]


For volatile materials in extinct comets, heat can be used to melt and vaporize the matrix.[17][31]

Extraction using the Mond process[edit]

The nickel and iron of an iron rich asteroid could be extracted by the Mond process. This involves passing carbon monoxide over the asteroid at a temperature between 50 and 60 °C, then nickel and iron can be removed from the gas again at higher temperatures, perhaps in an attached printer, and platinum, gold etc. left as a residue.[32]

Self-replicating machines[edit]

A 1980 NASA study entitled Advanced Automation for Space Missions proposed a complex automated factory on the Moon that would work over several years to build a copy of itself.[33] Exponential growth of factories over many years could refine large amounts of lunar (or asteroidal) regolith. Since 1980 there has been major progress in miniaturization, nanotechnology, materials science, and additive manufacturing, so the self-replicating "factory" might be as small as a 3-D printer.

Proposed mining projects[edit]

On April 24, 2012 a plan was announced by billionaire entrepreneurs to mine asteroids for their resources. The company is called Planetary Resources and its founders include aerospace entrepreneurs Eric Anderson and Peter Diamandis. Advisers include film director and explorer James Cameron and investors include Google's chief executive Larry Page and its executive chairman Eric Schmidt.[1][34] They also plan to create a fuel depot in space by 2020 by using water from asteroids, splitting it to liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen for rocket fuel. From there, it could be shipped to Earth orbit for refueling commercial satellites or spacecraft.[1] The plan has been met with skepticism by some scientists, who do not see it as cost-effective, even though platinum and gold are worth nearly £35 per gram (approximately $1,800 per troy ounce).[when?] Platinum and gold are raw materials traded on terrestrial markets, and it is impossible to predict what prices either will command at the point in the future when resources from asteroids become available. For example, platinum, which was trading at $1800/ounce 9 years ago trades in a range between $900/1000/ounce currently, and since the primary use of platinum is as the catalyst in catalytic converters from internal combustion engine exhaust, the long term demand for platinum may well decrease. The ongoing NASA mission OSIRIS-REx, which is planned to return just a minimum amount (60 g; two ounces) of material but could get up to 2 kg from an asteroid to Earth, will cost about US$1 billion.[1][35]
Planetary Resources says that, in order to be successful, it will need to develop technologies that bring the cost of space flight down. Planetary Resources also expects that the construction of "space infrastructure" will help to reduce long-term running costs. For example, fuel costs can be reduced by extracting water from asteroids and split it to hydrogen using solar energy. In theory, hydrogen fuel mined from asteroids costs significantly less than fuel from Earth due to high costs of escaping Earth's gravity. If successful, investment in "space infrastructure" and economies of scale could reduce operational costs to levels significantly below NASA's ongoing (OSIRIS-REx) mission.[36][non-primary source needed]This investment would have to be amortized through the sale of commodities, delaying any return to investors. There are also some indications that Planetary Resources expects government to fund infrastructure development, as was exemplified by its recent request for $700,000 from NASA to fund the first of the telescopes described above. The British Company, Asteroid Mining Corporation, has already announced its plans to seek government funding (see below).
Another similar venture, called Deep Space Industries, was started by David Gump, who had founded other space companies.[37] The company hopes to begin prospecting for asteroids suitable for mining by 2015 and by 2016 return asteroid samples to Earth.[38] By 2023 Deep Space Industries plans to begin mining asteroids.[39]
At ISDC-San Diego 2013,[40] Kepler Energy and Space Engineering (KESE,llc) also announced it was going to mine asteroids, using a simpler, more straightforward approach: KESE plans to use almost exclusively existing guidance, navigation and anchoring technologies from mostly successful missions like the Rosetta/Philae, Dawn, and Hyabusa's Muses-C and current NASA Technology Transfer tooling to build and send a 4-module Automated Mining System (AMS) to a small asteroid with a simple digging tool to collect ~40 tons of asteroid regolith and bring each of the four return modules back to low Earth orbit (LEO) by the end of the decade. Small asteroids are expected to be loose piles of rubble, therefore providing for easy extraction.
In September 2012, the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) announced the Robotic Asteroid Prospector project, which will examine and evaluate the feasibility of asteroid mining in terms of means, methods, and systems.[41]
In February 2016, the British-based Asteroid Mining Corporation was established by Mitch Hunter-Scullion with the intentions of lobbying the British Government for a regulatory framework and start up investment in Asteroid Mining.[42] Mission plans and potential system usages are being designed currently with future plans aiming to use a prospecting satellite launched aboard a reusable Falcon 9 from SpaceX or by Skylon when it becomes operational to rendezvous with a near-Earth object and collect several kilograms of Platinum group materials which will then be returned to low Earth orbit and recovered by at a later date to be sold on at a premium.[43] The Asteroid Mining Corporation aims to raise funds through crowdfunding, in a radically different and novel approach in industrial financing to allow a wide cross section of society to benefit from the riches of space, to this end an Indiegogo appeal is being launched on July 12, 2016.[44]
Being the largest body in the asteroid belt, Ceres could become the main base and transport hub for future asteroid mining infrastructure,[45] allowing mineral resources to be transported to Mars, the Moon, and Earth. Because of its small escape velocity combined with large amounts of water ice, it also could serve as a source of water, fuel, and oxygen for ships going through and beyond the asteroid belt.[45] Transportation from Mars or the Moon to Ceres would be even more energy-efficient than transportation from Earth to the Moon.[46]

