Philae Lands:)

[Perrie Juran]

---

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.

---

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:

---

 

---

I've been reminded in this thread several times of Magellan.  Granted that some of the things that occurred during the voyage you would not define as angelic.  There is a lot of sadness in this.

Magellan left with five ships and 270 men.  Only 18 returned to Spain with one ship. The value of the cargo on that one ship was enough that it did earn a small profit for the cost of the entire venture.

Hopefully we can do a little better with space exploration.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

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

---

 

As long as Carole F. is around, your best possible place is a somewhat distant second ;-).

[Drongle McMahon]

that's cheaper than send some up from the ground.

Yes. For common stuff, that's how it works - for space contruction/use, the cost of getting stuff into orbit from the earth is so huge that getting it from low-gravity asteroids can compete. According to the wikipaedia artice, "A comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 kilometer (0.62 mi) could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron-nickel ore, or two to three times the annual production of 2004".  For rare metals, provided the cost of refining isn't too high, it might be able to compete with supply to the surface too. The problem now is that that much is not going to be needed in space for a very long time. It might be just too long-term an investment to be attractive.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

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

---

 

As long as Carole F. is around, your best possible place is a somewhat distant second ;-).

---

I do miss Carole's wit and wisdom.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

As long as Carole F. is around...

---

Carole is about as around a woman as I've ever seen...

[Dillon Levenque]

:-). A woman of parts, as they say. Or do they? I know I've seen 'a man of parts' used many times; not so sure about the expression being phrased around a woman. Carole is definitely one to make even a man of parts suddenly decide it's a good time to take inventory.

I'm with you, Perrie. She gave the mix something it lacks in her absence. Was fun reading her posts in the recently necroed thread that has been commented about elsewhere.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

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?

I only went by what you wrote. If you didn't explain it fully, it's not my fault

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:

So we're not talking about mining in the near future after all - which, I think, is where we came into this part of the discussion 

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.

Then you should have explained it better.

The asteroid will be put on

lunar orbit

(that means:

circling the moon

) as I wrote already earlier.

Yes, I do know what 'orbit' means. I haven't said anything about that.

 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.

Yes, I do know what 'orbit' means. If you are referring to me saying that I hope they their sums right, it still stands. Powering something from far away towards the Moon, means powering it towards the Earch. So they do need to get their sums right or we could be in trouble.

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.

It is until it happens.

 

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Drongle McMahon wrote:

that's cheaper than send some up from the ground.

Yes. For common stuff, that's how it works - for space contruction/use, the cost of getting stuff into orbit from the earth is so huge that getting it from low-gravity asteroids can compete. According to the

wikipaedia artice

,

"A comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 kilometer (0.62 mi) could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron-nickel ore, or two to three times the annual production of 2004".

 

For rare metals, provided the cost of refining isn't too high, it might be able to compete with supply to the surface too.

The problem now is that that much is not going to be needed in space for a very long time. It might be just too long-term an investment to be attractive.

---

Coby is talking about mining asteroids for use here on Earth. Your article is about for use in space. We could end up with a living and working environment on the Moon which, according to the 2001 prophesy is the first step to man moving out into space.

One thing that's puzzled me about getting down to the surface from space is the way it's been done so far, which, according to one article linked to in this thread, is a very expensive part of mining asteroids due to getting through the atmosphere. Why not just slow a space vehicle down, point it in the right direction, and let it fall through much of the atmosphere? It could use power lower down in the descent. I'm reminded of the guy who jumped from a balloon from near the edge of space. He didn't burn up on the way down. I believe there is a maximum speed that an object can fall at, which depends on its weight, but I can't imagine that a space vehicle would fall fast enough to burn up. It seems to me that the only reason why burn-up needs to be prevented is the speed that the vehicle is moving as it orbits the Earth.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

Coby is talking about mining asteroids for use here on Earth.

