We plan out where a comet's gonna be, build a craft to meet up with it and orbit it and plop a probe down on it... pretty cool stuff we can do sometimes...took a lot of planning and math (and money)
We plan out where a comet's gonna be, build a craft to meet up with it and orbit it and plop a probe down on it... pretty cool stuff we can do sometimes...took a lot of planning and math (and money)
Very cool mission. I sure hope it was worth the cost $$$ wise. Not really sure why we needed to do this or what we wanted to know. It's always fun to spend other people's money.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Space exploration is one of the few types of government expenditures that can actually benifit all of society and the world down the road. In many cases industry doesn't see a problem and then work to solve it with new technology - they see new technology developed and look for a way to utilize it. Take GPS for example - there was no big consumer drive for GPS, but today just about everyone has one on their phone.
A need to design very lightweight radiation shielding gave us technology for those reflective emergency blankets used by resuce personnel. Before that, they just used regular blankets. It wasn't a "need" for them to develope new technology, but because of the new tech, we now have emergency blankets that are cheap and small enough for everyone to have a few in their glove compartment, for rescue squads to carry many more than they could blankets, etc.
Cutting edge R&D has usually been supported by governemnt because there is no clear profit motive for business yet. Once the technology has commercial uses, we all benefit.
I know some people with disagree, but given how small the NASA budget is, we really do get a better return on investment for each dollar they spend than just about any other government program.
Not really sure why we needed to do this or what we wanted to know.
"Sorry, Señor Columbus. No guaranteed, immediate, tangible, commercial benefit means no money for your proposed voyage."
(FWIW, Rosetta is a project of the European Space Agency, not NASA, so very little of "our" money is being squandered on this particular mission. Enjoy the pictures anyway.)
Image of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko taken by the Rosetta spacecraft, posted this morning on the NASA Goddard web site. It's also slowly tumbling. Looks like comets have a hard life.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-07-2014).]
"Sorry, Señor Columbus. No guaranteed, immediate, tangible, commercial benefit means no money for your proposed voyage."
(FWIW, Rosetta is a project of the European Space Agency, not NASA, so very little of "our" money is being squandered on this particular mission. Enjoy the pictures anyway.)
Image of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko taken by the Rosetta spacecraft, posted this morning on the NASA Goddard web site. It's also slowly tumbling. Looks like comets have a hard life.
Marvin, I never said NASA, I said we. Additionally, I agree with the vast majority of NASA's mission but, I still say it's always fun to spend other people's money.
In reference to mining these things, there's a moon floating around up there we haven't fully investigated, until we determine we can get there safely, stay there and do something or not, I'm thinking we leave other more distant, harder to keep up with objects alone. Or, have we already figured out out moon has nothing to offer?
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
In reference to mining these things, there's a moon floating around up there we haven't fully investigated, until we determine we can get there safely, stay there and do something or not, I'm thinking we leave other more distant, harder to keep up with objects alone. Or, have we already figured out out moon has nothing to offer?
Actually we know the moon has a lot of potential resources. GW Bush had planned a return to the moon before attempting a Mars trip, but President 0 needed to change it from "Bush's" idea to his own, so the moon mission was scrapped because "we've already been there" and the decision was made to go to an asteroid. See, now it's 0bama's vision.
In 1997 it was speculated that a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than $20 trillion USD worth of industrial and precious metals. 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. The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of nickel–iron, which could supply the world production requirement for several million years. A small portion of the extracted material would also be precious metals.
Very cool mission. I sure hope it was worth the cost $$$ wise. Not really sure why we needed to do this or what we wanted to know. It's always fun to spend other people's money.
Actually we know the moon has a lot of potential resources. GW Bush had planned a return to the moon before attempting a Mars trip, but President 0 needed to change it from "Bush's" idea to his own, so the moon mission was scrapped because "we've already been there" and the decision was made to go to an asteroid. See, now it's 0bama's vision.
Let's send Obama on a one-way trip to an asteroid. I'll gladly donate to this cause.
In 1997 it was speculated that a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than $20 trillion USD worth of industrial and precious metals. 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. The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of nickel–iron, which could supply the world production requirement for several million years. A small portion of the extracted material would also be precious metals.