Potential targets[edit]

According to the Asterank database, following asteroids are best targets for mining if maximum cost-effectiveness is to be achieved:[47]
AsteroidEst. Value ($)Est. Profit ($)Δv (km/s)Composition
Ryugu95 billion35 billion4.663Nickel, iron, cobalt, water, nitrogen, hydrogen, ammonia
1989 ML14 billion4 billion4.888Nickel, iron, cobalt
Nereus5 billion1 billion4.986Nickel, iron, cobalt
Didymos84 billion22 billion5.162Nickel, iron, cobalt
2011 UW1588 billion2 billion5.187Platinum, nickel, iron, cobalt
Anteros5570 billion1250 billion5.439magnesium silicate, aluminum, iron silicate
2001 CC21147 billion30 billion5.636magnesium silicate, aluminum, iron silicate
1992 TC84 billion17 billion5.647Nickel, iron, cobalt
2001 SG104 billion0.6 billion5.880Nickel, iron, cobalt
2002 DO30.3 billion0.06 billion5.894Nickel, iron, cobalt

Economics and safety[edit]

Currently, the quality of the ore and the consequent cost and mass of equipment required to extract it are unknown and can only be speculated. Some economic analyses indicate that the cost of returning asteroidal materials to Earth far outweighs their market value, and that asteroid mining will not attract private investment at current commodity prices and space transportation costs.[48][49] Other studies suggest large profit by using solar power.[50][51] Potential markets for materials can be identified and profit generated if extraction cost is brought down. For example, the delivery of multiple tonnes of water to low Earth orbit for rocket fuel preparation for space tourism could generate a significant profit if space tourism itself proves profitable, which has not been proven.[52]
In 1997 it was speculated that a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (1 mi) contains more than US$20 trillion worth of industrial and precious metals.[7][53] A comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km (0.62 mi) could contain more than two billion metric tons of ironnickel ore,[54] or two to three times the world production of 2004.[55] The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of nickel–iron, which could supply the world production requirement for several million years. A small portion of the extracted material would also be precious metals.
Not all mined materials from asteroids would be cost-effective, especially for the potential return of economic amounts of material to Earth. For potential return to Earth, platinum is considered very rare in terrestrial geologic formations and therefore is potentially worth bringing some quantity for terrestrial use. However, platinum from asteroids would have to be processed in orbit, since it requires 20 tons of high grade platinum oar - the equivalent of a Shuttle load - to produce an ounce of refined platinum worth +- $1000. The cost of refining in orbit is unknown, but undoubtedly man multiples of mining/refining costs within the atmosphere. Nickel, on the other hand, is quite abundant and being mined in many terrestrial locations, so the high cost of asteroid mining may not make it economically viable.[56]
Although Planetary Resources says platinum from a 30-meter-long (98 ft) asteroid is worth US$25–50 billion,[57] an economist remarked any outside source of precious metals could lower prices sufficiently to possibly doom the venture by rapidly increasing the available supply of such metals.[58]
Development of an infrastructure for altering asteroid orbits could offer a large return on investment.[59] However, astrophysicists Carl Sagan and Steven J. Ostro raised the concern altering the trajectories of asteroids near Earth may pose a collision hazard. They concluded orbit engineering has both opportunities and dangers: If controls instituted on orbit-manipulation technology were too tight, future spacefaring could be hampered, but if they were too loose, human civilization would be at risk.[59][60][61]


