Asteroid use

Right problem; wrong solution - choosing resonant Earthgrazers & automated
systems (with human operators optional) does away with the bulk of the
transport problems & sending your processed material via the Moon - assuming
that's actually intended for Earth use; which may not be the case - does
away with OOPS problem. Putting masses in Mars orbit also runs foul of the
great push for Mars exploration on the basis that it may contain life -
trust me: the heat generated by dropping large lumps on the Red Planet will
be every bit as investment breaking as a similar proposal in Earth orbit.
Blame Zubrin, McKay & Goldin if you like; but the damage has already been
done.
*
In the mid size range, sure. You can hollow out asteroids; add free flying
concentrating lens & or reflectors; & turn them into truly humungous
instruments that makes ESA's mighty Zeus look like a minor deity; but this
is further down the track.
*
See my other comments: many of these objects are already in orbits resonant
on Earth, meaning that regular delivery runs to & from the objects
comparatively easy. You don't put people - if you use people at all - on the
surface of such bodies; you dig them under the surface to take advantage of
artiificial garvity caused by the asteroid's rotation... only automated
units to process the regolith (as solar panels; for eg) should appear on the
surface.

All the best,
Robert Clements

> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:25:53 -0800 (PST)
> From: Marcel Williams
> Subject: Re: Asteroid use
>
> 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.
*
> MW: Orbital telescopes would be a lot more expensive
> than lunar telescopes manufactured on the moon. 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.
*