Easily-Captured Asteroids Identified

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Easily-Captured Asteroids Identified

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:12AM from the if-they're-any-smaller-you-have-to-throw-them-back dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Long overlooked as mere rocky chunks leftover from the formation of the solar system, asteroids have recently gotten a lot more scrutiny as NASA moves forward with plans to capture, tow, and place a small asteroid somewhere near our planet. Two different private space companies, Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, plan to seek out and mine precious metals and water from near-Earth asteroids. Now Adam Mann reports that astronomers have identified 12 candidate Easily Retrievable Objects (EROs) ranging in size from approximately 2 meters to 60 meters in diameter that already come (cosmically) close enough to our planet — close enough that it would take a relatively small push to put them into orbits at Lagrange points near Earth using existing rocket technology. For example, 2006 RH120 could be sent into orbit at L2 by changing its velocity by just 58 meters per second with a single burn on 1 February 2021. Moving one of these EROs would be a 'logical stepping stone towards more ambitious scenarios of asteroid exploration and exploitation, and possibly the easiest feasible attempt for humans to modify the Solar System environment outside of Earth (PDF),' write the authors in Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy. None of the 12 ERO asteroids are new to astronomers; in fact, one of them became briefly famous when it was found to be temporarily orbiting the Earth until 2007. But until now nobody had realized just how easily these bodies could be captured."

160 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 00:17 · Score: 0

What could possibly go wrong when tying to snag an object that is hurtling though space and will wreak havoc on anything it hits?
captcha: unproven
1. Re:Great! by Thanshin · 2013-08-14 00:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It doesn't have to hit Earth to affect it. Consider the tides. Our global eco system has evolved to expect tides. It would be difficult if not impossible to predict the full extent of the harm that could result if tidal patterns are altered. All sorts of life could flourish or die under such changes.
  I'm not exactly a tree-hugger, but I certainly appreciate the factors and influences over life on this planet. This would affect the oceans in all sorts of ways. That which affects the oceans and the life within them will affect us and possibly even global weather patterns.
  Because a 2~60m diameter stone in space can significantly alter tides.
2. Re:Great! by drinkypoo · 2013-08-14 00:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It doesn't have to hit Earth to affect it. Consider the tides.
  Why not consider the Lily? Look, the largest of these objects is sixty meters in diameter. I'm math-challenged, but a quick back-of-the-napkin calculation reveals marinara sauce and a little olive.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  An asteroid of 60 meter diameter has negligible mass. It would not have any noticeable impact on the tides be short of the size of the Moon.
4. Re:Great! by Kookus · 2013-08-14 00:53 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  There's stuff whizzing past us all the time with the gravitational attractive force that these rocks will have. It's not going to impact tidal patterns until we start capturing relatively large objects... like relative to the moon kind of size.
  You know you only have to stand about 6 feet away from somebody to have the same gravitational pull on them as Mars has on you when it's closest to earth?
  Mars already impacts our tidal patterns more than these rocks.
5. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not talking about hitting Earth (though that wouldn't be a desirable scenario). If there is a small miscalculation in their approach and it hits the spacecraft attempting to lasso it ... negative result. Any you're not getting any blackboxes from that wreck.
6. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  SOmeone downmod this gaffet and tell him to gtfo this site.
7. Re:Great! by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2013-08-14 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Because a 2~60m diameter stone in space can significantly alter tides.
  No, but once you start getting hundreds or thousands of them in near orbit, it might start having an effect that is noticeable in some places.
  
  --
  
  Technoli
8. Re:Great! by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2013-08-14 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  And how many of them are we going to be pulling into orbit?
  
  --
  
  Technoli
9. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 02:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It doesn't have to hit Earth to affect it. Consider the tides. Our global eco system has evolved to expect tides. It would be difficult if not impossible to predict the full extent of the harm that could result if tidal patterns are altered. All sorts of life could flourish or die under such changes.
  I'm not exactly a tree-hugger, but I certainly appreciate the factors and influences over life on this planet. This would affect the oceans in all sorts of ways. That which affects the oceans and the life within them will affect us and possibly even global weather patterns.
  Because a 2~60m diameter stone in space can significantly alter tides.
  The level of numerical illiteracy* of the general public (i.e. the GP) is appalling, and combined with the boatloads of self-esteem fed to them during school years, it resulted in people worse than being totally ignorant.
  A totally ignorant person would either ask the above question without assumption, e.g. "Is it possible for the captured asteroid to affect the Earth in any meaningful way?", or just assume the experts have already thought about it. Only those who knew just enough to be dangerous would both assume their imagination (considerations that is not based on hard facts nor experience is no different than imagining things) is correct, AND the experts have not considered it already.
  * - by that, I mean the lack of sense in numerical scales and numbers. The radius of the Moon is in the order of ~1000km, so a 60m asteroid (round to 100m) is 4 orders of magnitude in linear dimension and thus 12 orders of magnitude in volume. How lack of numerical sense do you need to be to think that something 12 orders of magnitude smaller can have any impact?
10. Re:Great! by owlstead · 2013-08-14 02:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm just glad you used the back of a napkin and not a piece of toilet paper...
11. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  If we somehow manage to move enough matter into orbit to change the tides significantly then we have already demonstrated the technology to move the moon orbit to offset the change.
  Do you realize how insane that sounds? Even if we scale up the space mining industry to dwarf the mining industry on earth we will not be anywhere close to change the tides more than the moons receding from the earth already does. (Yes, the moon isn't in a perfect orbit and the tidal forces are reduced for every year. The change is way too small for you to notice.)
12. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Because a 2~60m diameter stone in space can significantly alter tides.
  If the stone were made of neutronium it could. :D
13. Re:Great! by dywolf · 2013-08-14 02:57 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  that many of them i'd expect them to be largely equally spread out, or near enough to be considered such. as such, the effect would be close to nil, and the net effect would be zero. note also that this entirely ignores the problems of keeping a few thousand (or hundred thousand!!) objects orbiting the earth at tens of thousands of miles per hour without colliding, which they surely would, quickly forming a problem many orders of magnitude in excess of the current problems with space junk.
  in other words, the tidal effect is both neglible and not the primary concern in that scenario.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
14. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Then it wouldn't be "stone", would it?
15. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Because a 2~60m diameter stone in space can significantly alter tides.
  No, but once you start getting hundreds or thousands of them in near orbit, it might start having an effect that is noticeable in some places.
  The only effect you're likely to see is them colliding with other shit in orbit.
  You're completely ignoring basic math. All you have to do is compare the mass of the moon to its tidal influence, and do the basic calculations on the (negligible) increase in gravity for the rocks (because they're closer), and you'll see that you're going to need something more on the order of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, before you start having a significant effect. And that's assuming you clump them all together in one spot. And ignoring the fact that they plan on mining the things out and distributing the mass.
  The argument is pretty similar to the one which claims that propeller driven aircraft are causing hurricanes.
16. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  And how many of them are we going to be pulling into orbit?
  Simple math you should have learned in high school would tell you that it wouldn't matter if we pulled in every last one we know about. I'll leave the actual proof for you to do as homework. But I'll throw you a bone to get started- it's the mass which matters, not the diameter.
17. Re:Great! by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2013-08-14 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not saying that it's going to cause tidal waves. I was just suggesting the possibility that it might upset some ecological niches.
  Of course, we're doing a pretty good job of that by other means.
  
