Asteroid mining with small spacecraft and its economic feasibility

Pablo Callaa,, Dan Friesb , Chris Welcha

a International Space University, 1 Rue Jean-Dominique Cassini, 67400 Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France
b Initiative for Interstellar Studies, Bone Mill, New Street, Charfield, GL12 8ES, United Kingdom

Abstract
Asteroid mining offers the possibility to revolutionize supply of resources vital for human civilization. Pre-
arXiv:1808.05099v2 [[Link]] 24 Jun 2019

liminary analysis suggests that Near-Earth Asteroids (NEA) contain enough volatile and high value minerals
to make the mining process economically feasible. Considering possible applications, specifically the mining
of water in space has become a major focus for near-term options. Most proposed projects for asteroid
mining involve spacecraft based on traditional designs resulting in large, monolithic and expensive systems.
An alternative approach is presented in this paper, basing the asteroid mining process on multiple small
spacecraft. To the best knowledge of the authors, only limited analysis of the asteroid mining capability
of small spacecraft has been conducted. This paper explores the possibility to perform asteroid mining
operations with spacecraft that have a mass under 500 kg and deliver 100 kg of water per trip. The mining
process considers water extraction through microwave heating with an efficiency of 2 Wh/[Link] proposed,
small spacecraft can reach NEAs within a range of ∼ 0.03 AU relative to earth’s orbit, offering a delta V of
437 m/s per one-way trip.
A high-level systems engineering and economic analysis provides a closed spacecraft design as a baseline
and puts the cost of the proposed spacecraft at $ 113.6 million/unit. The results indicate that more than
one hundred spacecraft and their successful operation for over five years are required to achieve a financial
break-even point. Pros and cons of using small spacecraft swarms are highlighted and the uncertainties
associated with cost and profit of space related business ventures are analyzed.
Keywords: Asteroid mining, small spacecraft, space economy

1. Introduction

Asteroids are celestial bodies that are of fundamental scientific importance for uncovering the formation,
composition and evolution of the solar system [1]. Moreover, mining an asteroid for useful resources is a
concept that even predates modern space programs, as an idea initially proposed in the early 20th century
by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. More recent analysis suggests that specifically Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs)
are close enough and could contain trillions of dollars worth of precious metals and minerals, potentially
making the endeavor feasible [2, 3, 4].Useful reservoirs of important substances may be found, such as water,
metals and semiconductors [5].
The extraction of volatiles is currently the most realistic near-term asteroid mining application. There-
fore, several concepts for extraction and supply of water were developed recently [1]. These concepts consider
water extraction for refueling of spacecraft, radiation shielding, and potable water for life support systems
in outer space [2].
In the last twenty years, a vast amount of data and results from space missions have been collected.
Observations from spacecraft are mainly used to complement theories and findings which were deduced
from ground based asteroid data [1]. Although a full scale exploitation of space resources has not been

Email addresses: [Link]@[Link] (Pablo Calla), dfries@[Link] (Dan Fries),

[Link]@[Link] (Chris Welch)

Preprint submitted to Acta Astronautica-Under Review June 26, 2019

achieved yet, some minimal asteroid samples have been retrieved for analysis and testing on earth. The
number of discovered NEAs goes beyond 15000, with an average of 30 new asteroids discovered per week
[6]. However, estimates from ground based observations do not guarantee the accurate composition of
asteroid candidates. Therefore, spacecraft are required for in-situ measurements complementing the data
and establishing a clear candidate for exploitation. Current missions for asteroid mining consider spacecraft
prospection as a first step before the extraction process.
Prospection itself usually falls into three different phases [1]: discovery, remote characterization, local
characterization. These last two characterization phases are endeavors currently pursued by asteroid mining
companies using small spacecraft[7]. However, recent advances in the miniaturization of spacecraft com-
ponents and mining equipment may allow for a more cost effective and reliable approach to mine NEAs
overall.
We propose and analyze a mission architecture focusing on the utilization of small spacecraft for the
asteroid mining cycle. This includes local prospecting, mining, and return of relevant substances. Focusing
on the extraction of volatiles as a first step, we conduct a survey of water mining techniques, other relevant
technologies, and past missions. Using standard space systems engineering techniques a trade-off analysis
is conducted to select a suitable mission architecture and spacecraft design. We identify the high level
challenges facing asteroid mining, highlight where technological improvements are required, and present a
road map for implementation. Conducting an analysis of the costs involved in establishing mining operations,
constraints are derived on the economic feasibility of asteroid mining using the proposed architecture. The
constraints reveal that the number of spacecraft and the target market for the retrieved volatiles is essential
to achieve a break-even point.

2. Heritage Mission Architecture

Space missions to asteroids provide an accurate description of their composition, but more prospection
missions are required to determine individual candidates for mineral exploitation. Besides exploration,
mining techniques have also been developed but not yet tested in space. There are several mining approaches
that vary in function of the asteroid size, as for small asteroids, whole asteroid capturing is a more feasible
option, rather than for larger objects, in which extracting chunks of material is more reliable [8].

2.1. Current Technology: Sample Retrieval

There is significant interest in sample retrieval missions, having in mind that their characterization not
only provides a deeper insight into the Solar System, but also represents a technological challenge for space
exploration. Moreover, several space macro-engineering missions proposed are designed mainly to capture
part or an entire asteroid and return to a useful orbit for its processing [1].
The Keck Institute of Space Studies [9] mentions that there are five categories of benefits from the return
of an asteroid sample or a full asteroid retrieval, which are: (1) synergy with near-term human exploration,
(2) expansion of international cooperation, (3) synergy with planetary defense, (4) exploitation of asteroid
resources, (5) public engagement.
The past and present missions reviewed are Hayabusa 1 and 2 (see Fig. 1a), Stardust, and Osiris Rex.
Sample return missions from asteroids were successful in the past as proven by the Hayabusa and the
Stardust missions. It is possible to return a very small amount of material from outer space in order to be
studied, however no approach has been made to try to test a technique in which large quantities of material
can be extracted. Therefore, the establishment of asteroid mining requires the testing of mining techniques
in space. Both techniques considered in past missions use collectors that cannot be adapted for larger scale
extraction and processing purposes. Whats more, contemporary missions focus heavily on the science aspect
of exploring asteroids. For example, Osiris-Rex techniques for sample retrieval are not scalable and depend
on the amount of nitrogen the mission demands, limiting its functionality. This concept is not feasible for
actual asteroid mining. Nevertheless, rendezvous and soft-landing techniques have been proven successfully.

2
 (a) Artist’s impression of Hayabusa 1. NASA Plan- (b) Artist’s impression of the Rosetta mission. Space
etary Science Division, NASA JPL in images. ESA, 2015

Figure 1: Two examples of past missions to asteroids that included sample return, remote sensing, and/or landing on the
asteroid.

