Asteroid use

From: Marcel Williams [mailto:newpapyrus@...]

MW: If a 1000 tonne asteroid being transported to
earth were to hit the Earth it would be the equivalent
of a 2.5 megaton nuclear weapon. Obviously, such
asteroids could be safely placed into Earth orbit. But
would you trust dozens, if not hundreds of private
companys to do this. What about asteroid
transportation companies based in third world
countries. An asteroid disaster would be a lot bigger
than some damaged Liberian oil tanker. And the
insurance cost would be-- astronomical-- if we
attempted to place these asteroids in Earth orbit or
even in Lunar orbit, IMO. And the environmental
protest would make the anti-nuclear protest of 1970's
look trivial.

Mars, however, also has practically all of the natural
resources necessary for human survival. And a much
lower gravity well than the Earth. And there would be
little protest about transporting hundreds of 1000 to
10,000 tonne asteroids into Marsian orbit every year
to be processed. The satellite market is estimated to
be worth about 20 trillion dollars in the next 20
years. The manufacturing of satellites out of asteroid
materials in Mars orbit would allow Mars to dominate
this potential 20 trillion dollar industry.

I'll be the first to admit that protests from self-styled "eco-activist" who
aren't good at math will be a major hurtle to overcome. But I have a hard
time getting from "Protesters will scream if you so much as bring an
asteroid into cislunar space" to "Logically, Mars is the best place to build
satellites from asteroidal resources". If the market for these satellites
is an Earth market, that to me means the logical place to build them is HEO,
where your workforce is much closer to Earth.

Maybe rather than bringing in asteroids whole, perhaps we should only bring
in greater numbers of multiple loads of ore, each of which would be too
small to do major damage even if it did strike the Earth. Alternately, one
could propose building the satellites in the Belt, and only importing the
finished product. At least this would reduce the tonnage being nudged
toward Earth, but one could skip the step of the stopover at Mars.

Personally, I would vote for transporting asteroidal resources to either L-4
or L-5, which are stable on all 3 axis, and simply educating the populace
that bringing in an asteroid at the distance of the moon would not pose a
significant danger to the Earth.

But if we're talking an Earth orbit market, I wouldn't expect Main Belt
resources to be used at all. I'd sooner expect use of NEOs, and lunar
resources. I have no doubt that Main Belt asteroids will be used, but I
think they'll be used in place, by folks living permanently in the Belt.

Please forgive me, but this just strikes me as an attempt to involve Mars
out of a sense of romance, with no real consideration of the value Mars adds
to this process. I'd have thought that anyone on this maillist would be
familiar with the work of Gerard O'Neill, the main thrust of which was that
planets are not the best places for expanding industrial civilizations.
Personally, I think Mars is going to have much less to do with the
industrialization or settlement of space than what most people tend to
think.

MW: Orbital telescopes would be a lot more expensive
than lunar telescopes manufactured on the moon.

I'm assuming use of lunar resources to build them (provided that we're
talking about really giant telescopes). In that case, the only added
expense would be the cost of lifting the resources out of the lunar gravity
well. O'Neill calculated that his mass driver could do this for pennies a
pound. It's also likely that manufacturing processes in HEO will be less
expensive than on the lunar surface due to the constant availability of
sunlight. It's even possible that access to 0 G may have benefits. I don't
think the difference in price tags would be all that much, and the added
flexibility of being able to point wherever you want might be worth
something.

Also, a telescope built in 0 G could be even bigger and flimsier than what
would be possible in 1/6th G.

And
lunar telescopes would be easier to maintain because
there would be people there already. A space telescope
would be a lot more expensive to repair.

Why assume that there would be people available on the lunar surface, but
not in HEO? I thought this was the Space Settler's maillist, where we were
taking it for granted that there are going to be space settlements.

If we want to talk about transportation costs to and from Earth, obviously
they are less for HEO than for the lunar surface.

MW: Asteroids only 1 kilometer to 100 kilometers in
diameter would probably be the most difficult to mine
since they would be to heavy to transport into a
planetary orbit and might be too small and to rugged
to set up large facilities on its surface-- especially
if their rotations are very fast. And the labor cost
would be very high since you would have to find people
willing to work in isolation in such environments.

Ceres is a C-type of asteroid that probably has all of
the elements required for an industrial society in
abundance. And with a gravity well below that of even
the moon, it would be extremely cheap to transport
materials off its surface. And being the largest
asteroid would mean that many companys could
congregate there to exploit its resources. And that
would mean hundreds, possibly even tens of thousands,
of people working on its surface or in orbit around
the asteroid. So there would be much less of a feeling
of isolation with so many others also working there.
And Ceres would have the equivalent resources of
approximately 1 million 1 kilometer asteroids-- all in
one place. Ceres is clearly the motherload of
asteroids. And only those asteroids that you could
transport by lightsail would be cheaper to exploit,
IMO, than the largest asteroids.

