Yes, H3 is an example of a space weathering deposit.

Iron, however, may not have been deposited on the surfaces of some
asteroids via space weathering.

I'm assuming that if there's iron on the surface, there's probably
iron within the asteroid.

George

Now, there is the fact that a supernova can generate enough heat to
turn Bauxite into Iron.

This means it's possible that some asteroids were in the right place
at the right time so that only the bauxite on the surface turned into
iron.

However, I am assuming this is not the case with the bulk of
asteroids that have Iron on them.

George

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "George Perkins" wrote:
> Now, there is the fact that a supernova can generate enough heat to
> turn Bauxite into Iron.
>
> This means it's possible that some asteroids were in the right
place
> at the right time so that only the bauxite on the surface turned
into
> iron.
>
> However, I am assuming this is not the case with the bulk of
> asteroids that have Iron on them.
>
> George

...and a supernova is the only natural process that can produce
elements heavier than Iron.

My theory is that a few billion years ago a nova or supernova
occurred in our stellar neighbourhood, seeding our solar system with
elements heavier than Helium. The exploding star would have sent out
chunks of largely pure materials (as each shell within a nova or
supernova is made of like materials, with the lightest on the outside
and the heaviest on the inside). The heaviest elements were
subsequently captured in close orbit around the sun (ie closer than
Jupiter), with the lighter elements largely further out; this
explains why the inner planets are rocky while the outer ones are gas
giants.

Over time, through numerous collisions, the outer layers of asteroids
would have been pounded into a fine dust, mixing various elements
together, making a sort of corborundum on the surface. However,
scratch the surface and underneath the asteroid should be an almost
pure material, like the Nickel asteroid that slammed into North
America eons ago, exposing the bedrock of the Canadian shield,
carving out Hudson's Bay and James Bay, and depositing massive
quantities of Nickel in the area surrounding the Bays; or like the
Iridium asteroid that crashed in the Yucatan 65 million or so years
ago.

To me, the answer is clear; we must send a robotic probe to one or
several asteroids, then drill inside and find out if they are
corborundum throughout, or if they turn out to be nuggets in a bland
shell.

Consider the implications if I am correct. Take 243Ida1 as an
example; Dactyl is a rough ball approximately one mile in diameter.
even if the top 100 meters is slag, that leaves a ball with a radius
of 700m of what should be nearly-pure metal. That is roughly one
billion cubic meters of metal, already in orbit.

:) ed

<< To me, the answer is clear; we must send a robotic probe to one or
several asteroids, then drill inside and find out if they are
corborundum throughout, or if they turn out to be nuggets in a bland
shell. >>

Very funny post.

(Strange one too)

But I have to disagree with the current obsessive red hair
singularities of quibbledom.

I'm in favor of sending both humans and probes simultaneausly,
working in concert at the very start.

Technology is not as advanced as most space enthusiasts seem to think
and no equipment is ready to mine an asteroid without human
assistance as there's just not enough known yet to construct or
program such a contraption.

Current spectroscopy is adequate. Other variables must be taken into
account besides spectroscopy such as distance at closest approach and
time between closest approaches so that addition detailed
spectroscopy becomes a matter of over-information or a strange, and
unnecessary, data balancing act. So basic earth telescopic
spectroscopy is really more than ample for our purposes.

This would also be cheaper compared to probe > probe > probe >
human. Fewer launches. Less weight. Less inventing. Simpler
probes.

Risk-cutting measures can be employed as far as human safety goes,
such as good abort planning, remote operation of equipment from a
safe distance, crafts with mechanical arm attachments, etc, etc..

As more is learned, and the mining becomes more lucrative, we then
try out any new asteroid mining inventions and see how they do.

Besides raw materials, we also want to start manufacturing and
quickly introduce tourist opportunities such as trips to moon and
Mars orbits with spacecrafts we build using asteroidal materials.

