Developments of a huge space catalog consisting of thousands of
products and services is an important key to success.

To grow, we need to export (first to earth) and offering substantial
tourism greatly helps.

With all that's out there, we can harness zero G and all possible G's
we can use to manufacture products at lower cost than the earth made
ones.

Even toys, donuts, and bike lights!!

Tourism can be offered almost immediately - trips to the moon and
Mars are now made possible via spacecrafts manufactured using
asteroidal materials.

The dream is done.

The reality begins.

George

Help build a city in space.
http://cygo.com/

From: George Perkins [mailto:cygonaut@...]

With all that's out there, we can harness zero G and all possible G's
we can use to manufacture products at lower cost than the earth made
ones.

We need to be cautious with this idea that manufacturing in space will be
cheaper than on Earth. In the long run, energy costs may become cheaper,
and that will certainly affect things, but I'm sure that manufacturing in
space will remain more expensive than on Earth for quite some time to come.

What space manufacturing _is_ much cheaper than is the combined costs of
manufacturing on Earth and then lifting your products up into space on a
rocket. So one can still believe in the desirability of space
manufacturing. One only has to assume that large construction projects in
space will be desired at some point.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
George Perkins [mailto:cygonaut@...]
With all that's out there, we can harness zero G and all possible G's
we can use to manufacture products at lower cost than the earth made
ones.

We need to be cautious with this idea that manufacturing in space will be cheaper than on Earth. In the long run, energy costs may become cheaper, and that will certainly affect things, but I'm sure that manufacturing in space will remain more expensive than on Earth for quite some time to come.

What space manufacturing _is_ much cheaper than is the combined costs of manufacturing on Earth and then lifting your products up into space on a rocket. So one can still believe in the desirability of space manufacturing. One only has to assume that large construction projects in space will be desired at some point.
Regards,
Mike Combs

Right, Mike.

The primary thing we want from earth ("import"?) is new technology
because earth's technology will be far more advanced than spacers for
a long long time if you just look at the population factor (more
inventors, scientists, creative engineers, etc.). Luckily, most of
this does not need to be launched. It's kind of "beamed". (lol)

So there is really a need to trade with earth. We stand to gain, or
achieve good equity, by so doing.

George

From: George Perkins [mailto:cygonaut@...]

So there is really a need to trade with earth. We stand to gain, or
achieve good equity, by so doing.

And discussion of the prospects for two-way trade keeps it a real-world
discussion.

Many Mars advocates go on about how Mars could be made totally independent
of Earth. They feel the necessity to assume this since Mars seems to have
very little that Earth would need. But total independence is not what makes
civilization go. It's different communities which have different things to
sell to others, and which need other things which other communities can sell
to them in turn.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
George Perkins [mailto:cygonaut@...]
So there is really a need to trade with earth. We stand to gain, or
achieve good equity, by so doing.

And discussion of the prospects for two-way trade keeps it a real-world discussion.

Many Mars advocates go on about how Mars could be made totally independent of Earth. They feel the necessity to assume this since Mars seems to have very little that Earth would need. But total independence is not what makes civilization go. It's different communities which have different things to sell to others, and which need other things which other communities can sell to them in turn.
Regards,
Mike Combs

Combs, Mike wrote:

>
> *From:* George Perkins [mailto:cygonaut@...]
>
> So there is really a need to trade with earth. We stand to gain, or
> achieve good equity, by so doing.
>
> And discussion of the prospects for two-way trade keeps it a
> real-world discussion.
>
> Many Mars advocates go on about how Mars could be made totally
> independent of Earth. They feel the necessity to assume this since Mars
> seems to have very little that Earth would need. But total independence
> is not what makes civilization go. It's different communities which
> have different things to sell to others, and which need other things
> which other communities can sell to them in turn.

