The energy required to capture and asteroid is actually very low if you us the interplanetary super highway and very small amounts of thrust at optimal times and positions.
The same amount of thrust as which now lifts the shuttle up to low orbit could be applied to capture enormous asteroids.
The main question then is where are we capturing them to? Lunar Orbit
or Lunar L1 and L2 are ideal.
Cruithne, for instance, could be captured to lunar or mars orbit with an amazingly tiny amount of energy.
The key to it is making a small change and understanding how that small change mushrooms into very large differences over long periods of time.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?t=7475
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/1_33/1_33.html
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/1_5/1_5.html
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/1_66/1_66.html
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/2/2.html
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "pan p" wrote:
Ok, first I believe most asteroids are carbonaceous, so we may have to take what we can get. Which have modest water 3% to 22% water and modest iron content in the form of olivine and serpentinite, with alot of organics for the remainder. But this will also make our candidates less dense then the Ni/Fe bodies that you were looking at.
http://www.b612foundation.org/press/press.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_tractor
These websites describe the feasibility of moving an asteroid on the cheap with this method. Aerobraking for capture will take some more work but nothing that we haven't done with probes and the space shuttle countless times. Yes it is at higher velocity, but you're only goal is to get them into Earth orbit with out letting them 'go'. You can also use the moon to slow down their velocity.
Brooks
The sites you link to are describing a means by which a potential Earth
impactor can be slightly nudged in order to avoid a very small keyhole
window that its expected to enter on a future orbital pass of the Earth.
This slight nudge is worlds away from the sort of push needed to change
a NEA's future orbit that would normally miss this window by tens of
thousands of likometers.
the merits of lunar mining vs NEA mining, we'll need to establish a
robust capability to put men and materials into LEO at relatively low
cost.
Once we're able to achieve that goal there will hopefully be enough
players on the field that the business of acquiring materials for space
construction will be a comercially competitive enterprise. Any approach
will require a tremendous capital investment - much like developing new
oil fields, pipelines, etc. on the North Slope in Alaska or developing
new gas fields in the North Sea.
In this regard, space infrastructure creates its own postitive feedback
- the more infrastructure that's in place, the more profits that can be
made by servicing the existing facilities and building even more
facitilites so more "stuff" can be done in space.
Chris
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
>
> Ok, first I believe most asteroids are carbonaceous, so we may have to
take what we can get. Which have modest water 3% to 22% water and modest
iron content in the form of olivine and serpentinite, with alot of
organics for the remainder. But this will also make our candidates less
dense then the Ni/Fe bodies that you were looking at.
>
> Also our goal is not to get a shuttle engine to the asteroid and
directly rocket it into position. Its to position a probe over the
asteroid and 'station' keep in the direction we want it to move.
Energetically cheap for the 'adjustments' to orbit we can make, using
the gravity of the probe and modest fuel use. Also we only want to take
a near earth asteroids, which we have a few to pick from, and make them
true near miss asteroids. The aerobraking of the atosphere will be used
to decelerate most of the orbital velocity difference between the
asteroids original orbit and the high earth orbit that we need to then
adjust to bring it to ISS.
> http://www.b612foundation.org/press/press.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_tractor
>
> These websites describe the feasibility of moving an asteroid on the
cheap with this method. Aerobraking for capture will take some more work
but nothing that we haven't done with probes and the space shuttle
countless times. Yes it is at higher velocity, but you're only goal is
to get them into Earth orbit with out letting them 'go'. You can also
use the moon to slow down their velocity.
On 10/3/10 8:16 PM, csmyth3025 wrote:
> - the more infrastructure that's in place, the more profits that can be
> made by servicing the existing facilities and building even more
> facitilites so more "stuff" can be done in space.
I think this is a critical insight. Once we recognize the feedback
cycles, we should be able to see where we can apply a push to have the
biggest impact.
