PSA: SpaceX Starship's 7th Integrated Test Flight scheduled for Thursday January 16th at 4:00PM CST
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
Can we put you on top of the rocket for the next launch? When exactly is it launching?
LOL, nope.
You remain stupid about the "asteroid mining", despite multiple sources explaining it to you.
Only because you are incapable of understanding basic physics and reading the English language
No; I posted the physics, and links to physics-sites that "splained" it for you.
Your inability to understand them is another matter altogether.
Wrong again. I posted the explanation of orbital and celestial mechanics that demonstrated why your “hitch a rocket to an asteroid and bring it to Earth” is not feasible. The simple physics that you don’t seem to understand is: mass x acceleration = force. Which means any substantial asteroid has huge force and that inertia will be almost impossible to substantially alter. That plus orbital and celestial mechanics means you can’t just attach a rocket to any significantly sized asteroid, point it toward Earth and accelerate your way there.
You are a dummy.
You posted nothing of the sort.
Multiple links I posted demonstrate it is the MOST feasible method for asteroid mining.
Like Hell I didn’t! Reread the thread, you Moran. The only thing you posted was some half-baked article by some quack who specifically admitted his goofy idea involved a tiny little asteroid which would take forever to get back to Earth (because of celestial mechanics, you goof). Hence, not economically feasible at all. Read the overall scientific literature on the subject, you twit and stop relying on some bullshite article you pulled out of your ignorant, uninformed ass.
Last edited:
You did not
All you claimed was that "orbital mechanics are different for larger stuff", which is also UNTRUE.
Orbital mechanics laws are the same; mathematical simplifications change for some conditions, but the gravitational laws are the same.
And you CAN use a very small engine/rocket, capable of constant force to accelerate something to substantial speeds over time. This is all widely understood stuff.
People rooting for SpaceX's failure bc they don't like Elon are miserable humans who live small lives. They should all just suicide themselves already if they are so miserable as to be rooting for failures in what equates to potential advancements of humanity.
Bullshit. HERE IS WHAT IS WIDELY UNDERSTOOD:
Do you think it might be possible to capture a passing asteroid, place it in geostationary orbit and begin mining it?
Rodney Price
Studied at Imperial College LondonAuthor has 3.8K answers and 11.2M answer viewsUpdated 4y
It might be possible to put an asteroid into an orbit around earth. There’s no particular benefit in it being a geostationary orbit.
The momentum change we’d need to impart is humongous - far more than we’d need to deflect an asteroid that was on a collision course with earth.
Potentially hazardous objects only need to be nudged so they miss the earth. To deflect an asteroid that is a year from impact might need a velocity change of about 1 metre/sec.
An ore asteroid is likely to have a relative speed (or delta-V requirement) of 10 km/s and need another 2–3 km/s to put into GEO or LEO unless we do very careful aerobraking in earths atmosphere.
Even if we could mount a nuclear thermal rocket on a solid asteroid and feed it asteroid material as reaction mass, we’d still need to use most of the asteroid mass to change the remainder’s velocity by 10 km/s.
if you’ve got a nuclear reactor to an asteroid it might be faster to just melt the material and separate out the valuable few % and send those back to earth orbit.
“All you claimed was that "orbital mechanics are different for larger stuff", which is also UNTRUE.”
Again, you can’t read. What I said was that the energy requirements to change the inertia of a large asteroid and bring it back to Earth were prohibitive because of the simple law of physics “mass x acceleration = force”. That, plus orbital mechanics makes the time it would take to bring it to Earth and mine it on the surface (as you proposed) economically infeasible.
According to you, Major Tom: “And you CAN use a very small engine/rocket, capable of constant force to accelerate something to substantial speeds over time. This is all widely understood stuff.”
Only if you have an INFINITY to do it, rocket scientist.
You sound pretty miserable telling others to “suicide themselves.”
Hey look, another page, another chance for OP to ignore questions he finds difficult.
Bullshit. HERE IS WHAT IS WIDELY UNDERSTOOD:
Do you think it might be possible to capture a passing asteroid, place it in geostationary orbit and begin mining it?
Rodney Price
Studied at Imperial College LondonAuthor has 3.8K answers and 11.2M answer viewsUpdated 4y
It might be possible to put an asteroid into an orbit around earth. There’s no particular benefit in it being a geostationary orbit.
The momentum change we’d need to impart is humongous - far more than we’d need to deflect an asteroid that was on a collision course with earth.
