Asteroid use

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Marcel Williams

> MW: Processing asteroids-- onsite-- is more expensive
> because you have to transport humans and the
> processing machines there too. Using unmanned
> lightsails to capture and transport small asteroids to
> a central processing area (Mars orbit) makes much more
> economic sense, IMO, because you don't have to
> transport the minining machines or the personal
> evertime you want to process a new asteroid. And it
> really only makes sense to send folks out to the
> largest asteroids such as Ceres. And the solar energy
> needed to process them there would be more expensive
> than the solar energy used in Mars orbit.

The same technology which you talk about to move great dead lumps of
asteroid around the solar system can deliver relatively small
packages of technology capable of mining & processing the body in
situ; & put people on - ultimately into - the asteroid, if required.
As i said before: mining & processing in situ leverages the asset -
perhaps you know this expression better as adds value to it - whereas
moving it around the solar system before you start working on it just
adds cost. Solar luminance is no issue at all if have robotic
technology to mass produce panels using in situ material - technology
being developed by NASA/NIAC for Lunar use even as we type - these
units could eventually cover the surface of any asteroid, turning it
into an enormous solar power station..

Bear in mind: the return trip delta vs to many Earthgrazers are no
greater & sometimes less than they are to Mars; & if we actually find
a few Trojans out at Earth/Sun L2, the delta v could actually be less
than for return trips to the Moon. Looking at small objects in the
main asteroid belt to send to Mars is just nutty when there are
hundreds of thousands (if we go down to the 50-100m limits) grazing -
& ultimately threatening - the Earth...

Robert