moon and NEAs

Minor correction, the L5 Society did some good lobbying, but they didn't
do any real research.

A lot of asteroids are found these days because of concerns about a
collision with earth. I haven't checked the data for awhile, but I'm
sure many asteroids with very low delta-v have been found. See
http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/index.html.

Anyone know the URL for the minor planet center? They have the
definitive information on what's known.

andy-nimmo wrote:

> Hi Mike & All,
>
> Back in the 70s there was quite a bit of research done on this in the
> old L5 Society. As I recall, at that time only two or three asteroids
> had been discovered that needed less delta V to get to and return than
> the Moon. I haven't heard of any new asteroids in that category having
> been discovered since, but then delta V is not what the various
> reporters report on these days. Perhaps it is time we got that changed
> back again? Problem is, most of those who report probably don't know
> what delta V is!
>
> Best wishes, Andy.
>
> "Combs, Mike" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> From: John Frazer [mailto:johnf4303@...]
>> >-go to the Moon
>> >
>> >Yes, in that it is a nearby source of raw materials
>> >outside of the steepest part of the Earth's gravity well.
>>
>> Nearby, yes, but NEAs are more accessible (distance
>> doesn't matter
>> nearly as much as relative velocity), as well as richer
>> sources.
>>
>> I certainly never meant to imply that the moon necessarily wins hand
>> down against NEAs. As I recall, asteroids weren't represented on
>> that first list. It's certainly true that NEAs, as you correctly
>> state, have certain advantages. But the moon has advantages of its
>> own. I expect we'll do both.I think it will turn powerfully on how
>> easy or hard it is to support humans in space for long durations
>> without resupply in the early days. I can see a scenario where the
>> technology of telepresence advances only very slowly, such that you
>> have to send as many people to the moon to mine it as to a NEA.
>> That, combined with a NEA happening to come along on a particularly
>> favorable trajectory, might result in us using asteroidal resources
>> first. I'd expect that afterward we would use lunar resources too,
>> but maybe we could get by without. Coming back and forth from the
>> moon certainly becomes orders of magnitude more economical with use
>> of NEA resources in HEO.But if telepresence advances rapidly, we
>> might have a situation where the moon could be mined telerobotically
>> from Earth. Such a development might push us toward use of lunar
>> resources first. But lunar resource use would most certainly get
>> followed by asteroidal resource use.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike Combs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Al Globus
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 think we should:

1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020
goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need
to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.

2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid
are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500
times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.

3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their
colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.

Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.