For example, if a major government were really interested in opening the
frontier, it would put out a contract to buy daily deliveries of water
on orbit from the lowest bidder (selected daily). This would provide a
huge boost to the launch market, encourage competition and innovation,
and build up a very useful fuel/water depot in orbit.
We're not a major government, but perhaps we can find other ways to push
on the feedback cycles in the right direction. For example, we can
support the current NASA plan that relies more heavily on commercial
launch providers, and lobby our congresscritters to go even further in
supporting a real market, and eschewing the traditional huge jobs
programs that have kept space access so expensive. We can also push for
reasonable, supportive regulation of the emerging space tourism industry
(which so far the FAA has been pretty good about, but you never know
when it might take an ugly turn).
Best,
- Joe
"In summary a 140 meter diameter equivalent, Hayabusa-shaped NEO, with a rotation period of 6 hours was approached by the t-GT spacecraft with the initial task of determining a precise orbit for the NEO. The solar powered, 1150kg. t-GT spacecraft towing performance evaluation was performed in a 200 day simulated operation in which the t-GT was stationed 155 meters forward of the NEO center of mass along its velocity vector. A very simple control law was employed to maintain the spacecraft within a "box" centered on this nominal location. No control problems or unusual excursions were experienced during the months of towing which produced the desired velocity change of ~0.07cm/sec. During towing a NEO acceleration of
0.22 microns/sec/day was achieved at a fuel expenditure of approximately 0.05 kg/day. The study confirms that a t-GT spacecraft can determine the orbit of an asteroid accurately enough to assess whether or not it is on an impact course with Earth, even if that course must pass through a relatively small keyhole first. Furthermore, towing operations by such a spacecraft will work with a simple and robust spacecraft design."
So a 140 meter NEO is able to be tracked and nudged with pretty modest craft and fuel requirements. Now at 5 meters how much more nudging are we likely able to do? Also we currently have a 5 meter asteroid striking Earth every year so having to nudge a candidate by 10s of thousands of km to get where we want it to be should be less of a problem. Though we have a few candidates now, I agree it will quickly become an issue finding new tiny incoming candidates considering our current tracking ability.
Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "csmyth3025" wrote:
I very much agree, I see tourism as the key. Chris has mentioned what it will take and I think once SpaceX is sending up trips to a Bigelow hotel or ISS (if they relax a little more) on a regular basis we are in business. There is a pretty good sized line of tourists with the money to pay for a trip. And once those trips to orbit start to really go up in numbers, from the paltry once every 2 or 3 years to 6 launches a year or more. Prices can start to drop on tourists and then more sign up, and more launches equal less costs, and on and on.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Joe Strout wrote:
I think the excerpt from the summary you linked to illustrates the
nature of the problem, Brooks.
on a theoretical model) indicates that over the course of 200 days of
simulated "gravity tugging" they achieved a velocity change in this
hypothetical asteroid of ~0.07 cm/sec. at a fuel expenditure of 0.05
kg/day.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that we're very lucky and that this
asteroid needed a change in velocity of only 0.7 km/s to be redirected
into an eventual Earth-centered circular orbit somewhere in the general
vicinity of the ISS.
At a rate of change in velocity of 0.07 cm/s every 200 days, it would
take 200 million days (547,945 years) to achieve a 0.7 km/sec total
change in velocity. Also, a fuel expenditure of 0.05 kg/day for 200
million days results in a total fuel mass of 10 million kg.
Given that the mass of a 5 meter diameter asteroid would be less by a
factor of (140/5)^3 - (21,952), we can estimate that it would take about
25 years and about 455 kg of fuel to make this very small change in
velocity for this very small asteroid.
What we really need, as has been mentioned, is to pick out a known NEA
that seems a good candidate for materials and have someone familiar with
orbital mechanics and thrust calculations run the numbers (not me - I'm
not that smart). If we do this, then we might be able to start working
with some real numbers instead of simulations and extrapolated values.
