NASA Plans to Drag an Asteroid Into Lunar Orbit!

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Werent there some private companies investing in technologies to go drill asteroids for Platnium? If private companies were going to do this; it makes sense for the government to be doing it too.




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


And how would this affect the Earths tidal processes, spin rate, etc??? It has to have some sort of effect, but what kind??



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by rangersdad
 


The rock is the size of a car.
To answer your question...imperceptible.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Pointless? Definitely.

Aren't there more important things to be wasting taxpayer money on?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


At the same time, isn't "tax payer money" a complete misnomer at this point?
Money in general?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by rangersdad
reply to post by JayinAR
 


And how would this affect the Earths tidal processes, spin rate, etc??? It has to have some sort of effect, but what kind??


It may not have an immediate effect on earth but what about possibly making the moon's orbit unstable over longer time span? Or possibly crashing onto the moon once we have colonies there? Anybody who says "impossible" is unlikely to have made the necessary calculations.

In over 40 years since landing 6 manned missions successfully on the moon, we....
did not go back to the moon in manned missions
did not even land any unmanned crafts that returned to earth
do not have a decent theory about why the moon's rotation is synchronized to its orbit ("tide" does not work)
did not take detailed pictures of the surface (comparable to Google Earth)
did not take detailed sub-surface imagery
know little about its present seismic condition
did not attempt to exploit its resources
do not have a satellite in moon orbit

But we landed a rover on Mars. Why did we lose all interest in the moon itself?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 

seattletimes.com -
Deep-pocket dreamers aim high with space mining...

www.bizjournals.com -
Planetary Resources could employ hundreds to build asteroid-mining robots...


Benefits of learning (through application) how to alter the course of an asteroid:
1) Deflect an asteroid
2) Mining
3) Deep space operations
4) Potentially deeper analyses of its chemistry and organic materials

Who knows what else. I imagine one day we'll build settlement underground on the moon, but I'm sure we'll also far in the future build them on asteroids and convert them to spaceships. My thinking is the larger asteroids offer protection against cosmic rays and solar flares and meteorite impact. They also offer mining opportunities. However, if the spaceship is moving at a rapid pace, the meteor impacts would be so devastating that you'd probably want to use a field to deflect or you'd want to warp space/time. But I think this only matters when you're moving at a fraction of the speed of light.

I personally think we should make larger use of robots rather htan manned missions. Once the cost of space travle comes down over the coming years, manned spaceflight is more practical.

Keep in mind we spend billions every year in the sports industry. How much do we spend on movies and sex and drugs and games and all the other indulgences every year? Investing in space industry is useful to our future security and like hte military it bleeds its technology to other industries.

I think though that we need to enter into space cautiously. We should go as it becomes more economical. This is why I am very happy that private industry is getting much more involved.

History seems to show that to make great strides in anything you need:
1) Existential threat (war, etc)
2) Religious motivation (god, etc)
3) Economic motivation (money, etc)

Those're pretty much it. Humans are full of talk and will give all sorts of reasons we should do something, but when it comes down to it, we humans have only a few basic needs. The desire to live, the need for divinity or spiritualism to answer our deepest questions and the desire for material wealth to assure our future security. These things are our primary drivers and/or instincts.
edit on 7-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
This idea sounds very cool. But why drag an asteroid to build a base instead of just doing it on the moon?

NASA considers plan to capture an asteroid and turn it into a space station


If approved, the $2.6 billion plan would see the development of a robotic spacecraft that would transport a 500-ton asteroid to the lunar orbit by 2025 where it could be mined for resources and even converted into a base for human habitation. At the same time, it would also offer an unprecedented opportunity to jump-start a mission to Mars — and even launch missions into deep space.

And as the report suggests, a seven-meter, 500-ton asteroid in high lunar orbit would provide a "unique, meaningful, and affordable destination for astronaut crews in the next decade." The authors suggest that it would be a "disruptive" development in the future of space exploration, a breakthrough that would offer an "affordable path to providing operational experience with astronauts working around and with a NEA that could feed forward to much longer duration human missions to larger NEAs in deep space." It would also go a long way to meeting NASA's goals of sending astronauts to an NEA by 2025.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Obviously I don’t know jack, but I do have some questions:

If they’re going to spend all this money, why not put a user friendly space station of equivalent size in orbit around the moon, why mess around with an asteroid? Does anyone know the minimum/maximum size/weight of an object that would maintain orbit around the moon for many years? Out of all the millions of asteroids out there, why not use one that ALREADY orbits the moon? If there are no asteroid options currently orbiting the moon………. WHY NOT????? Does NASA even have a clue as to what they are doing?