There is no master machine to do it and there may be few robotic
tourists.

lol

George

--- In spacesettlers@y..., cygonaut@m... wrote:
>
><< To me, the answer is clear; we must send a robotic probe to one
or
> several asteroids, then drill inside and find out if they are
> corborundum throughout, or if they turn out to be nuggets in a
bland
> shell. >>
>
> Very funny post.
>
> (Strange one too)
>
> But I have to disagree with the current obsessive red hair
> singularities of quibbledom.
>
> I'm in favor of sending both humans and probes simultaneausly,
> working in concert at the very start.
>

Impractical. It is far more practical to send robotic probes well
before sending human beings. Consider: you do not need to feed a
robot, pressurize its vehicle, or even bring it back from the
asteroid belt.

A mission to the asteroid belt involving astronauts would require at
least three years. Does it not make sense to only send people to
asteroids which we know to be valuable? Suppose you send a team to
Ceres, only to find that the whole thing turns out to be a
corborundum slag heap? Do you then say "oops, well after we bring
the team back from Ceres, we'll just have to send another mission to
another asteroid? Please, give us a few trillion dollars so we can
try again."

> Technology is not as advanced as most space enthusiasts seem to
think
> and no equipment is ready to mine an asteroid without human
> assistance as there's just not enough known yet to construct or
> program such a contraption.
>

Wrong. I have been working on just such a robot for the last ten
years. The technology is not ready yet (give me one more year),
granted, but it will be ready long before we can begin to consider a
manned mission to an asteroid.

Programming of my "contraption" is indeed difficult, and required
that I write a new programming language (FUNGAL, the FUzzy
logic/Neural network/Genetic Algorthm Language), however enough is
known right now to program such a device.

> Current spectroscopy is adequate. Other variables must be taken
into
> account besides spectroscopy such as distance at closest approach
and
> time between closest approaches so that addition detailed
> spectroscopy becomes a matter of over-information or a strange, and
> unnecessary, data balancing act. So basic earth telescopic
> spectroscopy is really more than ample for our purposes.
>

Fine, if all you want to do is determine the composition of the
surface of the asteroid. It is my contention that asteroids are
a "skin" of corborundum with a "meat" of pure elements, something
which cannot be determined by earth-based spectroscopy. For that,
you actually need to peel the skin, or at least punch a hole in it.

> This would also be cheaper compared to probe > probe > probe >
> human. Fewer launches. Less weight. Less inventing. Simpler
> probes.
>

Does it not make sense to acquire data about the destination before
sending people? Suppose you send a team of astronauts to Ceres. The
journey would take a minimum of three years (one year to get there,
one year to do the work, and a year to get back). That's an awful
long time to keep people alive in space. Upon arrival, your
astronauts do some digging, and find that Ed's wrong, the whole thing
is really slag, and the mission fails. What then? Do you bring your
astronauts home and ask the government for a few trillion dollars so
you can try again with another asteroid? Do you go asteroid-hopping,
moving your people from asteroid to asteroid until you find a good
one? Does it not make more sense to send autonomous robots on an
asteroid-hopping mission well before sending people?

> Risk-cutting measures can be employed as far as human safety goes,
> such as good abort planning, remote operation of equipment from a
> safe distance, crafts with mechanical arm attachments, etc, etc..
>

Funny you should mention mechanical arms. My autonomous robots are
serpentine, capable of self-navigation over much more difficult
terrain than wheeled or legged robots. A gripper at each end is used
to grab tools or to provide a mechanical and digital interface so
that the robot could be used as a manipulator arm.

ed

Hi Ed & George,

How about asteroid Amor? That, spectro-analysis tells us, is a giant
steel ball bearing 8.5 miles across!

How and when our Solar System was formed is bound to have some effects,
but it is not the whole story. We are not standing still. Apart from
orbiting the galaxy our whole system also oscillates up and down - or
back and forth if you prefer - from side to side of the galactic plain.

Computer calculations show that it may take around 6 years from the time
the forward end of our system crosses the actual plain until the
rearward portion does the same. Accordingly, for half that time more and
more of the forward part is decelerating while the rearward portion is
still accelerating downwards.Turbulance caused by gravitational shifts
will send portions of the Oort Cloud inwards toward the Sun, and some
may well be accelerated out of our system altogether. The same should
happen to other systems.

