Philae Lands:)

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

From that point of view, let's first make a tiny bit of the moon habitable; i.e. a tiny scientific station containing people living and working on the moon's surface.

---

Plans towards that goal are already going on.

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

When we can do that, perhaps we can think of doing the sort of stuff in your quote. Until then, it's a lot of pie in the sky.

---

Plans towards mining the NEO objects are already being made. It's not any more "perhaps we can think". The serious thinking is already happening. The ones interested in NEO mining may not be interested in waiting until working scientific station on the Moon is reality.

 

Link:

The comet landing as a prelude to asteroid mining

"David Gump is the vice chairman of Deep Space Industries, one company currently planning to send probes on one-year prospecting trips to near-earth asteroids. In an e-mail, he said such trips would be “much easier” than Rosetta’s mission, which required a decade of travel past Mars. Rosetta’s landing, he hopes, will make his company’s plans look more realistic to investors and customers."

"Providing services in space is one idea. Another is to find resources on asteroids and bring them back to earth. For the most part, Gump says, “the rule of thumb is you use space resources where you find them,” because of how expensive it is to leave and reenter the earth’s atmosphere. But Eric Anderson, CEO of Planetary Resources, another asteroid mining outfit, thinks that if they can find asteroid resources on a big enough scale, re-entry might be worth it."

- - - - -

 

They are talking only about asteroids, but there also lots of comets too in the NEO region. I think that both object types will be used as sources for materials when a large scale space mining really starts.

As far as we know now asteroids are rich in various minerals, comets are rich in volatiles (like water, gases, etc.). Nobody is thinking of bringing huge quantities of water from Earth for the mining operations. The water needed in space mining operations must come from space.

 

One link more:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/bigscience/2014/09/16/comet-landing-could-be-first-step-toward-mining-one-just-gotta-hit-it/#26809101=0&17739103=0&17757105=0

"While mining an asteroid/comet isn’t on the list of reasons why the ESA wants to attach Philae – the lander part of the orbiter Rosetta – to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, the technical feat of putting something on a comet and a fuller understanding of how comets are made will benefit that enterprise."

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

When we can do that, perhaps we can think of doing the sort of stuff in your quote. Until then, it's a lot of pie in the sky.

---

Plans towards mining the NEO objects are already being made. It's not any more "perhaps we can think". The serious thinking is already happening. The ones interested in NEO mining may not be interested in waiting until working scientific station on the Moon is reality.

---

I meant the mining of asteroids, not plans to deal with NEOs. I'm thinking of manned mining missions to the asteroid belt and not trying to snatch stuff from fleeting NEOs. Anyway, that's still all pie in the sky at the moment - ideas on paper for the not so near future.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

At some point during my education one of my history teachers taught us that, “We study the past to understand the present; we understand the present to guide the future.”   I'm still trying to decide if she was just feeding us a line of bull. 

We do seem to learn very slowly from our past mistakes.

Do we? As nations we seem to be very good at ignoring the mistakes of history and repeating them.

I'm not sure if I know anyone who does not have some interest in Cosmology or Cosmogony.  And how it benefits us as a whole may be difficult to determine. 

Does seeing how we fit into the 'whole picture' profit us?

  Does seeing how the pieces of the puzzle fit together help?  I think it does but measuring that profit can be difficult at times. 

It depends what you mean by "the whole picture". If you mean something like the life of the universe, from the beginning right up to now with us in it, I don't think it profits us at all, except that it's interesting to know. Perhaps if it is broken down, then maybe some parts might be beneficial to us, but other parts, such as what happened in the first second after the big bang, if there was a big bang, can be of no practical benefit that I can see.

It's always a hard decision what research to invest in.  Prioritizing that research can be difficult too.  Because you never know what you will find at the end of the tunnel.  What scientific advances will come from this endeavor we don't know yet. 

But if we didn't take the chance there would be no advances.

I have to disagree with that statement. Many advances are often made accidentally. The discovery of microwaves, and the practical uses made of those, for instance. And advances are made by imaginative building on, and development of, existing accomplishments. Neither of those needs research as such. I'm not saying that research should be abandoned, or even curtailed. I'm just saying that advances will be made with or without research.

---

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

 

Plans towards mining the NEO objects are already being made.