Scarcity is a fundamental economic problem of humans having seemingly unlimited wants in a world of limited resources. Since Earth's resources are not infinite, the relative abundance of asteroidal ore gives asteroid mining the potential to provide nearly unlimited resources, which could practically eliminate scarcity for those materials.[citation needed]
The idea of exhausting resources is not new. In 1798, Thomas Malthus wrote, because resources are ultimately limited, the exponential growth in a population would result in falls in income per capita until poverty and starvation would result as a constricting factor on population.[62] It should be noted that 1798 is 218 years ago, and no sign has yet emerged of the Malthus affect regarding raw materials.
  • Proven reserves are deposits of mineral resources that are already discovered and known to be economically extractable under present or similar demand, price and other economic and technological conditions.[62]
  • Conditional reserves are discovered deposits that are not yet economically viable.[citation needed]
  • Indicated reserves are less intensively measured deposits whose data is derived from surveys and geological projections. Hypothetical reserves and speculative resources make up this group of reserves. Inferred reserves are deposits that have been located but not yet exploited.[62]
Continued development in asteroid mining techniques and technology will help to increase mineral discoveries.[63] As the cost of extracting mineral resources, especially platinum group metals, on Earth rises, the cost of extracting the same resources from celestial bodies declines due to technological innovations around space exploration.[62] However, it should be noted that the "substitution effect", i.e. the use of other materials for the functions now performed by platinum, would increase in strength as the cost of platinum increased. New supplies would also come to market in the form of jewelry and recycled electronic equipment from itinerant "we buy platinum" businesses like the "we buy gold" businesses that exist now.
There are 711 known asteroids which value exceeds 100 trillion USD.[64]

Financial feasibility[edit]

Space ventures are high-risk, with long lead times and heavy capital investment, and that is no different for asteroid-mining projects. These types of ventures could be funded through private investment or through government investment. For a commercial venture it can be profitable as long as the revenue earned is greater than total costs (costs for extraction and costs for marketing).[65] The costs involving an asteroid-mining venture have been estimated to be around $100 billion US.[65]
There are six categories of cost considered for an asteroid mining venture:[65]
  1. Research and development costs
  2. Exploration and prospecting costs
  3. Construction and infrastructure development costs
  4. Operational and engineering costs
  5. Environmental costs
  6. Time cost
Determining financial feasibility is best represented through net present value.[65] One requirement needed for financial feasibility is a high return on investments estimating around 30%.[65] Example calculation assumes for simplicity that the only valuable material on asteroids is platinum. On September 5, 2008 platinum was valued at US$1,340 per ounce, or US$43,000 per kilogram. On August 16, 2016 is $1157. or $37,000 per kilogram. At the $1,340. price, for a 10% return on investment, 173,400 kg (5,575,000 ozt) of platinum would have to be extracted for every 1,155,000 tons of asteroid ore. For a 50% return on investment 1,703,000 kg (54,750,000 ozt) of platinum would have to be extracted for every 11,350,000 tons of asteroid ore. This analysis assumes that doubling the supply of platinum to the market (5.13 million ounces in 2014) would have no affect on the price of platinum. A more realistic assumption is that increasing the supply by this amount would reduce the price 30-50%.