It is inevitable that we will pick up stray objects from outside our
system from time to time, as the same will happen with other stellar
systems. There are other reasons for surmising that much of interstellar
space may well be seething with interstellar planets, comets, asteroids
and such like, which we cannot see because they have no light of their
own.

In view of this, we have to realize that many - perhaps even all - of
our Solar System's bodies may actually have been captured from
interstellar space during the billions of years of our Sun's life. If
that turns out to be so, then everything we find around us may have
differing origins. The Solar System may tell us more than its own
history, that of our Galaxy as well!

Best wishes, with full sympathies to American friends in your time of
trouble, Andy.

Ed Minchau wrote:

Thank you for your response, Ed, and sorry if I was a little
unfeeling in my post.

Concentrating on precurser robotic missions is a waste of time and
money, so, it turns out, that what's really impractical is exactly
this sort of thing.

Inventors want to push their inventions. They want to plug their
ideas into space, sort of, and this is normal for anyone that has
some vision.

But the rocks that have Iron on the outside have Iron on the inside.

Telescopic spectroscopy detects the presence of Iron.

Detailed spectroscopy isn't needed for asteroid selection.

You do the detail spectroscopy after you get there.

If you do it with a special robodroid, you're just wasting time and
money.

Humans are also needed to repair and to apply creative engineering
directives from earth or a master engineer on board.

They will, in addition, be helpful in salvaging and returning damaged
property to earth (if needed) for more in depth analyses.

So, what's really impractical is the probe-only concept.

George

Thank you Andy.

There are many interesting asteroids.

The bulk of them, however, are simply stoney. Only about 4% of NEA's
are the Iron-Nickel type. But that's still a hell of a lot of
Platinum.

What's exciting is the Iron is pure. It's not like the Iron on
earth, mixed with lighter elements and, because of this plus earth's
gravity, comparatively difficult to process.

George

Hi George,

My understanding is that the majority of asteroids appear to be
carbonaceous chondrites.

Best wishes, Andy.

George Perkins wrote:

> Thank you Andy.
>
> There are many interesting asteroids.
>
> The bulk of them, however, are simply stoney. Only about 4% of NEA's
> are the Iron-Nickel type. But that's still a hell of a lot of
> Platinum.
>
> What's exciting is the Iron is pure. It's not like the Iron on
> earth, mixed with lighter elements and, because of this plus earth's
> gravity, comparatively difficult to process.
>
> George
>

My understanding is that the majority of asteroids appear to be carbonaceouschondrites.
Best wishes, Andy.
George Perkins wrote:
Thank you Andy.
There are many interesting asteroids.
The bulk of them, however, are simply stoney. Only about 4%of NEA's
are the Iron-Nickel type. But that's still a hell of a lotof
Platinum.
What's exciting is the Iron is pure. It's not like the Ironon
earth, mixed with lighter elements and, because of this plus earth's
gravity, comparatively difficult to process.

George

.

<< My understanding is that the majority of asteroids appear to be
carbonaceous chondrites. >>

That's exactly right. I used the word "stoney" instead. (Same
thing.) They are rocky, or stoney, virtually identical to the rocks
you see on earth. So much so, even though stoney meteorites are the
most common they are also the most difficult to identify
as "meteorite" because of the similarity to ordinary earth rocks.

George

I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to asteroid
mining to this group. See
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html. Basic idea:
find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole thing
to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft to
get large amounts of returned mass. Using a large fleet gives you
economies of manufacturing scale and failure tolerance. Returning whole
asteroids avoids the uncertainties of rock mining.

George Perkins wrote:
>
> Thank you for your response, Ed, and sorry if I was a little
> unfeeling in my post.
>
> Concentrating on precurser robotic missions is a waste of time and
> money, so, it turns out, that what's really impractical is exactly
> this sort of thing.
>
> Inventors want to push their inventions. They want to plug their
> ideas into space, sort of, and this is normal for anyone that has
> some vision.
>
> But the rocks that have Iron on the outside have Iron on the inside.
>
> Telescopic spectroscopy detects the presence of Iron.
>
> Detailed spectroscopy isn't needed for asteroid selection.
>
> You do the detail spectroscopy after you get there.
>
> If you do it with a special robodroid, you're just wasting time and
> money.
>
> Humans are also needed to repair and to apply creative engineering
> directives from earth or a master engineer on board.
>
> They will, in addition, be helpful in salvaging and returning damaged
> property to earth (if needed) for more in depth analyses.
>
> So, what's really impractical is the probe-only concept.
>
> George
>

