reply to post by wildapache
If you can already get that "fast" just to land on the object, then, what's the point in landing on the object to get that "fast" if you can
already go that "fast"?
I can think of a few reasons,,,you could use the raw resources from it for supplies, fuel, water..ect,,,& be shielded from radiation if you could
somehow make an underground shelter in it,,,,,some people have theorized that the Moon was used for that very propose,, & when an Apollo spacecraft
was crashed into it , the Moon rang like a bell ,,like it was hallow...
While use of raw material is something to consider, one would require foreknowledge of what raw materials were in supply before launching such
consideration, otherwise, it's a blind shot.
Thus, there'd need be a mission to any proposed object to piggyback so as to assess available assets, and, if that mission returns reports
unfavorable to such ends, then, other than the science done, the secondary 'main' mission window gets pushed back, delayed, and falls into further
expense where space exploration budgets are already quite thin to begin with.
As to the moon "ringing like a bell", the Earth "rings like a bell" every time there's an earthquake of even the smallest magnitude.
It's kinda the reason how seismometers work.
It doesn't mean there's any kind of hollow going on anywhere.
Vibration ("ringing like a bell") travels quite effectively through solid masses, and even more effectively so than across voids, especially as is
the case with the moon where there's no air for vibrations ("ringing like a bell") to travel through.
For the moon to "ring like a bell" it would necessarily have to to have a fairly solid consistency for such "ringing" to propagate.
If there were substantial voids, since there's no air, there would have been more of a dull "thud".
Thus, "ringing" would support indication of a more solid body than anything containing substantial voids.
Further, basing space travel off of conjecture and guessing is a recipe for lost astronauts, hardware, planning, and overall expense.
It'd be one thing were spaceflight an easy thing to accomplish on a less inclined gravitational plane such any Wright Brother operation could cobble
some bicycle parts together to explore our solar system fast, loose, and devil-may-care, but, as it stands, the cost is such, and the danger
tolerances so narrow, nothing is taken on chance, and even so, we've still lost roughly HALF the missions shot to Mars, and that's our CLOSEST, most
predictable, and friendliest neighbor next to the Moon.
List of Mars Missions (success and failure)
Attempting to land on irregular asteroids and other more unpredictable bodies like comets?
Well, hazard tolerances would be even narrower.