Space law involves a specific set of international treaties, along with national commercialization laws. The system and framework for international and domestic laws were established through the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.[66] The rules, terms and agreements that considered by space law authorities to be part of the active body of international space law are the five international space treaties and five UN declarations. Approximately 100 nations and institutions were involved in negotiations. The space treaties cover many major issues such as arms control, non-appropriation of space, freedom of exploration, liability for damages, safety and rescue of astronauts and spacecraft, prevention of harmful interference with space activities and the environment, notification and registration of space activities, and the settlement of disputes. In exchange for assurances from the space power, the nonspacefaring nations acquiesced to U.S. and Soviet proposals to treat outer space as a commons (res communis) territory which belonged to no one state.
Asteroid mining in particular is regulated, among others, by the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement.
Varying degrees of criticism exist regarding international space law. Some critics accept the Outer Space Treaty, but reject the Moon Agreement. Therefore, it is important to note that even the Moon Agreement with its common heritage of mankind clause, allows space mining, extraction, private property rights and exclusive ownership rights over natural outer space resources, if removed from their natural place. The Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement allow private property rights for outer space natural resources once removed from the surface, subsurface or subsoil of the moon and other celestial bodies in outer space. Thus, international space law is capable of managing newly emerging space mining activities, private space transportation, commercial spaceports and commercial space stations/habitats/settlements. Space mining involving the extraction and removal of natural resources from their natural location is without question allowable under the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement. Once removed, those natural resources can be reduced to possession, sold, traded and explored or used for scientific purposes. International space law allows space mining, specifically the extraction of natural resources. It is generally understood within the space law authorities that extracting space resources is allowable, even by private companies for profit. However, international space law prohibits property rights over territories and outer space land.

The Outer Space Treaty[edit]

After ten years of negotiations between nearly 100 nations, the Outer Space Treaty opened for signature on January 27, 1966. It entered into force as the constitution for outer space on October 10, 1967. The Outer Space Treaty was well received; it was ratified by ninety-six nations and signed by an additional twenty-seven states. The outcome has been that the basic foundation of international space law consists of five (arguably four) international space treaties, along with various written resolutions and declarations. The main international treaty is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967; it is generally viewed as the “Constitution" for outer space. By ratifying the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, ninety-eight nations agreed that outer space would belong to the “province of mankind”, that all nations would have the freedom to “use” and “explore” outer space, and that both these provisions must be done in a way to “benefit all mankind.” The province of mankind principle and the other key terms have not yet been specifically defined (Jasentuliyana, 1992). Critics have complained that the Outer Space Treaty is vague. Yet, international space law has worked well and has served space commercial industries and interests for many decades. The taking away and extraction of Moon rocks, for example, has been treated as being legally permissible.
The framers of Outer Space Treaty initially focused on solidifying broad terms first, with the intent to create more specific legal provisions later (Griffin, 1981: 733-734). This is why the members of the COPUOS later expanded the Outer Space Treaty norms by articulating more specific understandings which are found in the “three supplemental agreements” – The Rescue and Return Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1973, and the Registration Convention of 1976 (734).
Hobe (2006) explains that the Outer Space Treaty “explicitly and implicitly prohibits only the acquisition of territorial property rights” – public or private, but extracting space resources is allowable.

The Moon Agreement[edit]

The Moon Agreement (1979-1984) is often treated as though it is not a part of the body of international space law, and there has been extensive debate on whether or not the Moon Agreement is a valid part of international law. It entered into force in 1984, because of a five state ratification consensus procedure, agreed upon by the members of the United Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). Still today very few nations have signed and/or ratified the Moon Agreement. In recent years this figure has crept up to a few more than a dozen nations who have signed and ratified the treaty. The other three outer space treaties experienced a high level of international cooperation in terms of signage and ratification, but the Moon Treaty went further than them, by defining the Common Heritage concept in more detail and by imposing specific obligations on the parties engaged in the exploration and/or exploitation of outer space. The Moon Treaty explicitly designates the Moon and its natural resources as part of the Common Heritage of Mankind.
After The Rescue and Return Agreement of 1968, the Liability Convention of 1973, and the Registration Convention of 1976 (734) were enacted, key actors involved in space law negotiations, set out to establish and confirm a few more legal norms which were to be embodied in the Moon Agreement, since important issues such as the environment, public health and sharing to benefit all mankind were left open. Many of the terms written into the Moon Treaty were sticking points during early negotiations.[citation needed]
The Moon Agreement allows space mining, specifically the extraction of natural resources. The treaty specifically provides in Article 11, paragraph 3 that:
Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place [emphasis added], shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the Moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the Moon or any areas thereof.
This provision was negotiated into the Moon Agreement by the United States in order to make sure that natural resources extracted from the Moon were legally permissible to take.[according to whom?] Taking natural resources out of their location, from the surface or subsurface, has been interpreted by space law authorities[who?] as meaning that those resources are no longer tied to the “in place” restrictions against ownership.[citation needed]
Christol (1980) in The Moon Treaty: Fact and Fiction explains this legal distinction. He states that the Moon Treaty “ … does allow for the removal from the Moon and other celestial bodies of their natural resources”.