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

From: "George Perkins"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:50 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Iron outside = Iron inside

[snikt]
> That's exactly right. I used the word "stoney" instead. (Same
> thing.) They are rocky, or stoney, virtually identical to the rocks
> you see on earth. So much so, even though stoney meteorites are the
> most common they are also the most difficult to identify
> as "meteorite" because of the similarity to ordinary earth rocks.
>

As far as I understand, carbonaceous condrites are not exactly rocky. They
are not stones made of something similar to granite or any other earthly
rock, if that is what you mean. Instead, carbonaceous asteroids are
primarily made of carbon (as the name says) and volatiles. I've never seen
one in person, but from the descriptions that I've got - it is said that
they are very dark and extremely fragile and crumby - I would say that they
probably vegetal coal rather than stones properly said...

> George
[snikt]

Lucio

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
> I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to
asteroid
> mining to this group. See
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html.

Ed, this URL doesn't work. I found your list of papers (Impressive),
then worked my way to AsterAnts. I think the whole problem is that,
despite the rules of English, you shouldn't have put the period at the
end of the line after html.

Basic
idea:
> find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole
thing
> to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft
to
> get large amounts of returned mass. Using a large fleet gives you
> economies of manufacturing scale and failure tolerance. Returning
whole
> asteroids avoids the uncertainties of rock mining.

Looks like a good idea.

Rick

From: "Al Globus"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron inside

> I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to asteroid
> mining to this group. See
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html. Basic idea:
> find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole thing
> to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft to
> get large amounts of returned mass. Using a large fleet gives you
> economies of manufacturing scale and failure tolerance. Returning whole
> asteroids avoids the uncertainties of rock mining.
[snikt]

Hi Al,

And what about the problem of meteoroid rotation, that you pointed out some
while ago? (I even suggested "touchless dragging", based on diamagnetism, to
circumvent this problem, though I did not now about the feasibility of the
suggestion...)

Lucio Coelho

--- In spacesettlers@y..., rabrooks@l... wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
> > I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to
> asteroid
> > mining to this group. See
> > http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html.
>
> Ed, this URL doesn't work. I found your list of papers
(Impressive),
> then worked my way to AsterAnts. I think the whole problem is
that,
> despite the rules of English, you shouldn't have put the period at
the
> end of the line after html.
>

Umm, I can't take credit for Al Globus's ideas.

ed

"Dr. Omni" wrote:
>
> > I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to asteroid
> > mining to this group. See
> > http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html. Basic idea:
> > find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole thing
> > to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft to
> > get large amounts of returned mass. U...
>
> Hi Al,
>
> And what about the problem of meteoroid rotation, that you pointed out some
> while ago? (I even suggested "touchless dragging", based on diamagnetism, to
> circumvent this problem, though I did not now about the feasibility of the
> suggestion...)

I briefly looked into the touchless dragging based on diamagnetism but
didn't get to the point of doing any numbers (I would have to learn the
physics first and I haven't had the time). In any case, I consider the
rotation problem unsolved for the moment.
>
> Lucio Coelho
>

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

Could somebody please briefly summarize what the "meteoroid rotation
problem" is, and also what "touchless dragging" is? Thanks.

Ron Menich

Al Globus
09/19/01 11:51 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron inside

"Dr. Omni" wrote:
>
> > I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to
asteroid
> > mining to this group. See
> > http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html. Basic idea:
> > find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole
thing
> > to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft to
> > get large amounts of returned mass. U...
>
> Hi Al,
>
> And what about the problem of meteoroid rotation, that you pointed out
some
> while ago? (I even suggested "touchless dragging", based on
diamagnetism, to
> circumvent this problem, though I did not now about the feasibility of
the
> suggestion...)

