Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
So bring me that asteroid..
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Brian Gaff
Apr 11, 2013, 7:14:25 AM4/11/13
to
It occurs to me with this mission to move an asteroid and bring it into a
different orbit closer to the moon/earth system,that there are possible
dangers with this plan. Its got to be reasonably low in mass one supposes as
it would not be very easy to move it, on the other hand all this talking
about ion propulsion leads me to believe it will take a long tome to
achieve much movement even on a light weight one.
So if its too big and anything goes wrong it might become a hazared, and
need a lot of power to move it, but too light and it will not really be
worth mounting a manned mission there afterwards, not to mention if the
moving craft is still attached it might be a hazard in itself.
This looks lie a bit of a back of the envelope idea to me.
Brian
--
>From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user.
different orbit closer to the moon/earth system,that there are possible
dangers with this plan. Its got to be reasonably low in mass one supposes as
it would not be very easy to move it, on the other hand all this talking
about ion propulsion leads me to believe it will take a long tome to
achieve much movement even on a light weight one.
So if its too big and anything goes wrong it might become a hazared, and
need a lot of power to move it, but too light and it will not really be
worth mounting a manned mission there afterwards, not to mention if the
moving craft is still attached it might be a hazard in itself.
This looks lie a bit of a back of the envelope idea to me.
Brian
--
>From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user.
Jeff Findley
Apr 11, 2013, 5:19:09 PM4/11/13
to
In article <kk65dn$1jf$1...@dont-email.me>, bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
says...
mission would be designed in such a way that anything could go wrong.
Changes to the orbit would necessarily be made very slowly, with
observations made frequent enough that any danger would be avoided.
> This looks lie a bit of a back of the envelope idea to me.
To me this is a bit of a strange mission. It only makes sense to me if
there is to be a follow-on manned mission to the asteroid once it's in
an orbit much "closer" to the earth than its original orbit.
Still, I'm not sure the math works out. Unless there is some net
savings in cost somewhere, why not send a mission directly to the
asteroid in the first place?
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
says...
>
> It occurs to me with this mission to move an asteroid and bring it into a
> different orbit closer to the moon/earth system,that there are possible
> dangers with this plan. Its got to be reasonably low in mass one supposes as
> it would not be very easy to move it, on the other hand all this talking
> about ion propulsion leads me to believe it will take a long tome to
> achieve much movement even on a light weight one.
> So if its too big and anything goes wrong it might become a hazared, and
> need a lot of power to move it, but too light and it will not really be
> worth mounting a manned mission there afterwards, not to mention if the
> moving craft is still attached it might be a hazard in itself.
Orbital mechanics is well understood. It's highly doubtful that the
> It occurs to me with this mission to move an asteroid and bring it into a
> different orbit closer to the moon/earth system,that there are possible
> dangers with this plan. Its got to be reasonably low in mass one supposes as
> it would not be very easy to move it, on the other hand all this talking
> about ion propulsion leads me to believe it will take a long tome to
> achieve much movement even on a light weight one.
> So if its too big and anything goes wrong it might become a hazared, and
> need a lot of power to move it, but too light and it will not really be
> worth mounting a manned mission there afterwards, not to mention if the
> moving craft is still attached it might be a hazard in itself.
mission would be designed in such a way that anything could go wrong.
Changes to the orbit would necessarily be made very slowly, with
observations made frequent enough that any danger would be avoided.
> This looks lie a bit of a back of the envelope idea to me.
there is to be a follow-on manned mission to the asteroid once it's in
an orbit much "closer" to the earth than its original orbit.
Still, I'm not sure the math works out. Unless there is some net
savings in cost somewhere, why not send a mission directly to the
asteroid in the first place?
Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
David Spain
Apr 12, 2013, 10:42:41 AM4/12/13
to
On 4/11/2013 5:19 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article <kk65dn$1jf$1...@dont-email.me>, bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
> says...
> In article <kk65dn$1jf$1...@dont-email.me>, bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
> says...
>> This looks lie a bit of a back of the envelope idea to me.
>
> To me this is a bit of a strange mission. It only makes sense to me if
> there is to be a follow-on manned mission to the asteroid once it's in
> an orbit much "closer" to the earth than its original orbit.