Legal regimes of some countries[edit]

Some nations are beginning to promulgate legal regimes for extraterrestrial resource extraction. For example, the United States "SPACE Act of 2015"—facilitating private development of space resources consistent with US international treaty obligations—passed the US House of Representatives in July 2015.[67][68] In November 2015 it passed the United States Senate.[69] On 25 November US-President Barack Obama signed the H.R.2262 - U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act into law.[70] The law recognizes the right of U.S. citizens to own space resources they obtain and encourages the commercial exploration and utilization of resources from asteroids. According to the article § 51303 of the law:[71]
A United States citizen engaged in commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or a space resource under this chapter shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource obtained, including to possess, own, transport, use, and sell the asteroid resource or space resource obtained in accordance with applicable law, including the international obligations of the United States
In February 2016, the Government of Luxembourg announced that it would attempt to "jump-start an industrial sector to mine asteroid resources in space" by, among other things, creating a "legal framework" and regulatory incentives for companies involved in the industry.[72][73] By June 2016, announced that it would "invest more than US$200 million in research, technology demonstration, and in the direct purchase of equity in companies relocating to Luxembourg."[74]


Ongoing and planned[edit]

  • OSIRIS-REx - planned NASA asteroid sample return mission (launch in September 2016)
  • Hayabusa 2 - ongoing JAXA asteroid sample return mission (arriving at the target in 2018)
  • Asteroid Redirect Mission - potential future space mission proposed by NASA (if funded, the mission would be launched in December 2020)
  • Fobos-Grunt 2 - planned Roskosmos sample return mission to Phobos (launch in 2024)


First successful missions by country:[75]
NationFlybyOrbitLandingSample return
 USAICE (1985)NEAR (1997)NEAR (2001)Stardust (2006)
 JapanSuisei (1986)Hayabusa (2005)Hayabusa (2005)Hayabusa (2010)
 EUICE (1985)Rosetta (2014)Rosetta (2014)
 USSRVega 1 (1986)
 ChinaChang'e 2 (2012)

In fiction[edit]

The first mention of asteroid mining in science fiction is apparently Garrett P. Serviss' story Edison's Conquest of Mars, New York Evening Journal, 1898.[76][77]
The 1979 film Alien, directed by Ridley Scott, is about the crew of the Nostromo, a commercially operated spaceship on a return trip to Earth hauling a refinery and 20 million tons of mineral ore mined from an asteroid. C. J. Cherryh's novel, Heavy Time focuses on the plight of asteroid miners in the Alliance-Union universe, while Moon is a 2009 British science fiction drama film depicting a lunar facility that mines the alternative fuel helium-3 needed to provide energy on Earth. It was notable for its realism and drama, winning several awards internationally.[78][79][80]
In several science fiction video games, asteroid mining is a possibility. For example, in the space-MMO, EVE Online, asteroid mining is a very popular career, owing to its simplicity.[81][82][83]
In Star Citizen, the mining occupation supports a variety of dedicated specialists, each of which has a critical role to play in the effort.[84]


See also[edit]