  --
  
  Technoli
18. Re:Great! by someone1234 · 2013-08-14 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  We are not just collecting them, the plan is to mine them. And what's this talk about hundreds or thousands? Even if asteroid mining becomes an industry, i doubt there will be more than 10 at a time. Eventually, they will learn to mine them on spot or use the Moon for it, without towing them to Earth.
  
  --
  Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
19. Re:Great! by ShieldW0lf · 2013-08-14 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  C'mon dude. Drywolf said the effect is neglible. Why worry?
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
20. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Because a 2~60m diameter stone in space can significantly alter tides.
  No, but once you start getting hundreds or thousands of them in near orbit, it might start having an effect that is noticeable in some places.
  Have you any grasp of how big a difference 12 orders of magnitudes is? De you think "hundreds or thousands" is ANYWHERE near 1,000,000,000,000?
  The world's population is roughly 6 billion, and that is just 6,000,000,000 (3 less zeros than above). If we have 1 such asteroid for every single person on Earth, the volume of these rocks would still be only less than 1% of the Moon.
  Do you also worry that America will sink under the sea if a few thousand foreigners come to visit the US?
21. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  Because a 2~60m diameter stone in space can significantly alter tides.
  No, but once you start getting hundreds or thousands of them in near orbit, it might start having an effect that is noticeable in some places.
  10 million asteroids would not have any noticeable gravitational effect on the Earth, even if you could coalesce them into one big one. The only potential issue would be whether their combined mass would influence a fly-by asteroid enough to make its return journey alter to be that of an impact path.
22. Re:Great! by dywolf · 2013-08-14 04:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  i think you should be taking your own advice.
  one thing you forgot to consider was distance, and the moon si really really far out there.
  also, 12 orders of magnitude is 10^12. given that the moon is ~3474km in diameter (1700km radius), compared to a 60m object the moon is only 5.79e+4 times larger....which is no where near "12 orders of magnitude". but the size that we really need to consider isnt dimensional anyway, but mass.
  so let's explore:
  Remember the formula is F=G*m1*m2 / d^2. The gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance between the two. So we can hold the factors other than d unitary to determine the relative strengths at the following distances (truncated for space):
  ~380k km (roughly the moon's average distance) = 6.925e-12
  ~36000 km (typical geosynchronous orbit, ie, GPS) = 7.716e-10
  ~2000 km (medium earth orbit) = 2.5e-7
  So an object at MEO has 324x as much pull as the same object at typical geosynchronous distance, and >36000x as much pull as the same object at the moon's distance. So an object the size of the moon at the moons distance can have the same pull as an object 1/36000 the mass of the moon but in MEO*. Given the moon's mass is 7.3477e+22 kg, this gives us an equivalent mass of 2.041e18 kg at MEO, or 2.26e+20 kg at geosynchronous distance**. Then we can take the moons density of ~3346 kg/m^3. This gives us volumes of ~6.0998e+14 m^3 (MEO) and ~6.754e+16 m^3 (GS), which in turn give shperical diameters of 105.22 km (MEO) and 505.27 km (GS).
  So we end up with objects only 0.0302 and 0.1454 the diameter of the moon at MEO and GS to have the same effect as the moon, assuming the same density as the moon. If we instead assume say an asteroid largely composed of Iron (density 7,870 km/m^3) we get diameters of ~79 and 380 km. An iridium asteroid is about the densest thing we might find out there, and even then our diameters calculate to ~56 and ~268 km.
  So this is neat stuff, and now we get a real sense of what it would take to have an effect equivalent to the moon. But that's not to say there would no effect. while the distance relationship is an inverse square, the effect of mass is directly proportional, so something with half the mass will have half the effect. and while the poster mentioning hundreds of thousands of these things misses the logistical problems, having a sufficient number number of solid or metallic core examples of these things could have a measurable impact, particularly in terms of periodic reinforcement. and now im running out of time for thought experiment math (gotta get back to work).
  *(force vector going to center of a theoretical main body, and thus ignoring for now the angles of distributed force vectors in the real situation being far different between an object in MEO and an object at the moons distance as they effect a fluid on the surface of said main body)
  **(ignoring for now the orbital velocities or distances required for such objects to remain in stable orbit)
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
23. Re:Great! by dywolf · 2013-08-14 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  you mention distance yet seem to ignore its effects. tides are also not uniform across the planet, nor isntantaneous, but depend on other factors such as local graviation (really big mountain or valley nearby), geography (affecting flow rate, such as wide open shore line vs being way up a long narrow fjord).
  tides also are already affected by periodic reinforcement (ie, when sun and moon's gravities align and reinforce each other), so that's probably the biggest effect you would see of sufficient objects of sufficient mass to cause non-zero impacts, however small: higher high's and lower lows.
  some places the tidal range is nearly zero, others its 40 feet (record is Bay of Fundy at >53ft). so if something has even 1/100th the pull of the moon, that could in some locations still be 4 to 6 inches. you can use the math from above to reckon the size of an object to have 1/100th the pull of the moon in a near earth orbit (remember distance is related by gravitational force by an inverse square, so proximity counts for a LOT)
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
24. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  TFS says they want to move it to L2, which is ~1500000 km away from earth, and well past the moon. You can work through your calculations again if you want, but I can assure you that an object much farther away from the earth than the moon and much smaller than the moon will have much less effect than then moon.
25. Re:Great! by bughunter · 2013-08-14 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  And if it were a sphere of neutronium only 60m diameter, I suspect it wouldn't remain neutronium for very long either.
  My first guess is that if such an object somehow blinked into existence, it would instantly become a rapidly expanding sphere of plasma and gamma rays.
  
  --
  I can see the fnords!
26. Re:Great! by Mitchell314 · 2013-08-14 05:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If the Kerbal Space Program has taught me anything, it's that all space problems can be mitigated with the clever use of more rockets.
  
  --
  I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
27. Re:Great! by Russ1642 · 2013-08-14 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  I never thought of that. Better add a life raft to my bug out kit.
28. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  You're pathetic. Your parent says "12 orders of magnitude in volume", and you say that's wrong because it's not 12 order of magnitude in size. You're disproving something he didn't say.
  Also although gravitational attraction decreases as the square of the distance, we're discussing tides and those decrease as the cube of the distance (which is why the Moon's tides are larger than the Sun's tides).
  You know just enough to be dangerous.
29. Re:Great! by mdielmann · 2013-08-14 05:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Then let me finish for you. Given the numbers you calculated, the biggest object, with the highest reasonable density, in the closest orbit, would have one billionth the effect of the moon (60m vs 56km, cubed). So, in a place like the Bay of Fundy, with some of the largest tides in the world (16m), you still couldn't measure the difference with a ruler.
  
