|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
question about hitching a ride on an NEO
I'm currently reading "Mining the Sky" by John Lewis. He makes much of
the idea of "hitching a ride" on an asteroid whose orbit ranges from Earth's orbit to the asteroid belt. He even suggests hollowing several such out, and using them as interplanetary cruise ships (really more like space colonies, as each trip takes several years) to allow thousands of people to economically travel from Earth to Mars or the belt. But I don't see how this helps. In order to dock with such an asteroid, you have to match orbits with it. And having matched that orbit, it really doesn't matter whether the asteroid is there or not -- you're headed out to the belt (or wherever the asteroid would've been headed) regardless. Indeed, it seems that rather than trying to find an asteroid with exactly the orbit you want, it'd be easier to just make one up, match orbits with this imaginary rock, and head on out. The only advantage I can think of is that the asteroid provides a large cache of resources which such a long-trip ship might need anyway. I suppose there is something to that, but it seems like a fairly small benefit, given how much equipment you'd need to move into that orbit anyway to outfit it as a space colony on the fly. It'd probably be easier to build a space colony in some comfortable, standard location, and then accelerate it into the desired orbit (even if this takes years to do). Am I missing something? Thanks, - Joe |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
question about hitching a ride on an NEO
Joe Strout wrote: I'm currently reading "Mining the Sky" by John Lewis. He makes much of the idea of "hitching a ride" on an asteroid whose orbit ranges from Earth's orbit to the asteroid belt. He even suggests hollowing several such out, and using them as interplanetary cruise ships (really more like space colonies, as each trip takes several years) to allow thousands of people to economically travel from Earth to Mars or the belt. But I don't see how this helps. In order to dock with such an asteroid, you have to match orbits with it. And having matched that orbit, it really doesn't matter whether the asteroid is there or not -- you're headed out to the belt (or wherever the asteroid would've been headed) regardless. Indeed, it seems that rather than trying to find an asteroid with exactly the orbit you want, it'd be easier to just make one up, match orbits with this imaginary rock, and head on out. The only advantage I can think of is that the asteroid provides a large cache of resources which such a long-trip ship might need anyway. I suppose there is something to that, but it seems like a fairly small benefit, given how much equipment you'd need to move into that orbit anyway to outfit it as a space colony on the fly. It'd probably be easier to build a space colony in some comfortable, standard location, and then accelerate it into the desired orbit (even if this takes years to do). Am I missing something? Thanks, - Joe Radiation shielding? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
question about hitching a ride on an NEO
Joe Strout wrote:
But I don't see how this helps. In order to dock with such an asteroid, you have to match orbits with it. And having matched that orbit, it really doesn't matter whether the asteroid is there or not -- you're headed out to the belt (or wherever the asteroid would've been headed) regardless. Maybe you could lassoo it as it goes past with a very long elastic cable. Sylvia. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
question about hitching a ride on an NEO
"Joe Strout" wrote in message
... I'm currently reading "Mining the Sky" by John Lewis. He makes much of the idea of "hitching a ride" on an asteroid whose orbit ranges from Earth's orbit to the asteroid belt. He even suggests hollowing several such out, and using them as interplanetary cruise ships (really more like space colonies, as each trip takes several years) to allow thousands of people to economically travel from Earth to Mars or the belt. But I don't see how this helps. In order to dock with such an asteroid, you have to match orbits with it. And having matched that orbit, it really doesn't matter whether the asteroid is there or not -- you're headed out to the belt (or wherever the asteroid would've been headed) regardless. Indeed, it seems that rather than trying to find an asteroid with exactly the orbit you want, it'd be easier to just make one up, match orbits with this imaginary rock, and head on out. The only advantage I can think of is that the asteroid provides a large cache of resources which such a long-trip ship might need anyway. I suppose there is something to that, but it seems like a fairly small benefit, given how much equipment you'd need to move into that orbit anyway to outfit it as a space colony on the fly. It'd probably be easier to build a space colony in some comfortable, standard location, and then accelerate it into the desired orbit (even if this takes years to do). Am I missing something? Thanks, - Joe Suppose that they squeeze ten people into a small ship. Once it reaches the asteroid, they move into bigger quarters. Once they approach their destination, they move back into the small ship. The rocket fuel consumption would be similar to flying direct without the asteroid. Six months without exercise could cause the body to deteriorate, so the asteroid would make the journey healthier and happier. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