It seems to me that if we build stuff from lunar or asteroidal material
reentering it is probably very cheap. The only thing this costs is mass,
and if mass is plentiful (asteroidal and lunar material is *fairly*
cheap, and energy is plentiful from the Sun,) then money is the only
thing that will be in short supply. And reentering via aerobraking
looks very cheap.

I guess I don't really believe in Swiss bankers...

> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

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

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

The money will be plentiful.

Economic conditions on earth isn't all that important. When
economies go down a lot, investors go after precious metals which
we'll have an abundance of.. and control of its supply.

Direct Dollar to Yen and Yen to dollar can be accomplished referring
to current monetary exchange rates/tables.

Our first "money" may be in the form of tokens (like bus tokens?).
Later, we make our own monetary system. But we can relax a little
knowing we have precious metals.

On earth, we have manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors we
deal with. We can sell retail too if we want.

I don't think there will be a shortage of money. No. Not at all.

George

From: Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]

It seems to me that if we build stuff from lunar or asteroidal material
reentering it is probably very cheap.

I must allow that returning material to the Earth is probably going to be
much cheaper than lifting things up from the Earth, due to aerobraking. But
one must still place the payload on an atmosphere-intercepting trajectory.
That still takes a certain amount of delta-V, which is going to be
expensive. Aerobraking is a discount, but it's not a free ride.

This is one reason why I've always favored the SPS plan. There, our
"export" to Earth is in fact an orbital asset that remains in space, and
what Earth is "importing" is energy, which can be beamed down. I'm almost
afraid that any export to Earth which involved space transportation is going
to have a very hard time competing with other sources on Earth which don't
require space travel to get their products to their destinations.

In my more optimistic moments, I'm almost willing to allow that export of
platinum group metals to Earth may be just barely profitable. But I still
consider that an outside possibility.

The only thing this costs is mass,
and if mass is plentiful (asteroidal and lunar material is *fairly*
cheap,

Such material will always be much more expensive than any Earth-derived
material, since its retrieval will always involve space travel. That said,
it can be cheaper than the same amount of material boosted into space from
the Earth's surface.

and energy is plentiful from the Sun,)

That is one very strong advantage space manufacturing has going for it. But
on the other hand, raw materials will always be more expensive compared to
the situation here on Earth. That's going to result in our doing things
quite differently from the way we do them here (for example, complete
recycling of all waste products instead of just dumping it somewhere and
buying new raw materials). But I can't see space manufacturing having such
an advantage that it becomes preferable to Earth manufacturing for products
whose end use is on Earth. I still think we should concentrate on markets
for products whose end use is in space.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]
It seems to me that if we build stuff from lunar or asteroidal material
reentering it is probably very cheap.

I must allow that returning material to the Earth is probably going to be much cheaper than lifting things up from the Earth, due to aerobraking. But one must still place the payload on an atmosphere-intercepting trajectory. That still takes a certain amount of delta-V, which is going to be expensive. Aerobraking is a discount, but it's not a free ride.

This is one reason why I've always favored the SPS plan. There, our "export" to Earth is in fact an orbital asset that remains in space, and what Earth is "importing" is energy, which can be beamed down. I'm almost afraid that any export to Earth which involved space transportation is going to have a very hard time competing with other sources on Earth which don't require space travel to get their products to their destinations.

In my more optimistic moments, I'm almost willing to allow that export of platinum group metals to Earth may be just barely profitable. But I still consider that an outside possibility.

The only thing this costs is mass,
and if mass is plentiful (asteroidal and lunar material is *fairly*
cheap,

Such material will always be much more expensive than any Earth-derived material, since its retrieval will always involve space travel. That said, it
can
be cheaper than the same amount of material boosted into space from the Earth's surface.

and energy is plentiful from the Sun,)

That is one very strong advantage space manufacturing has going for it. But on the other hand, raw materials will always be more expensive compared to the situation here on Earth. That's going to result in our doing things quite differently from the way we do them here (for example, complete recycling of all waste products instead of just dumping it somewhere and buying new raw materials). But I can't see space manufacturing having such an advantage that it becomes preferable to Earth manufacturing for products whose end use is on Earth. I still think we should concentrate on markets for products whose end use is in space.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From: Ian Woollard [mailto:ian.woollard@...]