  1. Jump up ^ This is the average amount; asteroids with much lower delta-v exist.


  1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Plans for asteroid mining emerge". BBC News. 24 April 2012. Retrieved 2012-04-24. 
  2. Jump up ^ D. Cohen, "Earth's natural wealth: an audit", NewScientist, 23 May 2007.
  3. Jump up ^ American Chemical Society, "Endangered Elements", ACS website.
  4. Jump up ^ BRIAN O'LEARY; MICHAEL J. GAFFEY; DAVID J. ROSS & ROBERT SALKELD (1979). "Retrieval of Asteroidal Materials". SPACE RESOURCES and SPACE SETTLEMENTS,1977 Summer Study at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. NASA. 
  5. ^ Jump up to: a b Lee Valentine (2002). "A Space Roadmap: Mine the Sky, Defend the Earth, Settle the Universe". Space Studies Institute. Retrieved September 19, 2011. 
  6. Jump up ^ Didier Massonnet; Benoît Meyssignac (2006). "A captured asteroid : Our David's stone for shielding earth and providing the cheapest extraterrestrial material". Acta Astronautica. Acta Astronautica. 59: 77–83. Bibcode:2006AcAau..59...77M. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2006.02.030. 
  7. ^ Jump up to: a b Lewis, John S. (1997). Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroids, Comets, and Planets. Perseus. ISBN 0-201-32819-4. 
  8. ^ Jump up to: a b John Brophy; Fred Culick; Louis Friedman; et al. (12 April 2012). "Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study" (PDF). Keck Institute for Space Studies, California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 
  9. Jump up ^ University of Toronto (2009, October 19).Geologists Point To Outer Space As Source Of The Earth's Mineral Riches. ScienceDaily
  10. Jump up ^ Brenan, James M.; McDonough, William F. (2009). "Core formation and metal–silicate fractionation of osmium and iridium from gold" (PDF). Nature Geoscience. 2: 798–801. doi:10.1038/ngeo658. 
  11. Jump up ^ Willbold, Matthias; Elliott, Tim; Moorbath, Stephen (2011). "The tungsten isotopic composition of the Earth's mantle before the terminal bombardment". Nature. 477: 195–198. Bibcode:2011Natur.477..195W. doi:10.1038/nature10399. PMID 21901010. 
  12. Jump up ^ Marchis, F.; et al. (February 2006). "A low density of 0.8 g/cm−3 for the Trojan binary asteroid 617 Patroclus". Nature. 439: 565–567. arXiv:astro-ph/0602033free to read. Bibcode:2006Natur.439..565M. doi:10.1038/nature04350. PMID 16452974. 
  13. Jump up ^ C. Gardner, "Tobacco and beaver pelts: the sustainable path", The Space Review, 18 April 2011.
  14. Jump up ^ Evidence of asteroid mining in our galaxy may lead to the discovery of extraterrestrial civilizations
  15. Jump up ^ Asteroid Mining: A Marker for SETI?
  16. Jump up ^ Duncan Forgan, Martin Elvis:Extrasolar Asteroid Mining as Forensic Evidence for Extraterrestrial Intelligence@, (Retrieved 2011-04-07)
  17. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Harris, Stephen (2013-04-16). "Your questions answered: asteroid mining". The Engineer. Retrieved 2013-04-16. 
  18. Jump up ^ Ross, S.D. (2001). Near-Earth asteroid mining
  19. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f "M-Type Asteroids - Astronomy Source". 
  20. Jump up ^ Mohan, Keerthi (2012-08-13). "New Class of Easily Retrievable Asteroids That Could Be Captured With Rocket Technology Found". International Business Times. Retrieved 2012-08-15. 
  21. Jump up ^ Powell, Corey S. "Developing Early Warning Systems for Killer Asteroids", Discover, August 14, 2013, pp. 60–61 (subscription required).
  22. ^ Jump up to: a b "The Sentinel Mission". B612 Foundation. Retrieved September 19, 2012. 
  23. ^ Jump up to: a b Broad, William J. Vindication for Entrepreneurs Watching Sky: Yes, It Can Fall, The New York Times website, February 16, 2013 and in print on February 17, 2013, p. A1 of the New York edition. Retrieved June 27, 2014.
