23 May 2016, 5:29 pm
23 May 2016, 5:33 pm
MissAlgernon
Deinonychus
Joined: 18 Feb 2016
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 382
Location: Aperture laboratories
23 May 2016, 5:39 pm
I already explained you the answer. Now, if you want to blatantly ignore all the arguments we give you that give clear explanations why this can't be done, you're always going to consider that your idea is valid no matter what, that you're right and we're wrong, so there is no more reason to discuss what I already explained is technically impossible to do. Your idea comes from Hollywood blockbuster movies, and completely ignores the laws of celestial mechanics. At this point, I prefer to leave this thread as you're obviously completely closed to counterarguments and totally auto-convinced. 
23 May 2016, 6:02 pm
MissAlgernon wrote:
I already explained you the answer. Now, if you want to blatantly ignore all the arguments we give you that give clear explanations why this can't be done, you're always going to consider that your idea is valid no matter what, that you're right and we're wrong, so there is no more reason to discuss what I already explained is technically impossible to do. Your idea comes from Hollywood blockbuster movies, and completely ignores the laws of celestial mechanics. At this point, I prefer to leave this thread as you're obviously completely closed to counterarguments and totally auto-convinced.
No one is denying that this can't be done using the present-day technology.
And I would be highly worried for the person who takes this discussion more seriously than mere casual science fiction speculation. Not only that, I would be highly worried for anyone who comes to an autism forum, and is surprised that a person with moderate autism (such as myself) might happen to have a naive and overly simplistic view of the world, and unable to grasp the big picture of some things.
23 May 2016, 6:18 pm
somebody300 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
somebody300 wrote:
MissAlgernon wrote:
You'd prefer getting water in the outer solar system. Even landing on an asteroid is extremely difficult. The smaller the body is, the more difficult it is to control landing. It's even hard to make something land safely on Mars... Doing the same with an asteroid or a comet is "miraculous". And comets and chondrites are quite brittle, so any try to manipulate them might end very badly.
Even in a very distant future, I don't believe in exploitation of asteroids as a sustainable and profitable technology. Exploitation of local resources on a planet or satellite would make much more sense, both for the economy and safety.
Even in a very distant future, I don't believe in exploitation of asteroids as a sustainable and profitable technology. Exploitation of local resources on a planet or satellite would make much more sense, both for the economy and safety.
Well, Rosetta successfully landed on a comet not so long time ago.
Also, asteroid mining is considered to be very profitable. So profitable that some laws got approved by the Obama administration not so long time ago to encourage private firms to mine asteroids. They contain billions upon billions of dollars worth of precious metals. There are even space mining lawyers nowadays.
Mining the Sky is a good book which explores the financial prospects of asteroid mining.
On top of what Miss Algernon said: these visions of future asteroid mining (as far as I know) dont usually involve what your talking about: capturing a whole darn iron-nickel asteroid the size of Manhatten, and then somehow landing it gently on the earth.
What is usually envisioned is strip mining the asteroid right there in space, dismantling it (ingot by ingot), and sending the pig iron on space freighters back to earth ( or to heck with the Earth- just using the material to build Gerard O'Neil type space cities that will orbit at the Lagrange points around the earth and other planets-exploiting space resources to colonize space- as discussed O'Neil's book "the High Frontier").
I think we're talking about completely different things. Asteroid mining is completelly irrelevant to the argument around which this thread revolves. What is being talked about here are two things:
1) Capturing a small piece (perhaps, a few hundreds of meters wide) of a comet for its fresh water content (see the drawing) on page 1.
2) Intentionally diverting the trajectory of a very small asteroid via controlled nuclear detonation, in order to have it hit some unpopulated place on Earth, and produce a very attenuated version of the phenomenon known as the impact winter. The goal is to marginally reduce global temperatures, to counteract the global warming. No one is talking about huge asteroids. Only very, very small asteroids which are predicted to cause only tiny reductions in global temperatures would be used.
Well...I was takling about the comet. My point was that a body that has desirable resources that humans want - is usually envisioned as being mined. Not as being magically floated down to earth. So a comet made of water ice could also be mined (just chop it up into ice cubes and ship it home piece by piece) much the way that asteroids with iron ore are envisioned as being mined.
But we dont need space water anyway. Its easier to just desalinate sea water.
Though future space colonies might harvest water via comets.
But about the asteroid notion.
OH!! !!
Thats all that you wanna do. Just redirect a small asteroid via nukes so that it..HITS THE EARTH...but misses the populated areas (and also misses the two thirds of the Earth's surface that is ocean).
And you wanna do this because you want to purposely pollute the whole planet's atmosphere on the hunch that that will just SLIGHTLY cool the Earth's climate.