It seems to me that if we build stuff from lunar or asteroidal
material
reentering it is probably very cheap.

>I must allow that returning material to the Earth is probably going to be much cheaper than
>lifting things up from the Earth, due to aerobraking. But one must still place the payload on
>an atmosphere-intercepting trajectory. That still takes a certain amount of delta-V, which is
>going to be expensive. Aerobraking is a discount, but it's not a free ride.

If aerobraking is used on a large scale you have to start worrying about
modifications to the upper atmosphere. The high temperatures of reentry
cause a lot of chemical reactions. It might not be a problem, but if it
is we need to know about it in advance -- an atmosphere is a terrible
thing to waste. The first step is a more thorough understanding of the
upper atmosphere, followed by modeling of the effects of various levels
of traffic. It won't be easy or glamorous, but its an essential step
towards large scale colonization.

--
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.

The only thing this costs is mass,
and if mass is plentiful (asteroidal and lunar material is *fairly*
cheap,

Mass and energy never cost anything. Only people cost money (when was
the last time a rock demanded money from you?). Mass and energy
*appear* to cost money because you need to pay the people that control
them. Still, you pay the people, not the asteroid or energy source.
This is an obvious, critical, and often forgotten truth.

--
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:

> The only thing this costs is mass,
> and if mass is plentiful (asteroidal and lunar material is *fairly*
> cheap,
>
> Mass and energy never cost anything. Only people cost money (when was
> the last time a rock demanded money from you?). Mass and energy
> *appear* to cost money because you need to pay the people that control
> them. Still, you pay the people, not the asteroid or energy source.
> This is an obvious, critical, and often forgotten truth.

Yes, I wasn't forgetting it. Energy costs something because you need
power plants to harvest the suns energy, and pay for any maintenance it
might need; so the power plants cost something because somebody spends
time building it for you.

The mass costs because it needs 'mining' (you need to pay the miner).
Also you need to pay for the launch costs- it requires fuel/power
for a rocket or mass driver, and you need to pay for the people
operating/maintaining the equipment/rocket and anything else
necessary.

Asteroidal material may well be cheaper- ion drives can be used for
transport and the equipment may be cheaper to run and less mass
intensive. But the shipping delay is likely to be months or even
years, so won't be available at high orbit initially. Clearly
the costs of materials is going to vary over time- very expensive
early on- very cheap later as mass production gets underway.

Still, I am wondering about the law of the minimum. Growth is
limited by whatever is in shortest supply. Energy isn't in
short supply. Mass in general might be, although there is a fair
amount albeit it very spread around ("Space is big, really big, you
won't believe how mind boggling big...").

Right now, some of the volatiles might be fairly rare away from
the main belt- i.e. water/hydrogen, nitrogen etc. I'm wondering
where we would get that from. The lunar poles may have some,
although it might be not in sufficient abundance to be worth
mining- but we don't know; and we need to find out.

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

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

George Perkins wrote:

> The money will be plentiful.
>
> Economic conditions on earth isn't all that important. When
> economies go down a lot, investors go after precious metals which
> we'll have an abundance of.. and control of its supply.

Maybe. But that depends on how elastic the market is. If enough
people try to sell, say, platinum group metals; the price
goes into the dirt. The whole world supply of that is only
probably worth a few hundred million. Building space settlements is
going to cost more than that.

> Direct Dollar to Yen and Yen to dollar can be accomplished referring
> to current monetary exchange rates/tables.
>
> Our first "money" may be in the form of tokens (like bus tokens?).

More likely to be computer based.

> Later, we make our own monetary system. But we can relax a little
> knowing we have precious metals.

Sure, orbit dollars or whatever; but the question is what the exchange
rate would be to american dollars or euros.