  --
  Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
30. Re:Great! by erroneus · 2013-08-14 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  1. What makes you think they would stop at 60m?
  2. What makes you think they would not collectively accumulate a lot more?
  More than that it seems to me attempting to harvest large space rocks is a big pot-luck.
31. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  And how many of them are we going to be pulling into orbit?
  Zero according to TFS. They're going into orbit around L2.
32. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Fine, do you really think that a space-mining industry that is ten times as large as the entire mining industry on earth will cause more impact on the tides than the moons yearly distance increment of 4 cm?
  We will need entire cities in space before we can get close to the current Earth mining industry.
33. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  Further, the study talks about putting these things into a variety of orbits... all of which are outside the moon's orbit.
  They are all centered around the L1 and L2 points of the earth-sun system.
  Granted, these points can be used to bring them into the earth-moon system, e.g., setting up transfers to earth-moon L4 or L5 (or other), but as described, any tidal effects on the earth are entirely negligible.
  These are talking about "asteroids" of at most a few tens of meters across, with masses of at most several tens of tonnes.
34. Re:Great! by ThreeKelvin · 2013-08-14 08:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You know, that sounds like something that would significantly alter the tides.
35. Re:Great! by iggymanz · 2013-08-14 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  you did not do well in physics at school, did you? We're talking about L2 which is 3.9x times the distance to the moon, and tidal forces decrease as a third power of distance. even a *second moon* at L2 would only increase tidal force by 1.6%
36. Re:Great! by bughunter · 2013-08-14 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  1. What makes you think they would stop at 60m?
  2. What makes you think they would not collectively accumulate a lot more?
  By your logic:
  - One should never share one's M&Ms, because what makes you think the other person won't take the whole bag?
  - One should never bathe, because what makes you think you won't fall in and drown?
  - One should never, ever receive fellatio, because what makes you think she won't swallow you whole?
  
  --
  I can see the fnords!
37. Re:Great! by erroneus · 2013-08-14 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  By my logic, we know that our energy lust leads to all sorts of environmental damage and serious health problems and we know that private enterprise which is largely responsible for all of it in one way or many require government oversight and limiting. We know that the same private enterprise lobbies with much success to have limits raised and lifted to futher their own interests at the expense of everyone else.
  We know what people do -- especially business people. And to presume that we're not talking about private enterprise making these things happen is ridiculous. We know already that private enterprise will destroy the planet for profit. Hell, in Texas, environmentalists were using drones to take pictures of pollution and damage to the environment many businesses were engaged in. What'd they do? they lobbied to have a law restricting the civilian use of drones.
  You're attempting to deny everything you already understand of human nature and especially of "corporate nature" which is really just human nature with "limited liability."
38. Re:Great! by yndrd1984 · 2013-08-14 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  you can use the math from above to reckon the size of an object to have 1/100th the pull of the moon in a near earth orbit
  Yeah. It would have to weigh about as much as 1,000 mountains and be in an orbit that you have to fight to get into.
  I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here.
39. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-15 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  All space problems can be mitigated by reversing the shield polarity and tying the warp drive into the deflector dish.
40. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-15 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  All space problems can be mitigated by reversing the shield polarity and channeling warp drive through the deflector dish.
41. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-15 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  The radius of the Moon is in the order of ~1000km, so a 60m asteroid (round to 100m) is 4 orders of magnitude in linear dimension and thus 12 orders of magnitude in volume.
  
  i think you should be taking your own advice.
  one thing you forgot to consider was distance, and the moon si really really far out there.
  also, 12 orders of magnitude is 10^12. given that the moon is ~3474km in diameter (1700km radius), compared to a 60m object the moon is only 5.79e+4 times larger....which is no where near "12 orders of magnitude". but the size that we really need to consider isnt dimensional anyway, but mass.
  GP's AC here.
  This shit got modded "Informative", looks like /. moderators are just as numerically illiterate as the general public!
  It seems /. mods are easily dazzled by a formula and some numbers (which actually give numbers AGAINST the poster's point) and mod things "Informative".
42. Re:Great! by kermidge · 2013-08-15 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  L2 is hardly near-Earth orbit.
43. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-16 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Rockets such as this
Looks like it's time by halltk1983 · 2013-08-14 00:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Looks like it's time to build a foundry in space so we can begin the construction of satellites, space stations and long range spacecraft with materials readily available in space, so we don't have to keep carting it up there. Between that and robots and assembly machines, we should be able to build out stuff in the next couple decades.

--
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
1. Re:Looks like it's time by Thanshin · 2013-08-14 00:43 · Score: 2
  
  Or just send a micro 3Dprinter robot that can mine the asteroid and use the material to self-replicate.
  Dak Tak Lak Pak.
2. Re:Looks like it's time by drinkypoo · 2013-08-14 00:47 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  What do you propose to build the foundry out of?
  We need to capture one of these objects before we have the material to build the foundry!
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:Looks like it's time by Thanshin · 2013-08-14 00:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What do you propose to build the foundry out of?
  We need to capture one of these objects before we have the material to build the foundry!
  If only we had a large mass of material anywhere close by...
4. Re:Looks like it's time by halltk1983 · 2013-08-14 01:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't mind launching the materials to build the initial foundry, it's that foundry which will provide the materials for the other ones. Everyone knows that's how you play an RTS.
  
  --
  Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
5. Re:Looks like it's time by morgauxo · 2013-08-14 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  If you can think of a way to make a printer robot, with all it's moving pieces, electronics, etc... using nothing but rock and metal then you might have something there. I can't wait to see your motor windings made of rock insulated wire, asteroid derived lubricant, rock circuit boards, etc...
6. Re:Looks like it's time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  GIven enough energy and with the right technology, it is possible to make changes on sub atomic level. Electrons, protons and neutrons are there, just not at the right place.
  Msg-uuid:FA97F94D-8453-4E41-8FA3-3DC1CDAA1B1C
7. Re:Looks like it's time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  Fuel's the only problem for unmanned space. Mass of the rest of the crap is trivial. Mining asteroids doesn't solve, or really address at all, the fuel problem.
8. Re:Looks like it's time by camperdave · 2013-08-14 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Fuel's the only problem for unmanned space. Mass of the rest of the crap is trivial. Mining asteroids doesn't solve, or really address at all, the fuel problem.
  Fuel is trivial too. The main problem is that all of it is sitting at the bottom of the planet's gravity well. Climbing out of that well requires big rockets, and big rockets are expensive to design and build. As far as fueling them, that is "in the noise" as they say: costing hundreds of thousands of dollars on a project that costs billions of dollars.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
9. Re:Looks like it's time by FSWKU · 2013-08-14 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  motor windings made of rock insulated wire, asteroid derived lubricant, rock circuit boards, etc...
  Sounds like the company is run by one of Mr. Slate's descendants.
  
  --
  "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
10. Re:Looks like it's time by Chris+Mattern · 2013-08-14 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Bootstrap. A minimal set of tools sent into orbit to build a bigger set of tools. Two or three iterations can have large scale foundries up and running, while building some other interesting things along the way.
11. Re:Looks like it's time by Immerman · 2013-08-14 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Electronics can be brought up from Earth, they're mostly small and light - at even $10k/pound delivery charge a cpu is only a few times more expensive than on Earth. A motor is a little pricier, especially a large high-power one if you needed such a thing, but still relatively cheap compared to a spacecraft. Most of the mass of any orbital structure will be (drumroll please) the structure. Girders, skin, shielding, etc. If we can print or otherwise manufacture a big reinforced steel can then the electronics, ion drives, etc to turn it into a functioning space ship or whatever are a minor cost to lift from Earth.
  As for a rock+metal motor - that actually sounds like a pretty easy project with a 3D printer - but just keep printing narrow alternating tracks of wire and concrete until you've built up enough windings - it's not like you need any flexibility in the mechanism post-construction. Just bring a couple quality ring bearings up from Earth and you're good to go.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
12. Re:Looks like it's time by DexterIsADog · 2013-08-14 02:20 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The problem is the jerk next door who used those initial foundry materials to train combat troops, who come over and take *our* foundry.
  
