Before we discuss 'Step one' in more detail, it is important to have an
estimate of how much it will cost to take material from the Earth and from
the Moon, to the site we have in mind for our first space hab.
displacement of one cubic Km.
Then, we need one cubic Km of air at normal temperature and pressure to fill
the void!
The mass of one cubic Km of air, assuming a density one Kg/m^3 1000*1000*1000 Kg = one million tonnes.
The cost of taking one million tonnes from Earth to orbit at the rate of
10,000 $/Kg or 10,000,000 $/tonne
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-launch-costs.htm
will be = 10,000,000,000,000 $ = 10 trillion $ (an impossible cost)
Assuming that the cost of operations from the moon would be less by a factor
proportional to the square of the escape velocities, this amount would have
to be divided by (11.2/2.4)^2 ie 21.8
Cost for launching one million tonnes from the moon would then be 10/21.8
trillion$ = 458 billion $
Calculating cost:
One may suggest, that for all space operations, costs will be incurred only
when material is taken from Earth.
All work done on the Moon will be taken as zero cost. If food is taken from
Earth to feed people on the moon, that would figure as cost.
Is one million tonnes a lot of mass?
Actually one million tonnes is a small mass if seen in perspective.
1. One cubic Km of water weighs 1000 million tonnes
2. One cubic Km of 'moon material', assuming a density of 3 gms / cm^3 will
weigh 3000 million tonnes.
3. Assuming that we have a space hab weighing 30 million tonnes, for which
all the material has been obtained from the moon, with one cubic Km of the
moon material we could construct 100 such space habs!
4. If a thousand people could be accommodated in each hab, these 100 habs
would accommodate 100,000 people.
5. To accommodate the earth's 7 billion people, we would need 7 million such
habs. That would amount to scooping out 70,000 cubic Km of the moon. Which
would amount to a cube of about 41Kmx41Kmx41Km in dimension. The moon has a
mass of 7.36E19 Tonnes. If we took out this chunk, the mass of the moon
would reduce by 2.1E14 tonnes. In other words the mass of the moon would
reduce by 0.000285%!!! This amount of material could be provided by
scrapping 1.846 meters from the surface of the moon.
6. If we can capture a suitable asteroid of 41Kmx41Kmx41Km in dimension, we
can get rid of all the pesky humans from planet earth! The bigger problem
would be getting them of earth : - ) If each person on an average weighs 60
Kg, 7billion people would weigh 420 million tonnes. At the above launch cost
of 10,000$/Kg, the total operation would cost 4200 trillion $. (The easier
way to arrange the transition will be to launch babies, or to launch the
genetic material, and parents on earth can follow the progress of their
children in space with the help of CCTV).
Overcoming earth's gravity:
There is a limit to the extent by which we can reduce the cost of launch
from earth. The space settler's group has rightly emphasized the danger of
getting caught in a gravity well. Will such ideas as space elevators reduce
launch cost substantially?
I tried to conceptualize this problem by imagining a mythical mount Everest
that reaches up to geosynchronous orbit. All that one has to do is to take
an object to the peak of this mythical Everest and set the object adrift -
it will be launched into a geosynchronous orbit.
When one does the calculation however, the results are scary. The
geosynchronous orbit is 35786 Km above the earth's surface (approximately 36
thousand Km; you have to climb that high! The circumference of the Earth in
comparison is 40,000 Km!). Let's say you are taking a mass of 1 Kg to this
height, you will be fighting the force of gravity all the way, which will
reduce from 1 Kgf to 0.22 Kgf as you climb. The work done will be about
5,400,000 Kgfm. This works out to about 5.4 tonne Km. Lifting one Kg mass to
geosynchronous orbit is equivalent (in this very idealized calculation) to
carrying a load of 5.5 tonne to a mountain one Km high. Say a person can
carry a load of 50 Kgf. Then, he will have to make 110 trips up the mountain
to achieve the equivalent of taking one Kg mass to geosynchronous orbit!
(Much greater efficiency than rockets provide, is needed to enable large
scale projects such as
SPS in GEO. **Yet the energy given to mass by putting it into GEO** is quite
small, so there is
the potential for economically building SPS in GEO.... this quote is from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14093583/Energy-Given-to-Mass-By-Lifting-From-Ground-Up-Into-GEO...
