NASA Crashes into a Comet

[TheMadCap]

Mine the moon?  Why bother, the moon's mostly rock, any ore worth mentioning is to deep to effectively get at.  Instead, find a nice nickel-iron asteroid out there, strap a space shuttle main engine and fuel tank onto it (since we'll have a suplus of THOSE pieces of crap once we scrap the shuttle program), and fly the asteroid gently into the moon.  Then pick up the pieces (i.e. mine the ore from the crater and debris), and send them back to earth (i.e. put them together into reasonably-sized packages, encase them in thermal shielding made on-site from moon rocks, and fly them direct to the earth.  Land them in shallow ocean regions and have ships winch them up.)

 

Sure, it might not pay for itself for a while...but even a smallish asteriod has a lot of iron, nickel, and even gold in it.  Efficiently mined, an asteroid will pay for itself...and if you can think of a more efficient way of mining it than I just outlined (and safer - I'd prefer slamming them into the moon rather than trying to gently nudge them into orbit around the earth) using given technology, feel free...

375998[/snapback]

 

I've actually heard alot about this type of thing lately, not too farfeched of an idea actually. If you already don't know about it, check some of these topics on this forum Tom, I think you would enjoy it..

 

http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi

[Alaska Darin]

to deep

375998[/snapback]

too

[TheMadCap]

too 

376004[/snapback]

 

OMFG!!!!! THis is unprecedented!!!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

too 

376004[/snapback]

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The average person does three stupid things a day. That's my first. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[TheMadCap]

Moon-based Cape Canaveral launch proposals are a waste of time, if your goal is to reach Mars, which in my opinion, is the only worthwhile endeavor for NASA's manned space program.

 

Any rocket that you launch to Mars from the Moon has to come from Earth first, so send it there directly. You would save fuel that way.

 

The other main problem is that the moon does not have the significant atmosphere necessary to use an aerobraking maneuvor. You can also forget about parachute decent as is done currently on Mars.

 

You could, I suppose, use a lunar base as a training facility, but why? We can do it on Earth as substaintialy reduced cost....

[cåblelady]

too 

376004[/snapback]

 

Uh-oh. You're in trouble now.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I've actually heard alot about this type of thing lately, not too farfeched of an idea actually. If you already don't know about it, check some of these topics on this forum Tom, I think you would enjoy it..

 

http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi

376002[/snapback]

 

My brother does research for the hypothetical future Mars mission (works on designing the enviromental system - as a hobby. Professionally, he's working on his PhD in some sort of environmental systems theory specialization that he invented for himself as an outgrowth of U of MD's "Planetary Enviromental Engineering" program - basically, he's specializing in terraforming Jupiter. (The amazing thing is that, even despite that, he's still not nearly the nerd I am.)

 

So I've been discussing this stuff with him at a reasonably professional level for about five years or so...though my focus these days is less exploration and more concerned with economical and cost-effective uses for NASA in earth orbit. I've actually got a whole 5-10 year plan for making NASA run at a profit AND reducing the cost per pound to orbit that no one'll ever see...because no one who can make a difference will ever take me seriously anyway.

[Alaska Darin]

Uh-oh. You're in trouble now. 

376013[/snapback]

I ain't afraid of Dexter. His cranium is so big it has its own gravitation. Before he even gets close all the sh-- on my desk would be flying at him.

[TheMadCap]

My brother does research for the hypothetical future Mars mission (works on designing the enviromental system - as a hobby.  Professionally, he's working on his PhD in some sort of environmental systems theory specialization that he invented for himself as an outgrowth of U of MD's "Planetary Enviromental Engineering" program - basically, he's specializing in terraforming Jupiter.  (The amazing thing is that, even despite that, he's still not nearly the nerd I am.) 

 

So I've been discussing this stuff with him at a reasonably professional level for about five years or so...though my focus these days is less exploration and more concerned with economical and cost-effective uses for NASA in earth orbit.  I've actually got a whole 5-10 year plan for making NASA run at a profit AND reducing the cost per pound to orbit that no one'll ever see...because no one who can make a difference will ever take me seriously anyway. 

376014[/snapback]

 

 

I'd prefer you over O'keefe any day of the week. By the way, what is your opinion of R. Zubrin's plan? Other that the obvious, that it is not redundant enough...