question about hitching a ride on an NEO
Frogwatch wrote:
Joe Strout wrote: I'm currently reading "Mining the Sky" by John Lewis. He makes much of the idea of "hitching a ride" on an asteroid whose orbit ranges from Earth's orbit to the asteroid belt. He even suggests hollowing several such out, and using them as interplanetary cruise ships (really more like space colonies, as each trip takes several years) to allow thousands of people to economically travel from Earth to Mars or the belt. But I don't see how this helps. In order to dock with such an asteroid, you have to match orbits with it. And having matched that orbit, it really doesn't matter whether the asteroid is there or not -- you're headed out to the belt (or wherever the asteroid would've been headed) regardless. Indeed, it seems that rather than trying to find an asteroid with exactly the orbit you want, it'd be easier to just make one up, match orbits with this imaginary rock, and head on out. The only advantage I can think of is that the asteroid provides a large cache of resources which such a long-trip ship might need anyway. I suppose there is something to that, but it seems like a fairly small benefit, given how much equipment you'd need to move into that orbit anyway to outfit it as a space colony on the fly. It'd probably be easier to build a space colony in some comfortable, standard location, and then accelerate it into the desired orbit (even if this takes years to do). Am I missing something? Thanks, - Joe Radiation shielding? That's about it, right off the top. For small asteroids, it makes more sense to build a large rotating space structure out of discarded tankage and engines, and then migrate that into orbit around the desired object. Then you could have automated regolith recovery craft deliver shielding to the structure. It's a short hop from the surface in the microgravity. If further fuel could be extracted from the regolith, the entire structure could be migrated fairly easily to yet another asteroid. I think Ceres is going to be a major source of water, but that is a much deeper gravity well (if you can call 1/30 Earth gravity very deep). Carbon and stainless steel asteroids appear to be rather common, though. -- The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
question about hitching a ride on an NEO
Joe Strout wrote:
I'm currently reading "Mining the Sky" by John Lewis. He makes much of the idea of "hitching a ride" on an asteroid whose orbit ranges from Earth's orbit to the asteroid belt. He even suggests hollowing several such out, and using them as interplanetary cruise ships (really more like space colonies, as each trip takes several years) to allow thousands of people to economically travel from Earth to Mars or the belt. But I don't see how this helps. In order to dock with such an asteroid, you have to match orbits with it. And having matched that orbit, it really doesn't matter whether the asteroid is there or not -- you're headed out to the belt (or wherever the asteroid would've been headed) regardless. Indeed, it seems that rather than trying to find an asteroid with exactly the orbit you want, it'd be easier to just make one up, match orbits with this imaginary rock, and head on out. Head on out with minimal radiation shielding, water, air & space. I've talked about Aldrin & Niehoff cyclers many times. The craft undergoing large delta vees would be "taxis" (a term coined by Oberg and Aldrin) whose mass is quite small compared to the main cycler craft. The expense of accelerating small taxis is much less than accelerating the main cycler craft (which Oberg and Aldrin call "castles") The only advantage I can think of is that the asteroid provides a large cache of resources which such a long-trip ship might need anyway. I suppose there is something to that, but it seems like a fairly small benefit, given how much equipment you'd need to move into that orbit anyway to outfit it as a space colony on the fly. Initially the equipment you'd move into orbit would be the start up equipment to establish a mining camp. It'd probably be easier to build a space colony in some comfortable, standard location, and then accelerate it into the desired orbit (even if this takes years to do). And how many tons would you lift from earth's gravity well and then send into a cycler orbit? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
question about hitching a ride on an NEO
In article ,