I would not agree with this statement)
Step zero:
1. We need to once again rethink where we will build our first large space
hab. An asteroid is a better place.
2. We can probably build technology intensive small habs in Earth or Moon
orbit.
3. To build large habs in Earth or Moon orbit we will need powerful
rockets/thrusters that can ideally use any material as reaction mass.
4. Clearly, from above considerations, it would be advantageous to build
major manufacturing facilities on the moon - if material can be sourced from
the moon - to build larger futuristic space ships.
5. The space ships we can construct using Earth as base will be (small).
>From Moon it will be (bigger). From Asteroids it will be (biggest).
Regards,
Selvaraj
Nice to see some one has done their home work. One of the things I have been harping on for a long time is, there will be no commerce in space, or back, and forth from space to Earth if there isn't some kind of space infrastructure in place to reduce the cost to and, "From" orbit.
Now using asteroids as a foundation for space station/habitat is an old, but good idea. It does however have it's own set of technical issues that may take away from it being viable for the long term.
One issue being most asteroids are rather fragile, and break apart easily, maybe a little too easily to build a home out of.
One thing I have to point out that is just a bad idea, and wont go over well is the blasting babies into space, and being disconnected from their parents, to witch them over cctv like some sick reality show. I know your tongue was planted in cheek when saying that, and only to make a point, but damn that is just horrible ...lol
Anyhow I wouldn't think we would try to remove all humans from Earth. There are those who would want to stay here and not leave, and Earth happens to be a really good space colony, it can hold billions of people just fine, all we need to do is find room in the cosmos to put the over flow so not to choke Earth...
Now one of the things I am writing is an essay about is how to get large amounts of mass Earth side safely. When one thinks about it, it turns out to hold more technical issues then we tend to think. Say if you are space mining foremen and you need to get 5000 tons of semi refined ore to Earth in a timely manner, you got yourself one hell of a logistics issue.
Just because we are building in space doesn't mean life comes to a stop here nor does it mean we will stop building here on Earth, and resources are running low so, this issues needs addressing as much as heavy lift we need heavy decent. Believe it or not, not all of the ideas out there for cost effective heavy lift translate well into getting heavy loads down...
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
Taking a hard look at the data, the Moon has definite advantages as the best
place to start our space odyssey. (in comparison with Mars and asteroids).
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html
We need to first put 100,000 people on the Moon. Then we will see the
beginning of a flourishing Earth - Moon trade and space habs in orbit around
Earth.
It is almost as if God put Moon in place to give us a step up.
Regards
Selvaraj
On 31 May 2010 02:37, the_gunfighter_45acp wrote:
Sorry for a negative response on this one. With Salvaraj's approach
1607 & 1620 Jamestown & Plymouth Rock colonists would be advised
NO! NO! NO! Lets build a 100,000 pop. settlement in Canary Islands 1st !!!
THEN we can attempt crossing that wild Atlantic.
Ed S. Hallelujah Praise Spacesettlers !!!
From: sraj
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, June 6, 2010 9:11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: : One step backwards (Step zero)
Taking a hard look at the data, the Moon has definite advantages as the best
place to start our space odyssey. (in comparison with Mars and asteroids).
The present estimate of water on the Moon is 6.6 billion tonnes.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html
We need to first put 100,000 people on the Moon. Then we will see the
beginning of a flourishing Earth - Moon trade and space habs in orbit around
Earth.
It is almost as if God put Moon in place to give us a step up.
Regards
Selvaraj
On 31 May 2010 02:37, the_gunfighter_45acp wrote:
If I were to look for an admittedly imperfect analogy, I guess I would
use Mediterranean villagers establishing a colony on Gibraltar or the
Iberian peninsula to get lumber to build the ocean-going vessels
necessary for colonizing further realms. Oh, and, by-the-way, sending
resources back to their sponsors in reward for their vision
Ed, I agree with you totally. However, This group is for those who do not
and I learned about 7 years ago that it is not wise or polite to try to
impose my wishes on some here. They kicked my butt.
The worse thing you could do is say they are wrong - because they are not.
They are just doing their own thing and that is how it should be.
population of at least 100 million but they can do good work and keep dreams
alive in the mean time. I could be wrong!