[cåblelady]

works on designing the enviromental system -

376014[/snapback]

 

Oops. Number 2.

[Rubes]

basically, he's specializing in terraforming Jupiter.

376014[/snapback]

 

 

Just curious, how do you terraform Jupiter when there's no terra?

[Alaska Darin]

Just curious, how do you terraform Jupiter when there's no terra?

376021[/snapback]

That's why you have to form it, silly.

[cåblelady]

I ain't afraid of Dexter.  His cranium is so big it has it's own gravitation.  Before he even gets close all the sh-- on my desk would be flying at him.

376017[/snapback]

 

Yeah.......but, he's taller than you. I know.....makes a bigger target.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Moon-based Cape Canaveral launch proposals are a waste of time, if your goal is to reach Mars, which in my opinion, is the only worthwhile endeavor for NASA's manned space program.

 

Any rocket that you launch to Mars from the Moon has to come from Earth first, so send it there directly. You would save fuel that way.

 

The other main problem is that the moon does not have the significant atmosphere necessary to use an aerobraking maneuvor. You can also forget about parachute decent as is done currently on Mars.

 

You could, I suppose, use a lunar base as a training facility, but why? We can do it on Earth as substaintialy reduced cost....

376011[/snapback]

 

I never even really considered landing a Mars rocket on the moon...I was thinking that, to use the moon as a stepping stone, you'd have to locate a good deal of the industry necessary to construct the Mars mission ON the moon, and build it there. Let's face it...landing an entire spacecraft inside a gravity well simply to launch it back out is stupid as hell. It only really makes sense if you build it there.

 

Although the moon does also have the distinct advantage in that you can use some form of nuclear-based propulsion (either some hypothetical yet-to-be-developed one, or dust off the old Orion plan of detonating a nuclear warhead under a huge iron plate). You'll never get the enviromentalists to allow anything like that to launch from here...hell, you can't even launch inert plutonium anymore since all the ignorant screaming over Cassini.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Oops. Number 2. 

376019[/snapback]

 

But...but...but...you don't like me anymore, because someone other than I "slandered" you into acting like a grade schooler. So go away, I can't be bothered with your crap.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Just curious, how do you terraform Jupiter when there's no terra?

376021[/snapback]

 

Apparently it involves sewage, algae, and math.

 

Or maybe that was the Mars mission's environmental system...

[TheMadCap]

I never even really considered landing a Mars rocket on the moon...I was thinking that, to use the moon as a stepping stone, you'd have to locate a good deal of the industry necessary to construct the Mars mission ON the moon, and build it there.  Let's face it...landing an entire spacecraft inside a gravity well simply to launch it back out is stupid as hell.  It only really makes sense if you build it there.

 

Although the moon does also have the distinct advantage in that you can use some form of nuclear-based propulsion (either some hypothetical yet-to-be-developed one, or dust off the old Orion plan of detonating a nuclear warhead under a huge iron plate).  You'll never get the enviromentalists to allow anything like that to launch from here...hell, you can't even launch inert plutonium anymore since all the ignorant screaming over Cassini.

376026[/snapback]

 

 

Orion, the old British design? The one on Cosmos? We could have built that thing in 1980 if, as you say, the environwackos would have let us...

[cåblelady]

But...but...but...you don't like me anymore, because someone other than I "slandered" you into acting like a grade schooler.  So go away, I can't be bothered with your crap. 

376027[/snapback]

 

But...but...but...you're the only one that would understand about my cat eating my potato salad.

[TheMadCap]

But...but...but...you're the only one that would understand about my cat eating my potato salad. 

376034[/snapback]

 

 

My drunken boss once came back in the kitchen and made a potato salad sandwich. When we asked him what the hell was he doing, he declared that it was the best damn egg-salad sandwich he ever had...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Orion, the old British design? The one on Cosmos? We could have built that thing in 1980 if, as you say, the environwackos would have let us...

376030[/snapback]

 

Is it British? I just know it's old.

 

And you really have to build it away from the earth's surface...for reasons having to do with the nature of nuclear blasts in atmosphere - you could actually use a less massive iron plate in vacuum than in atmosphere, and not only reduce your cost to build but get higher acceleration as well.

 

Which doesn't do sh-- for NASA's profitability anyway. I'd rather see them design, construct, and operate an actual space transportation system before they start with anything like that or a Mars mission.