Chris
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
>
> "In summary a 140 meter diameter equivalent, Hayabusa-shaped NEO, with
a rotation period of 6 hours was approached by the t-GT spacecraft with
the initial task of determining a precise orbit for the NEO. The solar
powered, 1150kg. t-GT spacecraft towing performance evaluation was
performed in a 200 day simulated operation in which the t-GT was
stationed 155 meters forward of the NEO center of mass along its
velocity vector. A very simple control law was employed to maintain the
spacecraft within a "box" centered on this nominal location. No control
problems or unusual excursions were experienced during the months of
towing which produced the desired velocity change of ~0.07cm/sec. During
towing a NEO acceleration of
> 0.22 microns/sec/day was achieved at a fuel expenditure of
approximately 0.05 kg/day. The study confirms that a t-GT spacecraft can
determine the orbit of an asteroid accurately enough to assess whether
or not it is on an impact course with Earth, even if that course must
pass through a relatively small keyhole first. Furthermore, towing
operations by such a spacecraft will work with a simple and robust
spacecraft design."
>
> http://www.b612foundation.org/papers/t-GT_summary.pdf
>
> So a 140 meter NEO is able to be tracked and nudged with pretty modest
craft and fuel requirements. Now at 5 meters how much more nudging are
we likely able to do? Also we currently have a 5 meter asteroid striking
Earth every year so having to nudge a candidate by 10s of thousands of
km to get where we want it to be should be less of a problem. Though we
have a few candidates now, I agree it will quickly become an issue
finding new tiny incoming candidates considering our current tracking
ability.
I don't know how generous 0.7 km/s is for an already Earth bound asteroid getting nudged into our 'perfect' slot, maybe its generous and it isn't workable or maybe its conservative and we'll need to move it less. I very much agree we need someone to do real numbers.
Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "csmyth3025" wrote:
In response to your first comment, I agree that we need to get some real
world numbers. Who in this group would like to propose a known NEA as a
candidate for orbit alteration from Earth-crossing to Earth-centered at
~350 km altitude? Once we have a proposed candidate we need to select a
(real) propulsion system for the spacecraft to be used - ion drives have
high Isp and low thrust (fuel efficient, but slow), chemical rockets
have higher thrust but much lower Isp (faster, but a gas hog). The ion
engine requires a source of electrical power such as solar panels or a
nuclear reactor. Generally, there is tracking data for larger NEA's only
( 20 meters and up - the larger they are, the better the data is
usually). I could propose Apophis [Apophis will pass within 0.09666 AU
(14.4 million km) of
the Earth in 2013]. Its diameter is about 270 meters (a very approximate
guess), its composition, and thus its mass, is not known with any
certainty at all.
site, and pick the asteroid you'd like to see circling the Earth.
In response to your second comment, any and all of your suggestions are
good, Brooks. Pick your favorite one or try them all.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
>
> I don't know how generous 0.7 km/s is for an already Earth bound
asteroid getting nudged into our 'perfect' slot, maybe its generous and
it isn't workable or maybe its conservative and we'll need to move it
less. I very much agree we need someone to do real numbers.
>
> Again though the question is how do we (you, me and others here)
advance the ball on space settlement? If we pick cheaper access to space
how do we do it? Buy shares of SpaceX or Bigelow? Talk to congressman?
Work on subsystems that will be needed in the short term? Give money to
space organisations, National Space Society, etc.?
> Again though the question is how do we (you, me and others here)
how do we do it? Buy shares of SpaceX or Bigelow? Talk to congressman?
Work on subsystems that will be needed in the short term? Give money to
space organisations, National Space Society, etc.?
I say we need to think in terms of business models as well as in terms of technologies. Orbital hotels for tourism is one business model which is fairly well worked out, with several candidate launchers (Russia has to have the lead though, with the most human launches and technology already ready to go) and Bigelow's proven habs. Once that gets going, businesses will spin off of it--low-cost launches to compete with Russia, competition for supply deliveries, day trips from the hab for hotel guests, graduate studies in orbit. Time shares in space will follow that. Comfort follows money, so somebody will work out a spinning hab to (partially) simulate gravity, to help the guests keep the wine in their wine glasses. Zero-G cook books, orbital horticulture, zero-G game shows. Meanwhile, the growth of these technologies will make living on orbit more reliable and affordable, so people will start talking about space tugs, orbital solar panels, and orbital mining and manufacturing. The only good reason I can think of for not taxing the spit out of the rich is so that they can afford to drive the race to space through their boredom, greed and competitiveness.