This is what they want and it is why they are here. It has been kinda
quite for several years because there is only so much planning that can be done.
Mostly we have been waiting for an affordable ride. Maybe it is here and
it is time to get back to some serious planning.
It has been the same in all of the different approaches to being in off
Earth space permanently - Living on Luna or Living on Mars and other places.
Living off Earth is a two handed operation - both must be done to be
successful.
What is done here can be used on Mars and on the trips to get to Mars and
the outer reaches. So, I hang around learning what they can teach me and
praying that they succeed and that what they do helps in getting me to Mars.
There are at least 7 or 8 serious groups of people who want to live on
Mars.
So, if you want to discuss getting to Mars there are other places you can
hang out and still learn from what is discussed here and maybe even help
them get done what they want.
Now I have a company called 1000 Planets, Inc and we have been studying and
researching on how to live on Mars for 8 years.
You want to live on Mars then go to the Yahoo group "Mars Living Now" and
start a conversation.
But do not leave this group because you will learn that they can help in
more ways than one can count and still do their own thing.
Thank You,
JOHN WAYNE SMITH, CEO
1000 Planets, Inc. _Http://www.1000planets.com_
(http://www.1000planets.com)
Building a Private road to the Stars.
LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA - 2010
203 W. Magnolia Street, Leesburg, Florida 34748
Phone 352 787 5550 E Mail _JWSmith42000@..._
(mailto:JWSmith42000@...)
Web Site _http://www.JohnWayne4Gov.com_ (http://www.JohnWayne4Gov.com)
In a message dated 6/6/2010 12:27:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
edwardschonert@... writes:
Sorry for a negative response on this one. With Salvaraj's approach
1607 & 1620 Jamestown & Plymouth Rock colonists would be advised
NO! NO! NO! Lets build a 100,000 pop. settlement in Canary Islands 1st !!!
THEN we can attempt crossing that wild Atlantic.
Any more Mars first advocates in group to back me up on this one?
Ed S. Hallelujah Praise Spacesettlers !!!
Schonert Edward wrote:
> 1607 & 1620 Jamestown & Plymouth Rock colonists would be advised
> NO! NO! NO! Lets build a 100,000 pop. settlement in Canary Islands 1st !!!
> THEN we can attempt crossing that wild Atlantic.
Numbers aside (considering that the total human population now is many
orders of magnitude greater than what it was then), that's basically
what happened. European conquest of the Canaries began in 1402.
But the analogy isn't really a good one. You are imagining that Mars is
a much better place to live than the Moon, but I don't see that that's
the case, even if distance were not an issue. Yes, it has close to a
24-hour day, but apart from that... its atmosphere is still a lethal
near-vacuum; it has no magnetic field to protect you from cosmic
radiation; and we have no reason to believe that its gravity is adequate
to ensure human health.
Of course if it's not, then neither is the Moon; it may be that for
long-term habitation the best place to live is not the Moon OR Mars, but
someplace else altogether. Someplace where we have complete control
over the environment, including gravity.
And to build such places, we need convenient sources of raw materials
and energy... hauling them up from ANY planetary gravity well just
doesn't make sense. Asteroids will be great someday, when proximity
(and constant travel time) to Earth no longer matters. Till then, it's
great that we have such a nice Moon!
Best,
- Joe
It is unfortunate that we don't have bases on the Moon and that we have not
landed on Mars as yet. Both were eminently doable with the resources we have
on our planet.
community. Look how long they have taken to find out that there is water on
the Moon!? Just as our scientists on terra firma are busy doing all kinds of
scientific stuff, even as our planet gasps for breath; in space too they are
busy taking pretty pictures of the universe (not that we don't need these
pretty pictures), even as they ignore the importance of human presence in
space.
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 6 June 2010 21:57, Schonert Edward wrote:
From: Schonert Edward
> 1607 & 1620 Jamestown & Plymouth Rock colonists would be advised
> NO! NO! NO! Lets build a 100,000 pop. settlement in Canary Islands 1st !!!
> THEN we can attempt crossing that wild Atlantic.
>
> Any more Mars first advocates in group to back me up on this one?