2.2. Current Technology: Remote Sensing

”The goal is to find ore, not merely a concentration of some minable resource” [1]. Ore refers to
material that is commercially profitable and it can be precious metals, helium-3, water, organics or others.
Prospecting is the first step to establish if the material abundance in an asteroid is potentially profitable,
this is done by analyzing the data coming from observed asteroids, which provide information that can be
interpreted to gain knowledge on the spin rate, size, shape, albedo reflection and to determine the type of
asteroid. The techniques of prospecting or remote sensing are the same technology as the remote sensing
satellites used on Earth [2].
The following past and present missions were surveyed: Deep Space 1, NEAR Shoemaker, Rosetta (see
Fig. 1b), WISE, and Dawn.
There have been several missions related to studying the characteristics of asteroids in the past years and
also in the present. Many of the characteristics have been identified by ground observations and the missions
complemented the data by close observation of some bodies. Although many asteroids have been identified,
there is little detailed information about their composition. The missions sent had primary targets either
in deep space or in the asteroid belt. Near Earth asteroids have not been analyzed deeply by any of these
past missions. In order to pursue a space mining venture, the information about the bodies that are closer
(NEAs) is critical to identify potential candidates for certain resource exploitation.

2.3. Future Missions

It is also important to review planned future mission designs to understand challenges, technology options
and the purpose of these missions better. The following future missions were surveyed: Asteroid redirect mis-
sion (NASA, canceled), Prospector 1 (DSI), Arkyd Prospectors (Planetary Resources), Hedgehog (NASA),
Robotic Asteroid Prospector, Asteroid Provided In-Situ Supplies.
The future mission concepts by two companies (Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources) involved
in asteroid mining so far propose prospecting spacecraft only. Other approaches for asteroid mining involve
capturing mechanisms aiming at very small asteroids of 20 m or less. These rely on relatively big spacecraft
with the capability to catch and de-orbit the asteroid, returning it to a lunar or Earth orbit. There are a
few small spacecraft concepts proposed for asteroid mining, but these consider a mother (bigger) spacecraft
that carries them [8].
Although the feasibility analysis in several papers state that asteroid mining could be economically
feasible, the technologies are not mature [1]. Especially the process of anchoring and extraction is still a
challenge.

3
2.4. Water Mining Techniques
The concept of water extraction involves finding water reservoirs in NEAs, extract the water, process, and
transport it to a location of value where a depot or processing plant is available. Water exists in the form of
hydrated minerals and sometimes as ice, all of which can be refined into fuel, water for life support systems,
air and radiation shielding. According to Dula & Zhang [10] the main customers that would consider water
to be valuable in space will include all explorers preferring to buy less expensive fuel in space instead of
transferring it from earth.

2.4.1. Asteroid Water

The first step is to identify the water reservoirs in asteroids. As an analogy of what it is expected to be
found in asteroids, the celestial bodies composition is compared to the results found on Earth in terms of
the elements they may contain and their water holding capacity.
If hydrated carbonaceous asteroids in the
Near Earth Asteroids population are considered
as the only water carrying objects (around 10%
population) and assuming that these objects
carry around 8.5% water, the water in near Earth
space can be estimated [11]. The estimates by
Sanchez & McInnes [3] are shown in Fig. 2.
The numbers are based on study results of as-
teroid composition determined by observing C-
class asteroids for many years through an ab-
sorption band in their reflectance spectra, near
3 µm. The importance of asteroid prospectors
to have an accurate estimate is highlighted be-
fore initiating an extraction process. Neverthe-
less, numerical estimates of water availability are
subject to some uncertainty and might need ad-
justment in the future. An example for a slightly
different range of numerical estimates has been
published recently by A.S. Rivkin and F. E. De-
Meo [12]. A comparison of relevant numerical es-
timates shows that usage of their numbers would
not change the conclusions presented in this pa-
per significantly.

2.4.2. Techniques Applicable in Space Figure 2: Expected water resource pool in near-earth C-type
Unfortunately, no mining techniques have asteroids. (Sanchez & McInnes (2011) [3], figure reproduced
with permission of the authors.)
been developed specifically for a zero-/micro-
gravity environment, yet. Nonetheless, different concepts have been studied and some solutions proposed.
Extracting water in barren planets such as Mars has also gained interest as a defining factor for human
settlements. Given the fact that a few missions have landed on Mars, some concepts for water extraction
were pro-posed. These concepts can also be applied to other celestial bodies such as NEA asteroids.
According to Wiens et al. [13] , potential designs for water extraction by heating include:
• Inclined Pipes: Electrical heating elements heat the soil in a rotating inclined pipe. The released
vapor would rise from the soil, travel the inside surface of the pipe and exit on top. The dehydrated
soil would pass out the bot-tom of the pipe.
• Kettles / Pots: Soil is placed in an electrical heater inside a kettle releasing vapor. Then, vapor is
condensed and collected as liquid water.
• Sifters: Soil passing through an electrically heated sifting screen releases vapor.
4
 • Funnels: A funnel and a conveyor belt are used to heat the soil and release vapor.
• Focused Light: Focused sunlight to release water vapor from a portion of the soil.
• Microwaves: Heat the soil bound water via high power radio waves. The microwaves apply energy
to the water directly and don’t require heating the soil unlike conventional methods.

For any of these techniques, a cold trap needs to be attached in order to condense the vapor and collect
liquid water.
After assessing past mission architectures and taking into account the top level requirements for the
asteroid mining venture with small spacecraft, the following architecture is proposed and displayed in Fig-
ure 3:
After launch, the single or multiple spacecraft will be set in a parking orbit before entering a trajectory
for rendezvous. The trajectory may consider a direct cruising to the asteroid. Once it arrives to the asteroid,
it must determine the asteroid characteristics and adapt to that environment before the landing attempt.
Maneuvers for landing are performed and an anchoring technique secures the spacecraft to the surface.
Once fixed, the extraction is performed. The mineral extracted (water) will be processed in-situ or only
stored, according to later designs. Following the operations, detachment is performed and stabilization for
the transportation to a cis-lunar or Earth orbit facility.

2.4.3. Selection
A trade-off analysis is performed to select the water mining technique most suitable for the goals of this
study, i.e. the usage of small spacecraft. A quantitative analysis is achieved by using a decision matrix.
The water extraction techniques considered are based on existing studies by Bernold, Wiens et al., the Keck
Institute for Space Studies, and Sercel [14, 13, 9, 15]. They are shown in Table 1 with their respective
advantages and disadvantages.
The decision criteria will consider a scale from 1 to 10 for each parameter and a weighting factor based
on the importance of each parameter was set. The parameters considered to be evaluated are:

• Scalability. The water technique needs to be scalable as it needs to be suitable for a small spacecraft.
Higher score if it can be scalable. Weight = 1.5

• Complexity. The methods complexity adds a relative risk to the mission. The higher the complexity,
the higher the risk of failure. A higher score means that the method is simple. Weight = 1.2
• Technological Feasibility. Evaluation whether a technology is currently feasible to work in the asteroid
environ-ment. High score if it was proven in similar conditions. Weight = 1.5

• Durability. The technique needs to be robust enough to work properly and repeatedly in a non- ideal
scenario that could be encountered in an asteroid. High score if it is most likely durable. Weight = 1.

Table 8 in App. A contains the values assigned to each technique and the total score obtained. In the
presented study, the highest score is obtained by the microwave drying technique. Although the focused
light technique for heating also obtained a good score, it would not be entirely applicable for small spacecraft
as it does not seem scalable enough. Microwaves are scalable and feasible to work in a harsh environment
besides the technology being relatively simple and durable. Therefore, this method was selected in the
present project. Some advantages of using the microwave techniques are also described by Wiens et al. [13]:
greater efficiency than thermal energy sources, directly heat the bound water while not wasting energy to
heat the soil, few moving parts, reliable, and no warm up period.