---

I meant the mining of asteroids, not plans to deal with NEOs. I'm thinking of manned mining missions to the asteroid belt and not trying to snatch stuff from fleeting NEOs. Anyway, that's still all pie in the sky at the moment - ideas on paper for the not so near future.

---

I was not referring to "dealing" with NEOs, but mining them. NEOs are not fleeting objects. ;-)

Again definition is due so that we understand what we are talking about. NEOs are grouped as:

NECs -- Near Earth Comets

NEAs -- Near Earth Asteroids

Atiras -- NEAs whose orbits are contained entirely with the orbit of the Earth

Atens -- Earth-crossing NEAs with semi-major axes smaller than Earth's

Apollos -- Earth-crossing NEAs with semi-major axes larger than Earth's

Amors -- Earth-approaching NEAs with orbits exterior to Earth's but interior to Mars'

PHAs -- Potentially Hazardous Asteroids

 

The first manned missions to asteroids are not going far out into the main asteroid belt. The asteroids in the NEA group will be the first targets.

NASA has a project going on charting the potential asteroids for manned flights.

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/nhats/ Near-Earth Object Human Space Flight Accessible Targets Study (NHATS).

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130009939.pdf

"Over the past several years, much attention has been focused on the human exploration of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). Two in dependent NASA studies examined the feasibility of sending piloted missions to NEAs, and in 2009, the Augustine Commission identified NEAs as high profile destinations for human exploration missions beyond the Earth-Moon system as part of the Flexible Path. More recently the current U.S. presidential administration directed NASA to include NEAs as destinations for future human exploration with the goal of sending astronauts to a NEA in the mid to late 2020s."

 

That looks to me quite near future - over a decade, less than two decades.

(I don't know what is your definition for "not so near future").

 

Some additional info about NEOs:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Space_Situational_Awareness/Near-Earth_Objects_-_NEO_Segment

"Near-Earth objects (NEOs) are asteroids or comets with sizes ranging from meters to tens of kilometres that orbit the Sun and whose orbits come close to that of Earth's. Of the more than 600 000 known asteroids in our Solar System, almost 10 000 are NEOs."

http://www.neoshield.net/en/near-earth-objects/neo-background-information.htm

(Scroll down in the above link's page to see animation of the inner solar system planets, NEOs and main asteroid belt asteroids.)

[Phil Deakins]

The mid to late 20s is just the goal to send a manned mission to an NEA - not to mine the thing. Mining such a thing isn't in the near future.

NEAs are a lot further away than the Moon and the U.S. could send a manned mission to one but mining one and returning stuff back to Earth is something else again. I'm talking about mining for materials for use back here, and not about sampling. In one of the pages that you linked to in one of the posts, or maybe you quoted it, the cost of getting stuff back to onto the Earth is very significant so, to make such a venture worthwhile, it would need a lot of stuff to be returned. That's not a near future thing. We won't see it happen our lifetimes, imo.

To my way of thinking, the first step to such endeavours is setting up on the Moon. I can't explain why I see it that way. It just seems like a good first step towards moving out into space (as distinct from dipping our toes into the edge of the ocean of space - just above the Earth).

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

The mid to late 20s is just the goal to send a manned mission to an NEA - not to mine the thing. Mining such a thing isn't in the near future.

NEAs are a lot further away than the Moon and the U.S. could send a manned mission to one but mining one and returning stuff back to Earth is something else again. In one of the pages that you linked to in one of the posts, or maybe you quoted it, the cost of getting stuff back to Earth is very significant so, to make such a venture worthwhile, it would need a lot of stuff to be returned. That's not a near future thing. We won't see it happen our lifetimes, imo.

To my way of thinking, the first step to such endeavours is setting up on the Moon. I can't explain why I see it that way. It just seems like a good first step in moving out into space (as distinct from hanging around in space just above the Earth).

---

Surely you do know how mining operations start here on Earth, don't you?

First there are explorations on potential sites. Samples are taken, holes are drilled to get samples from deeper underground. Many sites will be studied. The samples are taken into laboratory and are examined there closely. Sometimes it happens that somebody finds interesting samples on the ground and sends them to laboratory. Finally a decision is made based on the samples examined "let's select this place for the mine". All this preliminary work is needed before founding a mine.

The same thing will happen in space. Nobody is going out there, without all the preliminary work, and start full scale mining operations at once. Sending people onto the NEOs to study them is preliminary activities for mining. And it will happen quite soon. How long it takes to start full mining operations naturally depends on many different things.