Granted, a 7 meter asteroid won't be apocalyptic if it were to hit the moon or the earth, but it WOULD be damaging if it hit the wrong area. Also, they need to find out why there aren’t asteroids already orbiting the moon that they could use.
edit on 7-1-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
In over 40 years since landing 6 manned missions successfully on the moon, we....
did not go back to the moon in manned missions
did not even land any unmanned crafts that returned to earth
do not have a decent theory about why the moon's rotation is synchronized to its orbit ("tide" does not work)
did not take detailed pictures of the surface (comparable to Google Earth)
did not take detailed sub-surface imagery
know little about its present seismic condition
did not attempt to exploit its resources
do not have a satellite in moon orbit

But we landed a rover on Mars. Why did we lose all interest in the moon itself?


You're wrong on a few points:

The Moon's rotation lock is well understood (it's called tidal lock because tidal forces are involved). en.wikipedia.org...

The Moon has been imaged in great detail (down to 0.5 m/pixel or better) by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. You can see the Apollo landing sites, the hardware left there, and even astronauts' foot tracks in the lunar soil.
en.wikipedia.org...
lroc.sese.asu.edu...

There have been many satellites in orbit around the Moon, exploring it and doing various science. For example, the Japanese orbiter Kaguya gave us HD videos from the lunar orbit, and most recently NASA's GRAIL mission measured the Moon's gravity field in detail. More lunar missions are planned, and the Japanese are planning to land a rover there in a few years.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace

You're wrong on a few points:

The Moon's rotation lock is well understood (it's called tidal lock because tidal forces are involved).

The Moon has been imaged in great detail (down to 0.5 m/pixel or better) by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. You can see the Apollo landing sites, the hardware left there, and even astronauts' foot tracks in the lunar soil.

There have been many satellites in orbit around the Moon



Thanks for your reply and for providing the LROC link. It prompted me to compare the image with Google Moon and noticed some kind of channel. It does not seem to have been caused by liquid because it goes over hill sides. Do you have any kind of an explanation or thought on this?

Unless I am mistaken, their Quick Map only shows a small portion of the surface. 0.5m per pixel sounds great, but only applies to select areas and in others becomes meaningless squares if you zoom in beyond a mile per inch (16m/pix). An object the size of a rover or LEM is just one pixel. 2009 image technology and the absence of atmospheric diffraction should allow for much better quality (IMO). If they only show a small portion, and the quality in many areas is reduced, it makes me wonder if the purpose is censoring. (I am not interested in the landing sites because the images could be easily manipulated, if so desired.) It may be fun to look at your neighborhood in detail but there is little scientific value. Good imagery of the moon would provide a wealth of useful data (about its creation, resources, possible future landing sites, etc)

As I was trying to indicate, the tide argument is not convincing to me (until I understand the effect of "tidal forces" on solids). I have not noticed how they affect land masses on earth, have you? If, on the contrary, the mass of the moon is not equally distributed, I would see why there would be a gravitational lock. The question then becomes, why is the mass not distributed equally in an object that is perfectly round?

Some people claim that most moons have the same phenomenon but I was unable to find any data on that. Do you happen to know of any?
(Sorry have not figured out yet how to attach pictures, will do asap)
edit on 8-1-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: problem attaching pictures



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

(Sorry have not figured out yet how to attach pictures, will do asap)

These are the images
img72.imageshack.us...[/IMG][/URL]

img525.imageshack.us...[/IMG][/URL]



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
0.5m per pixel sounds great, but only applies to select areas

Higher resolution means smaller field of view. You can see the narrow angle camera coverage map here:
target.lroc.asu.edu...

2009 image technology and the absence of atmospheric diffraction should allow for much better quality (IMO).

Well it doesn't, unless you send a much bigger telescope into lunar orbit, the mass of which would be a bit like sending a command module into lunar orbit (so you better have a Saturn V handy to launch it). Dawes' limit applies regardless of the year.


