--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Matt Gallimore wrote:
>
> As for using the asteroids for construction in earth orbit... More and morenationshave avested interests in the orbital environment. Looks like we are in for a multi-year debate on the legality and liability for asteroid capture. My opinion: we've got years before there will be an agreement allowing any government or business to capture asteroids and place them around out planet. (Al Globus wrote about asterants that carry small captured weightsthat might be acceptable.)

I haven't heard of any government action ever being stopped in space for international legal reasons. Everyone has pretty much done what they wanted and thankfully nothing bad has happened. The AsterAnts is what I am refering to, 10 meter (as someone pointed out 2900 ton) asteroids, that are on the border of meteroids removing the safety issue for the planet. Considering we are processing nothing from asteroids or the moon, 2900 tons per capture sounds like a pretty good start to me. And with repeated successful captures larger asteroids may be considered, but with limited processing to start with you might as well wait until the need arises.

> "I don't see there being sufficient materials to effect any kind of 'economy' on the moon- what do you have to sell, or what potential can you offer to prospective manufacturers to set up shop there?"
> Yes,there are a asteroids can harbor alarge cadre of elements.
>
> For purely practical reasons, I suspect nearterm space base resource utilization will come from the moon. Why? It is close. Telerobotics are an option (2 second delay).Shielding andstructure are the greatest contribution toa habs mass, minimizing earth launch to components that are difficult to fabricate ormaterials unavailable from the moon. This couldgreatly reduce construction costs for our nextsteps - including those withasteroids.

But asteroids are closer, 5 meter asteroids are whizzing between the Earth and the moon several times a year.

> Amajorbenefit is potentially shorterinnovation / engineering cycles with the moon. Many have said asteroids inLEO haveeven shorter cycles, but I think in the years it will take to get significant asteroidal mass in orbit, we could have been telerobotically mining on themoon for a few decades.

Looking at two programs set in motion today, one to telerobotically mine the moon and send the materials to LEO and one to grab and aerobrake passing 5 - 10 meter asteroids and park them in LEO. It would appear the asteroid venture would be the better investment. The costs in building up a telerobotic presence and the launch facility are going to run costs much higher then an ISS asteroid resource extraction module processing meteroids/asteroids.

> Without asteroid capture, the launch / equipment engineering cycles are not better than the moon. And without asteroid capture, we need lots of advancements before we can launch an expedition and get the benefits of resource extraction.

Yes, and with asteroid capture the cycle is better and the current ISS infrastructure provides a starting point.

> "there's the factor of getting those products to their markets: 1/6 g... will still require significant use of fuel (or a significant outlay for a linear accelerator, skyhook, etc.)- much more of an expense than would be incurred by shipping from a zero g habitat."
>
> Right on both points. The moon is for primary material processing,building mass,and solar power. Gettingobjects off the moon and delivered to a useful place is a challenge, but probablysafer than capturing asteroids.

Only the big ones, as you've said, starting small makes it no threat to Earth.

> On the other hand, how do we get to build the "zero g habitat" with its lower material shipping costs?
>
> If the answer is asteroids, then who is accepting liability for herding them into orbit?The cost of a space program (if privately funded) would be bankrupted with one bad incident. Therefore, I don't such any large scale effect for many decades. Maybe not ever. Once technology is advanced enough no really large asteroid would be brought closer than a very large orbital patharound Earth. Very small asteroids 1-2 meter, maybe.

Agreed, though a little bigger then 1-2 meters in my opinion. I would think 10 today, and maybe 25 after years and countless 10 meter captures.

On an unrelated point, I saw recently SpaceX got their Falcon 9 to successfully launch, which can carry 6,000 kg (~6 tons), including 7 astronauts in one launch, to ISS. And their price per launch is 51 million. Given the space tourists are paying 35 million to go to ISS for two weeks. Even with just 5 slots on a Falcon 9 it would seem the price could come down to nearly 10 million a person. This would seem to open a huge opportunity to get a lot more launches for a lot more people, and lower the price per launch even more for everyone and everything else, and spur even more infrastructure (bigelow) for tourists. Possibly and finally could this be the opening up of LEO to some more development over and above the mere 5 astronauts in ISS with regular visits/replacements?

Brooks