  I suck at RTS's because I hate them. Or vice versa.
13. Re:Looks like it's time by Type44Q · 2013-08-14 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Mining asteroids doesn't solve, or really address at all, the fuel problem.
  I seem to recall reading more than once that asteroids represent a supposedly excellent source of water (though surely H20 isn't the only viable source of reaction mass...).
14. Re:Looks like it's time by Immerman · 2013-08-14 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Actually lots of asteroids are apparently rich in ice and simple hydrocarbons - great raw material for synthesizing rocket fuel. The Moon's surface is similarly rich, and while you are at the bottom of a gravity well it's at least a much shallower well than Earth's, and without an appreciable atmosphere rail-gun launches into orbit are entirely feasible.
  Moreover fuel is increasingly becoming an anachronism - ion drives blow everything else out of the water in terms of specific impulse, and they don't use fuel - just energy (solar? nuclear?) and a relatively tiny amount of reaction mass, And an ion drive can be designed to use just about anything for mass - some things are better than others, but the stuff that's available locally has a huge advantage.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
15. Re:Looks like it's time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  Bootstrap. A minimal set of tools sent into orbit to build a bigger set of tools. Two or three iterations can have large scale foundries up and running, while building some other interesting things along the way.
  This isn't a video game, you can't just drop a "tools factory" on an asteroid and feed it "rock" to produce everything you need. Most of the materials you need to build the bigger tools aren't on the asteroid so you're kind of SOL. This is the same reason why sci-fi stories about pre-landing factories and habitats on places like Mars isn't feasible.
  If we had the technology to locate the raw materials, mine them, refine and process them, and then produce finished goods fully automatically we wouldn't use humans to mine anything on Earth anymore either.
  Theoretically this sounds like a great idea, but the engineering is a nightmare. Speculating that it "could" be done is a world away from actually doing it.
16. Re:Looks like it's time by camperdave · 2013-08-14 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  I would think that most of the volatile molecules like water would have been baked away over the millennia. If so, that would leave primarily rock and metal type asteroids. Further out, like the belts of the gas giants, the story would be different.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
17. Re:Looks like it's time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  Moreover fuel is increasingly becoming an anachronism - ion drives blow everything else out of the water in terms of specific impulse
  Specific impulse (efficiency in layman's terms) isn't really what matters most for this type of mission- it's too short-range for Ion thrusters to be very useful because they have such a shitty delta-v (acceleration). They are essentially useless for trying to climb out of a gravity well.
  
  And an ion drive can be designed to use just about anything for mass
  No, that's completely wrong, unless you've got a magical pocket-size fusion reactor you haven't told anyone about. You need material which has a high mass/ionization energy ratio and isn't going to corrode or otherwise fuck up your thruster. So when you figure your energy source is probably a solar array you're extremely limited on what you can use for reaction material.
  
  Actually lots of asteroids are apparently rich in
  Apparently is the key word, the fact is that until we actually start processing them we really don't know the composition with any degree of certainty.
  
  ice and simple hydrocarbons - great raw material for synthesizing rocket fuel.
  Citation needed.
  
  The Moon's surface is similarly rich
  Citation needed.
18. Re:Looks like it's time by Russ1642 · 2013-08-14 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Or you could simply dig a hole in it, pressurize it, and voila. There's your spaceship. Attach boosters and you're set.
19. Re:Looks like it's time by cusco · 2013-08-14 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Sun-grazing asteroids perhaps, but most of them are very similar in composition to the early nebula since the only heating they have ever experienced is from collisions. That's why they're generally used as examples of what the planets originally coalesced out of. Apparently quite a few of them are from the cores of expired comets, which would mean that they probably include large amounts of frozen gasses as well. Since any of them that we get to touch have come through Earth's atmosphere first we can't really tell how much gas they contained before entry.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
20. Re:Looks like it's time by cusco · 2013-08-14 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Spin it and you've got pseudo-gravity as well. One proposal from the 1970s had the asteroid melted, spun, and then inflated like a balloon to create a habitat.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
21. Re:Looks like it's time by yndrd1984 · 2013-08-14 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the materials you need to build the bigger tools aren't on the asteroid so you're kind of SOL.
  Right. Because iron, nickel, carbon, and silicates are rarely used in heavy industry.
  
  If we had the technology to locate the raw materials, mine them, refine and process them, and then produce finished goods fully automatically we wouldn't use humans to mine anything on Earth anymore either.
  Humans are cheap, and have political opinions. It probably wouldn't be that much of a technical challenge (compared to say, the space shuttle) to make a building-sized vending machine to replace a fast-food restaurant, but if it would cost more and get people to boycott you, why do it?
  
  Speculating that it "could" be done is a world away from actually doing it.
  True, but you have to start with speculation.
22. Re:Looks like it's time by Immerman · 2013-08-15 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  That assumes a pretty solid structure - from what I've heard the guesses are that most asteroids are a bit closer to a gravel pile than a block of granite. Still, it would make excellent sense to use the rock as radiation and micrometeorite shielding, you just might have to mix it (at least the outer layers) with some sort of binding agent first so that it doesn't get torn apart under serious acceleration.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
23. Re:Looks like it's time by painandgreed · 2013-08-15 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like it's time to build a foundry in space so we can begin the construction of satellites, space stations and long range spacecraft with materials readily available in space, so we don't have to keep carting it up there. Between that and robots and assembly machines, we should be able to build out stuff in the next couple decades.
  Time to start testing what a zero-g foundry should look and act like more likely. While we've done some fabrication and welding in space, I doubt we've tried the equivilent of anything like a foundry. Zero g and no atmosphere will make our usual methods unworkable. Hell, learning how to mine will be a huge undertaking with no gravity to hold bits down and collect them or for use as traction for vehicles or machinery. With the readily available solar power and energy, I suspect smaller rocks could be melted either with electrical arcs or simply by concentrated sunlight. If done slowly enough, various impurities would outgas like a comet leaving a liquid metal blob that would be held together through surface tension. The components might separate out somewhat due to chemical properties and from there the blob could be skimmed into differing elemental components or alloys and the resulting bits extruded and allowed to cool into billets. The billets then either run through a more managable seperation process or used for manufacturing.
  Anyway, given our current rate of space R&D, I think that decades is probably really ambitious for an industrial revolution in space given the work that needs to be done.
24. Re:Looks like it's time by Immerman · 2013-08-16 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  >apparently...
  but of course - we can only plan from the best data we have available. That's why we do proof-of-concept projects like this, to see if our data and plans are actually viable.
  >ion drives...
  I was actually being a bit forward looking there - we already have several ion drives in the lab that promise to compete in thrust/ton of engine with traditional rockets while reducing reaction mass drastically. I don't know that we'll have them in 2020, I'd bet more towards the latter half of the century, but when planning the future roadmap they need to be kept in mind - realistically it will likely take decades to go from proof-of-concept asteroid catchment to actually using the resources to build anything beyond crude (but well shielded) orbital habitats. And yes, we'll probably need nuclear reactors to power them, so what? I imagine they'd be a little more complicated than the modular reactors in a nuclear submarine since they don't have gravity helping keep things organized, but by that point hopefully we'll have companies like Gen4 Energy mass-producing totally self-contained reactors and ready to embrace new challenges.
  >ice and simple hydrocarbons - great raw material for synthesizing rocket fuel.
  For starters hydrogen peroxide is actually a pretty good rocket fuel - to the point that it's usually used fairly diluted to limit the volatility, and generally not used at all for surface-to-orbit applications because those kinds of massive quantities tend to be insanely dangerous to work with, at least on Earth. I don't know about how it acts in vacuum, but I'm sure if it's a choice between "safe fuel for $1000/kg" or "insanely dangerous fuel for $50/kg" there will be no shortage of demand for the cheap stuff
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Is it really that easy? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 00:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