One thing that's puzzled me about getting down to the surface from space is the way it's been done so far, which, according to one article linked to in this thread, is a very expensive part of mining asteroids due to getting through the atmosphere. Why not just slow a space vehicle down, point it in the right direction, and let it fall through much of the atmosphere? It could use power lower down in the descent. I'm reminded of the guy who jumped from a balloon from near the edge of space. He didn't burn up on the way down. I believe there is a maximum speed that an object can fall at, which depends on its weight, but I can't imagine that a space vehicle would fall fast enough to burn up. It seems to me that the only reason why burn-up needs to be prevented is the speed that the vehicle is moving as it orbits the Earth.

---

Where did you get that idea? I'm not talking about using the asteroid materials only on Earth. They will be used on Earth as well as in space. It would be too expensive to transport all the materials form earth to large scale space building projects.

Slowing down a space vehicle and then letting it freely freely down on earth does is not going to work - unless we have huge supplies of fuel to slow down the speed of the spacecraft. Slowing down the speed takes enormous amount fuel, just like taking off from the ground and accelerating to orbital speed does.

Why the guy who jumped with parachute from the height of tens of kilometers didn't burn up in flames?

Because: he didn't have any orbital speed what to slow down in the atmosphere. So he just fell freely and reached the terminal free falling speed. That terminal free falling speed is not anywhere near the orbital speeds of spacecrafts.

Aerobraking spacecrafts when entering a planet is used because there is no fuel needed for braking - free brakes - and very high heating up.

[Coby Foden]

My comments in dark red this time: :smileyhappy:

---

Phil Deakins (wrote in blue)

:

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

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

I only went by what you wrote. If you didn't explain it fully, it's not my fault

I'm not your teacher to teach you everything about NASA missions.

:matte-motes-nerdy:

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:

So we're not talking about mining in the near future after all - which, I think, is where we came into this part of the discussion 

We're talking about the beginning actions for the mining. Don't be daft.

: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.

Then you should have explained it better.

As I said above, not your teacher.

:smileytongue:

The asteroid will be put on

lunar orbit

(that means:

circling the moon

) as I wrote already earlier.

Yes, I do know what 'orbit' means. I haven't said anything about that.

You said "bring them back

to the moon

".

 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.

Yes, I do know what 'orbit' means. If you are referring to me saying that I hope they their sums right, it still stands. Powering something from far away towards the Moon, means powering it towards the Earch. So they do need to get their sums right or we could be in trouble.

They are experts in guiding the space probes.

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.

It is until it happens.

Not science fiction at all.

It can be done if there is a will, funds and need.

(Maybe you would call a moonbase science fiction too because we have none so far?)

 :smileyvery-happy:

Science fiction is something for which we have no idea at all how to accomplish something, like warp drive and travelling through worm holes for example.

---

 

---

 

[Coby Foden]

A flashback... to 1920's...

In 1901 Goddard wrote a letter to St. Nicholas magazine with his own ideas about machine flying. The editor of St. Nicholas declined to publish Goddard's letter, remarking that birds fly with a certain amount of intelligence and that "machines will not act with such intelligence." Goddard disagreed, believing that a man could control a flying machine with his own intelligence.

Although his work in the field [of rockets] was revolutionary, Goddard received very little public support for his research and development work. The press sometimes ridiculed his theories of spaceflight. Years after his death, at the dawn of the Space Age, he came to be recognized as the founding father of modern rocketry.

After all, on January 13, 1920, the New York Times editorialized, in a reaction to a research paper published by Robert Goddard, that  “a rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.”

On July 17, 1969, the day after the launch of Apollo 11, the New York Times published a “correction:”
Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.

- - - - -

Yes, we need people like Goddard; dream and experiment, to push technology forward. Not paying attention to the nay sayers. However wild, even crazy, an idea may seem in the light of any present knowledge, one day it can be ordinary common thing.

:matte-motes-smile:

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

Coby is talking about mining asteroids for use here on Earth.