Hop David wrote: Indeed, it seems that rather than trying to find an asteroid with exactly the orbit you want, it'd be easier to just make one up, match orbits with this imaginary rock, and head on out. Head on out with minimal radiation shielding, water, air & space. Maybe -- but OTOH, you'd be heading out in an ideal orbit, rather than the orbit of whatever rock was most suitable (no doubt a compromise of many factors, of which orbit is just one). So your trip time might be noticeably less. I've talked about Aldrin & Niehoff cyclers many times. The craft undergoing large delta vees would be "taxis" (a term coined by Oberg and Aldrin) whose mass is quite small compared to the main cycler craft. The expense of accelerating small taxis is much less than accelerating the main cycler craft (which Oberg and Aldrin call "castles") This makes good sense once the cycler is built. The part I'm dubious about is making an asteroid into a cycler, rather than building a cycler in one place and then putting it into exactly the orbit you want. Initially the equipment you'd move into orbit would be the start up equipment to establish a mining camp. Sure. But consider building a skyscraper. You could, in principle, start by finding a site with lots of iron, silicon, and other primary raw materials, and moving in mining equipment to mine these ores. You'd then move whatever's needed to build refineries, smelters, factories, etc. in order to make steel beams, cranes, concrete, glass, and so on. Then (a decade or two later?) you'd finally start building the skyscraper, and when you're all done, cannabilize the mining equipment, refineries, smelters, and factories for other purposes. Or, you could just make use of mines, factories, smelters, etc. that are already around (because you live in an industrial society), even though they're not exactly at the site of your building. You have them do their thing, and transport finished steel beams, glass panes, cabling, etc. to the work site, where you build your building using equipment that's also built other skyscrapers, and which, when this one is done, will be moved elsewhere to build something else. The latter obviously makes a lot more sense on Earth. I don't see why it wouldn't make more sense in space too. By the time we could talk seriously about converting an asteroid, we're going to have a LOT of industrial infrastructure in a few places: cislunar space, maybe Martian orbit, maybe around Ceres. There will be flows of refined material and finished products going through these locations already. It doesn't make sense to try and start with raw rock and build a complete space colony as it flies away from this infrastructure. Instead, you put minimal equipment on the NEOs as they fly around, and ship their ore (or perhaps, at most, refined metals and volatiles) back to the major industrial centers. There, those materials are built into finished products, like space habitats. And how many tons would you lift from earth's gravity well and then send into a cycler orbit? Who said anything about lifting anything from Earth's gravity well? We're obviously talking about an advanced space infrastructure here, or else the whole idea of converting an asteroid into anything is a nonstarter. Best, - Joe |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
question about hitching a ride on an NEO
"Joe Strout" wrote in message
Similar to walking on our physically dark, salty and extremely IR/FIR hot moon: you'll need an actual fly-by-rocket lander that's proven to work. you'll need whatever's the next best thing to having rad-hard DNA. you'll likely need a healthy cache of banked bone marow as your plan-B. Bring along lots of ductape for patching them pesky micrometeorite holes. Take along a good optical UV filter if not a near-UV (425 nm) spectrum cut-off for taking pictures. You'll need a cache of Po/210 for neutralizing the highly electrostatic dust. At best you've got hours upon whatever NEO (worse case you're down to minutes), to accomplish whatever's the task before reaching your career dosage limit of gamma and hard-X-rays, and you still have to get yourself back home w/o further TBI trauma to your frail DNA that's by now most likely already past the red-line of what's survivable without utilizing your banked bone marrow. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
question about hitching a ride on an NEO
"Joe Strout" wrote in message
Question about hitching a ride on an NEO: what's to question It's similar to walking on our physically dark, salty and extremely IR/FIR hot and naked moon. You'll need an actual fly-by-rocket lander with lots of spare fuel for accommodating those fully modulated and fly-by-computer driven reaction thrusters, plus those fairly substantial momentum reaction wheels that's proven to work on your behalf of dealing with maneuvering about such a local mascon that's continually imposing different gravity in most all locations, and don't so much as move an inch or fart, because that'll screw up whatever maneuvers. You'll need whatever's the next best thing to having rad-hard DNA. Besides taking steroids, you'll likely need a healthy cache of banked bone marrow as your plan-B. If you're