A Moon base is too far; an asteroid ship better alternative:)

Okay shoot me down if you have to but I think that "Ahad" guy had a
neat idea and was on the right track with his "Celestial Titanic" ship:

http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagen...arth-ring.html

Just look at all these squillions of $$$ benefits:

-Save billions of dollars in ferrying up parts from Earth to build the
large-scale outer framework

-Save thousands of man hours and hundreds of radiation-exposed
astronaut spacewalks for station assembly

-Asteroid surface offers strong commercial potential for mining
precious minerals

-Bulk of the project from in-situ excavation, transportation of
asteroid to high Earth orbit and some initial mining, performed
robotically. Human crews arrive near the end to "seal the entrance" and
establish colony

-Opportunity to experiment re-creating a "miniature Earth" with
gravity, biosphere and self-sustaining ecosystem within a natural,
rocky structure much like Earth's own crust

-Logistically more attractive for easier access from the ground than
either a base on the Moon or one established on Mars

-First "truly promising", permanent off-Earth colony potential within
decades!

-Potentially a full-function transportation vessel for sailing the
great interplanetary or even interstellar oceans of space...

Why oh why do I want to go all the way to that grey thing, when there's
more economical business to be done nearer home with the right rock
from outer space? This is a smart idea - was a smart idea... still
plain wishful thinking.

Bounty

Bounty wrote:
Okay shoot me down if you have to but I think that "Ahad" guy had a
neat idea and was on the right track with his "Celestial Titanic" ship:

http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagen...arth-ring.html

In situ exploitation of asteroid or comet resources have been proposed
by science fiction writers and bona fide scientists. For example David
Brin (who is an sf writer and has been a planetary scientist) was a
co-author of "Heart of the Comet".

Giving himself pretentious sounding names (AA Institute of Space Science
& Technology) and presenting stuff that's been around for awhile as his
own revolutionary ideas doesn't enhance Abdul's credibility.

He needs to look at some of the problems. Launch windows to and from any
specific asteroid occur much more seldom than Lunar launch windows
(although there are asteroids whose windows occur about as frequently as
Martian windows).

Capturing an asteroid to earth orbit is difficult. There's a substantial
amount of delta vee and even a small asteroid can be quite massive.
There are varying hazards depending on the capture scheme. And I would
guess that no matter how safe the plan, there will be political obstacles.

This scheme:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/0...steroid.eater/
proposes using an asteroid's own material as reaction mass.
This could make altering an asteroid's path more doable. But Madmen
aren't off-the-shelf technology SFAIK.

I like Abdul's enthusiasm. But I wish he'd calm down and make more
sober, substantial contributions.

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

Well if you had a moon base you could go and fetch an asteroid and bring it
to the moon and process it. Plus drilling and mining on the moon may
discover all kinds of useful minerals and possibly water.
We could do it if we only spent what is spent on cosmetics and cosmetic
surgery which is a total waist of money on vanity.

"Bounty" wrote in message
oups.com...
Okay shoot me down if you have to but I think that "Ahad" guy had a
neat idea and was on the right track with his "Celestial Titanic" ship:

http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagen...arth-ring.html

Just look at all these squillions of $$$ benefits:

-Save billions of dollars in ferrying up parts from Earth to build the
large-scale outer framework

-Save thousands of man hours and hundreds of radiation-exposed
astronaut spacewalks for station assembly

-Asteroid surface offers strong commercial potential for mining
precious minerals

-Bulk of the project from in-situ excavation, transportation of
asteroid to high Earth orbit and some initial mining, performed
robotically. Human crews arrive near the end to "seal the entrance" and
establish colony

-Opportunity to experiment re-creating a "miniature Earth" with
gravity, biosphere and self-sustaining ecosystem within a natural,
rocky structure much like Earth's own crust

-Logistically more attractive for easier access from the ground than
either a base on the Moon or one established on Mars

-First "truly promising", permanent off-Earth colony potential within
decades!

-Potentially a full-function transportation vessel for sailing the
great interplanetary or even interstellar oceans of space...

Why oh why do I want to go all the way to that grey thing, when there's
more economical business to be done nearer home with the right rock
from outer space? This is a smart idea - was a smart idea... still
plain wishful thinking.

Bounty

Rodney Kelp wrote:

Well if you had a moon base you could go and fetch an asteroid and bring it
to the moon and process it.

Why necessairily the Moon? You can't land it, any 'processing' will be
on the asteroid itself, so it might as well be a high Earth orbit.

And 'go and fetch an asteroid' is easy to say...

Plus drilling and mining on the moon may
discover all kinds of useful minerals and possibly water.
We could do it if we only spent what is spent on cosmetics and cosmetic
surgery which is a total waist of money on vanity.

And what's wrong with vanity?


--

You know what to remove, to reply....

Joann Evans wrote:

:Rodney Kelp wrote:
:
: Well if you had a moon base you could go and fetch an asteroid and bring it
: to the moon and process it.
:
: Why necessairily the Moon? You can't land it, any 'processing' will be
n the asteroid itself, so it might as well be a high Earth orbit.