The moon is not seen as very interesting location for mining operations. For a good reason too. Its gravity is one sixth of the gravity of earth. It would be expensive to lift large quantities material from the moon and bring to earth. Whereas asteroids have very tiny gravity thus it costs practically nothing to lift of the material from that negligible gravity field. That's why asteroids are the preferred target for mining operations, not the Moon. Moon landings and moon take-offs require lots of fuel, asteroids do not. Mining the Moon is only worth while and economical if those materials will be used on the Moon.

The greater distance to the NEAs than to the Moon is insignifact factor in the equation which place is more economical for mining operations. Because:

The delta-v to reach near earth objects is less than the delta-v to reach the moon's surface. (Delta-v, is a measure in astrodynamics of the amount of "effort" that is needed to change from one trajectory to another by making an orbital maneuver.)

So Phil, forget the Moon, go to the asteroids, for the mining. :matte-motes-big-grin:

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

To my way of thinking, the first step to such endeavours is setting up on the Moon. I can't explain why I see it that way.

---

There is a nice informative article here (where to go first for mining):

http://www.permanent.com/mining-moon-versus-asteroids.html

There are supporters for both; the Moon, and the asteroids.

 

I think that the activities (on the Moon and on the asteroids) towards mining will happen concurrently, side by side.

Most likely it will be so that neither one will wait until the other one has reached "advanced enough" level in technology before starting their own activities.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

At some point during my education one of my history teachers taught us that, “We study the past to understand the present; we understand the present to guide the future.”   I'm still trying to decide if she was just feeding us a line of bull. 

We do seem to learn very slowly from our past mistakes.

Do we? As nations we seem to be very good at ignoring the mistakes of history and repeating them.

I might be overly optimistic.  Though when I said 'we' I was thinking more in terms of we as individuals.

I'm not sure if I know anyone who does not have some interest in Cosmology or Cosmogony.  And how it benefits us as a whole may be difficult to determine. 

Does seeing how we fit into the 'whole picture' profit us?

  Does seeing how the pieces of the puzzle fit together help?  I think it does but measuring that profit can be difficult at times. 

It depends what you mean by "the whole picture".

Every persons perception of the 'whole picture' varies.  Actually I dislike using such a cliche term but I lack a better one when trying to be succint.

If you mean something like the life of the universe, from the beginning right up to now with us in it, I don't think it profits us at all, except that it's interesting to know. Perhaps if it is broken down, then maybe some parts might be beneficial to us, but other parts, such as what happened in the first second after the big bang, if there was a big bang, can be of no practical benefit that I can see.

There are even those who maintain it's good that we don't know what happennd in that first second because attempting to duplicate it might result in our own distruction. 

It's always a hard decision what research to invest in.  Prioritizing that research can be difficult too.  Because you never know what you will find at the end of the tunnel.  What scientific advances will come from this endeavor we don't know yet. 

But if we didn't take the chance there would be no advances.

I have to disagree with that statement. Many advances are often made accidentally. The discovery of microwaves, and the practical uses made of those, for instance. And advances are made by imaginative building on, and development of, existing accomplishments. Neither of those needs research as such. I'm not saying that research should be abandoned, or even curtailed. I'm just saying that advances will be made with or without research.

I was refering to the advances we may gain from this endeavor.  Poor phrasing on my part.  I'd previously acknowledged "accidental advances."  But it's still interesting to note how many of them were unexpected discoveries during the pursuit of other things.

---

 

---

 

[Perrie Juran]

"On December 6th, the New Horizons probe will awake from hibernation in order to prepare for its big encounter with the dwarf planet and its moons."

LINK

[Coby Foden]

Cool. We need a new thread soon. :smileywink:

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

The mid to late 20s is just the goal to send a manned mission to an NEA - not to mine the thing. Mining such a thing isn't in the near future.

NEAs are a lot further away than the Moon and the U.S. could send a manned mission to one but mining one and returning stuff back to Earth is something else again. In one of the pages that you linked to in one of the posts, or maybe you quoted it, the cost of getting stuff back to Earth is very significant so, to make such a venture worthwhile, it would need a lot of stuff to be returned. That's not a near future thing. We won't see it happen our lifetimes, imo.