I briefly looked into the touchless dragging based on diamagnetism but
didn't get to the point of doing any numbers (I would have to learn the
physics first and I haven't had the time). In any case, I consider the
rotation problem unsolved for the moment.
>
> Lucio Coelho
>

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

Ron Menich
Al Globus
09/19/01 11:51 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron inside
"Dr. Omni" wrote:
>
> > I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to asteroid
> > mining to this group. See
>
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html.
Basic idea:
> > find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole thing
> > to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft to
> > get large amounts of returned mass. U...
>
> Hi Al,
>
> And what about the problem of meteoroid rotation, that you pointed out some
> while ago? (I even suggested "touchless dragging", based on diamagnetism, to
> circumvent this problem, though I did not now about the feasibility of the
> suggestion...)
I briefly looked into the touchless dragging based on diamagnetism but
didn't get to the point of doing any numbers (I would have to learn the
physics first and I haven't had the time). In any case, I consider the
rotation problem unsolved for the moment.
>
> Lucio Coelho
>
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

I you capture a small meteoroid for Earth return you need to apply
thrust. Since meteroids all rotate, you can only easily apply thrust
along the axis of rotation. This is unlikely to be the right
direction. Therefor, you need to somehow decouple rotation and thrust
application.

One approach is to use diamagnetic force. This force has been used to
levitate frogs and other such things on Earth (anyone still have that
URL?). However, as far as I know, no one has done the analysis to
figure out if the diamagnetic force one can apply to a meteroid is in
the right order of magnitude.

rmenich@... wrote:
>
> Could somebody please briefly summarize what the "meteoroid rotation
> problem" is, and also what "touchless dragging" is? Thanks.
>
> Ron Menich
>
> Al Globus
> To:
> spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> 09/19/01 11:51 AM cc:
> Please respond to spacesettlers Subject: Re:
> [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron
> inside
>
> "Dr. Omni" wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to
> asteroid
> > > mining to this group. See
> > > http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html. Basic
> idea:
> > > find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole
> thing
> > > to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft
> to
> > > get large amounts of returned mass. U...
> >
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > And what about the problem of meteoroid rotation, that you pointed
> out some
> > while ago? (I even suggested "touchless dragging", based on
> diamagnetism, to
> > circumvent this problem, though I did not now about the feasibility
> of the
> > suggestion...)
>
> I briefly looked into the touchless dragging based on diamagnetism but
> didn't get to the point of doing any numbers (I would have to learn
> the
> physics first and I haven't had the time). In any case, I consider
> the
> rotation problem unsolved for the moment.
> >
> > Lucio Coelho
> >
> --
> Al Globus
> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
> aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
> accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
>

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

From: "Al Globus"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron inside

[snikt]
> One approach is to use diamagnetic force. This force has been used to
> levitate frogs and other such things on Earth (anyone still have that
> URL?). However, as far as I know, no one has done the analysis to
> figure out if the diamagnetic force one can apply to a meteroid is in
> the right order of magnitude.
[snikt]

The levitating frog URL: http://www.sci.kun.nl/hfml/levitate.html

Lucio Coelho

Is it difficult to de-spin a 1-meter diameter meteoroid, such as the ones
for which the AsterAnts scheme is targeted? I would think that this could
be done with conventional hydrazine thrusters.

Al Globus
09/19/01 12:04 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron inside

I you capture a small meteoroid for Earth return you need to apply
thrust. Since meteroids all rotate, you can only easily apply thrust
along the axis of rotation. This is unlikely to be the right
direction. Therefor, you need to somehow decouple rotation and thrust
application.