I don't think these kinds of matters are settled by historical analogies. I think they're settled by economics. And whether it's realized or not, if we're talking about human settlement, we're talking about an economic activity (namely, people pursuing economic opportunities).
Unlike Mars, the natural resources of the moon are sufficiently close by that their usage might involve returns to the terrestrial economy. And we need to remember that right now, every investor in existence is an Earthling.
The resources of the Asteroid Belt are probably also too distant for square-one investment (although likely to become invaluable later on). Certain Near-Earth Asteroids might be close enough to existing markets to compete economically with the Moon. But the Moon will always enjoy quick travel times, and time is money.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From: jwsmith42000@...
> more ways than one can count and still do their own thing.
Towards the end of one of my articles, I talk about the ways the vision of O'Neill can be of enormous benefit to those whose goal is the settlement of Mars, along with the reason why this might not be as widely appreciated as it should be.
http://writings.mike-combs.com/somewhere_else.htm
Regards,
Mike Combs
sraj wrote:
> community. Look how long they have taken to find out that there is water on
> the Moon!?
That had more to do with politics than science or engineering. After
the cancellation of the Apollo program, there was a "Moon taboo" that
basically made it impossible to get funding for any lunar research.
Lunar Prospector only managed to get there by using alternative funding
sources. (It's been a few years and I've grown fuzzy on the details --
does anyone here remember more clearly?)
> Just as our scientists on terra firma are busy doing all kinds of
> scientific stuff, even as our planet gasps for breath; in space too they are
> busy taking pretty pictures of the universe (not that we don't need these
> pretty pictures), even as they ignore the importance of human presence in
> space.
They're not ignoring it, but space R&D is expensive and mostly
government-funded, so they're subject to the whims of politics.
Lifting the Moon taboo was one of the two decent things to come out of
the Bush presidency.
Best,
- Joe
Hi, I'm new to the group and just becoming familiar with the flow, so forgive me if I'm rehashing subjects from long ago. It seems to me that the Near Earth Asteroids are the resource we should be pursuing. The NEO's and the Earth Crossing asteroids present opportunities for both capture for use in mining/manufacturing and settlement, as well as several opportunities to settle a rock that travels between the orbit of Earth and Mars or even farther out. Many of these rocks are very solid (response to previous post as to fragility) and could be cored or tunneled and spun for simulated gravity. Air could likely be produced by processing the materials removed during conversion to habitat (most asteroids have at least some oxides in their makeup), by processing other carbonaceous chondrites or by cometary capture without recourse to dipping into a gravity well. If we HAD to get air and water from luna, it would best be accomplished using O'neils mass driver and capturing the mass at one of the L Points, NOT by utilizing any form of lifter. A cored asteroid has the benefit of providing its own radiation shielding, and, in the case of a good size rock, being greatly expandable for population increase while at the same time remaining accessible sans gravity at the spin axis. Thoughts?...
Victor Smith
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 9:45 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: : One step backwards (Step zero)
sraj wrote:
> Unfortunately much of the fault lies with the scientific and engineering
> community. Look how long they have taken to find out that there is water on
> the Moon!?
That had more to do with politics than science or engineering. After
the cancellation of the Apollo program, there was a "Moon taboo" that
basically made it impossible to get funding for any lunar research.
Lunar Prospector only managed to get there by using alternative funding
sources. (It's been a few years and I've grown fuzzy on the details --
does anyone here remember more clearly?)
> Just as our scientists on terra firma are busy doing all kinds of
> scientific stuff, even as our planet gasps for breath; in space too they are
> busy taking pretty pictures of the universe (not that we don't need these
> pretty pictures), even as they ignore the importance of human presence in
> space.
They're not ignoring it, but space R&D is expensive and mostly
government-funded, so they're subject to the whims of politics.
Lifting the Moon taboo was one of the two decent things to come out of
the Bush presidency.
Best,
- Joe
Victor Smith wrote:
> forgive me if I'm rehashing subjects from long ago. It seems to me that
> the Near Earth Asteroids are the resource we should be pursuing.
It's a reasonable idea, and I certainly think NEOs will have a big part
in our future, but I'm not sure they're a good first target. The
problem is that, even when the delta-V is fairly low, the travel time
tends to be long -- and worse, it varies greatly over time. Almost any
NEO will be on the far side of the Sun half the time. That presents
major logistical hurdles, in a time when we're only barely able to
operate in space at all.