Except most of our industrial processes work better in the presence of
at least some gravity. It makes a lot of things a lot more
convenient.

I'd think you just chuck it into a crater from on high and then go
strip mine it out. No 'landing it' necessary. Little to no
atmosphere means you can use solar furnaces for smelting.

: And 'go and fetch an asteroid' is easy to say...

Yep.

: Plus drilling and mining on the moon may
: discover all kinds of useful minerals and possibly water.
: We could do it if we only spent what is spent on cosmetics and cosmetic
: surgery which is a total waist of money on vanity.
:
: And what's wrong with vanity?

Rodney talks like someone who has never seen his girlfriend without
makeup. :-)

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:

Joann Evans wrote:

:Rodney Kelp wrote:
:
: Well if you had a moon base you could go and fetch an asteroid and bring it
: to the moon and process it.
:
: Why necessairily the Moon? You can't land it, any 'processing' will be
n the asteroid itself, so it might as well be a high Earth orbit.

Except most of our industrial processes work better in the presence of
at least some gravity. It makes a lot of things a lot more
convenient.

I'd think you just chuck it into a crater from on high and then go
strip mine it out. No 'landing it' necessary. Little to no
atmosphere means you can use solar furnaces for smelting.


But could you make the impact as a velocity low enough to leave
something worth working on (as opposed to scattering much of the mass
over half the Moon, and ejected back into space, with the following
orbital debris issues), as well as no major damage to the area?

That's what I meant by 'can't land it.' You can certainly arrange an
impact, but...


--

You know what to remove, to reply....

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

Except most of our industrial processes work better in the presence of
at least some gravity. It makes a lot of things a lot more
convenient.

For any industrial process where some gravity is advantageous, don't forget
that a suitable substitute can be arranged for in an orbital facility by
having a portion of it rotate. On the other hand, if there are any
industrial processes where 0-G was where the advantage lay, one could have
that too; but couldn't have it on the lunar surface.

But the latter is not the primary argument for processing in HEO over the
lunar surface. The primary arguments are the gravity well issues, and the
continuous availability of sunlight in a sufficiently-high orbit. For as
long as a portion of an orbital facility can be made to rotate, there's
simply no reason to abandon these significant advantages just because we
need some material to settle or separate.

I'd think you just chuck it into a crater from on high and then go
strip mine it out. No 'landing it' necessary. Little to no
atmosphere means you can use solar furnaces for smelting.

For 2 weeks out of every 4. In HEO, those solar furnaces can run 24/7. And
can be made arbitrarily large.


--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

"Mike Combs" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
:
: Except most of our industrial processes work better in the presence of
: at least some gravity. It makes a lot of things a lot more
: convenient.
:
:For any industrial process where some gravity is advantageous, don't forget
:that a suitable substitute can be arranged for in an orbital facility by
:having a portion of it rotate. On the other hand, if there are any
:industrial processes where 0-G was where the advantage lay, one could have
:that too; but couldn't have it on the lunar surface.
:
:But the latter is not the primary argument for processing in HEO over the
:lunar surface. The primary arguments are the gravity well issues, and the
:continuous availability of sunlight in a sufficiently-high orbit. For as
:long as a portion of an orbital facility can be made to rotate, there's
:simply no reason to abandon these significant advantages just because we
:need some material to settle or separate.

Except if you do the processing in HEO you have to lift all the RAW
material (much higher mass) from somewhere. If you do the processing
on the lunar surface (using local raw materials) you're only lifting
the refined stuff out (at least an order of magnitude less mass to
lift).

: I'd think you just chuck it into a crater from on high and then go
: strip mine it out. No 'landing it' necessary. Little to no
: atmosphere means you can use solar furnaces for smelting.
:
:For 2 weeks out of every 4.

Dig for 2, smelt for 2.

:In HEO, those solar furnaces can run 24/7. And
:can be made arbitrarily large.

And now every bit of stuff you have to move to/from a furnace is an
orbital change. No gravity at your furnace, so lots of 'normal'
separation processes won't work well.

If you dump it on the Moon, no fancy precision orbits are required.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Rodney Kelp" wrote in message
...
Well if you had a moon base you could go and fetch an asteroid and bring
it
to the moon and process it.

Are you processing the asteroid into products for use on the lunar surface?
Because if the products are intended for use anywhere else, better to
process the asteroidal material in orbit than on the lunar surface.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

In article .com,
"Bounty" wrote:

Why oh why do I want to go all the way to that grey thing, when there's
more economical business to be done nearer home with the right rock
from outer space? This is a smart idea - was a smart idea... still
plain wishful thinking.

Rocks closer to Earth than the Moon are extremely rare. And when we see
one, we call it a "near miss."

Now, in terms of delta-V, there are some which are relatively cheap to
reach, though those too are pretty rare, and close encounters are even
rarer. So you'd be looking at extremely long trip times, unless you
have a very big rocket with lots of fuel to waste.

The Moon is the natural place to start for offworld development because
it is easier to reach than any other place except Earth orbit, pretty
much no matter how you look at it.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'