One approach is to use diamagnetic force. This force has been used to
levitate frogs and other such things on Earth (anyone still have that
URL?). However, as far as I know, no one has done the analysis to
figure out if the diamagnetic force one can apply to a meteroid is in
the right order of magnitude.

rmenich@... wrote:
>
> Could somebody please briefly summarize what the "meteoroid rotation
> problem" is, and also what "touchless dragging" is? Thanks.
>
> Ron Menich
>
> Al Globus
> To:
> spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> 09/19/01 11:51 AM cc:
> Please respond to spacesettlers Subject: Re:
> [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron
> inside
>
> "Dr. Omni" wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to
> asteroid
> > > mining to this group. See
> > > http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html. Basic
> idea:
> > > find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole
> thing
> > > to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft
> to
> > > get large amounts of returned mass. U...
> >
> > Hi Al,
> >
> > And what about the problem of meteoroid rotation, that you pointed
> out some
> > while ago? (I even suggested "touchless dragging", based on
> diamagnetism, to
> > circumvent this problem, though I did not now about the feasibility
> of the
> > suggestion...)
>
> I briefly looked into the touchless dragging based on diamagnetism but
> didn't get to the point of doing any numbers (I would have to learn
> the
> physics first and I haven't had the time). In any case, I consider
> the
> rotation problem unsolved for the moment.
> >
> > Lucio Coelho
> >
> --
> Al Globus
> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
> aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
> accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
>

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

Al Globus
09/19/01 12:04 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron inside
I you capture a small meteoroid for Earth return you need to apply
thrust. Since meteroids all rotate, you can only easily apply thrust
along the axis of rotation. This is unlikely to be the right
direction. Therefor, you need to somehow decouple rotation and thrust
application.
One approach is to use diamagnetic force. This force has been used to
levitate frogs and other such things on Earth (anyone still have that
URL?). However, as far as I know, no one has done the analysis to
figure out if the diamagnetic force one can apply to a meteroid is in
the right order of magnitude.
rmenich@... wrote:
>
> Could somebody please briefly summarize what the "meteoroid rotation
> problem" is, and also what "touchless dragging" is? Thanks.
>
> Ron Menich
>
> Al Globus
>
To:
> spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> 09/19/01 11:51 AM cc:
> Please respond to spacesettlers Subject: Re:
> [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron
> inside
>
> "Dr. Omni" wrote:
>
> > > I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to
> asteroid
> > > mining to this group. See
> > >
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html.
Basic
> idea:
> > find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole
> thing
> > > to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft
> to
> > > get large amounts of returned mass. U...
> >
> > Hi Al,
>
> > And what about the problem of meteoroid rotation, that you pointed
> out some
> > while ago? (I even suggested "touchless dragging", based on
> diamagnetism, to
> circumvent this problem, though I did not now about the feasibility
> of the
> > suggestion...)
>
> I briefly looked into the touchless dragging based on diamagnetism but
> didn't get to the point of doing any numbers (I would have to learn
> the
> physics first and I haven't had the time). In any case, I consider
> the
> rotation problem unsolved for the moment.
> >
> > Lucio Coelho
> >
> --
> Al Globus
> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
> aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
>
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
> accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
>
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

Al Globus wrote:

> I you capture a small meteoroid for Earth return you need to apply
> thrust. Since meteroids all rotate, you can only easily apply thrust
> along the axis of rotation. This is unlikely to be the right
> direction. Therefor, you need to somehow decouple rotation and thrust
> application.

You need The Woollard Solution ;-) Stick a universal joint on it so that
the bearings are in line with the center of mass; and attach your rocket
motor to the non rotating bit. Then do your burn to go home. However, DO
NOT align your burn with the center of mass; instead offset it and
thus obtain angular momentum that you can use to cancel the spin of the
asteroid via a braking system of some kind (viscous, magnetic, whatever)
in the universal joints. By the time you get home it won't have any spin.

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

Al Globus wrote:

> I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to asteroid
> mining to this group. See
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html. Basic idea:
> find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole thing
> to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft to
> get large amounts of returned mass. Using a large fleet gives you
> economies of manufacturing scale and failure tolerance. Returning whole
> asteroids avoids the uncertainties of rock mining.

FWIW: I *really* like this idea, Al.

The only comment I have is have you run the numbers with a low ISP
ion drive instead of the sail? I'm think an ISP around ~1000
seconds, but I don't know of any quite that low, Hall effect
thrusters can go down to 1200 seconds; (but I'm not sure of the
efficiency at that power). The idea of using a low ISP ion drive is
that the thrust is much higher and you may even have enough power
to run several drives in parallel; they'd use more propellent but
not necessarily an impossible amount. Also, Hall effect thrusters
can run on less exotic propellents; i.e. cheaper. xenon is *very*
expensive.