I know the article talks in relative terms - but changing a massive object's velocity by 58 m/s is not trivial. Also, this assumes the asteroid isn't tumbling or rotating. You would have to cancel this before actually attempting to move the object.
1. Re:Is it really that easy? by Thanshin · 2013-08-14 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on how you push it. If it's by reflecting solar wind on it via parabolic mirror, you can leave its rotation alone until mining time.
2. Re:Is it really that easy? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  2m to 60m... it should fairly easy!
  --An experienced Kerbal Space Program user.
3. Re:Is it really that easy? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  but changing a massive object's velocity by 58 m/s is not trivial.
  
  That's why they picked 2006 RH120. With a 5m diameter, the mass should be somewhere around 500 tons, probably less. A lot of mass to move, but not impossible, I guess.
4. Re:Is it really that easy? by Captain+Hook · 2013-08-14 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Also, this assumes the asteroid isn't tumbling or rotating. You would have to cancel this before actually attempting to move the object.
  Only if you need to attach 1 big rocket to object being captured.
  
  You could use a gravity tub approach, although it probably needs a small target to work.
  
  Or, you could put lots of smaller rockets all over the surface and just have them fire a quick pulse when they are facing the right way, that would have the added benefit of redundancy should a rocket fail.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
5. Re:Is it really that easy? by morgauxo · 2013-08-14 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  "They calculate that this could be done with a single burn on 1 February 2021"
  This doesn't sound like a relative term to me. And it was even mentioned in the summary too!
  I'm not sure I would go so far as to say this means it is objectively easy. I suppose landing a rocket engine on an asteroid and using it to push is something that has never been done before. That alone means there will be challenges to overcome. With only one push necessary though.. that's about as easy as one could realistically imagine is it not?
6. Re:Is it really that easy? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  some values to proove/disprove: at 2000kg/m3 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_asteroid_physical_characteristics#Density ) this would be an impulse of about 13GNs for 58m/s on a 60m asteroid. On a 2m asteroid this drops to about 0.5MNs. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_asteroid_physical_characteristics#Density rockets able to provide that impules (not even factoring in the rocket mass) would be a set of 10 space shuttle solid rocket boosters for the 60m asteroid, down to a much more realistic quarter of the rocket used on the apollo launch escape system
7. Re:Is it really that easy? by taiwanjohn · 2013-08-14 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  That's well within the capability of a conventional rocket, just in terms of thrust. The problem would be figuring out how to grapple the object and stop its rotation. If it's only 5m wide, you could probably just throw some kind of net around it. I wouldn't be surprised to see plans to capture this particular object starting to appear in the near future.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
8. Re:Is it really that easy? by Kookus · 2013-08-14 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  A shuttle is 4 and a half million pounds. and is fighting Earth's gravity. If the largest rock in the summary was picked, it'd weight less than 1 million pounds on Earth (more like half a million).
  Changing its velocity by 58m/s is actually technologically trivial. Rotation isn't so bad either, you just pulse your burners. The article just says single burn to give you a nice number.
  More than likely, they'd send up 3 - 6 rockets for redundancy and to stabilize the rock's rotation in a few bursts. Then they'd do controlled bursts to change it's velocity. It's rocket science to actually accomplish, but quite trivially done with today's technology.
9. Re:Is it really that easy? by oPless · 2013-08-14 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  For $deities sake!
  Keep to SI units.
10. Re:Is it really that easy? by toastar · 2013-08-14 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  58 m/s is for the calculated impulse delta-v. With a lower thrust maneuver, your total delta-v is higher. This is the problem with ion drives.
11. Re:Is it really that easy? by Immerman · 2013-08-14 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  In space terms it is - raise something to orbital height and you still need to get it going 8,000m/s to stay up.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
12. Re:Is it really that easy? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  For $deities sake!
  Keep to SI units.
  Maybe you ought to bitch about the fact he's using weight instead of mass.
  Imperial vs. SI units only matter to people who failed 5th grade math and can't figure out how a calculator works, or have some kind of personal axe to grind with the British.
13. Re:Is it really that easy? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  Your mathematical limitations are not our problem. You should be able to handle any clearly labeled units. Unclear labeling and assumptions are what lead to problems, not arbitrary choice of units.
14. Re:Is it really that easy? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  The rotation could be controlled with a flywheel (reaction wheel) system, running on solar power. As long as you grapple the asteroid early enough, you can take your time stabilizing and pointing it in the right direction for the burn. 58m/s is very little delta-V indeed and the asteroid in question is pretty small, so this is well within the capabilities of many existing rocket engines. For example, a regular expendable rocket launch has a delta-V of 8000+ m/s and often higher initial mass than this asteroid.
15. Re:Is it really that easy? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly! What IS 4 and a half million pounds in dollars? Sounds amazingly cheap to me.
It wasn't that long ago... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 00:30 · Score: 0

... that the military wanted to establish US posts at the Legrange points, when they heard that they were important places in space. See http://www.mail-archive.com/meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com/msg36443.html
"Mister President - we must not allow an asteroid gap!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y
Easily captured... by runeghost · 2013-08-14 00:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

or easily retargeted to hit DC? How long before the politicians demand trillions on behalf of their owners to protect the U.S. from the "asteroid threat". War on Space, here we come!
1. Re:Easily captured... by Thanshin · 2013-08-14 00:51 · Score: 2
  
  An asteroid that size wouldn't reach land.
  (However, the US has never needed the threats to be non-fictional to scare its population into giving up freedom and money.)
2. Re:Easily captured... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  How long before the politicians demand trillions ?
  Can't we just print them ? Or make a few trillion dollar coins ?
3. Re:Easily captured... by AmiMoJo · 2013-08-14 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  A few of them bunched together, or with a heat shield attached might.
  It wouldn't surprise me that much if the first company to capture an asteroid finds all manner of space "junk" headed for it's installation, or perhaps the odd missile from the ground if countries feel threatened enough.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Easily captured... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  Damn loonies, throwing rice.
5. Re:Easily captured... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  The nice thing is that current missiles can only reach LEO. If you are higher than LEO, you only have to watch out for DEWs, and even if somebody started chucking missiles at you, you could probably see them coming.
EROs? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 00:53 · Score: 0

EROs? There's no shortage of those! I just downloaded several last night!
1. Re:EROs? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  Why is it all Naruto/Meteor slash-fics!?
58 Second Burn? by Dialecticus · 2013-08-14 00:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

And what happens if, due to a malfunction, the thruster doesn't shut off when it's supposed to, and it burns for longer than 58 seconds?