One thing that's puzzled me about getting down to the surface from space is the way it's been done so far, which, according to one article linked to in this thread, is a very expensive part of mining asteroids due to getting through the atmosphere. Why not just slow a space vehicle down, point it in the right direction, and let it fall through much of the atmosphere? It could use power lower down in the descent. I'm reminded of the guy who jumped from a balloon from near the edge of space. He didn't burn up on the way down. I believe there is a maximum speed that an object can fall at, which depends on its weight, but I can't imagine that a space vehicle would fall fast enough to burn up. It seems to me that the only reason why burn-up needs to be prevented is the speed that the vehicle is moving as it orbits the Earth.

---

Where did you get that idea?

From you. You only talked about bringing stuff to earth.

 I'm not talking about using the asteroid materials

only

on Earth.

But you didn't say that you meant both and, with you, I'm only discussing the things that you say..

 They will be used on Earth as well as in space. It would be too expensive to transport all the materials form earth to large scale space building projects.

Slowing down a space vehicle and then letting it freely freely down on earth does is not going to work - unless we have huge supplies of fuel to slow down the speed of the spacecraft. Slowing down the speed takes enormous amount fuel, just like taking off from the ground and accelerating to orbital speed does.

I wonder if that's true. Link please

Why the guy who jumped with parachute from the height of tens of kilometers didn't burn up in flames?

I already said why he didn't burn up.

Because: he didn't have any orbital speed what to slow down in the atmosphere. So he just fell freely and reached the terminal free falling speed. That terminal free falling speed is not anywhere near the orbital speeds of spacecrafts.

Aerobraking spacecrafts when entering a planet is used because there is no fuel needed for braking - free brakes - and very high heating up.

---

 

[Phil Deakins]

I'm in red this time

Coby Foden wrote:

My comments in dark red this time:

:smileyhappy:

---

Phil Deakins (wrote in blue)

:

 

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

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

I only went by what you wrote. If you didn't explain it fully, it's not my fault

I'm not your teacher to teach you everything about NASA missions.

:matte-motes-nerdy:

I know that. I'm not trying to learn about NASA missions. You are putting certain information forward as arguments, and that's all I'm replying to. If you don't put everying forward that you want me to understand, it's not my fault.

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:

So we're not talking about mining in the near future after all - which, I think, is where we came into this part of the discussion 

We're talking about the beginning actions for the mining. Don't be daft.

:smileywink:

We're actually talking about whether or not actual mining will occur in the near future. I stick to no.

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.

Then you should have explained it better.

As I said above, not your teacher.

:smileytongue:

As I said above, if you want me to understand something, you need to state it

The asteroid will be put on

lunar orbit

(that means:

circling the moon

) as I wrote already earlier.

Yes, I do know what 'orbit' means. I haven't said anything about that.

You said "bring them back

to the moon

".

Bringing them to the Moon does not necessarily mean landing them. I understood what you said. You can go out to the asteroid belt and bring an asteroid back to earth, but you'd better not land the darned thing. You still have brought it back to Earth though.

 

 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.

Yes, I do know what 'orbit' means. If you are referring to me saying that I hope they their sums right, it still stands. Powering something from far away towards the Moon, means powering it towards the Earch. So they do need to get their sums right or we could be in trouble.

They are experts in guiding the space probes.

Are they really? They've never made any errors? As I said, they'd better get their sums right.

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.

It is until it happens.

Not science fiction at all.

It can be done if there is a will, funds and need.

(Maybe you would call a moonbase science fiction too because we have none so far?)

 :smileyvery-happy:

Yes I would. It can be done right now, but it's still in the relams of imagination - sci-fi.

Science fiction is something for which we have no idea at all how to accomplish something, like warp drive and travelling through worm holes for example.

Sci-fi is science in fiction. Who said it has to also be impossible at the present time? There are lots of things in sci-fi that not only can be done but are being done. Space travel, for instance. It's fiction with a science bent.