To take it from the top:Just use nukes to deliberatly cause a piece of cosmic shrapnel to PURPOSELY hit the earth- but- do it in such a way- that it misses populated areas- and that it misses the ocean (the impact would not do you want it to do if it hits the ocean, and if it hits the ocean it will cause a tsunami that will destroy populated areas thousands of miles away). And you wanna do this so that this asteroid will explode on land and send debris up into the sky that will dirty up the atmosphere just the right amount-to cool the atmosphere- but not too much so that it sends us all into a "impact winter"- or an ice age- and you can guarantee that it wont backfire and cause a worse green house effect, and that this deliberate polluting of the whole planet's atmosphere wont have other unseen bad effects.
Well...sounds like a walk in the park to me!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
23 May 2016, 6:43 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
somebody300 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
somebody300 wrote:
MissAlgernon wrote:
You'd prefer getting water in the outer solar system. Even landing on an asteroid is extremely difficult. The smaller the body is, the more difficult it is to control landing. It's even hard to make something land safely on Mars... Doing the same with an asteroid or a comet is "miraculous". And comets and chondrites are quite brittle, so any try to manipulate them might end very badly.
Even in a very distant future, I don't believe in exploitation of asteroids as a sustainable and profitable technology. Exploitation of local resources on a planet or satellite would make much more sense, both for the economy and safety.
Even in a very distant future, I don't believe in exploitation of asteroids as a sustainable and profitable technology. Exploitation of local resources on a planet or satellite would make much more sense, both for the economy and safety.
Well, Rosetta successfully landed on a comet not so long time ago.
Also, asteroid mining is considered to be very profitable. So profitable that some laws got approved by the Obama administration not so long time ago to encourage private firms to mine asteroids. They contain billions upon billions of dollars worth of precious metals. There are even space mining lawyers nowadays.
Mining the Sky is a good book which explores the financial prospects of asteroid mining.
On top of what Miss Algernon said: these visions of future asteroid mining (as far as I know) dont usually involve what your talking about: capturing a whole darn iron-nickel asteroid the size of Manhatten, and then somehow landing it gently on the earth.
What is usually envisioned is strip mining the asteroid right there in space, dismantling it (ingot by ingot), and sending the pig iron on space freighters back to earth ( or to heck with the Earth- just using the material to build Gerard O'Neil type space cities that will orbit at the Lagrange points around the earth and other planets-exploiting space resources to colonize space- as discussed O'Neil's book "the High Frontier").
I think we're talking about completely different things. Asteroid mining is completelly irrelevant to the argument around which this thread revolves. What is being talked about here are two things:
1) Capturing a small piece (perhaps, a few hundreds of meters wide) of a comet for its fresh water content (see the drawing) on page 1.
2) Intentionally diverting the trajectory of a very small asteroid via controlled nuclear detonation, in order to have it hit some unpopulated place on Earth, and produce a very attenuated version of the phenomenon known as the impact winter. The goal is to marginally reduce global temperatures, to counteract the global warming. No one is talking about huge asteroids. Only very, very small asteroids which are predicted to cause only tiny reductions in global temperatures would be used.
Well...I was takling about the comet. My point was that a body that has desirable resources that humans want - is usually envisioned as being mined. Not as being magically floated down to earth. So a comet made of water ice could also be mined (just chop it up into ice cubes and ship it home piece by piece) much the way that asteroids with iron ore are envisioned as being mined.
But we dont need space water anyway. Its easier to just desalinate sea water.
Though future space colonies might harvest water via comets.
But about the asteroid notion.
OH!! ! !
Thats all that you wanna do. Just redirect a small asteroid via nukes so that it..HITS THE EARTH...but misses the populated areas (and also misses the two thirds of the Earth's surface that is ocean).
And you wanna do this because you want to purposely pollute the whole planet's atmosphere on the hunch that that will just SLIGHTLY cool the Earth's climate.
To take it from the top:Just use nukes to deliberatly cause a piece of cosmic shrapnel to PURPOSELY hit the earth- but- do it in such a way- that it misses populated areas- and that it misses the ocean (the impact would not do you want it to do if it hits the ocean, and if it hits the ocean it will cause a tsunami that will destroy populated areas thousands of miles away). And you wanna do this so that this asteroid will explode on land and send debris up into the sky that will dirty up the atmosphere just the right amount-to cool the atmosphere- but not too much so that it sends us all into a "impact winter"- or an ice age- and you can guarantee that it wont backfire and cause a worse green house effect, and that this deliberate polluting of the whole planet's atmosphere wont have other unseen bad effects.
Well...sounds like a walk in the park to me!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
As for the asteroid part - yes, it seems to be somewhat ridiculous to me now.
But what about the comet part? Why not chop a piece off it, and then carry it to the Earth/other planet/sattelite on some sort of a pad with thrusters for fresh water? It could be attached to the pad, and, once the pad enters the atmosphere, parachutes could be deployed.