> On earth, we have manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors we
> deal with. We can sell retail too if we want.
>
> I don't think there will be a shortage of money. No. Not at all.

Not clear. Don't forget that money is just a stored form of people's
time. And many goods will be wanted for the foreseeable future that
won't be easy, or legal, to make on orbit.

e.g. coca-cola, clothes, toiletries, hats, sunglasses, belt buckles
even if you have the materials, the space settlement populations won't
be big enough to make all of them locally. You can make do with
a lower standard of living of course, but it's better not to have to.
So we would need some form of trade. That's my point. Trade is
required.

Metals- check. Anything else?

> George

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

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

Hi Ian,

Spectro-analysis of Ra-Shalom, a carbonaceous NEO that passed relatively
close to Earth in the late 1970s, indicated that it was 10% water -
mixed into an oil-like sludge. If other carbonaceous NEOs are similar,
then they may produce a good source of water in nearby space. The carbon
would also be very useful.

Best wishes, Andy.

Ian Woollard wrote:

Any idea what the delta-v to it is?

andy-nimmo wrote:

> Hi Ian,
>
> Spectro-analysis of Ra-Shalom, a carbonaceous NEO that passed relatively
> close to Earth in the late 1970s, indicated that it was 10% water -
> mixed into an oil-like sludge. If other carbonaceous NEOs are similar,
> then they may produce a good source of water in nearby space. The carbon
> would also be very useful.
>
> Best wishes, Andy.
>
> Ian Woollard wrote:
>
> Al Globus wrote:
>
> > The only thing this costs is mass,
> > and if mass is plentiful (asteroidal and lunar material is
> *fairly*
> > cheap,
> >
> > Mass and energy never cost anything. Only people cost money (when
> was
> > the last time a rock demanded money from you?). Mass and energy
> > *appear* to cost money because you need to pay the people that
> control
> > them. Still, you pay the people, not the asteroid or energy source.
> > This is an obvious, critical, and often forgotten truth.
>
> Yes, I wasn't forgetting it. Energy costs something because you need
> power plants to harvest the suns energy, and pay for any maintenance it
> might need; so the power plants cost something because somebody spends
> time building it for you.
>
> The mass costs because it needs 'mining' (you need to pay the miner).
> Also you need to pay for the launch costs- it requires fuel/power
> for a rocket or mass driver, and you need to pay for the people
> operating/maintaining the equipment/rocket and anything else
> necessary.
>
> Asteroidal material may well be cheaper- ion drives can be used for
> transport and the equipment may be cheaper to run and less mass
> intensive. But the shipping delay is likely to be months or even
> years, so won't be available at high orbit initially. Clearly
> the costs of materials is going to vary over time- very expensive
> early on- very cheap later as mass production gets underway.
>
> Still, I am wondering about the law of the minimum. Growth is
> limited by whatever is in shortest supply. Energy isn't in
> short supply. Mass in general might be, although there is a fair
> amount albeit it very spread around ("Space is big, really big, you
> won't believe how mind boggling big...").
>
> Right now, some of the volatiles might be fairly rare away from
> the main belt- i.e. water/hydrogen, nitrogen etc. I'm wondering
> where we would get that from. The lunar poles may have some,
> although it might be not in sufficient abundance to be worth
> mining- but we don't know; and we need to find out.
>
> --
> - Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)
>
> "Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
> civilization?"
> - Gerard O'Neill
>

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

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

From: "Ian Woollard"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

> Any idea what the delta-v to it is?
[snikt]

I don't know about Ra-Shalom in particular, but there is a lot of NEOs and
some of them have "quasi-terrestrial" orbits, with delta-vees less than that
for a trip to the Moon. Since carbonaceous condrites are often said to be
the most common type of asteroid, I would expect that some of those NEOs
"closer" than the Moon are carbonaceous. If we get one of those carbonaceous
things a kilometer long, then we would have tens of billions of tons of
water, assuming the so-called typical water content of 10%.