To my way of thinking, the first step to such endeavours is setting up on the Moon. I can't explain why I see it that way. It just seems like a good first step in moving out into space (as distinct from hanging around in space just above the Earth).

---

Surely you do know how mining operations start here on Earth, don't you?

First there are explorations on potential sites. Samples are taken, holes are drilled to get samples from deeper underground. Many sites will be studied. The samples are taken into laboratory and are examined there closely. Sometimes it happens that somebody finds interesting samples on the ground and sends them to laboratory. Finally a decision is made based on the samples examined "let's select this place for the mine". All this preliminary work is needed before founding a mine.

Exactly. That why the mid to late 20s doesn't come into when mining will (may) actually start. That's just the first step. Mining minerals on asteroids isn't in the near future.

[...]

The moon is not seen as very interesting location for mining operations. For a good reason too. Its gravity is one sixth of the gravity of earth. It would be expensive to lift large quantities material from the moon and bring to earth. Whereas asteroids have very tiny gravity thus it costs practically nothing to lift of the material from that negligible gravity field. That's why asteroids are the preferred target for mining operations, not the Moon. Moon landings and moon take-offs require lots of fuel, asteroids do not. Mining the Moon is only worth while and economical if those materials will be used on the Moon.

I wasn't even thinking of mining on the Moon. My comments about being on the Moon were only to do with man moving off into space, and I was thinking of manned mining missions to the asteroids.

The greater distance to the NEAs than to the Moon is insignifact factor in the equation which place is more economical for mining operations. Because:

The delta-v to reach near earth objects is less than the delta-

v

to reach the moon's surface. (Delta-v, is a measure in astrodynamics of the amount of "effort" that is needed to change from one trajectory to another by making an orbital maneuver.)

So Phil, forget the Moon, go to the asteroids, for the mining. :matte-motes-big-grin:

I'm not going anywhere. I prefer my feet on terra-firma

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Cool. We need a new thread soon. :smileywink:

---

I'll join in with it. The UK hasn't contributed financially to the mission so I'll have nothing to moan about.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

"On December 6th, the New Horizons probe will awake from hibernation in order to prepare for its big encounter with the dwarf planet and its moons."

LINK

---

Very interesting. Thank you, Perrie.

Maybe Pluto will get its status as a planet back if they find that it isn't typical of the Kuiper belt objects - but probably not.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

"On December 6th, the New Horizons probe will awake from hibernation in order to prepare for its big encounter with the dwarf planet and its moons."

LINK

---

Very interesting. Thank you, Perrie.

Maybe Pluto will get its status as a planet back if they find that it isn't typical of the Kuiper belt objects - but probably not.

---

As far as I am concerned Pluto will always be a planet.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

"On December 6th, the New Horizons probe will awake from hibernation in order to prepare for its big encounter with the dwarf planet and its moons."

LINK

---

Very interesting. Thank you, Perrie.

Maybe Pluto will get its status as a planet back if they find that it isn't typical of the Kuiper belt objects - but probably not.

---

As far as I am concerned Pluto will always be a planet.

---

You should focus your energy on Mars, though I think there's little chance your home will be ejected from the Gang of Eight.

When I was a kid, and learned that Pluto's orbit was highly eliptical (making it the eighth "planet" now and then) and tilted from the ecliptic plane, I started having my doubts (though I've always enjoyed the idea that a nefarious Pluto slipped into orbit while nobody was looking). If we want a science based definition of the word "planet", then we must live with the consequences.

School children might applaud having to remember only eight planets now, and surely textbook publishers applauded the windfall of inarguably updated editions.

;-).

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Exactly. That why the mid to late 20s doesn't come into when mining will (may) actually start. That's just the first step. Mining minerals on asteroids isn't in the near future.

---

Of course we need to take the first steps first in any endeavour. When the actual mining operations will start is anybody's guess; "isn't in the near future" naturally depends on what one considers to be the near future. In regard to space exploration, to me, even some decades is quite near future, not very far distant future.

We can see from the Project Apollo how fast things will go on if there is a need, a will, and the funds available. We can make the wildest dreams come true fairly quickly. In less than a decade from the start, first man stepped on the moon. That was pretty awesome accomplishment. (Well, the 'need' in that case was mostly just to get there first, to win the race.)

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Cool. We need a new thread soon. :smileywink:

---

I'll join in with it. The UK hasn't contributed financially to the mission so I'll have nothing to moan about.