3. Mission Architecture

After assessing past system architectures (Section 2) we propose the mission flowchart presented in Fig. 3
for asteroid mining utilizing small spacecraft in a generic approach in order to outline the step required. This
5
 Water extraction technique Advantages Disadvantages
Need to carry compressed air and other instruments
Very Reliable Hard to implement
Vacuum drying(Pneumatic System)
Few moving parts Hardly scalable
Complex
Very reliable
Need to carry compressed air and other instruments
Hot air or steam drying Few moving parts
Hard to implement
Simple
Very Reliable Sunlight dependent
Solar drying (focused light) High temperature in small area No night operation
Feasible Alignment required
Few moving parts
High energy required
Inclined pipes heating Continuous operation
High mass
Easy to collect vapor
Simple Insulation requirement
Kettle/Pot heating Few moving parts High energy required
Amount vs time High mass
Gravity Dependent
Simple High clogging risk
Sifter heating
No moving parts High energy
Fast heating, less efficient
Simple Gravity Dependent
Funnel heating No moving parts Clogging risk
Small amount of soil required High energy
Gravity Dependent
Continuous Operation
Several moving parts
Conveyor Belt (drum drying) Very efficient
High energy
Very reliable
High mass
Compact
Relatively high energy requirement
Microwave drying Good efficiency
Relatively high mass
Few moving parts Reliable
Sunlight dependent
Very efficient Difficult to scale
Capturing and heating
Continuous Operation Alignment required
Very hard to implement

Table 1: Extracting water technologies comparison.

mission architecture does assume that previous prospecting missions have been sent to a sufficient number
of candidate asteroids to ensure that a large enough amount of water is present for extraction, and that
other asteroid properties (such as angular velocity) are within the range of the mining spacecraft operating
parameters.
According to the proposed mission architecture, either a single or multiple spacecraft will be positioned
in a parking orbit before entering a trajectory for asteroid rendezvous. Upon its arrival at the asteroid, it
will verify asteroid characteristics such as spin rate, surface mineral composition and overall shape. It will
then use this information to identify potential mining sites to land at. The information shall be sent to
Earth and the landing spots confirmed by ground analysis, considering that the spacecraft will not be able to
perform image analysis and autonomous identification. Spacecraft adaptation, which refers to reorientation
with respect to the asteroid characteristics, is then performed in order to continue with a soft landing. The
landing maneuvers culminate with the spacecraft anchoring itself to the asteroid. The landing process is
envisioned to occur in several hours (soft landing), thus, even a communication delay of several minutes will
not represent a significant problem.
Once the spacecraft is secured, the initial drilling may begin, followed by positioning the microwave
equipment, and finally the water extraction itself. The operations will not be continuous, as the spacecraft
may lose power during each eclipse, depending on the landing location. In that scenario, the payload power
will be cut once the solar panels are producing insufficient power to continue operations, and then restarted
when the solar panels regain power after the eclipse period.
Once extraction is complete and the water stored, the spacecraft will detach from the asteroid and

6
 Figure 3: Proposed architecture for asteroid mining using small spacecraft.

reorient itself for the transit phase. Once it reaches the target Earth orbit, it will be tele-operated, if
necessary, to position it for docking with a processing facility. Once the cargo is delivered, the spacecraft
will be inspected for any maintenance issues, and then repeat this cycle either at the original asteroid, or a
new target.

3.1. Mission and Spacecraft Requirements

After analyzing past asteroid mining concepts and defining the most appropriate water extraction tech-
nique, we need to make sure the system can fulfill the mission while avoiding over-design. To this end, the
following top-level requirements define in broad terms the functions and operations that the small spacecraft
should perform [16].
T1. The spacecraft should have a small structure: The spacecraft configuration should correspond
to the parameters that define a small spacecraft for this application, i.e. a mass of < 500 kg according to
NASA Ames documents [17].
T2. The spacecraft should be dimensioned in order to obtain around 100 kg of water: Up
until now, there is no estimate of the actual demand of water in space. This makes it hard to determine the
necessary quantity returned per asteroid run for a given operational cost. A value that has been utilized
for calculations in past projects is 100 kg [18], this quantity should be obtainable if the asteroid is least 3
meters in diameter [8].
T3. The spacecraft should be able to be refueled in-situ with the extracted water and be
able to operate with a water based propulsion system: The spacecraft should be able to resupply
itself to ensure steady operation and to mitigate possible losses due to lack of propellant. Therefore, it
should carry a water based propulsion system or a water compatible system.
T4. The spacecraft should carry imaging instruments in order to determine the best
possible landing site: The best possible landing site is determined by the spinning rate, the surface
7
mineral content and the shape of the asteroid.
T5. The spacecraft should incorporate reusable anchoring, storage and extraction systems
to support mining operations.
T6. The spacecraft should have a high degree of autonomy to facilitate operations.
T7. The maximum travel distance of the spacecraft should be less than 0.1 AU from Earth:
Near Earth Objects (NEOs) are asteroids and comets with perihelion distance of less than 1.3 AU. However,
there are a large number of close approaches that are accessible for rendezvous at 0.1 AU, which limits the
required propulsive capabilities.
T8. The spacecraft shall be capable of delivering the collected water to a space station
upon returning to an appropriate orbit: Once the material has been extracted, it has to be delivered
to the appropriate orbit. There, either docking or rendezvous might be required to deliver the material to
a spacecraft or space station.
T9. The spacecraft cost must be minimized to improve the likelihood of economic feasibility.
T10. The spacecraft shall contain a backup propulsion system in order to be able to return
to Earth if the water extraction is unsuccessful.
T11. The spacecraft shall be able to repeat mining trips several times before being decom-
missioned.

3.2. Mission Duration

Past missions for rendezvous and
sample collection have used the con-
cept of “rapid return missions” [19],
where the entire mission duration is
between 6 and 9 months. The same
concept can be applied for a low cost
mining operation. However to ensure
sufficient water is mined the total mis-
sion duration is set to be 1 year. Fol-
lowing this argument, Barbee et al.
[19] considered a mission to a specific
Apollo asteroid, and a possible transit
trajectory with a duration of 160 days
was identified. Assuming this num-
ber is applicable to the asteroid min-
ing mission architecture, this allows
for 15 days for the landing site identi- Figure 4: Proposed mission trajectory
fication and the landing itself, as well
as 30 days of resource extraction operations. A conceptual sketch of the corresponding trajectory is shown
in Fig. 4.

3.3. Payload
The size and mass of the spacecraft are limited by the mission top level requirements (T1). In this case,
the biggest design driver of the spacecraft is the payload. We selected microwaves as the most appropriate
water extraction technology for our purposes. The resulting main payload subsystems are therefore: mi-
crowave system, drilling system, anchoring system, prospecting system. In the following these subsystems
are analyzed and defined in more detail.

3.3.1. Microwave System

Several experiments have been performed by Ethridge [20] using Mars simulants and found extraction
rates of 2 Wh/g, 7 Wh/g and 17 Wh/g of water, depending on the experimental conditions. One of the most
well-known experiments positioned a microwave source inside a borehole made from simulant, in order to

8
study the microwave reactions up to 1 m soil depth. Even at this depth, water extraction was still possible
and successful. This method represents a lightweight and potentially low cost in-situ option.
A complete system for asteroid water extraction has also been proposed by Ethridge [20] and a schematic
is shown in Fig. 5.

Figure 5: Schematic of a possible microwave extraction system, based on the system design in [20].