OK, I think I see your argument now. Yes, there might be some synergistic
advantage to clustering our facilities and settlements.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
Marcel Williams [mailto:newpapyrus@...]
MW: If a 1000 tonne asteroid being transported to
earth were to hit the Earth it would be the equivalent
of a 2.5 megaton nuclear weapon. Obviously, such
asteroids could be safely placed into Earth orbit. But
would you trust dozens, if not hundreds of private
companys to do this. What about asteroid
transportation companies based in third world
countries. An asteroid disaster would be a lot bigger
than some damaged Liberian oil tanker. And the
insurance cost would be-- astronomical-- if we
attempted to place these asteroids in Earth orbit or
even in Lunar orbit, IMO. And the environmental
protest would make the anti-nuclear protest of 1970's
look trivial.
Mars, however, also has practically all of the natural
resources necessary for human survival. And a much
lower gravity well than the Earth. And there would be
little protest about transporting hundreds of 1000 to
10,000 tonne asteroids into Marsian orbit every year
to be processed. The satellite market is estimated to
be worth about 20 trillion dollars in the next 20
years. The manufacturing of satellites out of asteroid
materials in Mars orbit would allow Mars to dominate
this potential 20 trillion dollar industry.

I'll be the first to admit that protests from self-styled "eco-activist" who aren't good at math will be a major hurtle to overcome. But I have a hard time getting from "Protesters will scream if you so much as bring an asteroid into cislunar space" to "Logically, Mars is the best place to build satellites from asteroidal resources". If the market for these satellites is an Earth market, that to me means the logical place to build them is HEO, where your workforce is much closer to Earth.

Maybe rather than bringing in asteroids whole, perhaps we should only bring in greater numbers of multiple loads of ore, each of which would be too small to do major damage even if it did strike the Earth. Alternately, one could propose building the satellites in the Belt, and only importing the finished product. At least this would reduce the tonnage being nudged toward Earth, but one could skip the step of the stopover at Mars.

Personally, I would vote for transporting asteroidal resources to either L-4 or L-5, which are stable on all 3 axis, and simply educating the populace that bringing in an asteroid at the distance of the moon would not pose a significant danger to the Earth.

But if we're talking an Earth orbit market, I wouldn't expect Main Belt resources to be used at all. I'd sooner expect use of NEOs, and lunar resources. I have no doubt that Main Belt asteroids will be used, but I think they'll be used in place, by folks living permanently in the Belt.

Please forgive me, but this just strikes me as an attempt to involve Mars out of a sense of romance, with no real consideration of the value Mars adds to this process. I'd have thought that anyone on this maillist would be familiar with the work of Gerard O'Neill, the main thrust of which was that planets are not the best places for expanding industrial civilizations. Personally, I think Mars is going to have much less to do with the industrialization or settlement of space than what most people tend to think.
MW: Orbital telescopes would be a lot more expensive
than lunar telescopes manufactured on the moon.

I'm assuming use of lunar resources to build them (provided that we're talking about really giant telescopes). In that case, the only added expense would be the cost of lifting the resources out of the lunar gravity well. O'Neill calculated that his mass driver could do this for pennies a pound. It's also likely that manufacturing processes in HEO will be less expensive than on the lunar surface due to the constant availability of sunlight. It's even possible that access to 0 G may have benefits. I don't think the difference in price tags would be all that much, and the added flexibility of being able to point wherever you want might be worth something.

Also, a telescope built in 0 G could be even bigger and flimsier than what would be possible in 1/6th G.

And
lunar telescopes would be easier to maintain because
there would be people there already. A space telescope
would be a lot more expensive to repair.

Why assume that there would be people available on the lunar surface, but not in HEO? I thought this was the Space Settler's maillist, where we were taking it for granted that there are going to be space settlements.

If we want to talk about transportation costs to and from Earth, obviously they are less for HEO than for the lunar surface.
MW: Asteroids only 1 kilometer to 100 kilometers in
diameter would probably be the most difficult to mine
since they would be to heavy to transport into a
planetary orbit and might be too small and to rugged
to set up large facilities on its surface-- especially
if their rotations are very fast. And the labor cost
would be very high since you would have to find people
willing to work in isolation in such environments.
Ceres is a C-type of asteroid that probably has all of
the elements required for an industrial society in
abundance. And with a gravity well below that of even
the moon, it would be extremely cheap to transport
materials off its surface. And being the largest
asteroid would mean that many companys could
congregate there to exploit its resources. And that
would mean hundreds, possibly even tens of thousands,
of people working on its surface or in orbit around
the asteroid. So there would be much less of a feeling
of isolation with so many others also working there.
And Ceres would have the equivalent resources of
approximately 1 million 1 kilometer asteroids-- all in
one place. Ceres is clearly the motherload of
asteroids. And only those asteroids that you could
transport by lightsail would be cheaper to exploit,
IMO, than the largest asteroids.
OK, I think I see your argument now. Yes, there might be some synergistic advantage to clustering our facilities and settlements.

Regards,
Mike Combs