For simple visitation, it's not such a big deal, though if your schedule
slips and you miss the launch window, you're probably stuck waiting 6 -
24 months. But for resource utilization or colonization, something that
stays a constant distance from Earth is going to be much easier.
Now, it's possible that the Earth has some (comparatively) small
Trojans, hanging out at a constant distance. Those would be well worth
pursuing, I think. At the very least, we should send a probe to each
one to survey what is there.
Best,
- Joe
Joe,
You're right about the trojans, and a survey is definitely called for, but it doesn't seem to me to be an insurmountable obstacle to effect a landing on a NEO at closest approach, mount some mass drivers (utilizing asteroidal materials as 'fuel') or possibly ion drives (though thrust from these is low) and, through constant acceleration/deceleration, to modify the orbit to bring the target rock to Earth at one of the L-Points or even to orbit the planet. We leave the orbit alone on the ones we want to use for traveling between Earth and Mars. Now, granted, our current level of accomplishment in space industrialization doesn't allow for this, but it's mostly off the shelf tech. Mostly we just need more people in space to get something like this started. Part of O'bamas' plan for NASA has us visiting an asteroid in the next decade, and with some advanced planning and a bit of a push to the tech boys I could see the mission leaving behind robots that could at least begin the task of mining materials to be utilized, during a follow-up visit, to set up a mass driver propulsion unit and crew quarters installed within the excavations. One small step at a time...
Victor
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 2:32 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: : One step backwards (Step zero)
Victor Smith wrote:
> Hi, I'm new to the group and just becoming familiar with the flow, so
> forgive me if I'm rehashing subjects from long ago. It seems to me that
> the Near Earth Asteroids are the resource we should be pursuing.
It's a reasonable idea, and I certainly think NEOs will have a big part
in our future, but I'm not sure they're a good first target. The
problem is that, even when the delta-V is fairly low, the travel time
tends to be long -- and worse, it varies greatly over time. Almost any
NEO will be on the far side of the Sun half the time. That presents
major logistical hurdles, in a time when we're only barely able to
operate in space at all.
For simple visitation, it's not such a big deal, though if your schedule
slips and you miss the launch window, you're probably stuck waiting 6 -
24 months. But for resource utilization or colonization, something that
stays a constant distance from Earth is going to be much easier.
Now, it's possible that the Earth has some (comparatively) small
Trojans, hanging out at a constant distance. Those would be well worth
pursuing, I think. At the very least, we should send a probe to each
one to survey what is there.
Best,
- Joe
Victor Smith wrote:
> but it doesn't seem to me to be an insurmountable obstacle to effect a
> landing on a NEO at closest approach, mount some mass drivers (utilizing
> asteroidal materials as 'fuel') or possibly ion drives (though thrust
> from these is low) and, through constant acceleration/deceleration, to
> modify the orbit to bring the target rock to Earth at one of the
> L-Points or even to orbit the planet.
Yes, I agree, but it strikes me as a harder task than setting up a
similar mass driver on the Moon.
Also, people will have a very valid concern about altering orbits of
NEOs to come closer to the Earth -- if a mistake is made, it could end
up disasterous, and I wouldn't find "trust us, we won't make a mistake"
very reassuring.
Of course if we find an asteroid that's going to strike anyway, and it's
just a matter of altering its orbit a teensy bit to capture it instead,
that might change things...
Best,
- Joe
From: Victor Smith victors@...
"...granted, our current level of accomplishment in space industrialization doesn't allow for this, but it's mostly off the shelf tech. "
Some of it is. The reminderof thechallenges fall between what we could reasonable infer and thus engineer and that which we are really don't know much.That pretty much describes any extraterrestrial mining and resource extraction.Any plan we pursue(Moon or asteroids) to provide raw materials for space industry isa multi-decade venture.Ultimately either path takes us where we should go in the long term. However, for the near term decades I'd perfer working on the moon. It is closer and the scientific / engineeringdevelopment cycles should be faster.