---

But, but... then there will be no discussion. :smileysad:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Exactly. That why the mid to late 20s doesn't come into when mining will (may) actually start. That's just the first step. Mining minerals on asteroids isn't in the near future.

---

Of course we need to take the first steps first in any endeavour. When the actual mining operations will start is anybody's guess; "

isn't in the near future

" naturally depends on what one considers to be the near future. In regard to space exploration, to me, even some decades is quite near future, not very far distant future.

We can see from the

Project Apollo

how fast things will go on if there is a need, a will, and the funds available. We can make the wildest dreams come true fairly quickly. In less than a decade from the start, first man stepped on the moon. That was pretty awesome accomplishment. (Well, the 'need' in that case was mostly just to get there first, to win the race.)

---

Apollo was an awesome accomplishment, but I don't look forward to a rekindling of the politics that propelled the project.

Throughout mankind's history, fear has been a powerful motivator. Nevertheless, I hope we can move forward with less of it.

And before Snugs chimes in... Yes, I see the irony of trying to be the most fearsome woman around while decrying the use of fear to motivate people.

Rawr

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Cool. We need a new thread soon. :smileywink:

---

I'll join in with it. The UK hasn't contributed financially to the mission so I'll have nothing to moan about.

---

But, but... then there will be no discussion. :smileysad:

---

Oh I don't know. Maybe no public 'discussion' but ....

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Exactly. That why the mid to late 20s doesn't come into when mining will (may) actually start. That's just the first step. Mining minerals on asteroids isn't in the near future.

---

Of course we need to take the first steps first in any endeavour.

When the actual mining operations will start is anybody's guess; "

isn't in the near future

" naturally depends on what one considers to be the near future. In regard to space exploration, to me, even some decades is quite near future, not very far distant future.

---

To my way of thinking, 10 to 20 years is the relatively near future for space operations, and any more than that isn't the near future.

The timescale stated in this thread (mid 20s) is the relatively near future, but that's only when the first step of a future possible mining operation is planned to be be taken. The mining operation itself, if it ever happens, will not be in the near future - imo, of course. My guess is that I'll be lucky if I see it happen in my lifetime. (Don't ask me how many years I'm likely to have left ). What I feel sure about is that I won't see any manned mining operations to asteroids, though some people here might IF the minerals that could be mined on asteroids are worth the expense of getting them, and that's a VERY BIG if. It's one thing to say that we need such-and-such that can be found in asteroids, but it's quite another to accept that we need it so much that getting it, manned or not, is worth the cost. If we are going to mine stuff on asteroids, it has to be worthwhile or there's no point or sense in doing it, and I'm a very long way from being convinced that such great need will occur that makes serious asteroid mining the thing to do. Imo, if it occurs at all, even in the mid-future, it will be either because space operations have become quite cheap to do, or because it's a good experiment to do, to see if we can do it, and not because there is such a great need of what it will bring back.

[Drongle McMahon]

it's quite another to accept that we need it so much that getting it, manned or not, is worth the cost.

Apparently that can be estimated. The worked example presupposes a demand in earth orbit, which wouldn't seem to be there yet, but the potential profitability may be surprising. Note that there is a misprint on return date. I assume it should be 2024, not 2014!

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

The mining operation itself, if it ever happens, will not be in the near future - imo, of course.

---

I'm sure that it will happen, at some stage. The resources of the Earth are not infinite, we will run out of some crucial important elements eventually.

 

One idea is to send umanned probes to the asteroids. They are not limited with time constraints like manned missions would be. The probe would catch an asteroid, then the probe will bring the asteroid to lunar orbit (i.e. circling the moon). Manned missions are sent to lunar orbit and meet with the asteroid. They will examine the asteroid there and they will bring samples to earth. The samples are examined in sophisticated laboratories to find out exactly what the asteroids is made of. The actual mining operations can be done in the lunar orbit.

 

NASA already has a plan to do exactly that. They will send unmanned probe, during this decade, to a small asteroid (less than 10 meters in diameter). The probe will bring the asteroid to lunar orbit. Then, in the next decade, manned missions are sent to this asteroid in the lunar orbit.