(I am not interested in the landing sites because the images could be easily manipulated, if so desired.)

I would explain that it's anything but easy to make fake images of the moon perfectly match the features present in apollo's own images of its own landing sites (and indeed it does), or that these images are being acquired and processed by Arizona State University, but I have a feeling my breath is wasted.


As I was trying to indicate, the tide argument is not convincing to me (until I understand the effect of "tidal forces" on solids). I have not noticed how they affect land masses on earth, have you?
...
Some people claim that most moons have the same phenomenon but I was unable to find any data on that. Do you happen to know of any?

Earth's rotation is gradually slowing for the same reason. I guess you don't believe in that either. Most major moons of the solar system are all tidally locked to their parent planet. Here's a list (S indicates synchronous rotation, aka, tidally locked):
nineplanets.org...
I have a feeling you won't believe it though, you didn't believe the phenomenon applied to most moons in the solar system even though you were told that it did, so why believe the list? I get the feeling you're not going to believe any of this because you haven't seen it for yourself so anyone (indeed, everyone) else could be lying.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Could be considered someday as the stone age of space exploration one day.
I think this could be a way to start space travel, consider the rock as the frame of the space ship, if the asteroid was large enough a space station could be carved out of the inside, with the rock giving support structure and protection from space debris. Also it makes sense not building it in orbit around the moon, it will take much less energy to escape the gravity of the moon and to head out on its mission, be it mars or what ever.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Earth's rotation is gradually slowing for the same reason. I guess you don't believe in that either. Most major moons of the solar system are all tidally locked to their parent planet.

Higher resolution means smaller field of view. You can see the narrow angle camera coverage map here:

Well it doesn't, unless you send a much bigger telescope into lunar orbit, the mass of which would be a bit like sending a command module into lunar orbit (so you better have a Saturn V handy to launch it).

I would explain that it's anything but easy to make fake images of the moon


You are correct in that I do not want to believe. I prefer to understand. I see a qualitative difference there. Here are the problems with your answer:
- Did somebody measure by how much the earth rotation is slowing or did you just say that without knowing?
- How do you know the reason? Did somebody remove the "tidal effect" as a control?
- You avoided to answer my question, What is the tidal effect on earth's land masses (since the moon does not have any oceans)?
- Why are only "most", not all major moons "tidally locked"?
- What about the minor moons? Why are the planets not "tidally locked" to the sun?

Your explanation provides no evidence and no logic reasoning. There is nothing that is understandable, only believable for those with blind faith. You are just repeating some mantra that YOU believe in but does not make any sense.

LROC does not show more than a small portion of the whole surface, no matter how you want to describe the camera angle.

"much bigger telesecope"? Hubble is taking pictures with amazing resolution of objects billions of light years away, the surface a few hundred miles away requires a camera the size of a command module? Can you show me the math on that?

Not easy to fake images? Have you been living on the moon?

You also avoided answering the issue about the canal that I pointed out in the image linked. Any idea what that is about?
edit on 9-1-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by QMask
 


I think the plan has its pros and cons, personally. This apparently was Obama's idea.
I don't like the sound of that.


NASA is following the directives of the president, who is not an physicist, a scientist, and is only paid to manage the affairs of the nation???

NASA doesnt have the right to drag an asteroid into orbit around earth or earth's moon, it doesnt own the planet, that is co-op shared venture with 7 billion people. And we don't need that kind of stuff.
edit on 9-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
What pocket is so overflowing with money, that it can be raided for this project. With our economy in the ditch, this is going to help...how....


Des


Well aside from draining the pockets of everyone and even the underground markets around the world to fund their secret space program, if we had a more open program with construction and jobs/careers and opportunities in the solar system, we'd probably be booming again, plus alot more science grads coming out, and ever so much more service jobs and services created, with more university spots, and more programs.

There are 7 billion people on this planet, with increasing populations forseen, so high clean technology and solar system expansion is necessary.
edit on 9-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
NASA doesnt have the right to drag an asteroid into orbit around earth or earth's moon,

Since when? A 7m asteroid presents no threat to the earth or the moon, they can do whatever they want with it.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by ngchunter

Earth's rotation is gradually slowing for the same reason. I guess you don't believe in that either. Most major moons of the solar system are all tidally locked to their parent planet.