  24. Jump up ^ Wall, Mike (July 10, 2012). "Private Space Telescope Project Could Boost Asteroid Mining". Retrieved September 14, 2012. 
  25. Jump up ^ Durda, Daniel. "Mining Near-Earth Asteroids". National Space Society. Retrieved 17 May 2014. 
  26. Jump up ^ Crandall W.B.C; et al. (2009). "Why Space, Recommendations to the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee" (PDF). NASA Document Server. 
  27. ^ Jump up to: a b
  28. Jump up ^
  29. Jump up ^ L. Wilson; K. Keil; S. J. Love (1999). "The internal structures and densities of asteroids". Meteoritics & Planetary Science. 34 (3): 479–483. Bibcode:1999M&PS...34..479W. doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1999.tb01355.x. 
  30. Jump up ^ William K. Hartmann (2000). "The Shape of Kleopatra". Science. 288 (5467): 820–821. doi:10.1126/science.288.5467.820. 
  31. Jump up ^ David L. Kuck, "Exploitation of Space Oases", Proceedings of the Twelfth SSI-Princeton Conference, 1995.
  32. Jump up ^ Jenniskens, Peter; Damer, Bruce; Norkus, Ryan; Pilorz, Stuart; Nott, Julian; Grigsby, Bryant; Adams, Constance; Blair, Brad R. (2015). "SHEPHERD: A Concept for Gentle Asteroid Retrieval with a Gas-Filled Enclosure". New Space. 3 (1): 36–43. doi:10.1089/space.2014.0024. ISSN 2168-0256. 
  33. Jump up ^ Robert Freitas, William P. Gilbreath, ed. (1982). Advanced Automation for Space Missions. NASA Conference Publication CP-2255 (N83-15348). 
  34. Jump up ^ Brad Lendon (24 April 2012). "Companies plan to mine precious metals in space". CNN News. Retrieved 2012-04-24. 
  35. Jump up ^
  36. Jump up ^ "Technology - Planetary Resources". 
  37. Jump up ^ Soper, Taylor (January 22, 2013). "Deep Space Industries entering asteroid-mining world, creates competition for Planetary Resources". GeekWire: Dispatches from the Digital Frontier. GeekWire. Retrieved January 22, 2013. 
  38. Jump up ^ "Commercial Asteroid Hunters announce plans for new Robotic Exploration Fleet" (Press release). Deep Space Industries. January 22, 2013. Retrieved January 22, 2013. 
  39. Jump up ^ Wall, Mike (January 22, 2013). "Asteroid-Mining Project Aims for Deep-Space Colonies". TechMediaNetwork. Retrieved January 22, 2013. 
  40. Jump up ^ "Current ISDC 2013 Speakers". 
  41. Jump up ^ Robotic Asteroid Prospector (RAP) Staged from L-1: Start of the Deep Space Economy, accessed 2012-09-11
  42. Jump up ^ "ASTEROID MINING CORPORATION LIMITED - Overview (free company information from Companies House)". Retrieved 2016-04-01. 
  43. Jump up ^ "Security Check Required". Retrieved 2016-06-11. 
  44. Jump up ^ "Asteroid Mining Corporation". Retrieved 2016-06-11. 
  45. ^ Jump up to: a b Lewis, John S. (2015). Asteroid Mining 101: Wealth for the New Space Economy. Deep Space Industries Inc. ISBN 978-0-9905842-0-9. Retrieved 21 May 2015. 
  46. Jump up ^ Robert Zubrin. "The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization" (PDF). 
  47. Jump up ^
  48. Jump up ^ R. Gertsch and L. Gertsch, "Economic analysis tools for mineral projects in space", Space Resources Roundtable, 1997.
  49. Jump up ^ Jeffrey Kluger (April 25, 2012). "Can James Cameron — Or Anyone — Really Mine Asteroids?". Time Science. Retrieved 2012-04-25. 
  50. Jump up ^ "The technical and economic feasibility of mining the near-earth asteroids". Acta Astronautica. 41: 637–647. Bibcode:1997AcAau..41..637S. doi:10.1016/S0094-5765(98)00087-3. 
  51. Jump up ^ "Profitable Asteroid Mining". Bibcode:2004JBIS...57..301B. 
  52. Jump up ^ Sonter, Mark. "Mining Economics and Risk-Control in the Development of Near-Earth-Asteroid Resources". Space Future. Retrieved 2006-06-08. 
  53. Jump up ^ "Asteroid Mining". 
  54. Jump up ^ Lewis 1993