planning upon any long NEO stay, as such it might also be a good idea for having a private cache of stem cells incase you start going a little blind or something worse. Bring along lots of ductape for patching them pesky micrometeorite or larger holes. Take along a good optical UV filter, if not a near-UV (425 nm) spectrum cut-off, for taking those pictures that'll otherwise turn out as though somewhat vibrant bluish looking, along with planets (especially Venus) and even a few stars such as Sirius showing up, as otherwise due to all the raw near-UV, UV-a and the unavoidable secondary/recoil of photons that are derived off anything natural or artificial that's UV/black-light reactive should by rights push whatever's local into getting recorded as being somewhat extra blue. You also need to utilize a robust CCD digital camera with a little extra internal bias current instead of whatever well shielded film that's essentially too easily affected by such raw/unfiltered energy, some of which being of gamma and hard-X-ray spectrum, and then as always fending off those pesky thermal extremes that'll have to include the local secondary IR/FIR by day. You'll likely need a cache of Po/210 for neutralizing the highly electrostatic dust. At best you've got hours upon whatever NEO (on a bad solar day worse case you're down to minutes), to accomplish whatever's the task before reaching your career dosage limit of gamma and hard-X-rays, and don't forget that you still have to get yourself back home w/o further TBI trauma to your frail DNA that's by now most likely past the red-line of what's survivable without utilizing your banked bone marrow. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
question about hitching a ride on an NEO
Joe Strout wrote:
Sure. But consider building a skyscraper. You could, in principle, start by finding a site with lots of iron, silicon, and other primary raw materials, and moving in mining equipment to mine these ores. You'd then move whatever's needed to build refineries, smelters, factories, etc. in order to make steel beams, cranes, concrete, glass, and so on. Then (a decade or two later?) you'd finally start building the skyscraper, and when you're all done, cannabilize the mining equipment, refineries, smelters, and factories for other purposes. Or, you could just make use of mines, factories, smelters, etc. that are already around (because you live in an industrial society), even though they're not exactly at the site of your building. You have them do their thing, and transport finished steel beams, glass panes, cabling, etc. to the work site, where you build your building using equipment that's also built other skyscrapers, and which, when this one is done, will be moved elsewhere to build something else. The latter obviously makes a lot more sense on Earth. I don't see why it wouldn't make more sense in space too. The chief difference is much higher transportation costs. That said I expect computers & electronics to come from earth's surface for some time to come. Even I-beams and plates will probably be made in cislunar space. However much of the mass of a cycler need not come from sophisticated industrial infra structure. The asteroidal material might be used for radiation shielding as is (especially if it has lots of hydrated clays). It's possible water and oxygen might be extracted with relatively simple asteroidal infrastructure. Often Mike Combs will talk about value of asteroidal resources with no deep gravity well. I believe an asteroid's momentum might also be valuable. IF the asteroid is already close to a useful orbit. I acknowledge that's a big IF. However, given the large number of NEOs, I'm betting there are at least a few that are endowed with valuable velocity vectors. I will confess Dr. Lewis' vision of transport asteroids perplexed me (on page 115 of my copy of Mining the Sky). I agree that a cycler should have an earth resonant orbit. However Aldrin and Niehoff cyclers pay attention to the approximately 2 1/7 year Mars-Earth synodic period. A 2 year cycler could be useful for hauling people to the main belt, but I see little utility for transportation to Mars. A cycler capable of carrying 220,000 passengers seems ambitious. Much more plausible in my view is a mining camp accomodating 50. The miners would also be geologists and planetary scientists studying the asteroid. Some could disembark during Mars fly-by. I don't think such a cycler could afford non-working passengers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bumpy ride in Soyuz? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 8 | April 15th 06 09:03 PM |
The ET UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac of Venus | *The Commentator* | SETI | 39 | August 28th 05 09:17 PM |
Got taken for a ride ... | Twittering One | Misc | 12 | June 26th 05 08:52 PM |
OGGY went a-courtin', he did ride, uh-huh... | Bill Sheppard | Misc | 24 | October 29th 03 08:16 PM |
Hay Ride Astronomy Moment | Katie Weller | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | October 21st 03 03:09 PM |