So how do we help it happen? Help the entrepreneurs realize their visions, or be an entrepreneur if you've got the money and the brains. Talk up the proven winners, like Bigelow, look for ways to get on the band wagon, and try to sell rich people on the notion that they can go to space in their lifetimes.
On 04.10.2010 02:19, brooksn wrote:
> Also,
> > ion drives need a power source - solar panels or a nuclear reactor - to
> > produce the electricity needed to accelerate the ions to high
> > velocities.
you might take a look onto the Solar Sail Power Station (SSPS) design.
It is a hybrid mothership spacecraft, - solar sail and SEP-propulsion,
and deploys solar sail foils covered or made of thin film solar cells
for energy production.
The point is, that this self deploying spacecraft could deploy solar
cell arrays in one single launch, which are larger than the arrays of
the ISS, mounted in years of construction works.
This size of solar cell arrays can be used to power a lot or very strong
solar electric thrusters.
Solar sailing in this case would be used for fuelless station keeping
and attitude control, while main propulsion would be rather provided by
SEP-thrusters.
Take a look onto the design at
http://www.solar-thruster-sailor.info/PresentationISSS2010V13.pdf
In this presentation the spacecraft is thought as a demonstrator for
space based solar power production which could be beamed back to Earth
but it could do other missions as well, especially satellite or asteroid
prospector missions.
Best wishes
Frank
csmyth3025:
> (real) propulsion system for the spacecraft to be used - ion drives have
> high Isp and low thrust (fuel efficient, but slow), chemical rockets
> have higher thrust but much lower Isp (faster, but a gas hog).
Don't leave out mass drivers. The chief advantage there is that on the flight out to the asteroid, one needn't haul the fuel needed to change the course of the asteroid. The asteroid's own material serves as the reaction mass on the trip back.
Regards,
Mike Combs
> Again though the question is how do we (you, me and others here) advance the ball on space settlement? If we pick cheaper access to space how do we do it? Buy shares of SpaceX or Bigelow? Talk to congressman? Work on subsystems that will be needed in the short term? Give money to space organisations, National Space Society, etc.?
>
> Brooks
But what if the government helped form (and initially finance) a 'space cooperative' that citizens could buy shares in? Or rather, that citizens automatically had real shares in? So that the wealth, through ownership, not salary, a very big difference, would go neither to a government nor to a big company, and governance would be by the owners, an elected board, not government.
I know there are many details lacking in my one paragraph, but I'm only pointing in a direction; lots of cooperative plans exist; they appear to have worked well, they have often accompanied big water and agriculture projects in the US. It seems to me that if citizens could see some benefit to themselves, support and demand would grow. It's just not too motivating to put any hope in schemes that would strengthen existing players--they've already shown their knickers.
But that alone isn't enough. We are in a state of economic stagnation with demand down. If we got an asteroid, what would we do with the materials we mined? We can't even sell our recycles right now, if NPR's coverage is right. Demand is down.
So it seems to me that we'd enumerate the enemies of demand with as much attention to detail as given to the dynamics of aerobraking. We actually are divided on those details. Most people reading this post are for every measure that insures 'population planning.' Whatever measure or behavior reduces births is deemed 'good' by default. "Freedom."
But no. We need population pressure. We need demand that won't be satisfied just by earth, not the tourist demand for a nice view (pictures can satisfy the plebs well enough). We need to grow demand. Instead, all our public policies are in the opposite direction. And just about everyone I know supports them by default, without lining up the effect on space exploration.