It might even be a project you could run in the very near term in a
smaller way- with DS1 so successful, it would be a good time to
raise it I think.

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

Ian Woollard wrote,

"Also, Hall effect thrusters can run on less exotic propellents; i.e.
cheaper. xenon is *very* expensive."

How much does a kilogram of liquid xenon cost? How much more expensive
is liquid xenon than, say, liquid oxygen?

Ron Menich

Ian Woollard
09/26/01 09:45 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron inside

Al Globus wrote:

> I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to asteroid
> mining to this group. See
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html. Basic idea:
> find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole thing
> to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft to
> get large amounts of returned mass. Using a large fleet gives you
> economies of manufacturing scale and failure tolerance. Returning whole
> asteroids avoids the uncertainties of rock mining.

FWIW: I *really* like this idea, Al.

The only comment I have is have you run the numbers with a low ISP
ion drive instead of the sail? I'm think an ISP around ~1000
seconds, but I don't know of any quite that low, Hall effect
thrusters can go down to 1200 seconds; (but I'm not sure of the
efficiency at that power). The idea of using a low ISP ion drive is
that the thrust is much higher and you may even have enough power
to run several drives in parallel; they'd use more propellent but
not necessarily an impossible amount. Also, Hall effect thrusters
can run on less exotic propellents; i.e. cheaper. xenon is *very*
expensive.

It might even be a project you could run in the very near term in a
smaller way- with DS1 so successful, it would be a good time to
raise it I think.

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

"
Also, Hall effect thrusters can run on less exotic propellents; i.e. cheaper. xenon is *very* expensive.
"
How much does a kilogram of liquid xenon cost? How much more expensive is liquid xenon than, say, liquid oxygen?
Ron Menich
Ian Woollard
09/26/01 09:45 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron inside
Al Globus wrote:
> I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to asteroid
> mining to this group. See
>
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html.
Basic idea:
> find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole thing
> to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft to
> get large amounts of returned mass. Using a large fleet gives you
> economies of manufacturing scale and failure tolerance. Returning whole
> asteroids avoids the uncertainties of rock mining.
FWIW: I *really* like this idea, Al.
The only comment I have is have you run the numbers with a low ISP
ion drive instead of the sail? I'm think an ISP around ~1000
seconds, but I don't know of any quite that low, Hall effect
thrusters can go down to 1200 seconds; (but I'm not sure of the
efficiency at that power). The idea of using a low ISP ion drive is
that the thrust is much higher and you may even have enough power
to run several drives in parallel; they'd use more propellent but
not necessarily an impossible amount. Also, Hall effect thrusters
can run on less exotic propellents; i.e. cheaper. xenon is *very*
expensive.
It might even be a project you could run in the very near term in a
smaller way- with DS1 so successful, it would be a good time to
raise it I think.
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)
"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

Ian Woollard wrote:
>
> Al Globus wrote:
>
> > I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to asteroid
> > mining to this group. See
> > http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html. Basic idea:
> > find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole thing
> > to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft
>
> The only comment I have is have you run the numbers with a low ISP
> ion drive instead of the sail?

No, but it's a good idea. A good trade study is needed. At the time I
wrote the paper I was really interested in solar sails so I used them,
not for any really good engineering reason.

--
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an
accident. Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

Hi Ron,

I must admit I found that a very interesting little list. It isn't
something you come across very often.