The experiments were performed with a probe carrying a microwave source 1 meter deep from the top
surface. Considering the same dimensions as a baseline case for the spacecraft payload, the components will
be considered to fit a 1 meter design. Further proof of concept was provided at NASA MSFC by Ethridge
and Kauler by demonstrating successfully the water extraction from cryogenic lunar permafrost simulant
using microwaves [20]. The experiment was repeated with a simulated carbonaceous chondrite asteroid.
After exposure to microwaves, thermal decomposition occurs and released water vapour was captured in
a cold trap. This recovered all water from the sample plus an additional 3 ml of water which had been
chemically bound in the clay materials. For the proposed small spacecraft, the cold trap is also connected
to the storage, fuel refinement and propellant tanks for refueling purposes.

3.3.2. Drilling System

Drilling in low strength materials such as plaster or limestone is feasible using commercially available
drills, and these materials are likely to be representative of C-type asteroids [1]. Therefore, it is assumed
that similar conditions should be analyzed.
1-meter class drills can fully fit into the payload envelope of a lander, which satisfies with T1 of the
top level requirements. It is a compact drill that can be preassembled on Earth and does not need any
robotic assembly. These drills can also be integrated with logging instruments to obtain in situ data while
drilling. The data is critical if the drilling system is completely autonomous [21]. There are several drills
that were manufactured and tested for extraterrestrial drilling such as the ones used by Zacny et al. [18]
for Mars conditions at a Mars analog site in Antarctica, which offered a controlled environment in terms of
temperature, pressure and formation properties. The equipment used consisted of the following components:
drill head (consisting of two independent actuators with three different drilling modes - rotary, rotary-
percussive and percussive), auger (1.2 m length, 25 mm diameter), z-stage ( moving the drill up to 1 m
vertically and monitoring the force on the drill bit up to 100 N), electronics.
This system has the potential to be re-purposed for the asteroid mining mission, and allow a microwave
probe to be inserted to a depth of up to 1 m. However, operation in a dusty vacuum will require very
capable mechanical seals [21].

3.3.3. Anchoring System

For an anchoring system to be both effective and low risk, it should react to all forces and torques caused
by drilling operations. It should also be able to release the spacecraft once operations have been completed.

9
 Since it is expected that carbonaceous asteroids (Type C) have a rocky composition, a potential solution
is the use of microspine grippers. These grippers use hundreds of tiny hooks to grip rough surfaces. This
system provides support to counter forces in all directions away from the rock. It can counter forces up to
160 N tangent to the rock surface, 150 N at 45○ , and 180 N normal to the surface. These loads are greater
than the expected drilling forces of 100 N [22]. The gripping system concept is shown in Fig. 6.

Figure 6: NASA’s JPL microspine grippers [23]

3.3.4. Prospecting System

While proper prospection is expected to have taken place before the mining missions, the spacecraft is
envisioned to include instruments to validate and identify the target water resources in a short range as the
spacecraft approaches the celestial body. Based on the prospection studies and proposed projects, optical
sensors are used for prospections operations. More specifically, the optical payload identifies spin rate and
size, radar determines the 3-dimensional shape and IR telescopes determine albedo and refines the type of
asteroid [2]. Furthermore, using a thermal-IR imager and a near-IR spectrometer combined, it is possible to
observe and estimate the geology and thermo-physical properties of an asteroid, allowing for the detection
of organic and hydrated materials [2].
Bonin et al. [24] proposed a viable mid-infrared camera with 0.5 m spatial resolution at 10 km range
and spectrometer in order to identify the asteroid characteristics for the DSI Prospector-1 spacecraft. Given
this system’s ability to characterize asteroid surface features and identify potential landing locations, it will
be included in this project. However, cameras and star trackers are also used for attitude and control and
therefore, they are considered part of that subsystem and not the payload.

3.4. Spacecraft Bus Definition

To properly estimate the capabilities and economic cost/return of a miniaturized asteroid mining space-
craft, the propulsion, power, guidance, and communication systems are defined in more detail in the following
sections.

3.4.1. Propulsion
Given the spacecraft requirements and the possibility to refuel at the target asteroid (top level require-
ment T3), water thrusters are the most viable option to satisfy those requirements. A schematic of a water
electrolysis thruster system developed by Tethers Unlimited and NASA [25] is presented in Fig. 7. This
system has an ISP ≤ 300 s.
The return transit phase starts once the spacecraft is refueled at the target asteroid. From there it
needs to return the collected water to a useful orbit, and then start to the next asteroid. As such, a round
trip was defined from the moment the spacecraft departs the asteroid until it reaches the next asteroid.
Consequently, the amount of water that can be extracted with the on-board equipment is the real limit for
the maximum travel distance.

10
 Whether an asteroid is “accessible by the proposed
propulsion system depends on a variety of factors includ-
ing the orbits geometry, phasing, inclination, and amount
of fuel available. The project assumes a suitable asteroid is
selected in advance of each mining mission.
To estimate the required propellant mass, the required
change in the spacecraft’s velocity to reach the asteroid
needs to be known. This velocity, also called ∆V , mea-
sures the amount of energy required to go from one orbit
to a another one. The most simple case of such an orbit
change is called a “Hohmann transfer”, yielding a simple
formula for the required ∆V , which is described in more
detail in App. B. The amount of fuel is then given, again
Figure 7: Architecture of the water electrolysis en-
in the most simple case, by the Tsiolkovsky rocket equa- gine. 1U HYDROS™thruster [25].
tion. For the computations in this manuscript, we will use
these most simple methods. Of course, this technique can
also be used in reverse, i.e. for a given amount of fuel, the
possible orbit change can be determined. In order to satisfy
requirement T10, 5 kg are allocated to a small electric propulsion engine as a back-up option to recover the
spacecraft in case of an emergency or failure of the main propulsion system.

3.4.2. Guidance, Navigation and Control

From the mission phases in Fig. 3, the following operational modes are identified: orbit insertion, acqui-
sition, nominal operation, Prospecting, slew, contingency, and landing/docking.
A standard AOCS (Attitude and Orbit Control Systems) suite that meets the top level requirements
can be used for this mission, and is comprised of 1x IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit), 3x Star trackers,
3x Reaction wheels, 3x Sun sensors, 1x Propulsion reaction control system, 2x Wide angle cameras, and 2x
Altimeter. Such an AOCS suite was proposed with slight variations for the spacecraft prospectors of DSI
(Deep Space Industries) [24] and the ESA MarcoPolo candidate mission [26].

3.4.3. Communication
The communication challenges involve ground support for the mission, trajectory corrections, control in
case of emergencies, and the transmission of data for analysis.
For the spacecraft side, the Prospector-1 mission from DSI (Deep Space Industries) proposes the use
of X-band communication. In their studies, they also define some link budget characteristics such as the
transponders power, to ensure continuous communication [24]. Considering data volume, the prospection
phase is the system driver, however, no real time communication is needed. For a similar application, the
ESA MarcoPolo mission included three antennas for communications: a high gain antenna, a medium gain
antenna, and two low gain antennas, basing their design on the Bepi Colombo and Solar Orbiter missions
[26]. The current small spacecraft shall include a similar configuration in the X band, as the ESA Marco
Polo mission and DSI spacecraft.

4. Results

The estimation of mass and power budgets is an iterative process, as mass, power and propulsive capa-
bilities are highly interdependent quantities. In the following, only the final results and their justifications
are presented. Margins of 20% have been added to all calculated values.

