.Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

Ian · 2005-02-17 13:38:41

What if there was an acciident on a ship carrying people between the Earth and Mars? What if a huge asteroid got in the way just like the Iceberg and the Titanic. In the Future, should there be an early warning system for Spaceships and a map of all of the asteroids in the asteroid belt on the ship so that it doesn't crash into a huge asteroid?

C M Edwards · 2005-02-17 14:20:43

Alas, an early warning system is unlikely, and charts of the necessary scale aren't possible.

At the speeds involved, all you would need to produce the kind of destruction RMS Titanic suffered is something about the size of a grape.

There's no way to track every meteorite of that size.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-17 14:26:48

Though another purpose could be to use the asteroid as a temporary location with which to make repairs and or to setup shop to save on the rocket fuel until such time you might either get help, go to to destination that you where going to or just hope its heading back to earth if it where large enough.

Palomar · 2005-02-17 14:31:39

What if there was an acciident on a ship carrying people between the Earth and Mars? ... a map of all of the asteroids in the asteroid belt on the ship so that it doesn't crash into a huge asteroid?

*While there are asteroids scattered throughout the inner Solar System (including between Earth and Mars of course), the Asteroid Belt is between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

Asteroids outside of the Asteroid Belt are commonly referred to as "wandering asteroids"; your question refers to traveling between Earth and Mars, so your concern is with wandering asteroids.

How to track them all? Good luck. They aren't stationary, the solar wind can push them about, and as CM Edwards pointed out regarding speed, something the size of a grape could destroy a large ship. I'd say probably even the size of a grape SEED or even smaller yet, if traveling fast enough.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-17 14:40:25

You are all being way, WAY too alarmed about this kind of thing.

I can tell you with basically absolute certainty that by the time you finish reading this sentence, you will indeed be killed by a falling meteor...

...So why are you not in a panic and trying to hide in a cave? Because the chance of a large undetected asteroid or the chance of a tiny pebble reaching extreme velocities is vanishingly small.

Large asteroids are easy to detect with radar usually, and they are not strongly influenced by solar wind. Small pebbles moving at extreme speeds probobly wouldn't hit the Mars ship because they are moving so fast.

And finally, for the rocks that do hit, a Mars ship will be built strong enough that it could resist bullets, so that should be strong enough to resist small space rocks.

This is a non-issue compared to critical systems failure, but redundancy and over-engineering should mitigate this problem too.

What you ought to be worried about most is how do you get dozens of people and hundreds of tons of payload to Mars or the Belt and back.

Palomar · 2005-02-17 15:04:15

You are all being way, WAY too alarmed about this kind of thing.
I can tell you with basically absolute certainty that by the time you finish reading this sentence, you will indeed be killed by a falling meteor...
...So why are you not in a panic and trying to hide in a cave?

*Pardon me.

I don't think I'm being alarmist; just pointing out a few facts (especially as pertains to the difference between the Asteroid Belt and wandering asteroids).

Check out Jim Lovell's statement in _Lost Moon_. A piece of space debris the size of a grain of sand traveling along at a regular speed packs the wallop of a bowling ball going 100 mph.

That's from a seasoned astronaut. Who apparently had that in the back of his mind at least, during missions.

Going to call James Lovell an alarmist?

Facts are facts.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-17 15:57:57

If he thinks that would be a serious actual problem, then yes I do. There is a statistical chance of almost anything happening, and it so happens that the chance of somthing like this is small enough to ignore. There is a much better chance the nuclear reactor would break down and the crew would freeze to death or a solar flare frying something critical or something like that. Something awful happening and my plane crashing is "in the back of my mind" but that doesn't mean its worth worrying about.

It is NOT soley "facts," it does boil down to statistics. Statistics, statistics, and more statistics. There is a nonzero chance of a whole legion of bad things that could happen, the only thing to be concerned with is if the chance of this happening contributes to total mission risk such that it is no longer acceptable.

The chance of this happening is so low, that its contribution to the mission risk is trivial.

Commodore · 2005-02-17 15:58:19

I suspect a radar system of reasonable power to detect incoming rocks far enough out to make evasive manuevers will be standard equipment on any transit vessel.

Besides, we are just as interested in the ones that don't hit us as the ones that could.

Ian · 2005-02-17 18:27:19

Satatistics? That's what the people who built the Titanic thought about wandering icebergs. Wandering asteroids are like wandering icebergs.

Ian · 2005-02-17 18:30:40

I know that they probably thought that the chance of an iceberg hitting the Titanic was very smaill but it happened.

Dook · 2005-02-17 18:37:11

Colonize the asteroid belt? Why would anyone ever wish to do that?