>
> Still, I'm not sure the math works out. Unless there is some net
> savings in cost somewhere, why not send a mission directly to the
> asteroid in the first place?
>
> Jeff
>
I'm thinking this is more a practice mission for asteroid strike
>
> To me this is a bit of a strange mission. It only makes sense to me if
> there is to be a follow-on manned mission to the asteroid once it's in
> an orbit much "closer" to the earth than its original orbit.
>
> Still, I'm not sure the math works out. Unless there is some net
> savings in cost somewhere, why not send a mission directly to the
> asteroid in the first place?
>
> Jeff
>
mitigation than one of exploration. A manned visit to the rock is less
important than being able to demonstrate the ability to move it via
robotics.
Dave
Herman Rubin
Apr 12, 2013, 11:28:34 PM4/12/13
to
that the more important one is to be able to visit an
asteroid and work on it. This one needs far less energy
than putting an asteroid in an earth or lunar orbit.
This may be off topic for this group, but I believe that
in the future we will have semi-autonomous populations
living and working inside asteroids, and making use of
the low gravitational fields to visit and communicate
commercially. With some more energy, lunar bases could
enter into the scheme; I will not go into the other
access to resources which can make this practical.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Brad Guth
Jul 2, 2013, 1:55:03 PM7/2/13
to
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Allowing for discussion, even though technically inaccurate.
Greg (Strider) Moore
Jul 2, 2013, 10:10:38 PM7/2/13
to
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:b803672d-8d38-42d4...@googlegroups.com...
captured per se and we've already gathered samples from it.
As for Cruithne, while it's in resonance orbit with Earth, it's not captured
per se. It could be an interesting target though.
>
>======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> Allowing for discussion, even though technically inaccurate.
>
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
news:b803672d-8d38-42d4...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>We already have a captured asteroid of 7.35e22 kg, called Selene, and a
>backup asteroid called Cruithne. Problem is, we can't seem to do anything
>positive/constructive with either one of those.
>
Strictly speaking neither are true. Selene does not appear to have been
>
>We already have a captured asteroid of 7.35e22 kg, called Selene, and a
>backup asteroid called Cruithne. Problem is, we can't seem to do anything
>positive/constructive with either one of those.
>
captured per se and we've already gathered samples from it.
As for Cruithne, while it's in resonance orbit with Earth, it's not captured
per se. It could be an interesting target though.
>
>======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> Allowing for discussion, even though technically inaccurate.
>
>
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Brian Gaff
Jul 16, 2013, 6:35:43 PM7/16/13
to
It seems odd to me that in the first instance they were going to go to an
asteroid say in one of the resonance points, then they decided to capture
one and bring it into lunar orbit instead, surely if all they want to do is
go to the moon then bloody well go there. Of course that would mean a lander
and that would cost money. Oh dear.
In the meantime the private sector and other countries are getting more and
more frustrated by the continual changes in focus and nobody really being
able to plan.
"Greg (Strider) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote in message
news:57ednWx_CL2oi07M...@earthlink.com...
asteroid say in one of the resonance points, then they decided to capture
one and bring it into lunar orbit instead, surely if all they want to do is
go to the moon then bloody well go there. Of course that would mean a lander
and that would cost money. Oh dear.
In the meantime the private sector and other countries are getting more and
more frustrated by the continual changes in focus and nobody really being
able to plan.
"Greg (Strider) Moore" <moo...@ignorethisgreenms.com> wrote in message
news:57ednWx_CL2oi07M...@earthlink.com...
Brad Guth
Jul 19, 2013, 2:47:21 PM7/19/13
to
> >> MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
>
> >> Allowing for discussion, even though technically inaccurate.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Greg D. Moore
>
> > http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
>
> > CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
As independent outsiders that are always on a need to know basis, there's p
>
> >> Allowing for discussion, even though technically inaccurate.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Greg D. Moore
>
> > http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
>
> > CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
robably never going to be a viable plan if it includes off-world exploitati
ons.
Unfortunately, there's still no such thing as any viable fly-by-rocket land
er for exploiting our moon, not even with modern computers and three powerf
ul momentum reaction gyros for managing their essential center of gravity a
nd flight stability issues of reaction thrusting and load variables. In ot
her words, it's still a work in progress, with only some favorable results
as of recently.
0 new messages