(Also, I remeber an estimation by Lewis saying that the total amount of
water in all NEOs would be enough to sustain a population of 30 billion
people. But of course I don't remeber all the assumptions underlying this
estimation...)

Lucio Coelho

From: "andy-nimmo"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

[snikt]
> Spectro-analysis of Ra-Shalom, a carbonaceous NEO that passed relatively
> close to Earth in the late 1970s, indicated that it was 10% water -
> mixed into an oil-like sludge. If other carbonaceous NEOs are similar,
> then they may produce a good source of water in nearby space. The carbon
> would also be very useful.
>

A relatively high water content (diffused through porous asteroid material)
seems to be the rule among carbonaceous asteroids. See this text at
PERMANENT: http://www.permanent.com/a_meteor.htm

> Best wishes, Andy.
[snikt]

Best wishes, Lucio.

Hi Ian,

Am not sure, but will see if I can find out for you and come back on
this one. I've a feeling Eric Drexler wrote something about that in an
L5 newsletter at the time, and I still have these so will look for it.
If that doesn't work, I'll check with friends in the Cambridge
Conference Network. One of them is sure to know.

Best wishes, Andy.

Ian Woollard wrote:

Hi Lucio & Ian,

I understand that Ra-Shalom is several kms long - similar in size to
Eros.

Best wishes, Andy.

"Dr. Omni" wrote:

> From: "Ian Woollard"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 8:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification
>
> > Any idea what the delta-v to it is?
> [snikt]
>
> I don't know about Ra-Shalom in particular, but there is a lot of NEOs
> and
> some of them have "quasi-terrestrial" orbits, with delta-vees less
> than that
> for a trip to the Moon. Since carbonaceous condrites are often said to
> be
> the most common type of asteroid, I would expect that some of those
> NEOs
> "closer" than the Moon are carbonaceous. If we get one of those
> carbonaceous
> things a kilometer long, then we would have tens of billions of tons
> of
> water, assuming the so-called typical water content of 10%.
>
> (Also, I remeber an estimation by Lewis saying that the total amount
> of
> water in all NEOs would be enough to sustain a population of 30
> billion
> people. But of course I don't remeber all the assumptions underlying
> this
> estimation...)
>
> Lucio Coelho
>

I understand that Ra-Shalom is several kms long - similar in size toEros.
Best wishes, Andy.
"Dr. Omni" wrote:
From: "Ian Woollard"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

> Any idea what the delta-v to it is?
[snikt]
I don't know about Ra-Shalom in particular, but there is a lot ofNEOs and
some of them have "quasi-terrestrial" orbits, with delta-vees lessthan that
for a trip to the Moon. Since carbonaceous condrites are oftensaid to be
the most common type of asteroid, I would expect that some of thoseNEOs
"closer" than the Moon are carbonaceous. If we get one of thosecarbonaceous
things a kilometer long, then we would have tens of billions oftons of
water, assuming the so-called typical water content of 10%.
(Also, I remeber an estimation by Lewis saying that the total amountof
water in all NEOs would be enough to sustain a population of 30billion
people. But of course I don't remeber all the assumptions underlyingthis
estimation...)
Lúcio Coelho

.

Dr. Omni wrote:

> If we get one of those carbonaceous
> things a kilometer long, then we would have tens of billions of tons of
> water, assuming the so-called typical water content of 10%.

Hmm. Could be a fantastic destination- sounds like it would have fuel to
be used; and it might have metals as well with luck. Water is a fuel
in its own right (solar or nuclear steam rocket).

> (Also, I remeber an estimation by Lewis saying that the total amount of
> water in all NEOs would be enough to sustain a population of 30 billion
> people. But of course I don't remeber all the assumptions underlying this
> estimation...)

Yes. Accessing it though... we need to get the cost down. It looks like
LOX/Kero can achieve costs down at the few hundred dollar level per
kg to LEO. Getting to a NEO and getting fuel back could make a big
difference to the capabilities of mankind.