23 May 2016, 6:55 pm
23 May 2016, 7:06 pm
somebody300 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
somebody300 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
somebody300 wrote:
MissAlgernon wrote:
You'd prefer getting water in the outer solar system. Even landing on an asteroid is extremely difficult. The smaller the body is, the more difficult it is to control landing. It's even hard to make something land safely on Mars... Doing the same with an asteroid or a comet is "miraculous". And comets and chondrites are quite brittle, so any try to manipulate them might end very badly.
Even in a very distant future, I don't believe in exploitation of asteroids as a sustainable and profitable technology. Exploitation of local resources on a planet or satellite would make much more sense, both for the economy and safety.
Even in a very distant future, I don't believe in exploitation of asteroids as a sustainable and profitable technology. Exploitation of local resources on a planet or satellite would make much more sense, both for the economy and safety.
Well, Rosetta successfully landed on a comet not so long time ago.
Also, asteroid mining is considered to be very profitable. So profitable that some laws got approved by the Obama administration not so long time ago to encourage private firms to mine asteroids. They contain billions upon billions of dollars worth of precious metals. There are even space mining lawyers nowadays.
Mining the Sky is a good book which explores the financial prospects of asteroid mining.
On top of what Miss Algernon said: these visions of future asteroid mining (as far as I know) dont usually involve what your talking about: capturing a whole darn iron-nickel asteroid the size of Manhatten, and then somehow landing it gently on the earth.
What is usually envisioned is strip mining the asteroid right there in space, dismantling it (ingot by ingot), and sending the pig iron on space freighters back to earth ( or to heck with the Earth- just using the material to build Gerard O'Neil type space cities that will orbit at the Lagrange points around the earth and other planets-exploiting space resources to colonize space- as discussed O'Neil's book "the High Frontier").
I think we're talking about completely different things. Asteroid mining is completelly irrelevant to the argument around which this thread revolves. What is being talked about here are two things:
1) Capturing a small piece (perhaps, a few hundreds of meters wide) of a comet for its fresh water content (see the drawing) on page 1.
2) Intentionally diverting the trajectory of a very small asteroid via controlled nuclear detonation, in order to have it hit some unpopulated place on Earth, and produce a very attenuated version of the phenomenon known as the impact winter. The goal is to marginally reduce global temperatures, to counteract the global warming. No one is talking about huge asteroids. Only very, very small asteroids which are predicted to cause only tiny reductions in global temperatures would be used.
Well...I was takling about the comet. My point was that a body that has desirable resources that humans want - is usually envisioned as being mined. Not as being magically floated down to earth. So a comet made of water ice could also be mined (just chop it up into ice cubes and ship it home piece by piece) much the way that asteroids with iron ore are envisioned as being mined.
But we dont need space water anyway. Its easier to just desalinate sea water.
Though future space colonies might harvest water via comets.
But about the asteroid notion.
OH!! ! !
Thats all that you wanna do. Just redirect a small asteroid via nukes so that it..HITS THE EARTH...but misses the populated areas (and also misses the two thirds of the Earth's surface that is ocean).
And you wanna do this because you want to purposely pollute the whole planet's atmosphere on the hunch that that will just SLIGHTLY cool the Earth's climate.
To take it from the top:Just use nukes to deliberatly cause a piece of cosmic shrapnel to PURPOSELY hit the earth- but- do it in such a way- that it misses populated areas- and that it misses the ocean (the impact would not do you want it to do if it hits the ocean, and if it hits the ocean it will cause a tsunami that will destroy populated areas thousands of miles away). And you wanna do this so that this asteroid will explode on land and send debris up into the sky that will dirty up the atmosphere just the right amount-to cool the atmosphere- but not too much so that it sends us all into a "impact winter"- or an ice age- and you can guarantee that it wont backfire and cause a worse green house effect, and that this deliberate polluting of the whole planet's atmosphere wont have other unseen bad effects.
Well...sounds like a walk in the park to me!
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
As for the asteroid part - yes, it seems to be somewhat ridiculous to me now.
But what about the comet part? Why not chop a piece off it, and then carry it to the Earth/other planet/sattelite on some sort of a pad with thrusters for fresh water? It could be attached to the pad, and, once the pad enters the atmosphere, parachutes could be deployed.
If you mean to supply the earth with water- what BC said.
But if we were embarking upon a program of colonizing space itself (moon settlements, Gerard O'Neil type colonies free floating in stable points in space, Mars settlements, or some combination of all of that), then supplying space colonies with water harvested from comets in space might well be more cost effective than shipping water up from the earth.
What sized "chunks" to hack off of comets would be best to tow around the solar system - I dunno.