---

 

---

 

---

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote

(in blue)

:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

 

Slowing down a space vehicle and then letting it freely freely down on earth does is not going to work - unless we have huge supplies of fuel to slow down the speed of the spacecraft. Slowing down the speed takes enormous amount fuel, just like taking off from the ground and accelerating to orbital speed does.

I wonder if that's true. Link please

---

 

---

It is true. You'll find it out if you care to study the basics of spaceflight and re-entry to Earth.

As I said, I'm not your teacher, do some studying by yourself. :smileyhappy:

[Coby Foden]

Unfortunately I couldn't find anything constructive in your replies.
It's very obvious by now, that once again, you debate just for the sake of debate.

 

[Ted McGregor]

That was quick !

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote

(in blue)

:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

 

Slowing down a space vehicle and then letting it freely freely down on earth does is not going to work - unless we have huge supplies of fuel to slow down the speed of the spacecraft. Slowing down the speed takes enormous amount fuel, just like taking off from the ground and accelerating to orbital speed does.

I wonder if that's true. Link please

---

 

---

It is true. You'll find it out if you care to study the basics of spaceflight and re-entry to Earth.

As I said, I'm not your teacher, do some studying by yourself. :smileyhappy:

---

But I'm not exactly trying to learn. If you know it to be true, I would have thought you would have a link. That's all I asked for. I'm not really interested in researching it for myself. It was just a thought that came to mind.

ETA: Alright, I did look around the web a bit and you are quite right about the fuel load needed to slow a vehicle down. What's needed is a different type of engine such as a nuclear one (suggested in an article). Then burn-up on reentry wouldn't be a problem. And you never know, by the time that stuff is being mined on asteroids and brought back for use down here, they may be using an engine that can do it.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Unfortunately I couldn't find anything constructive in your replies.

It's very obvious by now, that once again, you debate just for the sake of debate.

 

---

Oh, I always do, but you've known that for years. Nevertheless, I never put what I know to be wrong arguments forward. In other words, I'm just like you and everyone else who debates, in that I always think my arguments are right at the time I post them. Also, if it's shown that I an wrong, I do admit it, just as I did in this thread.

[Ted McGregor]

 Apparantly the scientists of the Rosetta-project are tweeting on Reddit.

 

We are comet scientists and engineers working on Philae and Rosetta. We just triple-landed a robot lab on a comet.

   Ask us Anything !

 

The update-thread about Philae can be found here. Philae is expected to hibernate until March 2015 and hopefully will be active again coming summer to resume research.

[Coby Foden]

This is a video preview of the Competitiveness Council in Brussels on 4-5 December, 2014. The main topics are safety standards, the travel package directive and the future of EU space policy.

[Ted McGregor]

Thanks for that. Interesting.

I hope both you and Phil will enjoy this video. It's about the Mars program for NASA and also contains a lot of referrals to the discussion of 'frivolous spending' which Phil mentioned, albeit from NASA's POV and U.S.-gov-spending on space-projects.

 

[Coby Foden]

I had a sneak peak from the beginning of the video. Looks interesting, definitely worth watching. Thanks.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

TDD123 wrote:

Thanks for that. Interesting.

I hope both you and Phil will enjoy this video. It's about the Mars program for NASA and also contains a lot of referrals to the discussion of 'frivolous spending' which Phil mentioned, albeit from NASA's POV and U.S.-gov-spending on space-projects.

 

---

 

@12:50ish

"There are those who say that we have many problems to deal with here on Earth, and we need to postpone human ventures such as human exploration on Mars until these problems are solved. Well, there were many problems in Spain in 1492, and there still are."

;-).

[Ted McGregor]

:robotvery-happy:

 

.. you noticed !

[Phil Deakins]

That was a very interesting documentary, but it stopped short of the first Earth-Mars war, which ws very disappointing because I wanted to know who wins 

What it didn't say was how today's launch fits in with what most of the programme talked about (if it fits in at all) - Mars Direct or Mars Semi-Direct, or whatever.