2002 AA29

I am confused by your message. I am not sure what you think is unproven.
Dust was a terrible problem for the joints in the space suits on early
Apollo missions to the Moon. Also electrostatic charges on dust particles,
apparently from solar UV ionizing the dust (driving electrons off), keeps
some dust suspended above the lunar surface. This must be happening also
for all other bodies with regolith and without atmospheres in the inner
solar system.
NEAR landed on Eros, but did nothing after that, so how could dust have
been a problem for it?
Swimming in the vacuum of space is not likely to do anything but give the
swimmer some exercise. It won't propel them.
And then there is the issue of water, which you didn't respond to.
I also think potential investors would like investing in projects on the
Moon so they would at least know where their investments were.
Sincerely, Jay Huebner

>
> Greetings,
> There is another near-earth asteroid, 3753 Cruithne, which
> is closer to
> being a natural satellite of Earth. It orbits the Sun with
> the same average
> period as Earth does, and Earth's mass perturbs its orbit,
> but it does not
> directly orbit Earth. There are many web sites, for example,
> www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html, where you can
> find more about
> it. Search for Cruithne on Google.com for the others.

Cruithne is temporarily a mathematical satellite of Earth; but that doesn't
mean that transitioning it to become a true satellite - or targetting it
with any kind of return mission - would be easy. It might be (given the
chaotic nature of the orbit); but i wouldn't bet on it. 2002 AA29 - which
has interested me ever since it's discovery was annouced earlier this year -
makes six monthly returns to terrestrial space; never gets very far away
from the Earth even at apogee; & has a very small relative velocity - if it
wasn't so (apprently) large, i think a lot of people would assume that it
was just a bit of space flipping round, taunting us.

> I believe it would be cheaper to use the Moon than to
> change the orbits
> of these objects, though.

Don't need it: you just use a lot of very precisely designed corrections; &
the mass of the Earth itself will do a lot of the work. 2002 AA29 is
apparently transitioning in (or out) of a temporary Earth orbit already; so
the job is already half done. It currently appears to be one of the best
targets for a cost effective manned miision beyond Earth orbit,a s Pete
Worden notes in his piece.

> And the Moon has plenty of mass
> and water (ice,
> at the poles). Just staying on less massive objects would be
> a problem,
> where if one kicked up some dust, owing to the low gravity,
> it would take
> months to "settle out".

Very definitely an unproven, on several levels. Dust wasn't any kind of
issue for the NEAR landing; & given that electromagnetic forces are likely
to have a greater influence on particulate matter in microgravity
environments like this, any models based on gravitational action are likely
to be wrong. Anyway: given that this >is< a microgravity environment, it
will be easy to move above the surface without significantly throwing up
dust. Swimming (ie, floating above the surface, using your hands to pull
yourself along in a swimming-style motion) should be feasible; maximising
directional control & minimise surface disturbance.

Live in peace
Robert.Clements@...
endeavour2 project http://www.geocities.com/robtclements/endeavour2.html>