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-17 19:09:03

Satatistics? That's what the people who built the Titanic thought about wandering icebergs. Wandering asteroids are like wandering icebergs.

Nonsense! That kind of talk is Anti-Scientific.

Euler · 2005-02-17 19:15:57

Space is really pretty empty. I think that the chances of a collision are low enough that we do not need to get too worried about it.

Palomar · 2005-02-17 19:50:30

It is NOT soley "facts," it does boil down to statistics. Statistics, statistics, and more statistics. There is a nonzero chance of a whole legion of bad things that could happen, the only thing to be concerned with is if the chance of this happening contributes to total mission risk such that it is no longer acceptable.

*GCN: I'm not looking for an argument with you. Okay?

Nobody here is saying "Don't do it."

And how many statistics do we have at-hand? How are the statistics you mention obtained? Experience? Mere probability speculations?

If you want to take issue with a seasoned, experienced astronaut like James Lovell be my guest. I won't; I think he knows more of what he speaks than you do.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-17 20:13:22

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Apollo astronauts were scientists not fighter pilots...

Anyway, I think that you are reading into his remark, that yes it is a possibility that you might fear... just like a turbine blade cracking in your average commertial jet liner and the whole thing blowing up... but is not worth worrying about.

And if you haven't noticed, our society is based on "probability speculations," from cars to bridges to medicines to airplanes and to a host of other things... This is simply one more. The reality is that there is very little debries floating around up there of hazardous size or velocity, and the chance of one really dangerous errant rock hitting the spacecraft can be estimated.

Considering all the things that have to happen for a dangerous collision... a rock must intersect the ship traveling very fast through a corridor only meters wide... the rock must be small enough to evade detection but moving fast enough relative to cause damage... and the rock has to come from someplace in the essentially empty space between worlds...

...And its obviously just stupid to worry about it much. Before you launch into some bleating about the Precautionary Principle, take into account that you go through life being exposed to a HUGE array of threats that we have no analysis of.

Palomar · 2005-02-17 20:29:15

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Apollo astronauts were scientists not fighter pilots...

*Nope. Only 1 Apollo astronaut was a scientist, IIRC; unfortunately I can't recall which one. It wasn't Lovell, no.

(And thanks for including the word "seem")

My point is that James Lovell took the risk. He was out there more than once. That might not have weight with you; it does with me. Initially the Apollo 13 troubles were considered to have been the result of a hit by space debris. That proved *not* to be the case, but for a few hours at least Lovell, Swigert and Haise lived the possibility.

I don't want to lend a hand to fear-mongering. But the possibility has been brought up in this thread and I've offered some comments.

--Cindy

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-17 21:03:42

We do not need to colonize the astroid belt , I can see a large group of mining stations and some manned and some unmanned / remote commanded from the manned stations but for colonization / permanent settlements should be looked for planetary or large atomspheric moons of larger planets where the large infrastructure, food processing and other facilities.

Dook · 2005-02-18 10:13:25

Mining asteroids? Why would we ever want or need to do that? We have enough rocks on the earth.

John Creighton · 2005-02-18 10:43:00

Mining asteroids? Why would we ever want or need to do that? We have enough rocks on the earth.

The reason to learn how to utilize extraterrestrial resources is to reduce the operating cost in space. Mining critical reassures for extraterrestrial operations lowers the average cost of goods in space. This will allow bases and colonies in space to achieve a greater degree of self sufficiency and could lower the cost and increases the performance of robotic probes. Once there is industry in space, extraterrestrial goods which have a comparative advantage could be traded with earth goods. This prospect will become more economically practical if a cheap method is available to exchange goods. This could be a air breathing reusable launch vehicle or a space elevator built entirely from extraterrestrial resources. Perhaps the greatest resource will be space itself. Except for possibly fusion power, the power on earth is limited by that which it receives from the sun. With greater amounts of power available the industry on earth can grow larger and in a more sustainable fashion.

Dook · 2005-02-18 13:31:04

The incredible cost and risk of setting up a rock mining operation on an asteroid does not come close to the proceeds that such an operation would provide. How much does a box of rocks cost nowadays anyway? It does not allow for greater self sufficiency. The time, money, and effort involved to go get asteroid rocks would take resources away from sustaining a mars colony.

It's a distraction propagated by the moononites and the 'abandon the earth' loonies.

It's complete nonsense. Look at the pictures, mars has enough rocks.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-18 13:41:00

Rocks? On the contrary, asteroids are not just chunks of silicate boulders...

Most asteroids are made of metal. Virtually pure metal, like Iron or Nickel. Mixed in with these are precious metals too.

