Asteriod question.

[OmegaX7]

:) Hey, Omega here.

What are the opinions on "being able to capture an asteriod?" We've already landed on one or two of them. "Could we bring one into orbit?" Extrapolate on this; I have.

L8R - - - - Omega

[Jay-qu]

why would you do this? to mine it? I have no doubt that one day it would be possible but I am not sure if its worth the trouble.

[Eclogite]

There would be two obvious uses for asteroids:

1) Source of raw materials.

2) Base for a space colony.

 

The value of metals within the asteroid, either to be exploited in situ, or, for the more valuable materials, to be returned to Earth, is considerable. They will certainly be mined extensively when we eventually get into space properly.

 

Will be bring the asteroid into orbit? That may not be worthwhile. It will take a lot of reaction mass to change orbit and it may be simpler to mine and refine in its existing orbit then direct that material to Earth orbit. That way you are moving only what is valuable.

 

Also the asteroids which will be easiest to move are the stony ones, since they will have significant volatiles, useful for providing reaction mass. However, these contain less potentially valuable material, and may well be so poorly held together they will come apart if we try to deflect them. In contrast the valuable irons contain few volatiles or scrap material for discharge. [Though perhaps the refining and deflection could be part of the same process with the waste tailings used as mass ejection to impart a delta V to the body.]

 

So, what is your plan?

[C1ay]

"Could we bring one into orbit?"

Could we? Probably. On the first try? Unlikely. NASA has lost 2 spacecraft in the last 15 years attempting orbit insertions. These were vehicles with precisely known masses and remotely controllable propulsion systems. Both crashed. Could we afford a practice run gone astray leaving an asteroid plummeting into the Earth? Me thinks it would not be a very bright idea to try such a thing.

[OmegaX7]

Well, I think I see. A few considerations do make it seem a bit eccentric of an idea. Oh well. Thank you all.

L8R Omega.

[Jay-qu]

we could test it with mars :shrug: and it could be rigged with a nuke so in the event that we lose control it could be detonated and end up giving us a nice light show on earth instead of massive destruction.

[HydrogenBond]

Along the lines of asteroids is the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. This region is the transition zone between the rocky and gaseous planets, with the asteroid belt itself reflecting differences; more rocky near Mars and more ice near Jupiter.

 

The theory I would like to propose is that this zone is where the solar wind (over billions of years) condenses into rocks and asteroids. The solar wind leaves the sun as charged particles, which gradually attract and combine into larger and larger composites. The gravity of Jupiter sort of extracts lighter materials away from the solar gravity causing lighter materials like water to condense closer to Jupiter.

[Eclogite]

Propose away Hydrogen Bond. It wont alter the facts and the facts would indicate you are mistaken.

The asteroids are remnants of planetesimals formed at the same time as the rest of the solar system.

[HydrogenBond]

That may be true, however, it does not explain their accumulative position in primarily one area. It almost looks like the rings of saturn but for the sun. One may say that the other planets formed from similar bands of material at their position in space. But this would be hard to do with everything revolving in the same direction around the sun. The merry-go-round horses will have a difficult time overtaken each other.

[Eclogite]

A vast amount of work has been done in this matter, including complex simulations of planetary formation at all stages of development of the accretion disc. It is consistent with the general and specific features of the solar system.

Google "planetary formation" or "accretion disc" for a range of information on the topic.

[HydrogenBond]

I think one of the problems is the latest fad which assumes the matter of the solar system came from super nova. This is the work around to allow the earth to have an iron core, because certain problems were beginning to surface. Maybe a good calculation would be to compare the material output from the sun over the past 3-4 billions years with the mass of the asteroid belt to see if it is in the ball park. One will probably get a fairly wide swarth of material due to the sun's magnetic field and the charge particles.

[CraigD]

Maybe a good calculation would be to compare the material output from the sun over the past 3-4 billions years with the mass of the asteroid belt to see if it is in the ball park.

The solar wind is roughly 95% ionized hydrogen, 4% ionized helium, and .5% other ions. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind#Properties). It’s output is believe to be about 10^9 kg/s.

 

The asteroid belt is estimated to total about 3 *10^21 kg. So, ballpark-wise, HBond’s hypothesis looks good – only about .003% of the wind need to have become asteroid stuff to have formed the belt in 3 billion years.

 

A serious problem for this hypothesis is, non-ballpark-wise, whether the silicon and metal in the solar wind is as abundant as .003%. I think few people are expecting to find significant amounts of ions heavier than oxygen in the solar wind, but until some actual measurements can be made, this expectation is largely conjecture, making HBond’s hypothesis untestable for the time being. We’d know a lot more by now, if the Genesis probe hadn’t crashed following earth reentry, scattering its particle detectors over the muddy Utah desert, making it difficult to distinguish terrestrial particles from solar ones :phones:

 

Until a more sophisticated collector is flown (and either does its analysis telemetrically, or doesn’t crash land upon return), I must agree with the mainstream, planetesimal theory for the formation of the asteroid belt that Eclogite articulated. After we get the new data, we may (or may not) be in for a surprise, and HBond a well-deserved I-told-you-so.

[HydrogenBond]

You don't know if you don't conjecture.

[Eclogite]

Wild conjecture which ignores well established facts and validated observations is likely to lead to erroneous conclusions and involve a waste of mental energy. Conjectures should start from a solid foundation.

[Pyrotex]

I think one of the problems is the latest fad which assumes the matter of the solar system came from super nova. This is the work around to allow the earth to have an iron core...

IMO, the truth is closer to a mix of the two scenarios.

Supernovas would have "doped" the local nebula (before the Sun turned on) with heavy metals, especially iron and beyond. We know that supernova remnants (SNR) do contain a lot of heavy stuff, from spectroscopic studies of them.

 

But that would not have been the source of all matter in our solar system. There would have been the nominal 90% Hydrogen and 9% Helium. Our local nebula could have been impacted by several SNRs by the time the Sun condensed, ignited, and started blowing the residual gases away. This means that the Sun itself would have been "doped" with heavy metals.

 

Planets would have been well on their way to forming by then. The Sun's solar wind could have easily added to the mass of planets over time.

[HydrogenBond]

There are very few well established facts when it comes to space. These are mostly well established conjecture backed with some circumstantial evidence. The reason I say this, we make all kinds of assumptions about very distant phenonema, like supernova, yet many of the closer things like planets that are much easier to see, turn out to have many new twists when investigated close up. If we are not batting 100% with close stuff, the 100million light year stuff is probably not 100% reliable. This limited reliability is marketed as 100% and then used to justify speculation.

[Edella]

If we are not batting 100% with close stuff, the 100million light year stuff is probably not 100% reliable. This limited reliability is marketed as 100% and then used to justify speculation.

Who has suggested we are batting 100% with the "100million light year stuff?"Established theories are meant to be challenged.This is how science works.As we acquire more information,we adjust.Science is not stagnant and dogmatic.

...yet many of the closer things like planets that are much easier to see, turn out to have many new twists when investigated close up.

Isn't this to be expected?

This limited reliability is marketed as 100% and then used to justify speculation.

Please,If you think there is a conspiracy,or have a problem with how science informs the public,post elsewhere,it is off topic.

There are very few well established facts when it comes to space.

This thread is very specific,and your statement very general,again:it is off topic. Start a new thead!

 

Some of us like to read more than post,and your disruptions ruin the flow of an otherwise interesting thread.I'm not saying that all of your comments are without merit(you would have to elaborate on them first),but some of your comments like"You don't know if you don't conjecture",are childish and annoying.

 

And yes, I do see the irony in disrupting a thread to complain about someone disrupting a thread.