OK, post #50, the Alcubierre warp drive ship , that'll have to wait until Zefram Cochrane is born, raised, and properly trained to invent the Warp Drive. Memory Alpha says he's born about 10-20 years from now, keep a sharp eye out.
Also, the energy required just ain't feasible.
On colonization, best to start with the moon, it's close, easier to get stuff we need there. We certainly can dig shelters into the regolith much like Heinlein's 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', with Momma Earth close by to help out and provide backup for stuff that's not there yet. Then we can use the moon for getting stuff to the next colony, Mars, less delta V to move stuff. But it'll take a lot to get either one of them habitable. Mars may have enough oxygen in the water and in the oxidized rocks for our needs. I don't see the outer moons any time soon, as it'll be difficult to keep any kind of colony warm and just not enough local energy to do that.
On asteroids, seems the best method is the one to put a mass nearby to attract the bad asteroid to a new trajectory, but, it'll be expensive in terms of delta-V to heft enough mass off the earth to where we need it to go. Might be easier to find a smaller asteroid we can grapple KSP style and move it where we want it, perhaps the bad asteroid has a moon we can alter its orbit. Don't forget not only is the asteroid attracted to whatever we put there, our object will be attracted to the asteroid. We'll need bunches of fuel for 'station keeping'. We would have to keep the tractor mass in the direction we want the bad asteroid move to, and use the reaction engine to keep the mass driver a given distance away from it, let's say 10 km or so. I guess the best is the Xenon ion drive we've already proven out. But, in SpaceX style, we'll have to make the fuel systems dockable, and send replacement fuel tanks for replenishment and have the empties return here for refueling and return. If it takes too much Xenon, we could use Argon, it's more plentiful, we'll just need to make the engine bigger as Argon has less mass for the reaction engine. While we're at it, we might as well include scientific packages to study the bad asteroid, perhaps the mass asteroid we put there.
Which is worse, a big body or small body, realize that a body twice the diameter means 8 times the mass, the mass is proportional to radius cubed. That means it'll need 8 times the push to move it. But, the body twice the diameter has four times the surface area to reflect light, 8 times the mass, you probably won't see it 8 times farther away to have time to move it. I would vote for the small mass 8 times easier to move. Of course, I don't think we'll have any choice in the matter. Whatever the universe throws at us, we'll have to eat it.
Also, the energy required just ain't feasible.
On colonization, best to start with the moon, it's close, easier to get stuff we need there. We certainly can dig shelters into the regolith much like Heinlein's 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', with Momma Earth close by to help out and provide backup for stuff that's not there yet. Then we can use the moon for getting stuff to the next colony, Mars, less delta V to move stuff. But it'll take a lot to get either one of them habitable. Mars may have enough oxygen in the water and in the oxidized rocks for our needs. I don't see the outer moons any time soon, as it'll be difficult to keep any kind of colony warm and just not enough local energy to do that.
On asteroids, seems the best method is the one to put a mass nearby to attract the bad asteroid to a new trajectory, but, it'll be expensive in terms of delta-V to heft enough mass off the earth to where we need it to go. Might be easier to find a smaller asteroid we can grapple KSP style and move it where we want it, perhaps the bad asteroid has a moon we can alter its orbit. Don't forget not only is the asteroid attracted to whatever we put there, our object will be attracted to the asteroid. We'll need bunches of fuel for 'station keeping'. We would have to keep the tractor mass in the direction we want the bad asteroid move to, and use the reaction engine to keep the mass driver a given distance away from it, let's say 10 km or so. I guess the best is the Xenon ion drive we've already proven out. But, in SpaceX style, we'll have to make the fuel systems dockable, and send replacement fuel tanks for replenishment and have the empties return here for refueling and return. If it takes too much Xenon, we could use Argon, it's more plentiful, we'll just need to make the engine bigger as Argon has less mass for the reaction engine. While we're at it, we might as well include scientific packages to study the bad asteroid, perhaps the mass asteroid we put there.
Which is worse, a big body or small body, realize that a body twice the diameter means 8 times the mass, the mass is proportional to radius cubed. That means it'll need 8 times the push to move it. But, the body twice the diameter has four times the surface area to reflect light, 8 times the mass, you probably won't see it 8 times farther away to have time to move it. I would vote for the small mass 8 times easier to move. