Marrying asteroid defense and asteroid mining

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> That's why I said a few hundred nukes. Overkill is always best when
saving
> the world.
>

actually, a hundred mrv's should do the trick. each reaching the
contact point a matter of minutes apart. with the speed of over 20
miles per second relative to each other that would put the missiles
far enough apart not to be damaged by the emp of the last ones burst,
yet give it enough time to figure out the change in orbits to make
the next one explode in the correct area.

>
> Not really. Give them a few sensors so they know where the sun is,
where the
> asteroid is - and then tell them to focus on the hottest spot on the
> asteroid. Simple positive feedback will ensure they all focus on the
> tightest possible spot. There are other ways but that's the
simplest.
>

first off this would require that they keep contact between each
other so that they would be going for the same spot.

secondly, if the mirror is curved, it has to be at a specific spot
to get the focal point at the exact spot. if they are flat then they
have to coordiante so that they will be shining on the same spot as
all the others.

> > ... formula ...

(did i write that, i told you i was not awake lol)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28ESA%29
> One example of the free flying concept. There are many other similar
> proposals.
>

sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not a frameless telescope.
that is a bunch of framed telescopes sending the light to a central
satellite which will then focus them onto a screen or something like
that so that the light will create a interference pattern. a
telescope allows you to see with less light, while an interferometer
telescope brings light from a wide area to so that the wavelenghts
will interfere with other light from the same source, in a
constructive/destructive pattern. If they take a snap shot of it,
then compare it with one taken an hour later, any thing that moves
will create a series of wave patterns in exact relations to the size
and amount of movement.

if you had this type of telescope in earths orbit, you would be able
to see the movement of an asteroid the size of a toaster in the oorts
cloud. but not just one. you could litterally track thousands at the
same time. all without ever actually seeing one of them.

>
> Which might or might not be possible. And wouldn't be needed with
well timed
> nukes. ^.^
>

a nuke might work, or it might not. the problem would be getting
countries to stop arguing long enough to alter the icbm's to go out
of earth orbit.

>
> Realistically, ion engines are a long term method for changing
course. So
> it'll be years, not months they'll have to last.
>

with the current ones, yes. but i really beleive if i could ever get
someone to take a look at multistaging the ions, we would be a lot
closer to mars or the moon or the neo's.

>
> Try reading up on ion engines. Especially the technical problems
associated
> with impure fuels.
>

1) that was a joke

2) if you break water down in h2 and o2, they are likely to be a lot
purer than it would normally be. unless im wrong (its been a few
decades since i was), both hydrogen and oxigen are ionizable.

>
> And look up 'bucket drive' while you're at it. That is THE mass
driver
> everyone here refers to.

i looked that up, but you have two major problems.

1) the speed and size of the payload means you would have to be
firing a lot of them, and your launcher would have to be huge.
remember that you use part of it to slow the bucket down, which would
have to be large enough to carry the payload, and thus very heavy.

2) one small mistake and the entire structure could be damaged. if
the release is off just a little bit, the payload could start to
tumble, and that could cause it to hit the launcher. the bucket would
be right behind the payload and could easily hit the damaged area at
several km per second. even a slight glitch at that speed could cause
a problem.

the plans to use it on the moon (from what ive seen) are more like a
large rail with the bucket riding on top of it. when the bucket
starts to slow, the gravity of the moon pulls in down from behind the
payload.

the only way i could see it happening is if the bucket was actually
two ballance buckets connected across the launcher and seperated from
it by a considerable distance, but then again, a slight unballance or
uneven release, could cause a major problem.