"Speculated", "could contain", "believed to contain" are all words or phrases that have absolutely no proof to back them up which leaves me "skeptical".
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
New image (15 Sep 2014), from a distance of only 62 km:
"Spacecraft Rosetta continues to approach, circle, and map Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Crossing the inner Solar System for ten years to reach the vicinity of the comet last month, the robotic spacecraft continues to image the unusual double-lobed comet nucleus. The reconstructed-color image featured, taken about 10 days ago, indicates how dark this comet nucleus is. On the average, the comet's surface reflects only about four percent of impinging visible light, making it as dark as coal. Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko spans about four kilometers in length and has a surface gravity so low that an astronaut could jump off of it. In about two months, Rosetta is scheduled to release the first probe ever to attempt a controlled landing on a comet's nucleus."
Originally posted by blackrams: "Speculated", "could contain", "believed to contain" are all words or phrases that have absolutely no proof to back them up which leaves me "skeptical".
And thats the reason to probe it! to find out for certain if we are going the right way in our speculation. ------------------
ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
12.3 is faster than a 13.2
[This message has been edited by FIEROPHREK (edited 09-15-2014).]
On a side note, what if we as humans did get into this business of mining comets and asteroids, What would we do with it? Where would we process it? would we put it into orbit around the Earth or Moon? would we try to land it on the Moon and process it there? Would all this extra material cause the Earth to spin differantly or change orbit? If we started taking on massive amounts of extra weight how would that effect things? Would it not be enough to cause our orbit to slow down or our spin to change? There are some things to think about before actually dragging in all this extra material.
On a side note, what if we as humans did get into this business of mining comets and asteroids, What would we do with it? Where would we process it? would we put it into orbit around the Earth or Moon? would we try to land it on the Moon and process it there? Would all this extra material cause the Earth to spin differantly or change orbit? If we started taking on massive amounts of extra weight how would that effect things? Would it not be enough to cause our orbit to slow down or our spin to change? There are some things to think about before actually dragging in all this extra material.
Well the earth gains an average of 60,000 to 100,000 tons of matter each year from dust and other particles it absorbs from space. But it also bleeds off around 40,000 to 60,000 tons of matter per year as well. Some years it takes in more than it loses, and some years its the opposite. So it tends to average out in the long run. We would have to take on a hugh amount of matter before having to worry about changing the orbit of our planet. Even a space rock say 6 to 8 miles in diameter would weigh billions upon billions of tons, and even that would not even come close to being enough to disturb our orbit, even taking into account the kinetic energy created from a object of the size slamming into the earth at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. We would have to be hit by something planet in size to even begin to worry about our orbit being disrupted. Not even something the size of the moon would be enough, you would need something the size of Mars or larger to make something like that happen. And even then, it probably wouldent change the Earths orbit, it might smash the earth to bits, but the material would likely stay in the same orbit, and create another asteroid field, or over time, the Earth would just reform from the debris. Much like it did when our moon was formed by a Mars size planet that smashed into earth, breaking it apart, and when it reformed, some of the material reformed around it and became two moons, which then collided and melded together to form the moon we have today.
The most likely way our planets orbit would get disturbed, is if Jupiter's orbit became unstable (which is not only possible, but actually expected to happen in the far far far future due to Jupiter's and Saturn's gravitational interactions, and its happened in our solar systems past, Jupiter and Saturn caused all kinds of chaos during the early days due too their unstable orbits caused by their gravitational interactions.) Neptune and Uranus used to be in between Mars and Jupiter, but got flug out to a more distant orbit due to Jupiter and Saturn, which is why they are where they are today. If Jupiter's orbit changed and it started moving towards the sun, it could pass by the Earth and sling shot us into a new orbit, or out of the solar system entirely. As scientists have discovered from other solar systems, Jupiter sized planets moving about their solar systems and knocking other smaller planets out is actually quite common.
Basically any amount of space rock material that humans could possibly bring back from asteroids would be so minor it would have no real bearing on Earths weight and orbit. But at the same time, it is a perfectly logical question to bring up.
[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 09-15-2014).]