Higher resolution means smaller field of view. You can see the narrow angle camera coverage map here:

Well it doesn't, unless you send a much bigger telescope into lunar orbit, the mass of which would be a bit like sending a command module into lunar orbit (so you better have a Saturn V handy to launch it).

I would explain that it's anything but easy to make fake images of the moon


You are correct in that I do not want to believe. I prefer to understand.

It seems to me you don't understand and don't want to understand, you want to actively dis-believe whatever the "mainstream" position is.


I see a qualitative difference there. Here are the problems with your answer:
- Did somebody measure by how much the earth rotation is slowing or did you just say that without knowing?

Yes, earth's rotation is measured, so no I didn't say that without "knowing."
www.iers.org...


- How do you know the reason? Did somebody remove the "tidal effect" as a control?

Gravity works. Don't believe me? You can measure it yourself in a lab with a torsion balance.


- You avoided to answer my question, What is the tidal effect on earth's land masses (since the moon does not have any oceans)?

Tidal force is a force, it doesn't matter if it's land or water that is affected, the amount of force is the same regardless. The effect it has on water in terms of amount of deformation is of course different than that of land, but that is irrelevant to your level of misunderstanding. Tidal force = force of gravity on object's near side - force of gravity on object's far side. It's simple math, the type of material affected does not factor into the amount of force.


- Why are only "most", not all major moons "tidally locked"?

I don't think your level of understanding is ready for that discussion yet.


- What about the minor moons? Why are the planets not "tidally locked" to the sun?

Again, you need to understand the basics before you understand all the ramifications. You're not ready for that yet. Minor moons are often newer to the parent planet than the major moons, thus tidal deceleration of its rotation has not yet had sufficient time to induce tidal lock. Many minor moons are also farther from the parent planet than the major moons, thus it takes longer since tidal acceleration forces decrease with the distance cubed. The planets themselves are far more massive and have far more rotational inertia than moons, and most are sufficiently far from the sun that tidal forces are too weak to have brought them into tidal lock yet (again, distance cubed, not distance squared, but you probably don't even understand that part yet). Mercury, however, is locked in a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance with the sun, which is very stable due to tidal forces. How it arose has to do with its orbital history.
www.nature.com...


Your explanation provides no evidence and no logic reasoning. There is nothing that is understandable, only believable for those with blind faith. You are just repeating some mantra that YOU believe in but does not make any sense.

Excuse me, excuse me. Just because it doesn't make sense to YOU does not mean it does not make sense or lacks logic or lacks evidence. It has all those things, it is simply that you are ignorant of it.


LROC does not show more than a small portion of the whole surface, no matter how you want to describe the camera angle.

Again you demonstrate that you do not want to understand.


"much bigger telesecope"? Hubble is taking pictures with amazing resolution of objects billions of light years away, the surface a few hundred miles away requires a camera the size of a command module? Can you show me the math on that?

Do you know how big those galaxies are in angular size compared to the equipment left behind on the lunar surface? Yes or no? The galaxies Hubble sees are many arcseconds wide when viewed from earth, the equipment on the moon is a tiny, tiny fraction of an arcsecond wide. The lunar descent stage is the biggest thing left down there, about 4 meters across at the base, and at a distance of about 400,000km it's only 0.002 arcseconds wide. Dawes' limit gives us the formula for Hubble's resolving power. R = 11.6 / D D = 2.4 meters, so R = 0.05 arcseconds, far too little to resolve anything left on the moon (and by the Nyquist sampling theorem, it's effectively like 0.1 arcseconds).
(By the way, I said mass of the command module, not size - the former directly dictates how large of a rocket you need to get where you're going, the latter really only dictates fairing size).
edit on 9-1-2013 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Not easy to fake images? Have you been living on the moon?

I stand by what I said. Let's see you fake an image of the equipment on the moon which actually matches up with all of the Apollo images of their own landing sites.


You also avoided answering the issue about the canal that I pointed out in the image linked. Any idea what that is about?

Avoided? I didn't care. I don't see what it has to do with the rest of your post. A discussion of planetary geography and rilles did not seem pertinent to the rest of the post.





top topics
 
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join