4.1. Spacecraft Mass Budget and Range

The weight of the spacecraft is highly dependent on the payload. Given these characteristics of the
corresponding components, the payload mass, volume, and power estimates are shown in Table 9, App. A.

11
 The structure and the thermal subsystem masses are estimated from the remaining spacecraft dry-weight.
Following standard techniques [27], the complete mass budget is shown in Table 2.

Subsystem Weight [kg] Comments

A system of three grippers for anchoring
Payload: Anchoring 12
with 120 degrees difference is preferred
Two drills are selected, a main drill and a
Payload: Drilling 30
redundant unit
8 microwave generators are preferred. 7
Payload: Extraction 124 for operations + 1 as a redundant unit +
water conduits and the water tank
Payload: Prospection 2 One set of prospection sensors
Attitude control 35.6 Mass budget estimated
Communications 9.7 Mass budget estimated
Command and data
2 Processor and electronics
handling
Thermal 9 5% of the total mass
Power 33.5 Mass budget estimated
Structure 30 15% of the total mass
Propulsion 25 Scaling the proved cubesat designs
Margin 60 20% Margin due to new design
Dry mass 372.8 Estimated Dry mass
Total amount of water required for 0.03
Propellant mass 75
AU range + 10 % margin
Wet mass 448 Estimated wet mass of the spacecraft

Table 2: Estimated spacecraft mass budget. The properties of the power system have been calculated iteratively, see details in
the next section.

The requirement for a ”small” spacecraft is set to 500 kg which limits mass we can consider when the
spacecraft is launched from earth. Refueling the spacecraft at the asteroid during mining operations allows
us to stay within this mass limit. Moreover, since the spacecraft intends to extract water as a payload,
its ”dry” mass will increase after the extraction of water at the target asteroid. Therefore, the wet mass
calculations shown in Table 2 include only the water required for a “one-way” trip to the asteroid.
For the mission the spacecraft needs to complete a round trip with a water payload of 100 kg to a useful
orbit and then back to the asteroid. Thus, the total amount of water required as propellant is estimated
to be ∼ 150kg for a maximum distance of ≈ 0.03 AU and ∆V ≈ 437 m/s one-way. According to Fig. 2, this
would give the spacecraft access to more than one million liters of water.
As a result, approximately 150 kg additional water has to be mined for refueling in addition to the 100
kg for commercial purposes, i.e. a total of ∼ 250 kg of water has to be extracted. Considering the previously
described microwave system, Section 3.1), with a water extraction efficiency of 2 Wh/g and standard 200W
solid state amplifier power supplies, 7 microwave probes and power supplies are required to extract this
amount of water within the given extraction duration of 30 days per mission with 15 net operational days,
assuming occultation of the sun for 50% of the time.

4.2. Spacecraft Power Budget

The power budget is determined based on the amount of water that needs to be extracted and the
technique used. The mining extraction period is defined as 30 days, see Section 3.1. It is assumed that, on
average, the spacecraft operates in sunlight for half of that time period.
The amount of power required by the water extraction system is 1400 W (7 microwave generators). Esti-
mates of the total spacecraft power requirements can be performed based on the payload power requirements
for small spacecraft from statistical data [27]. The resulting complete critical power budget is presented in
12
Table 3. A more detailed investigation of the spacecraft power cycles during different mission cycles gives
the total power system weight of 33.5 kg presented in Table 2, including 9.5 m2 of solar arrays (Ultra flex),
batteries (Lithium-ion), and other power control equipment [27].

Percentage of
Power
Spacecraft operating
Top level requirement estimate
Subsystem power selected
W
%
Payload 50 Power for water extraction (T2) 1400
Estimation of the idle behavior
Propulsion 5 including the backup propulsion 60
recovery system (electric) (T10)
Including important sensors for
Attitude Control 10 cruising, prospecting and 120
landing (T4)
Including sending data from 0.1
Communications 10 120
AU (T7)
Including data processing and
Command and DH 10 120
high degree of autonomy (T6)
Survivability through all mission
Thermal control 5 60
phases (T11)
Power 10 Including battery charging 120
Structure 0 No power considered 0
Total 100 - 2000

Table 3: Proposed critical spacecraft power budget

The most intensive power consumption occurs during extraction, in which the spacecraft is anchored to
the asteroid. In such scenario, the attitude control and propulsion are not considered active and the thermal
control power requirements would require half the power estimated. Since a 20% margin is often considered
for novel designs [27], this is added to the extraction period, reaching a maximum power requirement of
2150 W.

4.3. Cost and Feasibility Analysis

Parametric cost estimation is selected for the cost analysis as we perform the analysis on a concept
description. The parametric method uses empirical correlations to go from a product description to its cost.
The method is widely used when the cost of only a few key variables has to be estimated [27]. The most
common example of parametric cost estimation is the Cost Estimating Relationship (CER), which is based
on statistical models. CER derived from representative and validated data from past projects are expected
to provide valid estimations of new mission concepts [27]. Since we are dealing with a spacecraft weighing
less than 500 kg, the CER we are using are taken from the Small Spacecraft Cost Model (SSCM). The
SSCM provides an average of the estimated cost, as it uses a database of small spacecraft missions. The
first payload unit includes the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) costs.
Many of the cost estimations in the literature only refer to payloads which have already been launched
mainly in communications and remote sensing. The payload proposed in this document does not belong to
any of those categories. Therefore, the approximate cost of the payload is estimated based on heritage and
similarity.
The extraction system is estimated following the thermal subsystem CERs of the spacecraft bus. The
reason for this selection is the payload similarity, i.e. the extraction system has the function to heat up part
of the asteroid regolith and collect the water. The drilling system is estimated based on the structure and
mechanisms subsystem CERs, as it is composed of mainly mechanical parts with the only objective to drill
the asteroid surface. The anchoring system is also be estimated based on the structure and mechanisms
13
 RDT&E (NRE)
Cost Component CER Estimation Criteria
Cost (FY10 $K)
Extraction Mass: 12 kg, Power: 200 W, TRL: 5 22600
Drilling Mass: 15 kg, Power: 200 W, TRL: 5 9100
Anchoring Mass: 12 kg, Power: 20 W, TRL: 5 10700
Mass: 2 kg, Power: 12 W,
Prospection 6400
Design life: 10 years
Payload total cost 48800

Table 4: SSCM cost estimation of the first payload unit

subsystem CERs of the spacecraft bus given its similarity. The prospecting payload is estimated based
on the optical planetary instruments CERs which includes cameras, spectrometers, interferometers and IR
sensors. The results are given in Table 4 with a total cost of $48.8 million.

RDT&E (NRE)
Cost Component CER Estimation Criteria
Cost (FY10 $K)
Integration, Assembly and S/C Bus and Payload
9000
Test (bus + payload) Cost: $113.6M
Launch Vehicle SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy [28] 90000
Program Level S/C Bus Cost: $64.8M 14800
Launch and Orbital Support S/C Bus Cost: $64.8M 4000
Ground Support Equipment S/C Bus Cost: $64.8M 4300

Table 5: Estimation of additional costs. S/C = Spacecraft.