"Part of O'bamas' plan for NASA has us visiting an asteroid in the next decade, and with some advanced planning and a bit of a push to the tech boys I could see the mission leaving behind robots that could at least begin the task of mining materials to be utilized, during a follow-up visit, to set up a mass driver propulsion unit and crew quarters installed within the excavations. One small step at a time..."
We can hope.Of course, if it was intendedas part of a long term effortof space development,wouldn't itstart asa series ofentirely arobotic missions rather than just one singlehuman adventure?
" either path takes us where we should go in the long term. However, for the near term decades I'd perfer working on the moon. It is closer and the scientific / engineering development cycles should be faster.
We can hope. Of course, if it was intended as part of a long term effort of space development, wouldn't it start as a series of entirely a robotic missions rather than just one single human adventure?"
While many would prefer to begin our space settlement development on Luna, unless your plan is to go on an Indian or Chinese spacecraft it won't happen prior to 2030, earliest. Wheras, a human mission to at least one asteroid IS on the NASA agenda. Not all long term projects begin with robotics, take the original moon landing, for example. But it's not too hard to envision robots being of a great deal of use in converting or preparing an asteroid for additional Human presence.
While extraterrestrial mining/resource extraction is, indeed, a largely untried area of expertise, I believe that you are incorrect in your assumption that because lunar mining would be more similar in scope to terrestrial work that extraction of useful resources would be faster. Due to the nature of the bodies involved, extraction of useful resources would be many orders of magnitude faster and easier on an asteroid body than on Luna. An asteroid, depending on type, would lend itself much more easily to extraction of resources than the moon.
On the moon most of the metals found near the surface are refactory compounds formed of aluminum and titanium, along with large amounts of calcium, silicon and oxygen, mostly in the form of oxides. Forms of structural metals are mostly found as cores from nickel/iron meteor strikes, many of which have been largely vaporized by impact. The bulk density of the moon is 3.4g/cc which is comparable to that of volcanic basaltic lavas on Earth as compared to a bulk density on Earth of 5.5g/cc due to its dense nickel/iron core. The upshot of this is that aside from aluminum, titanium, silicon for solar cells and of course oxygen and H2O (ice, if accessible), the moon may not be WORTH mining. If we WERE to mine Luna, it would involve large scale deep tunnel mining to extract whatever small amounts of metals there to be found (once we find some). It will also require getting it back OFF the moon for it to be useful in space (though a mass driver can probably do so fairly cheaply).
Asteroids, on the other hand, easily lend themselves to prospecting- simply fire a small explosive rocket at the rock and scan the ejecta with a spectroscope. Many asteroids are huge chunks of nickel/iron that can be processed very easily with little or no excavation. Carbonaceous chondrites vary as to composition from those with high (3-22) percentages of water as well as organic compounds such as silicates, oxides and sulfides to those with lesser percentages of volatiles in combination with between 15 and +55% nickel/iron. Settlement building using a nickel/iron asteroid may be as simple as drilling a shaft into the center of the asteroid, filling it with water, sealing it, spinning the asteroid and then focusing an array of mirrors on it until it becomes molten. The water trapped within will turn to steam expanding the molten steel into a hollow sphere. Of course, this has yet to be done, but theory says it will work. Even if this proves unfeasible, metals can be easily removed and smelted on-site. As to the C-chondrites, well, they basically provide all the OTHER necessities for human habitation- soil, air, water, various amino acids and minerals for a complete ecology- just import plants and animals.
From: Matt Gallimore
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 7:49 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: : One step backwards (Step zero)
From: Victor Smith victors@...
"...it doesn't seem to me to be an insurmountable obstacle to effect a landing on a NEO at closest approach,...modify the orbit to bring the target rock to Earth at one of the L-Points or even to orbit the planet. "
"... granted, our current level of accomplishment in space industrialization doesn't allow for this, but it's mostly off the shelf tech. "
Some of it is. The reminder of the challenges fall between what we could reasonable infer and thus engineer and that which we are really don't know much. That pretty much describes any extraterrestrial mining and resource extraction. Any plan we pursue (Moon or asteroids) to provide raw materials for space industry is a multi-decade venture. Ultimately either path takes us where we should go in the long term. However, for the near term decades I'd perfer working on the moon. It is closer and the scientific / engineering development cycles should be faster.
