Asteroid deflection mission seeks ideas

[danielost]

Dwarf, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean blow it up. I meant harvest it. That way you make the problem go away. Also the most expensive part of space flight is getting off of the Earth.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Dwarf, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean blow it up. I meant harvest it. That way you make the problem go away. Also the most expensive part of space flight is getting off of the Earth.

I didn't misunderstand you at all, which is why I know how ridiculous it is.

Your idea is not credible and based on a whole heap of misunderstandings and lack of knowledge on your part.

You seem to think that mining just makes stuff go away. This shows you have about the same understanding of mining as you do asteroids.. none at all. For every big hole in the ground that a mine creates there is a huge pile of material excavated from the ground, slag heaps. This is because only a small proportion of the material mined is useful. The same will be true for an asteroid. Only a small percentage will be of any use. So what will you do with the rest? If you just leave it then it will collide with the Earth anyway and your brilliant idea will have been a total failure. Or you could try deflecting it. But that would make your brilliant idea redundant. Not a lot going for your idea really is there?

Then there are the time constraints. You seem to think that the best way to deal with an asteroid that is on a collision course with Earth is to spend years or decades taking it apart piece by piece. Odd for someone whose complaint about deflecting an asteroid is that it would take years. How can you possibly think that any idea that would take even longer would be better. Please explain the logic behind that?

Surely the sane and intelligent thing to do would be to protect the Earth first. If an asteroid that threatens the Earth is deflected into a safe orbit then you would have all the time you wanted to mine it.

I understood what you were saying fully, I don't think you do.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf

[DONTEATUS]

Im with Lava Lady ! Lets all go to The Islands and Pray to the The Gods !

Its the 1% that will get us ,That we know nothing of Its track !

[danielost]

I didn't misunderstand you at all, which is why I know how ridiculous it is.

Your idea is not credible and based on a whole heap of misunderstandings and lack of knowledge on your part.

You seem to think that mining just makes stuff go away. This shows you have about the same understanding of mining as you do asteroids.. none at all. For every big hole in the ground that a mine creates there is a huge pile of material excavated from the ground, slag heaps. This is because only a small proportion of the material mined is useful. The same will be true for an asteroid. Only a small percentage will be of any use. So what will you do with the rest? If you just leave it then it will collide with the Earth anyway and your brilliant idea will have been a total failure. Or you could try deflecting it. But that would make your brilliant idea redundant. Not a lot going for your idea really is there?

Then there are the time constraints. You seem to think that the best way to deal with an asteroid that is on a collision course with Earth is to spend years or decades taking it apart piece by piece. Odd for someone whose complaint about deflecting an asteroid is that it would take years. How can you possibly think that any idea that would take even longer would be better. Please explain the logic behind that?

Surely the sane and intelligent thing to do would be to protect the Earth first. If an asteroid that threatens the Earth is deflected into a safe orbit then you would have all the time you wanted to mine it.

I understood what you were saying fully, I don't think you do.

That is on earth, in space mining you cut the whole astriod up. Using the rock for soil and smelting the metls for other uses such as more ships. No waste, no slag.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

That is on earth, in space mining you cut the whole astriod up. Using the rock for soil and smelting the metls for other uses such as more ships. No waste, no slag.

And you are going to provide sources to back this up? Of course you can't because you are just making stuff up again.

I, on the other hand, will provide sources.

Here is an extract from wikipedia about asteroid mining:

There are three options for mining:

1. Bring raw asteroidal material to Earth for use.
   
2. Process it on-site to bring back only processed materials, and perhaps produce propellant for the return trip.
   
3. Transport the asteroid to a safe orbit around the Moon, Earth or to the ISS. This can hypothetically allow for most materials to be used and not wasted.

Source: wikipedia

Notice that none of these options use all of the asteroid and only the last one uses most of it and that option requires modifying the orbit of the asteroid. Remarkably similar to what I said here:

If an asteroid that threatens the Earth is deflected into a safe orbit then you would have all the time you wanted to mine it.

More importantly notice that the second option, processing in situ, which is what you are suggesting, brings back "only processed materials".

There are two companies currently planing to mine asteroids, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries. Neither of them are planning to "cut the asteroid up".

This is what Planetary Resources says:

Recovery and processing of materials in a microgravity environment will occur through significant research and development. Planetary Resources will lead the creation of critical in-situ extraction and processing technologies to provide access to both asteroidal water and metals. When combined with our low-cost deep space explorers, this represents an enabling capability for the sustainable development of space.

Source: Planetary Resources

Notice the use of the word "extraction". In other words they are taking only the useful resources, in this case water and metals.

Deep Space Industries are going for the 3rd option, moving small asteroids into an Earth-Moon libration. They emphasis the fact that this will make the Earth safer by removing potential hazardous objects from an orbit where they could hit the Earth, but they are deflecting the asteroid first and mining it second... exactly as I suggested.

For safety reasons, Deep Space Industries will limit itself to moving asteroids with diameters less than 30 meters in the vicinity of the Earth.

Asteroids come in three main types: carbonaceous, metallic, and stony. DSI will harvest the water-rich carbonaceous NEAs to produce water for in-space life support, radiation shielding and propellant.

DSI will mine metallic asteroids for the steel and other alloys that can be made from them. The company is developing a patent-pending Microgravity Foundry that can transform crushed metallic ore into precision metal parts using a handful of moving parts in a compact device. Space outposts to conduct research and produce high-value products for Earth will be fabricated primarily in space from DSI mini-factories, at far less cost than launching them from the ground.