The estimated cost of the first spacecraft bus excluding the payload is $64.8 million. A more precise
breakdown of the estimate is given in Table 10, App. A.
Additional cost such as program level expenses, launch vehicle, integration and testing, are estimated
using established guidelines [27], see Table 5. Finally, this approach provides an estimated total mission cost
for the first unit, including flight software cost and ground support equipment which only has to be paid
once, of $145.7 million plus $90 million for one Falcon Heavy launch vehicle. Since SpaceX gives a payload
capability of ∼ 64 metric tons into LEO [28], launching only one of our mining spacecraft at a time would be
a waste. Thus, in the subsequent analysis we will consider the optimal case of either fully using each Falcon
Heavy’s payload capability, launching multiple mining spacecraft at once, or using rideshare options.

4.4. Business Case Analysis

The cost estimation is used to perform an economic return analysis. In this part, we consider the mass
production of the spacecraft described earlier. When several of the same units are produced the economy
of scale principle applies, i.e. the cost per unit is reduced. The learning curve accounting for this effect is
[27],
TotalLotCost = T1 N (1+ln(S)/ln(2)) , (1)
where T1 is the theoretical first unit production cost, excluding software and ground support equipment
costs. N is the quantity (lot size), S learning curve slope in decimal form. Here, a slope of 0.85 is used for
cost calculations, which is a conservative estimate.

FirstYearCost = TotalLotCost + Nr Cr + Cs + Cg , (2)

Nr are the number of SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch vehicles required, at a cost per launch vehicle of Cr of
$90 million [28]. We assume here that one single rocket can lift 144 spacecraft according to their previously
estimated mass. Nonetheless, for a small number of smaller spacecraft a ridehsare option might be more

14
affordable than booking out a full rocket. We consider rideshare options with a price point of $3000/kg
(similar to the price for bringing water into LEO, see text below and Table 6). Thus, rideshare is no longer
advantageous once the cost per spacecraft falls below $1.344 million, at which point we assume a full Falcon
Heavy launcher is used.
To estimate the price of water delivered to different orbits from earth, we consider different estimates
given in Table 6. The current improvement and proliferation of launch vehicles could allow for a lower price
per [kg] in the future. Flight software cost Cs is $27.5 million, and ground support equipment is $4.3 million,
see Table 5 and Table 10.
Hardware and operation cost Cost/kg to certain orbit
Production of first unit: $113.6 M Cost for 1 kg in LEO: $3 K (average)
(from SSCM total cost)
Launcher: $90 M (Falcon Heavy to Cost for 1 kg in GTO: $7.5 K
LEO) (Falcon-9)
Annual operations: $5.7 M (average) Cost for 1 kg in GSO: $21.5 K
(Proton-M)
Cost for 1 kg in Cis-lunar space: $35
K

Table 6: Parameters and assumptions for the economic return analysis [27, 28, 29].

With the defined parameters, and applying the learning curve in Eq. (1), economic return graphs can be
generated. However, the possibility for improvements or problems in launch capability, manufacturing and
technology add uncertainty to any estimate we make. We perform a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in
which we vary certain input parameters to quantify this issue. Specifically, we assume normal distributions
for the values of the learning curve slope (S), the cost of the first spacecraft (T1 ), a scaling factor for the
water price (αH2 O ), and the launch capability per rocket (mLP L , where LP L = launcher payload) and we
evaluate 3000 independent sample combinations to ensure clear trends and statistically converged results.
The water price scaling factor is multiplied to the values given in Table 6 to account for possible variations
in the price point of water, i.e. a scaling factor of αH2 O = 1.1 indicates a cost increase of 10%. It is important
to note that a variation in the price of water is likely to be tied to variations in launch cost. Thus, the launch
cost is not treated as an independent variable but multiplied by the same value of αH2 O as the water price to
account for this relationship. The utilized distributions are completely defined by their mean and standard
deviation as summarised in Table 7. The given standard deviations reflect what the authors perceive as
realistic, possible variations in the corresponding parameters based on literature and current trends.

Parameter Mean Standard Deviation

S 0.85 0.025
T1 $113.6M $10M
αH2 O 1 0.1
mLP L 64,000 kg 10,000 kg

Table 7: Parameter space used for the normal distributions in the sensitivity analysis.

The sensitivity analysis reveals that the total cost of the proposed asteroid mining architecture is not
dependent on mLP L . The dependence on T1 is linear but becomes weaker the more spacecraft are utilized,
as would be expected from the learning curve approach which makes each mining spacecraft manufactured
after the first one cheaper and cheaper. The learning curve slope S is a strong driver of the overall cost and
the dependence becomes more non-linear the more spacecraft are manufactured, suggesting that an ideal
intermediate number of spacecraft exists at which a break-even point can be reached within a reasonable
time frame while avoiding a non-linear cost increase, in case the learning effect is not as strong as hoped
for. Finally, the scaling of the total cost with αH2 O is rather interesting and will be investigated together
with the revenue in the next paragraph.
15
 Scaled Cost/Revenue in $ (Millions)

Water cost scaling

Figure 8: Shown is the sensitivity of cost and revenue to the water cost scaling factor. For clarity only every 10th data point
out of 3000 sample combinations is shown. Cost and revenue values for N = 50 are scaled to allow for proper comparison with
the N = 1 data. Black lines denote linear curve-fits for trend analysis: full lines correspond to N = 1, dashed lines correspond
to N = 50.

As one would expect, the overall revenue of the mining venture is independent of all investigated param-
eters expect the water price scaling parameter αH2 O . The revenue and cost trends with αH2 O are shown
together in Fig. 8. The water revenue (blue symbols) increases with αH2 O in the same linear fashion no
matter how many spacecraft are used. Based on our analysis, however, an increase in water prices also
implies and increase in launch cost. For a single spacecraft the result is that the total cost (red symbols) of
the venture increases as the water price increases, somewhat negating possible additional profits. However,
using multiple mining spacecraft (e.g. N = 50 but the trend holds for larger numbers) this relationship is
weakening significantly, as indicated by the black trend lines. Therefore, using a larger number of space-
craft, given the proposed mission architecture and assumptions, the coupling of the total cost to launch
price fluctuations is weak. This makes the approach more robust towards unexpected changes and allows
one to maximize profits in case water prices are rising. Of course, this also implies that falling water prices
would reduce profits while costs would change only slightly.
Now, we evaluate the overall economic feasibility of the presented asteroid mining architecture and cost
model. The resulting cost-revenue graphs with 95% confidence intervals for 3000 independent samples of
the above described parameters are presented in Fig. 9 utilizing one, 50, 200, and 400 mining spacecraft.
The first break-even point occurs for 200 produced spacecraft and utilization of the returned water in
cis-lunar space, as shown in Fig. 9 (c). Profit is gained after approximately 10 years of operation, assuming
no major failures. For even larger numbers of spacecraft (∼400 in Fig. 9 (d)), geo-synchronous orbits also
become interesting, while profit in cis-lunar space is more likely to occur after a shorter operational time, i.e.
roughly 8 years. Thus, the most likely scenario making asteroid mining economically feasible is utilization
and sale of water in cis-lunar space, employing mass produced and highly reliable mining spacecraft. Mass
production lowers the overall cost and scales up water availability. It is important to highlight, that several
spacecraft can be launched by the use of only one heavy launch vehicle. Thus, making the overall required
investment relatively insensitive to launch cost. Interestingly, even within the narrow band of variation

16
 (a) One water mining spacecraft. (b) 50 water mining spacecraft.

(c) 200 water mining spacecraft. (d) 400 water mining spacecraft.