"Part of O'bamas' plan for NASA has us visiting an asteroid in the next decade, and with some advanced planning and a bit of a push to the tech boys I could see the mission leaving behind robots that could at least begin the task of mining materials to be utilized, during a follow-up visit, to set up a mass driver propulsion unit and crew quarters installed within the excavations. One small step at a time..."
We can hope. Of course, if it was intended as part of a long term effort of space development,wouldn't it start as a series of entirely a robotic missions rather than just one single human adventure?
So many asteroids have hit the Moon; whatever is found in asteroids may be
found on the moon. Proper prospecting of the moon with core drilling
machines should be one of the first things we should do.
particular asteroid which is near enough to earth and which contains all the
minerals we need, where space habs can be built?
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 8 June 2010 10:22, Victor Smith wrote:
The bigger asteroids we don't want, because if something goes wrong
it could be a disaster, and because the mass-driver would have to be
correspondingly much larger. A *very* small asteroid about 10 meters
in diameter may sound like nothing, but is 2900 tons. And the smaller
ones pass near the Earth far more often than the bigger ones. Try
those.
From: William
> in diameter may sound like nothing, but is 2900 tons.
Wow, that's an impressive statistic. When discussing this notion of starting out small, I've had a tendency to say, "a small asteroid about the size of an office building". Maybe I should re-think my definition of "small".
Regards,
Mike Combs
Victor Smith wrote:
> Luna, unless your plan is to go on an Indian or Chinese spacecraft it
> won't happen prior to 2030, earliest.
What makes you say that?
> Wheras, a human mission to at
> least one asteroid IS on the NASA agenda.
Yes, but that won't be doing any settlement; it'll be a quick sortie at
best.
On the other hand, why do you feel that NASA missions are the most (or
even the only?) relevant American activity in space?
Best,
- Joe
sraj wrote:
> found on the moon. Proper prospecting of the moon with core drilling
> machines should be one of the first things we should do.
Actually, we should be able to spot large deposits from orbit. I don't
think we need drills and boots on the ground to find those likely sites;
we just need more observation -- which could have been done decades ago,
if not for the Moon taboo. But better late than never!
Best,
- Joe
Joe,
both India and China have expressed plans to undertake lunar missions whereas the US lunar missions that were to be undertaken under constellation have been scrubbed with the spacecraft. I DO NOT however discount private enterprise in lunar circles. With the Lunar X-Prize out there, and many US teams competing, I have little doubt that there will be lunar activity. Problem is that even the X-Prize missions are all robotic, at least as so far visualized . So far, no private sector company (and they all have my complete support) has demonstrated more than suborbital man-rated capability. Space-X now has its' Dragon in the air, but even there, the stated goal is no more than crew delivery to orbit and back. It's a ways from there to the moon and back.
I know the NASA asteroid mission is (at this time) slated as a quick survey, my point (previous post) was that without a whole lot more planning or huge amounts of additional materials, a small force of robots might be delivered during that survey and left to begin excavations on the asteroid for either a return visit when those excavated materials might be put to use, or simply for good science to demonstrate capability and find out what's there to be had.
best,
Victor
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:46 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: : One step backwards (Step zero)
Victor Smith wrote:
> While many would prefer to begin our space settlement development on
> Luna, unless your plan is to go on an Indian or Chinese spacecraft it
> won't happen prior to 2030, earliest.
What makes you say that?
> Wheras, a human mission to at
> least one asteroid IS on the NASA agenda.
Yes, but that won't be doing any settlement; it'll be a quick sortie at
best.
On the other hand, why do you feel that NASA missions are the most (or
even the only?) relevant American activity in space?
Best,
- Joe
Victor Smith wrote:
> whereas the US lunar missions that were to be undertaken under
> constellation have been scrubbed with the spacecraft. I DO NOT however
> discount private enterprise in lunar circles. With the Lunar X-Prize out
> there, and many US teams competing, I have little doubt that there will
> be lunar activity.
Right. In addition, I *do* have doubt that India and China will be
flying people to the Moon in the next several decades, except as they're
able to do so by purchasing commercial flights (and those commercial
providers will almost certainly be American).
> Problem is that even the X-Prize missions are all
> robotic, at least as so far visualized .