People got angry about BP, and before that the Exxon Valdez, but that was after the accidents had already happened. What happens when a greedy grab for extraterrestrial ore inevitably goes awry? And make no mistake; over the long hault, it is inevitable. Even if the first attempt, hell the first five such attempts, go off without a hitch, there would eventually, over many such attempts, be a critical error on a similar mission.

There would be no time for recriminations and lawsuits then.
1. Re:58 Second Burn? by Thanshin · 2013-08-14 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  And what happens if, due to a malfunction, the thruster doesn't shut off when it's supposed to, and it burns for longer than 58 seconds?
  What's your worst case scenario?
  OMG! The asteroid hits Earth AND!!!! ... fizzles in a puff of smoke, like the other thousands that hit Earth every day.
2. Re:58 Second Burn? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  It's a 58m/s change in velocity, actually, carried out in a single burn.
  Short answer: limit the fuel.
3. Re:58 Second Burn? by Errol+backfiring · 2013-08-14 01:12 · Score: 2
  
  And what happens if, due to a malfunction, the thruster doesn't shut off when it's supposed to, and it burns for longer than 58 seconds?
  It would just run out of fuel. It is so expensive to hurl any mass into space that you do not take anything extra with you. The main thing that could go wrong is that the direction of the thrust is wrong or that you blow the asteroid to pieces.
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
4. Re:58 Second Burn? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  There are thousands of nuclear weapons on the planet capable of taking out entire cities, and you know what? Nobody has ever accidentally blown up a city with one. You calculate risks, apply appropriate margins, implement fail-safes, and achieve the desired level of safety. Only non-technical people are doomsayers about technology, because anyone who actually understands how engineering works knows what is achievable.
5. Re:58 Second Burn? by HawkinsD · 2013-08-14 01:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Well, let's consider the damage from the impact of a rocky asteroid, 60m in diameter. Plug this into the excellent Earth Impact Effects program at http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/. Assume a velocity of 17 km/s, which they say is "typical for asteroids," and an impact angle of 45 degrees.
  The calculator says:
  The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 54000 meters = 177000 ft
  The projectile bursts into a cloud of fragments at an altitude of 4700 meters = 15400 ft
  The residual velocity of the projectile fragments after the burst is 4.77 km/s = 2.96 miles/s
  The energy of the airburst is 4.52 x 1016 Joules = 1.08 MegaTons.
  No crater is formed, although large fragments may strike the surface.
  Clearly you wouldn't want to be right underneath it, but even as close as 20 km, the air blast effects seem rather anticlimactic:
  Peak Overpressure: 18900 Pa = 0.189 bars = 2.69 psi
  Max wind velocity: 41.4 m/s = 92.6 mph
  Sound Intensity: 86 dB (Loud as heavy traffic)
  Damage Description:
  Glass windows will shatter.
  About 30 percent of trees blown down; remainder have some branches and leaves blown off.
  So it'd be like BOOM! But not like KA-FOOOM!
  For comparison, the Chelyabinsk meteor was estimated at 17-20m, with an airburst energy of 0.4 MegaTons.
  
  --
  Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
6. Re:58 Second Burn? by Jason+Levine · 2013-08-14 01:42 · Score: 2
  
  And that's if it even hits Earth. If the rockets burn too long they may push the asteroid too far so that it gets flung out to space (gravitational slingshot around Earth). I'll worry if we decide to capture HUGE asteroids on our first go around, but 60 meters large asteroids seem to be an extremely low risk.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
7. Re:58 Second Burn? by robbak · 2013-08-14 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  They are trying to hit an earth-sun lagrange point. If they do so, the object leaves its solar orbit and enters an unstable earth orbit. They then need to give it another few burns to stabilize the orbit (and keep it away from the lagrange point, which would allow it to leave earth orbit and resume orbiting the sun) . If they miss, then it travels on, on a different orbit, with roughly the same chance of hitting the earth as it ever did.
  
  --
  Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
8. Re:58 Second Burn? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2013-08-14 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Accidentally taken out cities with nuclear power plants, sure. Nuclear weapons, no. Never by accident.
  
  --
  
  Technoli
9. Re:58 Second Burn? by gman003 · 2013-08-14 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  The asteroids being considered are roughly the size of the Chelyabinsk meteor. It's highly unlikely one would make it to the ground. You could still get a similar air-blast, but the odds are pretty good that it won't hit a populated area (remember, three-quarters of the Earth is water).
10. Re:58 Second Burn? by jasax · 2013-08-14 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  To give a practical perspective on meteor sizes, recall that the Chelyabinsk meteor which arrived at Russia this same year had around 15-20 m of diameter
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor
  
  And the space rock that carved Meteor Crater (or Barringer crater) in Arizona, around 50 K years ago, had about 40 meters of diameter.
  http://www.space.com/834-mystery-arizona-meteor-crater-solved.html
  
  So, a 60 meters meteor will probably create a big, big, hole (depending on the velocity at arrival and landing angle) if it falls to Earth. I also remember reading that the impact in Arizona caused much devastation in the surrounding areas, up to several tens of miles from the crater.
  
  Finally, the meteor that "created" the gulf of Mexico and "killed" most of the dinosaurs, about 66 million years ago, had probably around 10 km of diameter.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
11. Re:58 Second Burn? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  And, even if it hits earth, remember that something like 70% of earth is ... water. No houses to crush, no windows to break. A sufficiently large one could cause a 'tidal' wave, but that's unlikely.
12. Re:58 Second Burn? by MozeeToby · 2013-08-14 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you plan your burn so the asteroid is never on an earth intercepting trajectory? Shouldn't really be that hard. And if something goes really and truly wrong you detonate the rocket. It was good enough for all the live warhead nuclear missile tests we've done; aim away from anything important, keep your finger on the abort button.
13. Re:58 Second Burn? by Rhacman · 2013-08-14 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  So it'd be like BOOM! But not like KA-FOOOM!
  So what you're saying is it would be like a Fus without the Ro Dah?
  