Consider something happening today in the Philippenes, you may hear about it on the news. The president of the Philippenes (just returned from a pow-wow in Washington in which Philippene aid was at stake) is vowed to push birth control aggressively in the Philippenes. The Catholic church there was fighting it tooth and nail (reports today say they caved, and promised to shut up, though). The people are prepared to go either way, they have a long Catholic history, and they would not rebel or demonstrate for easy availability of birth control (you can get anything on the black market, just like always). President Aquino is yielding to Planned Parenthood pressure, backed up by Obama. Our boy's not doing much at home, but is kicking tail in the UN, with increased pressure, even threats of withholding aid, to reduce population everywhere, always.
Presently there's no big population problem in the Philippenes. Their biggest export, in fact, is workers to the contracepting countries, and they--a government agency-- manage it effectively, and their nurses especially are very sought after. But the pressure is on them now to reduce, reduce, reduce.
Against the interests of space exploration. We can't have it both ways. "Planning" always results in decrease of births. That's first. Then there's the plunge. And after--it will be called paranoid to say so--when they see that planning is a misnomer,is in fact impossible, as they recently admitted in South Korea, with its disappearing population, reproduction will be taken out of our wombs altogether.
Long ago this list discussed labor needs on colonies. It would be high, that was the consensus. But how would we get workers? Someone joked, just forget to order the birth control. Yeah. Duh. (That wouldn't work, by the way. Women have always known how to get rid of unwanted infants, by waiting until after they were born and killing them. It was the struggle of centuries to break that habit.) But what we don't realize is that it has to start now. We have to be dedicated to reproducing and growing that work force now. Or there's no real point in making that first colony. We are busy adjusting (way way early) to a controlled and contrived life on earth.
This how I see it. Since you asked, and a good question, too. Not unlike nudging an asteroid. But presently, we're divided on these things, pushing the darn thing from all sides, in fact, and getting nowhere. Laying off NASA.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76" wrote:
>
> > Again though the question is how do we (you, me and others here) advance the ball on space settlement? If we pick cheaper access to space how do we do it? Buy shares of SpaceX or Bigelow? Talk to congressman? Work on subsystems that will be needed in the short term? Give money to space organisations, National Space Society, etc.?
> >
> > Brooks
>
> It's to open a whole can of worms, but both the private business and the government-run solutions have weaknesses. The huge cost makes it really difficult for 'small business' to risk, and who wants to make Halliburton or say BP bigger? And yet the whole government-run solution has proven unworkable, too (as I see it, for reasons outside of the questions and problems surrounding space exploration--for reasons of the 'trustability' of specific governments based on other issues).
>
> But what if the government helped form (and initially finance) a 'space cooperative' that citizens could buy shares in? Or rather, that citizens automatically had real shares in? So that the wealth, through ownership, not salary, a very big difference, would go neither to a government nor to a big company, and governance would be by the owners, an elected board, not government.
>
> I know there are many details lacking in my one paragraph, but I'm only pointing in a direction; lots of cooperative plans exist; they appear to have worked well, they have often accompanied big water and agriculture projects in the US. It seems to me that if citizens could see some benefit to themselves, support and demand would grow. It's just not too motivating to put any hope in schemes that would strengthen existing players--they've already shown their knickers.
> But that alone isn't enough. We are in a state of economic stagnation with demand down. If we got an asteroid, what would we do with the materials we mined? We can't even sell our recycles right now, if NPR's coverage is right. Demand is down.
Babies do not make demand, shoppers do.
> So it seems to me that we'd enumerate the enemies of demand with as much attention to detail as given to the dynamics of aerobraking. We actually are divided on those details. Most people reading this post are for every measure that insures 'population planning.' Whatever measure or behavior reduces births is deemed 'good' by default. "Freedom."
>
> But no. We need population pressure. We need demand that won't be satisfied just by earth, not the tourist demand for a nice view (pictures can satisfy the plebs well enough). We need to grow demand. Instead, all our public policies are in the opposite direction. And just about everyone I know supports them by default, without lining up the effect on space exploration.