In any case NEOs are great, as they open the door to the main belt...

> Lucio Coelho

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

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

Hi Lucio,

There is indeed strong indication that this is so. However, much of the
theory is based on assumptions that may or may not turn out to be true.
I have even seen reports of liquid water in pools having been detected
on the surface of Ceres, which of course is not a NEO, but surely there
are very good reasons for believing that that cannot be true. I guess
the fleet of probes en route to various small bodies in our Solar System
at present may help confirm the theories or otherwise.

Best wishes, Andy.

"Dr. Omni" wrote:

Hi Ian,

The main advantage of carbonaceous asteroids is that they contain
everything we will need to grow food in our settlements - other than the
seeds of course... but then... wouldn't it be interesting if there were
some of some kind already there?

Best wishes, Andy.

Ian Woollard wrote:

> Dr. Omni wrote:
>
> > If we get one of those carbonaceous
> > things a kilometer long, then we would have tens of billions of tons
> of
> > water, assuming the so-called typical water content of 10%.
>
> Hmm. Could be a fantastic destination- sounds like it would have fuel
> to
> be used; and it might have metals as well with luck. Water is a fuel
> in its own right (solar or nuclear steam rocket).
>
> > (Also, I remeber an estimation by Lewis saying that the total amount
> of
> > water in all NEOs would be enough to sustain a population of 30
> billion
> > people. But of course I don't remeber all the assumptions underlying
> this
> > estimation...)
>
> Yes. Accessing it though... we need to get the cost down. It looks
> like
> LOX/Kero can achieve costs down at the few hundred dollar level per
> kg to LEO. Getting to a NEO and getting fuel back could make a big
> difference to the capabilities of mankind.
>
> In any case NEOs are great, as they open the door to the main belt...
>
> > Lucio Coelho
>
> --
> - Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)
>
> "Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
>
> civilization?"
> - Gerard O'Neill
>

The main advantage of carbonaceous asteroids is that they contain everythingwe will need to grow food in our settlements - other than the seeds ofcourse... but then... wouldn't it be interesting if there were some ofsome kind already there?
Best wishes, Andy.
Ian Woollard wrote:
Dr. Omni wrote:
> If we get one of those carbonaceous
> things a kilometer long, then we would have tens of billionsof tons of
> water, assuming the so-called typical water content of 10%.

Hmm. Could be a fantastic destination- sounds like it would havefuel to
be used; and it might have metals as well with luck. Water is afuel
in its own right (solar or nuclear steam rocket).

> (Also, I remeber an estimation by Lewis saying that the totalamount of
> water in all NEOs would be enough to sustain a population of30 billion
> people. But of course I don't remeber all the assumptions underlyingthis
> estimation...)

Yes. Accessing it though... we need to get the cost down. It lookslike
LOX/Kero can achieve costs down at the few hundred dollar levelper
kg to LEO. Getting to a NEO and getting fuel back could make abig
difference to the capabilities of mankind.
In any case NEOs are great, as they open the door to the main belt...

> Lúcio Coelho
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)
"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological
civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

.

I would suggest getting the volatiles from a cometary asteroid.
(Cheaper, and easier, than sucking rocks).

For building/manufacturing materials, use the Nickel/Iron type.
(Again, better than fiddling with the rocks.)

George

Help build a city in space.
http://cygo.com/

<< If enough people try to sell, say, platinum group metals; the price
goes into the dirt. >>

When the supply goes up, the price goes down. Platinum goes for
about $600 an ounce. Plenty of room, I'd say.

>

Candy. Toys. Bed and breakfast.

Anything, and most everything.

George

Help build a city in space.
http://cygo.com/

Cometary asteroids are the ideal source of water in space.

It's also good to locate nearby these things on the long term.

Civilizations have been founded near water. Makes sense to me.

Cometary asteroids are the water holes of space.