Many asteroids are also made of carbon, chunks of galactic charcoal, mixed in with water and nitrogen compounds... the most precious substances in the solar system as far as future man is concerned. Mars has very little Nitrogen, and the Moon lacks it entirely.

Dook · 2005-02-18 15:02:58

75% of all asteroids visible from the earth are C type, seemingly made up of hydrocarbons. Approximately 15% are metal asteroids.

We know mars has water so why go way out to the asteroids to get it and I wouldn't expect a mars colony to have a problem finding iron since the surface is covered with iron oxide. As far as the nickel and other metals are concerned I think going out to an asteroid, drilling, storing, and returning to mars with it is inefficient. It would be easier and safer to simply ship it from the earth on unmanned spacecraft.

Nitrogen is a problem. You need it, or an acceptable substitue, as a buffer gas for the atmosphere. I don't have a solution but I hope we come up with something better than asteroid mining.

Grypd · 2005-02-18 16:23:37

75% of all asteroids visible from the earth are C type, seemingly made up of hydrocarbons. Approximately 15% are metal asteroids.
We know mars has water so why go way out to the asteroids to get it and I wouldn't expect a mars colony to have a problem finding iron since the surface is covered with iron oxide. As far as the nickel and other metals are concerned I think going out to an asteroid, drilling, storing, and returning to mars with it is inefficient. It would be easier and safer to simply ship it from the earth on unmanned spacecraft.
Nitrogen is a problem. You need it, or an acceptable substitue, as a buffer gas for the atmosphere. I don't have a solution but I hope we come up with something better than asteroid mining.

What you dont realise is that though only 15% of asteroids we know of are of a metal rich type. That is still more metal than we have ever used and is actually present if we where to mine the WHOLE planet.

If we where to use Iron as an example we could for instance make a solid covering of Iron over the planets Earth surface that would be a mile thick and still have enough left over to do it again. This is just using Neos and the Main Belt asteroids.

And for Mars to become a mining site is really a no brainer what makes it good for us to send people to actually makes it bad for supplying space industry. Gravity and atmosphere.

Its never about rocks it is what makes those rocks. And how we use them.

Dook · 2005-02-18 19:57:13

So there is a lot of metal out there. It's still WAY OUT THERE! Are we in danger of running out of iron on the earth? With current production and increased recycling we shouldn't have a problem for a very long time, if ever.

Is mars in danger of running out of iron at any time in the next thousand years?

RobS · 2005-02-18 21:17:48

I think I can give some numbers. If I recall, during the ten years the seismographs operated on the moon, the largest meteorite impact they recorded was estimated to be from something the size of a basketball (10 inches or 25 cm across). The moon is 3,000 kilometers (3 million meters) in diameter. If we assume a spacecraft is 30 meters across (10,000 times shorter and narrower) then its surface area is 10,000 x 10,000 = 100,000,000 (one hundred million) times less. It would thus encounter a basketball sized object roughly once every one billion years.

If you assume that objects ten times smaller are ten times more common, which should be roughly right, then objects 0.3 millimeters (1/75th of an inch) across will be a million times more common and a spacecraft should hit one roughly every 1,000 years.

No one will bother with radar to detect incoming objects; they are too rare. Ships will be covered with kevlar micrometeoroid protection, of course. But no protection against anything larger is either practical or necessary.

Note further that before the International Space Station, none of the other stations had even kevlar protection, and none of them were hit; and they are in a far more dangerous place because of all the man-made debris in low earth orbit.

-- RobS

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-02-17 13:38:41

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#2 2005-02-17 14:20:43

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#3 2005-02-17 14:26:48

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#4 2005-02-17 14:31:39

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#5 2005-02-17 14:40:25

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#6 2005-02-17 15:04:15

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#7 2005-02-17 15:57:57

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#8 2005-02-17 15:58:19

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#9 2005-02-17 18:27:19

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#10 2005-02-17 18:30:40

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#11 2005-02-17 18:37:11

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#12 2005-02-17 19:09:03

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#13 2005-02-17 19:15:57

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#14 2005-02-17 19:50:30

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#15 2005-02-17 20:13:22

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#16 2005-02-17 20:29:15

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#17 2005-02-17 21:03:42

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#18 2005-02-18 10:13:25

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#19 2005-02-18 10:43:00

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#20 2005-02-18 13:31:04

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#21 2005-02-18 13:41:00

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#22 2005-02-18 15:02:58

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#23 2005-02-18 16:23:37

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#24 2005-02-18 19:57:13

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

#25 2005-02-18 21:17:48

Re: .Colonizing Mars and the Asteroid Belt - Mars and Asteroids andPossiblecollisions

Board footer