>
> Against the interests of space exploration. We can't have it both ways. "Planning" always results in decrease of births. That's first. Then there's the plunge. And after--it will be called paranoid to say so--when they see that planning is a misnomer,is in fact impossible, as they recently admitted in South Korea, with its disappearing population, reproduction will be taken out of our wombs altogether.
The world population will rise to 9 billion over the 40 years and then plateau, which will be beyond what nearly all scientists who've studied it say the Earth can sustain. There is no technology that will get large numbers of humans off planet any time soon. We can barely keep 6 people up there much less 600 million. Also the idea of 'creating' demand for an Earth evacuation to space by overpopulation of the only planet we have is like getting 100 strong prison workers by pitting 10,000 against each other until you have only the strongest 100 remaining. Sure you got to your goal but there's alot of carnage in your wake.
Brooks
Don't get too intense on the subject of raising awareness about the
devevlopment of LEO infrastructure and our expansion into space beyond
that point. There are those of us who think taking this path is very
important - but we're a small minority. The vast majority of people in
the industrialized world and just about everyone in developing countries
have other priorities. Mostly they're just trying to get by (or get
ahead) and raise a family as best they can.
driven by WWII and, subsequently, the cold war. The military services of
numerous countries still provide a lot of the monetary support for
research and development. This pattern will likely continue for the
foreseeable future.
There is now the beginnings of interest in spaceflight by well-heeled
adventure-seekers. It will take a long time before the "average joe"
will be able to afford a space trip just "for the fun of it". Until then
there will be, I think, a growing number of professional people and
workers who are sent on assignments to the ISS and other space "habs"
for government and/or commercial work.
My grandchildren wont see the kind of LEO infrastructure we'll need to
develop a lunar colony, a space colony, or a colony anywhere else for
that matter. It's my hope that their grandchildren may see that sort of
infrastructure developing.
Chris
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
>
> >... So it seems to me that we'd enumerate the enemies of demand with
as much attention to detail as given to the dynamics of aerobraking. We
actually are divided on those details. Most people reading this post are
for every measure that insures 'population planning.' Whatever measure
or behavior reduces births is deemed 'good' by default. "Freedom."
> >
> > But no. We need population pressure. We need demand that won't be
satisfied just by earth, not the tourist demand for a nice view
(pictures can satisfy the plebs well enough). We need to grow demand.
Instead, all our public policies are in the opposite direction. And just
about everyone I know supports them by default, without lining up the
effect on space exploration.
> >
> > Against the interests of space exploration. We can't have it both
ways. "Planning" always results in decrease of births. That's first.
Then there's the plunge. And after--it will be called paranoid to say
so--when they see that planning is a misnomer,is in fact impossible, as
they recently admitted in South Korea, with its disappearing population,
reproduction will be taken out of our wombs altogether.
>
> The world population will rise to 9 billion over the 40 years and then
plateau, which will be beyond what nearly all scientists who've studied
it say the Earth can sustain. There is no technology that will get large
numbers of humans off planet any time soon. We can barely keep 6 people
up there much less 600 million. Also the idea of 'creating' demand for
an Earth evacuation to space by overpopulation of the only planet we
have is like getting 100 strong prison workers by pitting 10,000 against
each other until you have only the strongest 100 remaining. Sure you got
to your goal but there's alot of carnage in your wake.
Your grandchildren won't see it? 100 years from now you don't see the infrastructure needed for colonies? 100's of people colonies I can understand that but I hope we can have a 100 in space and a dozen on the moon by then.
Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "csmyth3025" wrote:
My comment is probably on the pessimistic side. It's hard to speculate
about what sort of things we'll be doing in 100 years. How many people
in 1910 could have imagined that almost every house in the US would have
a television and a computer by 2010? How many would have imagined that
the Wright Flyer would eventually lead to the wide-body Boeing 747
capable of transporting over 500 "average" people more that 7,000 miles
in one hop - or that thousands of people would travel by airplane every
day.
infrastructure in place now than we did then -but not as much as space
enthusiasts back then thought we would have by now. Who knows what we'll
have 40 years from now. I hope that by that time we'll have 100 people
working in space and a dozen people working on the Moon. I hope that 80
years from now we'll have hundreds of people working in space and on the
Moon. Time will tell.