Figure 9: Cost analysis and economic return for (a) one, (b) 50, (c) 200, and (d) 400 spacecraft. The dashed black line indicates
the spacecraft cost, including development, construction, launch, and annual operations cost. Shadowed regions indicate 95%
confidence intervals based on the parameter space described in Table 7. The revenue by sale and usage of the mined water is
shown for LEO (blue line), GTO (orange line), GSO (green line), and Cis-lunar space (red line).

considered (see Table 7), the uncertainties of the results grow relatively large for larger number of mining
spacecraft. Accordingly, for extremely favorable parameter combinations 200 spacecraft could achieve a
break-even point after as little as 7 years of selling water in cis-lunar space (Fig. 9 (c)). For 400 spacecraft
the earliest break-even point could be less than 6 years and even utilizing only 50 spacecraft can get close to
being profitable, considering the uncertainty bands in Fig. 9 (d) and (b), respectively. This also highlights
the need for further refinement of cost and return estimations for asteroid mining, to reduce the uncertainties
in the outcome of the investment.

5. Conclusion and Further Discussion

For the presented asteroid mining architecture, utilizing spacecraft designed to be below 500 kg in weight,
the maximum distance to asteroid rendezvous from LEO is approximately 0.03 AU. From the corresponding
delta-V of 437 m/s the NEAs that can be reached contain more than one million liters of water.
The economic analysis shows that using swarms of smaller spacecraft around 200 units are required to
achieve an economically feasible operation within 10 years of operation. The concept has the advantages
that it allows for rapid scaling up of mining operations and implements redundancy on the system level.
Even for the 200 spacecraft fleet required to reach break-even in less than 10 years the up-front investment
of ≈ $7 billion is below major acquisitions currently happening in our terrestrial economy, e.g. Amazon
bought Whole Foods for $13.7 billion in 2017 and the Vision Fund acquired $93 billion during their 2017
funding round. Finally, the sensitivity analysis has shown that the mass-produced spacecraft cost is only
weakly dependent on rising launch costs, thus allowing for maximization of profits from potentially rising
water prices. On the other hand, the concept does not become profitable in less than 8 years and does not
significantly profit from decreasing launch prices, within the parameter space explored.

17
 The sensitivity analysis also indicates that using a very large number of spacecraft can lead to a non-
linear increase in overall cost for unexpectedly low benefits from mass production (as embodied by the
learning curve slope parameter S). Therefore, an intermediate number of spacecraft seems a ideal, at which
break-even is possible within 10 years but the cost dependence on S is still linear. In the work presented,
this number lies between 200 and 350 spacecraft.
Lowering the launch cost by using rideshare opportunities does not make the proposed mission architec-
ture profitable within 10 years for small numbers of spacecraft. This assumes that ridesharing should not
be pursued once its cost per spacecraft exceeds the cost of booking a full heavy launcher.
With regard to target markets, the analysis identified cis-lunar space as the use-case most likely to make
steroid water mining economically feasible. Customers in this sector include lunar and lunar-orbit bases,
transiting Astronauts, so-called deep space gateways (space stations), and operations in the L2 Lagrange
point of the Earth-Moon system.
The analysis makes it obvious that further development and research is required to make asteroid mining
more attractive for investors and more likely to succeed in general. The authors identified several areas that,
if improved, would contribute to this goal:

• Further miniaturization of spacecraft components will reduce component and launch cost significantly
for a large number of spacecraft.
• Water extraction techniques need to be explored further and qualified for usage with actual asteroid
material. Water needs to be extracted in an efficient and effective manner, as that directly impacts
spacecraft power requirements and the amount of water that can be extracted in a given time frame.
• Water and water-derived fuel propulsion systems need to reach higher efficiency levels and achieve a
sufficient TRL.
• Much larger, monolithic mining spacecraft, including asteroid capturing concepts, represent alterna-
tive mission architectures for asteroid mining. Inter-comparison of economic feasibility between small,
medium, and large spacecraft concepts will provide important information regarding the most promis-
ing path to take in the future.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Lee Wilson and Dr. Andreas Hein for valuable discussions and
their input to the presented work. Moreover, we would like to thank Dr. Andreas Hein for bringing up the
idea that led to this study.

18
Appendix A - Additional Tables

Water extrac- Total

Scalability Complexity T. Feasibility Durability
tion technique Score
Vacuum drying
(Pneumatic Sys- 3 3 7 7 27.7
tem)
Hot air or steam
5 5 8 5 32
drying
Solar drying (fo-
3 6 10 9 38.4
cused light)
Inclined pipes
7 6 8 4 34.9
heating
Kettle / Pot
6 8 3 8 33.5
heating
Sifter heating 7 8 4 5 32.6
Funnel heating 7 7 4 5 31.4
Conveyor belt
4 5 3 5 23
(drum drying)
Microwave
8 6 9 7 41.8
drying
Capturing and
1 2 10 9 30.6
heating
Table 8: Decision Matrix for the water extraction technique.

19
 Component Mass Dimensions Power
Magnetron or solid
480 mm x 440
state amplifier + 12 kg 200W
mm x 130 mm
waveguide
Water conduit + 140 mm D x
1 kg 0
cold trap 160 mm H
Drill + mechanical 1460 mm long x
15 kg 100-200W
components 13 mm diameter H
970 mm H x
Water storage tank 10 kg (empty) 0
420 mm D
Microspine grippers 250 mm D x
4 kg 20W
system 300 mm H
Prospection system 2 kg - 12W

Table 9: Proposed spacecraft payload budget based on information available in the referenced literature.

RDT&E (NRE)
Cost Component CER Estimation Criteria
Cost (FY10 $K)
Structure Mass: 30 kg 2400
Thermal Mass: 9 kg 800
Attitude determination and
Mass: 35.6 kg 16700
control system
Electrical Power system Mass: 33.5 kg 8000
S/C Dry Mass: 372.8 kg,
Propulsion 6900
TRL: 5
Telemetry, Tracking and
Mass: 9.7 kg 1700
Command
Command and Data Handling Mass: 2 kg 900
Flight Software Lines of code: 50,000 27500
Spacecraft Bus total cost 64800

Table 10: Cost estimation for the spacecraft bus of the first unit.

Appendix B: Hohmann transfer

Whether an asteroid is accessible depends on a variety of factors including the orbits geometry, phasing
and inclination. However, the project assumes a suitable asteroid to be selected in advance of each mining
mission. Thus, only a series of estimations for ∆V requirements regarding the asteroid distance will be
considered. The least ∆V needed for a transfer between two circular orbits is achieved by using a double-
tangent transfer ellipse, also called a Hohmann transfer. The scenario considered is displayed in figure 9.

The method involves the firing at Earth’s perihelion ∆ V1 , in order to accelerate the spacecraft, and for
the asteroid capture, a second firing is imperative at the aphelion of the transfer orbit, ∆ V2 . The Hohman
equations for the ∆V estimations from the heliocentric reference are:
√ √
µS 2rA
∆V1 = ( − 1) (3)
rT rT + rA
√ √
µS 2rT
∆V2 = (1 − ) (4)
rA rT + rA
Where:
µS is the Suns gravitational parameter = 1.327 × 1020 [m3 /s2 ]
20
 Figure 10: Hohmann transfer orbit for the asteroid rendezvous.

rT is the Earths distance from the sun = 1AU = 1.496 × 1011 [m]
rA is the asteroids distance from the sun

The total change in velocity is equal to:

∆V = ∣∆V1 ∣ + ∣∆V2 ∣ (5)

Author Vitae

Pablo Calla
Pablo Calla is an electronic engineer who has specialized in renewable energy
generation control systems engineering at the Universidad Mayor de San Andrs
(UMSA) in Bolivia. He also holds a Master of Science in space studies from the
International University (ISU) in France. He was selected among other engineers
from Bolivia to be part of the development of the Bolivian Governments TKSat-1
satellite project in China. Pablo is a cofounder and CTO of Maana Electric SA,
where he is responsible for technology development.