Source: Deep Space Industries

Notice something missing... they don't plan to mine stony asteroids. As these make up 17% of asteroids, the second most common type after carbonaceous, this is another big problem for your great idea (as if it didn't have enough already).

When it comes to working out who knows more about asteroid mining, the two companies that plan to do it or you I know which I'd choose.

Sorry danielost, but your claims are not backed up by facts.

[White Crane Feather]

Create several space stations in very very far orbits. With nuclear reactors like in submarines. The entire space station is a powerful class IV Pulse Laser. Point the laser at the offending object, upon striking it there will be powerfull out gasing thereby deflecting the asteroid. All of this is doable with today's technology and the stations do not even have to be maned. Essentially large satalights

Edited February 21, 2013 by Seeker79

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Create several space stations in very very far orbits.

The problem with this is you are underestimating the enormous number of stations you would need. Asteroids and comets can appear from all directions at any time.

It would be far simpler to rendezvous with the asteroid and then fire a laser from a spacecraft in the same orbit. It would need a far less powerful laser as it would be able to fire over a much shorter distance at what would be (from the point of view of the satellite) a stationary target, rather than attempting to hit something travelling at many tens of thousands of miles per hour from distances of (potentially) many millions of miles.

[danielost]

Dwarf you might want to reread option 3.

By the way the waste from mining is over burden(what every you don't want.) and heavy metal run off water( dn't think that would be a problem in space.)

Slag is the waste from smelting. Shouldn't be a problem just to send it into the sun.

(Sorry I am using a tablet. Can't copy and paste.)

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Dwarf you might want to reread option 3.

3. Transport the asteroid to a safe orbit around the Moon, Earth or to the ISS. This can hypothetically allow for most materials to be used and not wasted.

Source: wikipedia

Which part of Option 3 are you not understanding? Is it the fact that option 3 involves placing the asteroid in Earth orbit first before mining (i.e. effectively deflecting it) that you can't understand, or maybe it is the word "most". Option 3 involves the changing of the asteroids orbit and still leaves some waste.

This is EXACTLY what I said. Please point out how it differs from what I said here:

If an asteroid that threatens the Earth is deflected into a safe orbit then you would have all the time you wanted to mine it.

Option 3 DOES NOT involve mining an asteroid whilst it is in it's original orbit. It is not, therefore an option for protecting the Earth from an asteroid on a collision course with the Earth. It does NOT support your idea... nothing does.

The two companies which are planning to mine asteroids do not agree with you, doesn't that tell you something?

By the way the waste from mining is over burden(what every you don't want.) and heavy metal run off water( dn't think that would be a problem in space.)

Slag is the waste from smelting.

Oh dear, you never get tired of being wrong and showing off your lack of knowledge do you? The expression I used was not "slag", it was "slag heap".

For every big hole in the ground that a mine creates there is a huge pile of material excavated from the ground, slag heaps.

I spent a lot of my childhood visiting family in a mining town in Wales. I know what a slag heap is, clearly you don't.

slag heap

n

(Mining & Quarrying) a hillock of waste matter from coal mining, etc.

Source: thefreedictionary.com

slag heap- definition

a large pile of waste produced after coal or a metal has been taken out of the earth and processed

Source: macmillandictionary.com

Shouldn't be a problem just to send it into the sun.

Sending things into the sun is not simply a case of pointing at the sun and firing a rocket in that direction, orbital mechanics don't work like that. Instead you need a massive change in velocity in order that the object effectively drops out of solar orbit. For even a small object this would require a massive amount of energy.

(Sorry I am using a tablet. Can't copy and paste.)

So am I. I can.

Oh, and by the way are you going to answer this question are are you just going to ignore it?

Then there are the time constraints. You seem to think that the best way to deal with an asteroid that is on a collision course with Earth is to spend years or decades taking it apart piece by piece. Odd for someone whose complaint about deflecting an asteroid is that it would take years. How can you possibly think that any idea that would take even longer would be better. Please explain the logic behind that?

[danielost]

You will do nything to call me stupid. The only difference between what I suggested and option three is moving the rock into orbit. I think it would be easier to mine it in place than move it. Any waste can either be sent to burn up in the sun or burn up the atmo. You should able to use up to 90% of the rock. And if you can't droo it into the sun. You have at least turned a big problem into a much smaller one. Thus instead of an extinction level event, you might end up with a city killer. But likely one like the one over Russia. Yes, people got hurt, but one died. At least the last time I heard.

Further, I was wrong about the percentage of the known rocks. It is only 1% not 10%. That rock that blow up over Russia tell you moving them is a bad idea. What hppens if you hit one of 99% that we don't know about. Instead of oe rock you now have two that hit the earth.

I heard New Zeland was working on auto-miners. Does anyone know if they got them working.

Edited February 23, 2013 by danielost

[danielost]

To answer you, your other point. According to your methiod it could take years to move it with a tracter or hitting with pellets or lasers and you have to worry about again and again and again. That might 100 of years between agains that is true. But, my way gets rid of the problem.

[DONTEATUS]

Could it be as simple as just the slightest tug,budge,what ever energy it takes to **** its postiton ? THis is what we have to work on,Like being done all around the world today. Lots of minds are crunching the numbers,and ways to defeat such a threat.

And Threat it actually IS a Very Large Threat ! I Keep having really bad dreams about our end in this way !

[danielost]

Could it be as simple as just the slightest tug,budge,what ever energy it takes to **** its postiton ? THis is what we have to work on,Like being done all around the world today. Lots of minds are crunching the numbers,and ways to defeat such a threat.

And Threat it actually IS a Very Large Threat ! I Keep having really bad dreams about our end in this way !

According to the bible only 1/3 of the world.