Chris
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
>
> Your grandchildren won't see it? 100 years from now you don't see the
infrastructure needed for colonies? 100's of people colonies I can
understand that but I hope we can have a 100 in space and a dozen on the
moon by then.
>
> Unless of course more billionaires step up to chase their dream, then
you never know what can happen. SpaceX, X prize and Bigelow are in that
vein so who knows.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Brad Walsh wrote:
> ...the question is how do we (you, me and others here)advance
> the ball on space settlement?...
> ...Buy shares of SpaceX or Bigelow? Talk to congressman?
> Work on subsystems that will be needed in the short term?
> Give money to space organizations, National Space Society, etc.?
I started getting interested when Chris said that he does not think this civilization is on the way to "blowing it." (I think it shows definite signs of being on that path.)
Then the possible need for a "paradigm-shift" was introduced. (Slippery language - but probably appropriate for these difficult concepts.)
Janet pointed to the obvious target of finance and the related subject of ownership.
I think she's on the right track. But when you peel back the onion on that subject, the problems just go deeper and deeper.
On the subject of finance, I offer this for consideration: Should a society be so organized that wealth is allowed to concentrate for the service of private interests? Especially when those interests seem to be in direct conflict with the interests of society at large and the ecosystem it depends on?
Possible paradigm shift: Don't allow wealth to be inherited beyond the family dwelling place and a few personal memorabilia.
Then we can turn to the subject of financial waste. One of the biggest causes of same? War.
Should a society be so organized that war is seen as a viable way of settling property or political disputes, or of "keeping the peace?"
Possible paradigm shift: Outlaw war. (Ref: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 Dec 1948)
And you can go on: How should common citizens be viewed? Should they be forced to compete for "scarce" work in a "labor market" or should their desire to contribute to the survival of society be considered a basic human right?
Possible paradigm shift: Full employment needs to be forced into existence.
In fact, how should people in general be viewed? And the life forms around us? Are they simply animate material objects? And is the game of life finite, or is it infinite? Does the future really matter to the people living here today?
Possible paradigm shift: Life is the senior factor. Its basic laws should be considered sacred. It should be properly credited as the creator of all things. Life should take responsibility for what it has created and for providing a workable future for itself and its creations. And we, as the most causative life forms on this planet, should live up to our share of that responsibility. Our survival, after all, is one reason for moving off earth.
I will go even further: Should we be satisfied that the traditional scientific, academic, religious and political institutions on this planet are really giving us the straight dope about what is known ON EARTH about the problems connected with moving off earth?
We have some whistleblowers, possibly even some astronauts, who have reported some very interesting things! If I didn't have corroborating data from several other sources I would dismiss these stories. But what if they are true?
What if functioning bases already exist on the moon and on Mars? Would that help explain why no one has bothered to make an official manned trip to the moon for decades? Would that also suggest that someone on earth is in the possession of advanced propulsion systems that may utilize physics principles that are officially only "theoretical?"
For better or worse, this is the world of possibilities that I live in. Those who are not aware of these possibilities will discount them. But so will those who don't want us to be aware of these possibilities!
If even ten percent of the data I have seen were true, the situation would seem to be this: A small group of earth people are working very hard to limit the reach of this planet. They think they are the only smart ones. Most of us would consider them crazy.
The first and major barrier to any space development program is willingness. That willingness existed at high levels at one time. Something happened that crippled it. If that had not happened, this group might be talking about vastly different subjects today. Plans to explore space have been on the drawing boards since the time of Jules Verne! It is obviously in the interest of the entire planet to know more about the solar system and beyond. What happened to blunt those plans and cut our reach out into space?