21
Dan Fries
Dan Fries is a PhD candidate in Aerospace Engineering at the Georgia Insti-
tute of Technology, USA, working on supersonic combustion and mixing. He also
holds Master’s degrees in Aerospace Engineering from both Georgia Tech and the
University of Stuttgart, Germany. Dan is a member of the Technical Committee
of the Initiative for Interstellar Studies and has a strong background in propulsion
physics and space systems engineering. He has participated in multiple, interna-
tional projects and competitions aiming at the development of novel space mission
architectures.

Prof. Chris Welch

Chris Welch is Professor of Space Engineering and Director of Masters Pro-
grams at the International Space University in Strasbourg, France. He has a PhD
in Spacecraft Engineering (Cranfield University), an MSc in Experimental Space
Physics (University of Leicester) and a BSc in Physics (Cardiff University). Chris is
Vice-President of the International Astronautical Federation and a former member
of European Commission H2020 Space Advisory Committee. He is also a Fellow of
the British Interplanetary Society (BIS), the Royal Aeronautical Society and the
Royal Astronomical Society, as well as a member of the International Academy of
Astronautics Small Satellite Committee.

References
[1] V. Badescu, Asteroids: Prospective energy and material resources, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[2] V. Hellgren, Asteroid mining: a review of methods and aspects, B.S. thesis, Lund University, NGEK01 20161 (2016).
[3] J. Sanchez, C. McInnes, Asteroid resource map for near-earth space, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 48 (1) (2011)
153–165.
[4] G. Alotaibi, J. Boileau, H. Bradshaw, B. Criger, R. Chalex, J. Chun, D. Desjardins, J. Dhar, A. Artiles, K. Ellis, ASTRA:
Asteroid mining technologies roadmap and applications, International Space University (2010) 1–100.
[5] J. P. Sanchez, C. R. McInnes, Assessment on the feasibility of future shepherding of asteroid resources, Acta Astronautica
73 (2012) 49–66.
[6] Center for near-earth object studies, [Link] accessed: 2017-06-15.
[7] Arkyd-301 mission by Planetary Resources, [Link] accessed:
2017-06-10.
[8] K. Zacny, P. Chu, J. Craft, M. M. Cohen, W. W. James, B. Hilscher, Asteroid mining, in: Proceedings of the AIAA
SPACE 2013 conference and exposition, 2013, pp. 10–12.
[9] J. Brophy, F. Culick, L. Friedman, P. Llanos, et al., Asteroid retrieval feasibility study, Tech. rep., Keck Institute for
Space Studies, California Institute of Technology (2012).
[10] A. M. Dula, Z. Zhenjun, Space mineral resources: A global assessment of the challenges and opportunities, Tech. rep.,
Study conducted under the auspices of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) (2015).
[11] S. Ross, Near-earth asteroid mining, Tech. rep., International Space University (2001).
[12] A. S. Rivkin, F. E. DeMeo, How many hydrated NEOs are there?, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 124 (1)
(2019) 128–142.
[13] J. Wiens, F. Bommarito, E. Blumenstein, M. Ellsworth, T. Cisar, B. McKinney, B. Knecht, Water extraction from martian
soil, in: Fourth Annual HEDS-UP Forum, 2001.
[14] L. Bernold, Asteroids, Springer, 2013, Ch. Closed-Cycle Pneumatics for Asteroid Regolith Mining, pp. 345–364.
[15] J. Sercel, Asteroid provided in-situ supplies (APIS): A breakthrough to enable an affordable NASA program of human
exploration and commercial space industrialization, Tech. rep., NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) (2016).
[16] W. J. Larson, J. R. Wertz, Space mission analysis and design, Microcosm Press, 2005.
[17] E. Agasid, R. Burton, R. Carlino, G. Defouw, A. D. Perez, A. G. Karacalioğlu, B. Klamm, A. Rademacher, J. Schalkwyck,
R. Shimmin, J. Tilles, S. Weston, Small spacecraft technology state of the art, Tech. rep., NASA Ames Mission Design
Division (2015).
[18] K. Zacny, G. Paulsen, C. McKay, B. Glass, A. Davé, A. Davila, M. Marinova, B. Mellerowicz, J. Heldmann, C. Stoker,
et al., Reaching 1 m deep on mars: the icebreaker drill, Astrobiology 13 (12) (2013) 1166–1198.
[19] B. W. Barbee, T. Esposito, E. Pinon III, S. Hur-Diaz, R. G. Mink, D. R. Adamo, A comprehensive ongoing survey of the
near-earth asteroid population for human mission accessibility, in: Proceedings of the AIAA/AAS Guidance, Navigation,
and Control Conference 2010, AIAA 2010-8368, 2010.

22
[20] E. C. Ethridge, Proposed experiment for prospecting and mining water from lunar permafrost from boreholes using RF
energy, in: Annual Meeting of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group 2016, LPI Contribution No. 1960, id.5024, Vol. 1960,
2016.
[21] K. Zacny, Y. Bar-Cohen, M. Brennan, G. Briggs, G. Cooper, K. Davis, B. Dolgin, D. Glaser, B. Glass, S. Gorevan, et al.,
Drilling systems for extraterrestrial subsurface exploration, Astrobiology 8 (3) (2008) 665–706.
[22] E. G. Merriam, A. B. Berg, A. Willig, A. Parness, T. Frey, L. L. Howell, Microspine gripping mechanism for asteroid
capture, in: Proceedings of 43rd Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, 2016.
[23] A. Parness, Anchoring foot mechanisms for sampling and mobility in microgravity, in: Proceedings of 2011 IEEE ICRA,
2011.
[24] G. Bonin, C. Foulds, S. Armitage, D. Faber, Prospector-1: The first commercial small spacecraft mission to an asteroid,
in: Proceedings of the 30th AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Next on the Pad, SSC16-VI-2, 2016.
[25] J. Karsten, M. Bodnar, M. Freedman, L. Osborne, R. Grist, R. Hoyt, Performance characterization of the HYDROS™water
electrolysis thruster, in: 32nd AAS Guidance and Control Conference, AAS 17-145, 2016.
[26] P. Michel, M. Barucci, A. Cheng, H. Böhnhardt, J. Brucato, E. Dotto, P. Ehrenfreund, I. Franchi, S. Green, L.-M. Lara,
et al., MarcoPolo-R: Near-earth asteroid sample return mission selected for the assessment study phase of the ESA program
cosmic vision, Acta Astronautica 93 (2014) 530–538.
[27] J. R. Wertz, D. F. Everett, J. J. Puschell, Space mission engineering: the new SMAD, Microcosm Press, 2011.
[28] Spacex - capabilities and services, [Link] accessed: 2018-07-02.
[29] S. Foundation, The Space Report: The authoritative guide to Global Space Activity, Space Foundation, 2017.

23