George

From: "andy-nimmo"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

> Hi Lucio,
>

Hi Andy,

> There is indeed strong indication that this is so. However, much of the
> theory is based on assumptions that may or may not turn out to be true.

BTW, another indication lies in the "metamorphosis" of comets in
carbonaceous chondrites. At least one of those metamorphosis has been
witnessed - a carbonaceous seen in the late 70's and early 90's was
demonstrated to be, in fact, a faint comet seen in the 40's (if I remember
correctly). So, it seems likely that many carbonaceous chondrites are in
fact "dead" comets, with all the ice in the surface vaporized by the Sun,
leaving just a thick layer of black dust a meter or so deep. If that is the
case, than those "dead comets" may probably have ice cores untouched by
sunlight.

> I have even seen reports of liquid water in pools having been detected
> on the surface of Ceres, which of course is not a NEO, but surely there
> are very good reasons for believing that that cannot be true. I guess
> the fleet of probes en route to various small bodies in our Solar System
> at present may help confirm the theories or otherwise.
>

I did an Internet search about water in Ceres and the only thing that I got
was this URL: http://starbulletin.com/2001/01/22/news/story6.html

> Best wishes, Andy.
[snikt]

Best wishes, Lucio.

Wilson-Harrington is the comet-turned-NEO that you mentioned, c.f.,
http://www.permanent.com/f-braill.htm .

"Dr. Omni"
09/20/01 01:36 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To:
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

From: "andy-nimmo"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification

> Hi Lucio,
>

Hi Andy,

> There is indeed strong indication that this is so. However, much of the
> theory is based on assumptions that may or may not turn out to be true.

BTW, another indication lies in the "metamorphosis" of comets in
carbonaceous chondrites. At least one of those metamorphosis has been
witnessed - a carbonaceous seen in the late 70's and early 90's was
demonstrated to be, in fact, a faint comet seen in the 40's (if I remember
correctly). So, it seems likely that many carbonaceous chondrites are in
fact "dead" comets, with all the ice in the surface vaporized by the Sun,
leaving just a thick layer of black dust a meter or so deep. If that is
the
case, than those "dead comets" may probably have ice cores untouched by
sunlight.

> I have even seen reports of liquid water in pools having been detected
> on the surface of Ceres, which of course is not a NEO, but surely there
> are very good reasons for believing that that cannot be true. I guess
> the fleet of probes en route to various small bodies in our Solar System
> at present may help confirm the theories or otherwise.
>

I did an Internet search about water in Ceres and the only thing that I
got
was this URL: http://starbulletin.com/2001/01/22/news/story6.html

> Best wishes, Andy.
[snikt]

Best wishes, Lucio.

"Dr. Omni"
09/20/01 01:36 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To:
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification
From: "andy-nimmo"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Diversification
> Hi Lucio,
>
Hi Andy,
> There is indeed strong indication that this is so. However, much of the
> theory is based on assumptions that may or may not turn out to be true.
BTW, another indication lies in the "metamorphosis" of comets in
carbonaceous chondrites. At least one of those metamorphosis has been
witnessed - a carbonaceous seen in the late 70's and early 90's was
demonstrated to be, in fact, a faint comet seen in the 40's (if I remember
correctly). So, it seems likely that many carbonaceous chondrites are in
fact "dead" comets, with all the ice in the surface vaporized by the Sun,
leaving just a thick layer of black dust a meter or so deep. If that is the
case, than those "dead comets" may probably have ice cores untouched by
sunlight.
> I have even seen reports of liquid water in pools having been detected
> on the surface of Ceres, which of course is not a NEO, but surely there
> are very good reasons for believing that that cannot be true. I guess
> the fleet of probes en route to various small bodies in our Solar System
> at present may help confirm the theories or otherwise.
>
I did an Internet search about water in Ceres and the only thing that I got
was this URL:
http://starbulletin.com/2001/01/22/news/story6.html
> Best wishes, Andy.
[snikt]
Best wishes, Lucio.