That's the question that interests me. If the willingness were there, I think the engineering problems would be relatively trivial (relatively). Our social technologies, by contrast, seem grossly under-developed. The first step back onto a more pro-survival path would involve locating and removing the source of the current unwillingness to reach. We could then begin to put in place social technologies that would guard against the return of those anti-survival influences and strengthen our political and financial ability to tackle challenges like this.
I must admit that I, too, am amazed at where this conversation is going.
The original subject (Asteroid Capture) began as a a discussion of the
technical and technological issues related to how we might obtain and
utilize asteroidal material in space-centric material processing and
fabrication. Since then it's become a socio-political debate over
capitalism vs socialism vs communism.
opportunity to engage in work that's both monetarily rewarding and
intellectually satisfying. Likewise, everyone agrees that we should
outlaw war. That said, I can also state categorically that I have no
interest in debating vague socio-economic and political philosophies in
this thread or in this forum.
Chris
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "l_ed_cox"
The asteroid is estimated to be 2,000 to 4,500 feet wide, and qualifies as
a near Earth object. NEA (near-Earth asteroid) 2002 AM31 is described as
the size of a city block, the Daily Mail reported.
space rock will be tracked live by cameras on Earth and in space.
http://postnoon.com/2012/07/21/asteroid-as-big-as-a-city-block-to-hurtle-past-earth/60374
..........
What would it take to capture this asteroid and position it at 'three moon
distance' from Earth? How long would it take?
Regards,
Selvaraj
See http://kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf
for a discussion of returning a somewhat smaller object to Earth orbit.
for a presentation related to this. There will be a paper on this
in the very near future (to be presented at AIAA Space 2012)
On Jul 22, 2012, at 6:31 AM, sraj wrote:
Glanced through the first reference. Very interesting! It looks as if our
present ambition is limited to asteroids of 7m diameter in size. Apparently
we are still to build up our capabilities to locate small asteroids. (Let's
hope our ability to locate large asteroids is better, so that we don't get
zapped).
relatively synchronous with Earth? If we could identify these asteroids
very little delta V would be required to capture them.
Should we first install a powerful radar on the Moon to locate asteroids?
(It can be designed to fire pulses only when the radar is facing away from
Earth).
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 22 July 2012 23:28, Al Globus wrote:
We could also think of putting a radar satellite ( + optical?) into orbit
around the sun, in an orbit similar to that of the Earth, to find out the
asteroids which could be easy picking. (Is the Hubble Space Telescope any
good at picking out asteroids?)
operated?) on the Moon.
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 23 July 2012 21:20, sraj wrote:
Asteroid hunters have announced plans to launch the first privately funded
deep space mission in history to look for asteroids that could threaten
Earth.
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_1st-private-deep-space-mission-to-track-dangerous-near-earth-asteroid_1708434
Anything above 50 meters is probably not going to be considered for Earth orbit. The 5 to 10 meter sized objects would be great for study and resource extraction in Earth orbit though and we get one of those crashing into Earth every year and untold zipping past as near misses.
Brooks
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
Ages ago I read one book that proposed the idea of building colonies in part from materials mined from asteroids. And there was the foundation for my personal dream of what I had thought would be a career/family business; asteroid capture/retrieval. Either under contract, or independently finding asteroids of value to latch on, and push to its' destination (earth orbit, or free orbiting facility).
I do have one question, has there been any estimations to the value a asteroid could have? There is one mineral (sorry I forgot the name) used in fiber optical cables, that is only found in asteroids. And has a greater value per ounce then gold.
But then, I have to wonder what would happen if some one found a asteroid with say several hundred tons of gold in it?
If you like asteroids, contribute to the B612 Foundation. They are
building a space telescope dedicated to asteroid detection. Probably
cost a couple hundred million, which is turns out can easily be raised
for things like libraries, art museums, university buildings and so
on. The team B612 has put together is absolutely top notch and they
know what they are doing. They should be able to increase asteroid
discovery rates by a factor of 100 or so.