Best wishes, Andy.

rmenich@... wrote:

>
> Ian: NEVER MIND.
>
> I found http://chemicool.com/elements/ :
>
> Xenon, $1200/kg
> Oxygen, $3/kg
> Nitrogen, $4/kg
> Neon, $330/kg
> Hydrogen, $120/kg
> Helium, $52/kg
>
> Ron Menich
> ************************
>
> rmenich@...
To:
09/27/01 08:20 AM spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Please respond to cc:
spacesettlers Subject: Re: [spacesettlers]
Iron outside = Iron inside
>
> Ian Woollard wrote,
>
> "Also, Hall effect thrusters can run on less exotic propellents; i.e.
> cheaper. xenon is *very* expensive."
>
> How much does a kilogram of liquid xenon cost? How much more
> expensive is liquid xenon than, say, liquid oxygen?
>
> Ron Menich
>
> Ian Woollard
To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
09/26/01 09:45 PM cc:
Please respond to Subject: Re:
spacesettlers [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron
inside
>
> Al Globus wrote:
>
> > I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to
> asteroid
> > mining to this group. See
> > http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html. Basic
> idea:
> > find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole
> thing
> > to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft
> to
> > get large amounts of returned mass. Using a large fleet gives you
> > economies of manufacturing scale and failure tolerance. Returning
> whole
> > asteroids avoids the uncertainties of rock mining.
>
> FWIW: I *really* like this idea, Al.
>
> The only comment I have is have you run the numbers with a low ISP
> ion drive instead of the sail? I'm think an ISP around ~1000
> seconds, but I don't know of any quite that low, Hall effect
> thrusters can go down to 1200 seconds; (but I'm not sure of the
> efficiency at that power). The idea of using a low ISP ion drive is
> that the thrust is much higher and you may even have enough power
> to run several drives in parallel; they'd use more propellent but
> not necessarily an impossible amount. Also, Hall effect thrusters
> can run on less exotic propellents; i.e. cheaper. xenon is *very*
> expensive.
>
> It might even be a project you could run in the very near term in a
> smaller way- with DS1 so successful, it would be a good time to
> raise it I think.
>
> --
> - Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)
>
> "Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
> technological civilization?"
> - Gerard O'Neill

Start here...
Height:
ft in
Weight:
lbs. kg.

The Hall effect engine can be used with particlates as well. A similar
method is used to seperate minerals in mining system. One of the
problems of the separation process is the thrust produced by these
seperation units.

Liquid xenon may have a similar price to liquid oxygen, but I bet that
silacate pariticulates will be several order of magnitudes cheaper
than both.

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@y..., rmenich@m... wrote:
> Ian Woollard wrote,
>
> "Also, Hall effect thrusters can run on less exotic propellents;
i.e.
> cheaper. xenon is *very* expensive."
>
> How much does a kilogram of liquid xenon cost? How much more
expensive
> is liquid xenon than, say, liquid oxygen?
>
> Ron Menich
>
> Ian Woollard
> 09/26/01 09:45 PM
> Please respond to spacesettlers
>
> To: spacesettlers@y...
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Iron outside = Iron
inside
>
> Al Globus wrote:
>
> > I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to
asteroid
> > mining to this group. See
> > http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html. Basic
idea:
> > find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the whole
thing
> > to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered spacecraft
to
> > get large amounts of returned mass. Using a large fleet gives you
> > economies of manufacturing scale and failure tolerance. Returning
whole

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ian Woollard wrote:
> Al Globus wrote:
>
> > I would like to re-introduce a completely different approach to
asteroid
> > mining to this group. See
> > http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/papers/AsterAnts/paper.html
Basic idea:
> > find very small asteroids (~1 meter diameter) and return the
whole thing
> > to Earth orbit. Use a large fleet of solar sail powered
spacecraft to
> > get large amounts of returned mass. Using a large fleet gives you
> > economies of manufacturing scale and failure tolerance. Returning
whole
> > asteroids avoids the uncertainties of rock mining.
>
> FWIW: I *really* like this idea, Al.

Me too. You mention "artificial meteoroids" in the paper, for use as
practice dummies when testing out the AsterAnts idea. It seems to me
that there already exists a large number of ready-made artificial
meteoroids, that is, space junk. Perhaps one of the ways to test and
prove the AsterAnts idea is to retrieve junk from say HEO, return it
to LEO in the vicinity of the ISS, and then perform refueling or
equipment upgrades on the junk hardware. Giving these pieces of
space junk a new lease on life would likely pay for itself (ie
insurance companies would rather pay a small amount to have a
sattelite refurbished rather than paying the full insurance claim
amount on a dead or malfunctioning sattelite), probably within the
first few missions.

:) ed