  --
  Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
14. Re:58 Second Burn? by jxander · 2013-08-14 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  There are some pretty simple engineering solutions for the problem. One quick example, give the ship 2 different fuel tanks (and possibly 2 different sets of thrusters) One fuel tank and thruster set gets us to the asteroid, at which point it shuts down. The 2nd set provide delta-v towards earth, only having enough fuel to get it into position (with maybe a bit extra, just in case... but not enough extra to crash into us)
  In the long run, we'll probably move production away from earth. I wonder if Mars has similar points to our Lagrange ... dunno. Them tiny little excuses for moons probably don't provide enough pull to offset... eh. Cross that bridge when we get to it
  
  --
  This signature is false.
15. Re:58 Second Burn? by Princeofcups · 2013-08-14 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  For comparison, the Chelyabinsk meteor was estimated at 17-20m, with an airburst energy of 0.4 MegaTons.
  Plus there is a huge difference in speed between something in orbit and something that zips in from the Kuiper belt.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
16. Re:58 Second Burn? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  pathetic fear mongers piss me off
  omg all i can see is failure that cant possibly exist OH NO EVERYONE BE AFRAID OF THE THING I IMAGINED!
17. Re:58 Second Burn? by splutty · 2013-08-16 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  They want to move it to L2, it's not going to be anywhere near the earth to bother with.
  If the thruster runs too long, it'll overshoot L2, and go into an orbit rather far out of the moon's orbit.
  Chance it crashes on the moon is rather higher than it crashing on earth, and even then it'll not be an overly significant event (see someone else's calculations in this reply thread as well)
  L2 is perfect for this stuff, since it's actually outside the earth's sun orbit and farther away than the moon.
  Now L3,4,5 which are located on the earth trajectory might be something you might not want to do :) (If I remember the locations correctly..)
  
  --
  Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
Onward to ruining other stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:05 · Score: 0

I guess we've ruined this planet enough now that we can start to export our ruination out into to space to start ruining it.
I wonder when those other civilizations out there are going to start to feel like we are getting just a little bit too capable of escaping our confines and "fixing" that.
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/108/e/9/marvin_the_martian_by_profkilljoy7z-d4wnwk4.jpg
1. Re:Onward to ruining other stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  I wonder when those other civilizations out there are going to start to feel like we are getting just a little bit too capable of escaping our confines and "fixing" that.
  
  You mean other civilizations that previously "escaped their confines" are going to "fix" us because we might "escape our confines"?
2. Re:Onward to ruining other stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Yup. That's how it works. The "master" species/race/civilization/etc. works to keep the others down.
3. Re:Onward to ruining other stuff by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-08-14 01:21 · Score: 2
  
  We aren't ruining the planet. By all measurements of health, wealth, and longevity, we are doing better than ever before.
  The counter-intuitive reality is that, in an economically free society, people will solve problems faster than they become serious. This theory has successfully made predictions over 10 year periods over and over again.
  The days of politics as memes figting in your brain should be over.
  So yes, death to the false meme that we are ruining the planet, as vector to massive government control of the economy, with attendant slowing of it.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
4. Re:Onward to ruining other stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  Yup. That's how it works. The "master" species/race/civilization/etc. works to keep the others down.
  
  The implication of the OP was that "they" were going to "fix us" because we might "export our ruination out into to space to start ruining it."
5. Re:Onward to ruining other stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. I know what the OP implied as I am the OP.
  My implication was that there is a "master species" out there in space that will lock us down (or simply exterminate us) if we threaten to run amok, much like we (the master species on this planet) lock down and/or exterminate inferior species that threaten to run amok and interfere with us.
6. Re:Onward to ruining other stuff by stiggle · 2013-08-14 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  "Klaatu Barada Nikto"
7. Re:Onward to ruining other stuff by Russ1642 · 2013-08-14 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  That is a false belief as there can be only one four day time cube.
8. Re:Onward to ruining other stuff by cusco · 2013-08-14 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  The world was considerably more "economically free" during the times when the Cuyahoga River was spontaneously combusting, asbestos was being used to fireproof pretty much everything, and patent medicines were addicting tens of thousands of people to opiates. Don't really recall any phantasmagorical free market solutions to those (or many, many other) problems, do you?
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Units ! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:09 · Score: 0

Please, could somebody contact the NASA and remind them that they need to check whether sensors are outputting data in imperial units or metric units or something else ?
If needed, I can write a conversion function in f77 or vb.
Msg-uuid:9F862332-B785-4EC5-8D71-DA1902B56767
Now, just *what POSSIBLY* could go wrong ....??? by tkjtkj · 2013-08-14 01:13 · Score: 1

This is insane. Let them first develop 100.00000000000%-reliable-accurate-faultless technology before putting the entire planet .. every lifing thing on or above earth .. at serious risk of vaporization. These people ought to be institutionalized ...

--
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
Meteor by rhazz · 2013-08-14 01:13 · Score: 2

Can't we just get Sephiroth to use the black materia to summon Meteor? That pulled in an asteroid pretty damn quickly IIRC...
What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:17 · Score: 0

To quote Top Gear, "What could possibly go wrong?"
Stick to spying by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:20 · Score: 0

I think the NASA should stick to spying on citizens and leave the space exploration and exploitation to the professionals.
Clarkson, you imbicile! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:24 · Score: 0

Hammond!!
Re:Great! No Math for us! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:24 · Score: 1

Consider the tides. Our global eco system has evolved to expect tides...
I know dick about astrophysics and even I can tell that this is bullshit.
Diameter of the moon: 3,474.8 kilometers
Diameter of the largest object mentioned in the article: 60 m
By your reckoning the ISS should be wreaking havoc on the hermit crab population. Please so some simple back of the napkin math before spewing FUD
Mining water? by Squidlips · 2013-08-14 01:31 · Score: 2

I did not know it was such a precious commodity...seems legit.
1. Re:Mining water? by taiwanjohn · 2013-08-14 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Water is extremely precious in space .
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
2. Re:Mining water? by owlstead · 2013-08-14 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, yes, thank you for generating another Slashdot meme...
3. Re:Mining water? by burisch_research · 2013-08-14 02:57 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, yes, thank you for generating another Slashdot meme in space
  FTFY
  
  --
  char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
4. Re:Mining water? by Immerman · 2013-08-14 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  The SpaceX Falcon Heavy is planned to deliver payload to low Earth orbit for the astoundingly low price of $709/lb. It's maximum payload to geosynchronous transfer orbit is less than half that to LEO (21 vs 53Mg), and I'm guessing the total launch cost is probably about the same, so call it $1800/lb. To Mars the maximum payload is 13Mg, or $2900/lb (which is actually much closer to last-years costs to LEO, so Mars is getting a lot more accessible than it used to be).
  At any of those prices though *everything* is precious in space - and in addition to it's more mundane (and vital) uses water can be readily processed into hydrogen peroxide, which is actually a pretty decent rocket fuel. And once we have a source for cheap rocket fuel in space then things can start to really take off.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
5. Re:Mining water? by someone1234 · 2013-08-14 03:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's probably the most precious commodity in space.
  
  --
  Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
6. Re:Mining water? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  You used megagrams instead of metric tonnes! Will you marry* me?
  *I'll have to discuss this with my current wife, but I'm sure we can come up with a suitable arrangement.
  (Although rereading your comment, you mixed SI and US units, so it's going to be a strained relationship... Oh, and you used "it's" in place of "its", maybe we should just call the whole thing off...)
7. Re:Mining water? by RockDoctor · 2013-08-15 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  It[WATER]'[i]s probably the most precious commodity in space.
  Old "joke" from avalanche rescue workers : you can live for 3 months without food, 3 days without water, but only 3 minutes without air!"
  Ha ha, but serious.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:Now, just *what POSSIBLY* could go wrong ....?? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Judging by the comments, who would have thought the population of slashdot is 50% luddites. Seriously, this is why you start on small asteroids. A 2m rock is going to burn up in the atmosphere.
Old NSA meme by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 01:39 · Score: 0

This meme is getting old.
Mini moons, and now EROs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 02:12 · Score: 0

The best part is we have no idea how many there are because with the instruments we have now the chances of detecting an asteroid that small are slim.
Re:Now, just *what POSSIBLY* could go wrong ....?? by DexterIsADog · 2013-08-14 02:25 · Score: 2

Thank goodness, a level-headed, rational viewpoint.

