Asteroid First, Moon, Mars...later

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 15:50:45 +0000 (UTC),
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

In article ,
TKalbfus wrote:
Are you planning to retire when your job becomes unmanned?

I won't demand pay for a job that a computer can do better than I can.
I'll try to find something else useful to do. Besides, in real life,
unmanned spaceflight isn't HAL. People still run the mission, only by
remote control.

Be kinda hard for a Saturn or Pluto mission with the time dely as some
kind of AI in the robots will be required, and that puts humans out of
the robots decision loop.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

Christopher M. Jones wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote:
Well, maybe in 10 years we can mass-produce the second/third gen
descendants of SMART-1. *maybe*.

Mass production of spacecraft is already a done deal. And it's

But we will first haveto arrive at *having* a proven second/third
generation descendant of SMART-1. As things stand, its still sitting
on ground. Can't mass produce something you don't have.

already shown that you can lower per spacecraft costs to about a
tenth or less of what they cost otherwise. And that's with
fairly small production runs (dozens rather than hundreds) and
no great design changes. The key though is that you have to

SMART-1 wasn't that expensive (iirc) in the first place. But it is
a test platform for a lot of new technologies.

already know very well how to build spacecraft for the
environment and the task pretty damned well. With some types of
interplanetary space missions we don't have quite that
experience, yet. Though in truth it would not take long nor
cost much to acquire it.


A SMART-1 follow-on or sibling could AFAICT be sent to fly to an
asteroid instead of Moon.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

(Christopher) wrote in message ...
On 4 Sep 2003 05:59:47 -0700, (Al Jackson) wrote:

You all have probably seen this news item:


http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12454

Note: 2003 QQ47 went from 1 to 0 on the Torino scale (those boys at
JPL are sharp!).

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2003qq47.html


As much as I would love to go back to the moon or Mars, my two cents
is the next manned expedition to an extraterrestrial body should be an
asteroid.


Dear Mr. Martin,

The Columbia tragedy snip

All very nobel and an impressive academic gang, but it won't come to
anything. Politicians live by differnt rules.


Yeah, likely so, boy a nice Arizona meteor crater impactor , say in
Kansas, (or just about anywehre) would sure cut through a lot apathy
about asteroid strike threat!

Sander Vesik wrote:

Mass production of spacecraft is already a done deal. And it's


But we will first haveto arrive at *having* a proven second/third
generation descendant of SMART-1. As things stand, its still sitting
on ground. Can't mass produce something you don't have.



When are the makers of that third satellite going to get their act together?
They are holding up a potentially historic mission.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Sander Vesik wrote:

A SMART-1 follow-on or sibling could AFAICT be sent to fly to an
asteroid instead of Moon.


ISTR reading to get a good knowledge of an asteroid's interior you need
to land on the asteroid, detonate an explosion and take sonic readings.
Is this true?

I hope not. It seems to me fly-bys would be much less expensive than
missions that require landing.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Sander Vesik wrote:

But unlike solar panels, having larger mirrors doesn't scale linearily. A massive
and large movable mirror willbe expensive.

If we were talking about orbit, I'd argue the issue. But I'd have to allow
that there's a practical limit to how big we could build mirrors on even as
low-G a world as the moon.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"

Sander Vesik wrote:
Mike Combs wrote:

Sander Vesik wrote:

Wouldn't just having an extra solar energy plant so that that the sum energy
energy was sufficent easier?

Don't know about "easier", but what would affect the economics of it would be
which was cheaper: the mirror or the additional solar panels. I'd say the odds
very much favor mirrors being cheaper per square meter than solar panels.



But unlike solar panels, having larger mirrors doesn't scale linearily. A massive
and large movable mirror willbe expensive.



How large would a starting lunar colony be?

A hydroponics pod as small as a hectare would be very helpful to a crew
of 10 I'd think. You wouldn't need mirrors 10 stories tall to illuminate
such a plot.


Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On 8 Sep 2003 06:23:57 -0700, (Al Jackson) wrote:

(Christopher) wrote in message ...
On 4 Sep 2003 05:59:47 -0700, (Al Jackson) wrote:

You all have probably seen this news item:


http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12454

Note: 2003 QQ47 went from 1 to 0 on the Torino scale (those boys at
JPL are sharp!).

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2003qq47.html


As much as I would love to go back to the moon or Mars, my two cents
is the next manned expedition to an extraterrestrial body should be an
asteroid.


Dear Mr. Martin,

The Columbia tragedy snip

All very nobel and an impressive academic gang, but it won't come to
anything. Politicians live by differnt rules.


Yeah, likely so, boy a nice Arizona meteor crater impactor , say in
Kansas, (or just about anywehre) would sure cut through a lot apathy
about asteroid strike threat!

Yes, but I willing to bet you, me and everyone in this newsgroup will
be long dead before it happens.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

Hop David wrote:


Sander Vesik wrote:

A SMART-1 follow-on or sibling could AFAICT be sent to fly to an
asteroid instead of Moon.


ISTR reading to get a good knowledge of an asteroid's interior you need
to land on the asteroid, detonate an explosion and take sonic readings.
Is this true?

This is a good question - hopefully somebody will know a detailed answer.
For internals, you probably do have to send a probe to the surface, for
surface composition not.


I hope not. It seems to me fly-bys would be much less expensive than
missions that require landing.

You would want "fly alongside" or similar so you get lots of detailed
information and can decide on whetver you saw anything warranting a
follow on mission or not. SMART-1 is ~ 400kg, so assuming you go to
twice the mass you could still do 5 satellite multi-launches easily
with present technology (unless you run out of space).

I guess we'll know more about asteroid landings after Rosetta.


Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Christopher wrote:

Yeah, likely so, boy a nice Arizona meteor crater impactor , say in
Kansas, (or just about anywehre) would sure cut through a lot apathy
about asteroid strike threat!


Yes, but I willing to bet you, me and everyone in this newsgroup will
be long dead before it happens.

For something like the Meteor Crater in Arizona that's a safe bet.
Smaller yet dangerous asteroids are more probable.

Are you aware of the Tunguska impact at the beginning of the 20th
century? (Not really an impact since it blew up above the earth, but
still very destructive)

There have been earlier stories of destruction from the sky that were
dismissed as myths and legends because scholars of those times knew
meteorites were superstitions only belived by ignorant peasants and
country folk.

When earth was less densely populated, the chances were much better that
a meteorite would hit a sparsely populated area.

I don't know what the odds are that we'll see a Tunguska sized impact in
the 21st century.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html