That depends on your visualization skills, I guess. :) I see things
unfolding something like this:
2012 - Virgin suborbital flights; SpaceX/Dragon orbital
2015 - first Bigelow commercial space station
2020 - first commercial lunar outings (without permanent habitation)
2025 - first permanent lunar base (also commercial)
2035 - first Mars mission (probably commercial as well)
Bigelow has already announced a design for an inflatable lunar hab based
on their orbital modules. Both SpaceX and Bigelow have expressed
interest in pushing to Mars, but they will find the Moon a profitable
first stop. And this isn't even including possible wildcards like Blue
Origin, Masten Space, and Armadillo.
At the same time, NASA will continue to do useful science -- new space
telescopes, maybe (if we're lucky) a visit to an asteroid, etc. -- but
nothing much that matters as far as actual settlement goes.
> So far, no private sector
> company (and they all have my complete support) has demonstrated more
> than suborbital man-rated capability. Space-X now has its' Dragon in the
> air, but even there, the stated goal is no more than crew delivery to
> orbit and back. It's a ways from there to the moon and back.
Once you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere. Especially if you
have a well-positioned space station to act as a staging area. NASA's
not doing that, but Bigelow et al. almost certainly will.
> I know the NASA asteroid mission is (at this time) slated as a quick
> survey, my point (previous post) was that without a whole lot more
> planning or huge amounts of additional materials, a small force of
> robots might be delivered during that survey and left to begin
> excavations on the asteroid for either a return visit when those
> excavated materials might be put to use, or simply for good science to
> demonstrate capability and find out what's there to be had.
I think you're overestimating what robots can do. (And I'm a robotics
nut myself; I host our local robotics club twice a month.) I think
you're also underestimating the difficulty of working on an asteroid,
where a misstep can easily give you (or something you're manipulating)
escape velocity.
I'd be all in favor of doing as much with that mission as we can, and
certainly leaving something behind -- at the very least, we should be
marking any asteroids we visit with a transponder that allows us to
track its position more easily and precisely. I don't think we're going
to get any serious resource extraction to happen on our first visit, though.
Best,
- Joe
Joe,
You're probably right about the asteroid mission not going beyond stated
parameters, my point was that it should, and could with a little foresight.
I'd love to see Bigelow (or anyone) get a commercial facility in orbit ASAP.
Hell if it was up to me, I'd volunteer to go live in a blow-up or a big
styro cup as long as it was off the planet.
I've never figured out why ISS wasn't designed for spin, seemed the natural
approach given all the literature and the known disabilities of living sans
gravity for long periods. It seems that Bigelows' Genesis modules, while
spin capable as individual modules, once joined into a complex will still be
weightless. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of their vision-we need
more people in space any way we can get them there. Now, with Boeing
partnering with Bigelow, it looks like that may happen much more rapidly
than we could have expected otherwise. I simply don't understand why the
micrograv labs won't be deployed as auxiliary to a spun up crew quarters.
Bigelow DOES seem to embody the best possibility for a lunar base of some
sort within a decade or so. In effect, they have the modules-all they need
do is a bit of adaptation for supporting them on the lunar surface and a
transportation system to get them there. I really hope that it works out
according to their (and your) schedule. I've been saying for years that
private sector was the way to go if we wanted to actually accomplish
something significant in space.
I'm one of those folks, however, that would rather see mankind proliferate
outside a gravity well than within one-as you say, "Once you're in orbit,
you're halfway to anywhere". That bias leads me to be an 'asteroid nut' as
they represent one of the primary resources available outside a gravity
well, and one from which all the necessary building blocks for habitat
formation can be drawn. It may be that drawing on that resource will have
to wait, but I, personally, would prefer to see asteroid detection, capture
and resource extraction given much more attention and priority than it
currently receives, particularly in light of the known fact that loose NEOs
and Earth crossing asteroids present a clear and present danger to
civilization on Earth until such capability is developed. The added
possibility of having nearly limitless resources upon which to draw for the
construction of large orbital facilities and space solar power arrays
without having to expend enormous amounts of energy to lift them from a
planetary surface can be seen as either a bonus or a primary motivator.
best,
Victor
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 2:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: : One step backwards (Step zero)