Come have a beer with me - drive your 100.00000000000000% reliable and totally safe car to my neighborhood.
new_patent = patent + %term% by Thud457 · 2013-08-14 02:38 · Score: 1

in space

Oh look, another busted patent pattern.

mmmmmm, now I want Chinese food for lunch so I can have a fortune cookie...

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
So this how the end starts.. by Pendletoncils · 2013-08-14 02:43 · Score: 1

In all fairness, it does sound a wee bit like the start of disaster sci-fi movie. An interesting one even. Some asteroids, massive amounts of greed, a cute alien race risking their life and limb for our increasingly idiotic and helpless humanity.
1. Re:So this how the end starts.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  this pathetic fear mongering is what prevents change, do you think the earth will sustain the human race for ever?
  follow up question
  If you answered yes are you retarded?
Re:Now, just *what POSSIBLY* could go wrong ....?? by Immerman · 2013-08-14 03:06 · Score: 1

What risk? Even if we screwed up in the worst possible manner and it collided with the Earth (a vanishingly small probability within the space of all possible screw-ups, most of which would send it sailing merrily past us), a 60m asteroid traveling at roughly the same speed and direction as the Earth would be unlikely to reach the surface to leave a crater. Some fragments might, and you probably wouldn't want to be directly underneath the fireball as it burnt up/detonated in the atmosphere, but even then you'd probably survive all right so long as you didn't get crushed under something knocked over by the blast.
Now if it were traveling at comet speeds it might get exciting (still not civilization ending, but might take out a city if it happened to hit one), but we're bringing in something from our own L4/L5 asteroid fields, and the kinetic energy isn't even remotely comparable.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Now, just *what POSSIBLY* could go wrong ....?? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 03:25 · Score: 0

You know, before you posted that ignorant rant you should have read the FA or even the comments, because the answer is there. We're not dealing with huge, extinction-event sizes of asteroids. As someone else already said, any asteroid that winds up hitting the Earth will vaporize long before it reaches the ground.
Moderators, the above comment is WAY overrated. Too bad there's no "-1, stupid" mod.
Space elevator by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:30 · Score: 0

Needs a counterweight out past GEO, this would be the first step.
Now, just a small matter of 70,000 km of carbon nanotube fiber...
Correction by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 04:49 · Score: 0

> Least Difficult to Capture Asteroids Identified
FTFY
Ney sayers be damned by maliqua · 2013-08-14 06:03 · Score: 2

Your a bunch of pussies 1. the asteroid sizes they're talking about would have no significant affect in any failure scenario, well perhaps if it actually HIT the ISS or a satellite but thats not likely. The size of asteroids they want to mine would almost entirely burn up in the atmosphere if it did miss and enter earth.
This is the exact thing we need to be doing we cant exist on earth forever, even if we had 0 environmental impact as a race the planet would eventually expire. Exploiting extra-planetary resources and colonizing space are the most important goals that could ever exist for us as a race. Only those things can provide us a chance at keeping the human race alive in perpetuity
1. Re:Ney sayers be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  And the Universal Computer said "Let there be Light!"
thats easy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:21 · Score: 0

Simply change the gravitational content of the universe!
Re:Now, just *what POSSIBLY* could go wrong ....?? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 06:32 · Score: 0

WHAT THE HELL!
C'mon slashdot since when did you become such a bunch of paranoid morons. "No pwease don't twy to advance our wace fuwthew because we scawed of ouw own feet these days"
pathetic
Comes to mind... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 07:46 · Score: 0

...what I heared in a movie called something like "Adele and the mistery of the mummy": I wouldn't even let them cut my fingernails. I think I now undertand the reason why the road sign STOP it is so even in Spain.
Re:Now, just *what POSSIBLY* could go wrong ....?? by maliqua · 2013-08-14 07:49 · Score: 1

This is insane. Let them first develop 100.00000000000%-reliable-accurate-faultless technology before putting the entire planet .. every lifing thing on or above earth .. at serious risk of vaporization.
These people ought to be institutionalized ...
you are stupid.
What Assurance? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-14 08:47 · Score: 0

What assurances could possibly be offered by these two cowboy companies that manipulating these asteroids' orbits and velocities wouldn't result in a cataclysmic collision with earth? I want assurances in the form of risk stock in these endeavors, payable once they have safely harnessed these asteroids.
Moving stuff out of Lagrange by zdepthcharge · 2013-08-14 09:43 · Score: 1

How much effort would it require to move the "left overs" out of Lagrange? Or do we start fusing the remains at Lagrange to start building a habitable facility?
1. Re:Moving stuff out of Lagrange by RockDoctor · 2013-08-15 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  "Yes"
  To both options.
  If you have significant residue, then "bag it" and park it somewhere (e.g., nearby). If you need it again (including as reaction mass for a mass-driver), then it's to-hand. If you really need to tidy up the environment, drop it -60km/s of heliocentric delta-vee and it'll soon enough be plasma.
  Remember that the Lagrangian points are "points" only when all of (Sun, Earth and Moon are perfect spheres) AND Jupiter and the rest of the Solar System don't exist AND lots of other things.
  Objects need steering to remain in the Lagrange regions (L2 and L3 excepted ; empty for Earth), even in an otherwise theoretically empty universe. So, you'd need to "bag it" (assuming it is left-over dust) and tag it with a (solar-powered) transponder, so you can find it again. At which point, it's getting close to using the dust for reaction mass for an ion drive, slapping on "some" solar panels, and you can deliver mass to a location, if slowly.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Pt-group and Nobil Metals? by bbsalem · 2013-08-17 08:53 · Score: 1

What percentage of these bodies has valuable metals? One thing to consider is that most of the economic deposits of the Pt-Group Metals, such as the Bushvesd, Skargard, and Stillwater Complexes are probably astroblems from the post Great Bonbardment era in which asteroids give the Earth their heavy metals after it had the heat to concentrate these in the core. They remained in the crust. This may also apply to Au and related metals as well.
It would seem to me to be important to find those bodies that are planetessimal cores, metal asteroids with a high concentration of Iron and other Pt-group metals that could be mined in low energy orbits with processable metal or easily fabricated products, including water, produced in orbit and used in space. Really valuable metals could be refined in space and economically returned to earth for use here.
Useful rare metals could be a boon, but it wouldn't take much Au and Ag to really make the currency markets unstable. The total amount of Au in reserves is but a few cubic meters. If by chance one of those bodies has an appreciable percentage of Au of current reserves, it could spell economic chaos. Imagine an Iron asteroid of a few hundred meters in size with a few percent Au.
What could be more important is if these bodies produce more Rare Earths as well as Pt-Group metals.