  55. Jump up ^ "World Produces 1.05 Billion Tonnes of Steel in 2004", International Iron and Steel Institute, 2005
  56. Jump up ^ Lu, Anne (2015-04-21). "Asteroid Mining Could Be The Next Frontier For Resource Mining". International Business Times. Retrieved 23 April 2015. 
  57. Jump up ^ "Tech billionaires bankroll gold rush to mine asteroids". Reuters. 2012-04-24. 
  58. Jump up ^ "Asteroid Mining Venture Could Change Supply/Demand Ratio On Earth". 
  59. ^ Jump up to: a b Ostro, Steven J.; Carl Sagan (1998), "Cosmic collisions and the longetivity of non-space faring galactic civilizations" (PDF), Interplanetary Collision Hazards, Pasadena, California, USA: Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA 
  60. Jump up ^
  61. Jump up ^ "Dangers of asteroid deflection". 
  62. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Lee, R. J. (2012). Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space. (Vol. 7). New York: Springer.
  63. Jump up ^ Roadmap for Manned Missions to Mars Reaching 'Consensus.' NASA Chief Says, Elizabeth Howell. |quote="We really are trying to demonstrate we can develop the technologies and the techniques to help commercial companies, entrepreneurs and others get to asteroids and mine them."
  64. Jump up ^
  65. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Lee, R. J. (2012). Law and Regulation of Commercial Mining of Minerals in Outer Space. (Vol. 7). New York: Springer
  66. Jump up ^
  67. Jump up ^ H.R.2262 - SPACE Act of 2015, accessed 14 September 2015.
  68. Jump up ^ Fung, Brian (2015-05-22). "The House just passed a bill about space mining. The future is here.". Washington Post. Retrieved 14 September 2015. 
  69. Jump up ^ American 'space pioneers' deserve asteroid rights, Congress says
  70. Jump up ^ Asteroid mining made legal after passing of ‘historic’ space bill in US
  71. Jump up ^
  72. Jump up ^ de Selding, Peter B. (2016-02-03). "Luxembourg to invest in space-based asteroid mining - See more at:". SpaceNews. Retrieved 2016-02-06. The Luxembourg government on Feb. 3 announced it would seek to jump-start an industrial sector to mine asteroid resources in space by creating regulatory and financial incentives.  External link in |title= (help)
  73. Jump up ^ "Luxembourg plans to pioneer asteroid mining". ABC News. 2016-02-03. Retrieved 2016-02-08. The Government said it planned to create a legal framework for exploiting resources beyond Earth's atmosphere, and said it welcomed private investors and other nations. 
  74. Jump up ^ de Selding, Peter B. (2016-06-03). "Luxembourg invests to become the 'Silicon Valley of space resource mining'". SpaceNews. Retrieved 2016-06-04. 
  75. Jump up ^ both asteroid and comet missions are shown
  76. Jump up ^ TechNovelGy timeline, Asteroid Mining
  77. Jump up ^ Garrett P. Serviss, 's Edison's Conquest of Mars at Project Gutenberg
  78. Jump up ^ "Moon (2009)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 17 November 2013. 
  79. Jump up ^ "Moon". Metacritic. Retrieved 11 March 2013. 
  80. Jump up ^ Wise, Damon (24 January 2009). "Poignant tale of starman waiting in the sky". The Times. London. Retrieved 24 February 2009. 
  81. Jump up ^ "Mining guide". EVE Online Wiki. EVE Online. Retrieved 12 February 2013. 
  82. Jump up ^ Brendan Drain (23 January 2011). "EVE Evolved: Mining 101 -- Advanced mining". EVE Evolved. Joystiq. Retrieved 12 February 2013. 
  83. Jump up ^ MMOGames (20 April 2012). "EVE Online Beginner's Guide - Episode 3 (Choosing A Focus)" (Video). EVE Online Beginner's Guide. YouTube. Retrieved 12 February 2013.  - Relevant content is between 1m00s and 1m50s in the video
  84. Jump up ^ "Star Citizen Careers: Mining - Roberts Space Industries". Roberts Space Industries. 


External links[edit]