[Phil Deakins]

Thank you for that, Drongle. It's quite a long paper and full of numbers and it would take me quite some time to comprehend it all it. So I skipped to the end, hoping for a brief summary, but there wasn't one. I did spot the huge cost of water, but, apparently, that's cheaper than send some up from the ground.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

The mining operation itself, if it ever happens, will not be in the near future - imo, of course.

---

I'm sure that it will happen, at some stage.

I tend to agree.

 The resources of the Earth are not infinite, we will run out of some crucial important elements eventually.

I tend to agree with that too but I wouldn't automatically conclude that the solution will be mining other bodies in the solar system. There's also the strong possibility that alternatives in both methods and materials will be found, making asteroid mining unnecessary.

 

One idea is to send umanned probes to the asteroids. They are not limited with time constraints like manned missions would be. The probe would catch an asteroid, then the probe will bring the asteroid to lunar orbit (i.e. circling the moon). Manned missions are sent to lunar orbit and meet with the asteroid. They will examine the asteroid there and they will bring samples to earth. The samples are examined in sophisticated laboratories to find out exactly what the asteroids is made of. The actual mining operations can be done in the lunar orbit.

 

NASA already has a plan to do exactly that. They will send unmanned probe, during this decade, to a small asteroid (less than 10 meters in diameter). The probe will bring the asteroid to lunar orbit. Then, in the next decade, manned missions are sent to this asteroid in the lunar orbit.

And what will they mine that is so worthwhile from such a small chunk of rock? It may contain some stuff that's needed here, but enough of it? Or will they need to keep on getting samples from asteroids and send them back to Earth, or grabbing asteroids and bring them back to the moon, before they come across one that's actually useful? We'll see what happens in the future. I don't thik I could be convinced that anything worthwhile will come from grabbing and bringing back small asteroids, other than experience. I just hope they do the sums right and don't accidentally aim it at us :smileysurprised:

---

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

The mining operation itself, if it ever happens, will not be in the near future - imo, of course.

---

Phil is blue (this time):

:smileyhappy:

 

NASA already has a plan to do exactly that. They will send unmanned probe, during this decade, to a small asteroid (less than 10 meters in diameter). The probe will bring the asteroid to lunar orbit. Then, in the next decade, manned missions are sent to this asteroid in the lunar orbit.

And what will they mine that is so worthwhile from such a small chunk of rock? It may contain some stuff that's needed here, but enough of it? Or will they need to keep on getting samples from asteroids and send them back to Earth, or grabbing asteroids and bring them back to the moon, before they come across one that's actually useful? We'll see what happens in the future. I don't thik I could be convinced that anything worthwhile will come from grabbing and bringing back small asteroids, other than experience. I just hope they do the sums right and don't accidentally aim it at us :smileysurprised:

---

 

---

LOL Phil. You make me laugh. :smileyvery-happy:

You obviously have no clue what the NASA mission is about, do you?

Nobody is going to make mining operations on that tiny asteroid what NASA plans to bring to lunar orbit. One aim is study the samples on earth laboratories, which are far more accurate and sophisticated compared to what can be fitted on a space probe. This enables scientist to find out in great detail what's inside in an asteroid. Of course this information is needed before any mining operations. There is much more to that NASA mission than just the experience. You know this very well too; but for some reason you like to doubt (and debate) is there any worth in that mission.  :smileywink:

NASA is not planning to bring a multitude of small asteroids to lunar orbit for study "until they find one that's useful". Not at all, that is not the goal for this mission. Just bring one and examine and analyze it thorouhgly. And they are not bringing the asteroid onto the Moon. That would be totally needless and silly operation.

The asteroid will be put on lunar orbit (that means: circling the moon) as I wrote already earlier. Why on the lunar orbit? When the asteroid is on the lunar orbit it will stay there securely held by the Moon's gravitation. No chance for it to drift towards earth and crash on it. It would be risky to put the asteroid on earth orbit as it might gradually drift closer and closer towards earth, disturbing satellites and eventually posing risk of crashing on the earth. Lunar orbit is safe and it's close enough for manned missions and for real time communications.

The first actual (test) mining operation could be done bringing big asteroid (hundreds of meters in diameter) to lunar orbit. Bring all the needed equipment for the test mining operations, next to the asteroid, from earth. Bring the astronauts, and get to work. It's not science fiction any more.

 

You might find this article interesting (or not). Sorry, no summary in this document either: :smileyindifferent:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-will-we-have-enough/