Potentially hazardous objects only need to be nudged so they miss the earth. To deflect an asteroid that is a year from impact might need a velocity change of about 1 metre/sec.
An ore asteroid is likely to have a relative speed (or delta-V requirement) of 10 km/s and need another 2–3 km/s to put into GEO or LEO unless we do very careful aerobraking in earths atmosphere.
Even if we could mount a nuclear thermal rocket on a solid asteroid and feed it asteroid material as reaction mass, we’d still need to use most of the asteroid mass to change the remainder’s velocity by 10 km/s.
if you’ve got a nuclear reactor to an asteroid it might be faster to just melt the material and separate out the valuable few % and send those back to earth orbit.
“All you claimed was that "orbital mechanics are different for larger stuff", which is also UNTRUE.”
Again, you can’t read. What I said was that the energy requirements to change the inertia of a large asteroid and bring it back to Earth were prohibitive because of the simple law of physics “mass x acceleration = force”. That, plus orbital mechanics makes the time it would take to bring it to Earth and mine it on the surface (as you proposed) economically infeasible.
According to you, Major Tom: “And you CAN use a very small engine/rocket, capable of constant force to accelerate something to substantial speeds over time. This is all widely understood stuff.”
Only if you have an INFINITY to do it, rocket scientist.
Your buddy doesn't know about "ion propulsion" systems, does he?
Science says otherwise. Minimal propellant needed to achieve substantial acceleration over time.
You keep whistling in the wind. Ion Propulsion wouldn’t decrease the time to get a large asteroid to Earth’s surface one bit. In fact, assuming it even works, it probably would take longer. Compared to chemical rockets, the ionic alternative is capable of a very small amount of thrust. This means that it would have to operate for a very long time to reach the same level of acceleration as a chemical system. Hooked to an asteroid with large mass and inertia it would take forever to develop sufficient power to change the asteroids orbit in a manner sufficient to bring it to Earth.
Wanker
Wanker
Sure will.
I believe it's University of Michigan that even has a slideshow about it.
Yep....from EIGHT YEARS AGO, Rumpelstiltskin!!!
To the Moon and beyond: How University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering is on the cutting edge of electric space propulsion - Michigan Aerospace Engineering
The University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering Department's Plasmadynamics and Electric Propulsion Laboratory (PEPL) is developing the next-generation of Hall thruster technology that may one day propel the first human missions to Mars.
aero.engin.umich.edu
It's almost like you're a decade behind the curve in understanding ANY of this stuff!!!
Listen, you dope, I know ion propulsion has been around for awhile. But due to its limitations it isn’t, and won’t ever be, used to attach a vehicle to an asteroid and bring it to Earth- WHICH IS WHAT THE HELL SUBJECT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOU MORAN!Sure will.
I believe it's University of Michigan that even has a slideshow about it.
Yep....from EIGHT YEARS AGO, Rumpelstiltskin!!!
To the Moon and beyond: How University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering is on the cutting edge of electric space propulsion - Michigan Aerospace Engineering
The University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering Department's Plasmadynamics and Electric Propulsion Laboratory (PEPL) is developing the next-generation of Hall thruster technology that may one day propel the first human missions to Mars.
It's almost like you're a decade behind the curve in understanding ANY of this stuff!!!
Why ion propulsion won’t work to retrieve an asteroid to Earth is evident from the dated presentation you cite.
1. It would take over ten years. No ion engine with sufficient thrust and staying power is currently available, and likely won’t be.
2. The size of the rock you are bringing back is too limited. You are stuck with whatever fits in your “catcher.”
3. You are bringing back a bunch of dead weight, i.e., worthless material.
4. Serious radiation issues.
Last edited:
FAR more feasible than sending astronauts on a 2-3 year mission to "mine" one, in place.
AINEC.
Yes, indeed- SpaceX doing what they do. You doubters should just pee your pants and watch. Lol
I dont care about any if your arguments, but that was cool.
Just watched another SpaceX launch to the ISS, with a return of the booster to pad. Beautiful beach day. Godspeed to the 4 on board, including 2 women, one a Saudi and the other an American with the most space time of any US astronaut.
Watched it too. Love their coverage.
People rooting for Musk and SpaceX to fail are in for decades of disappointment and bitterness.
Stfu, Joe. You don’t even understand how basic railroad air brakes work. They were designed in the 1870s.
Latest posts
-
-
Three Positions Iowa May Need in the Spring Transfer Portal Window- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
-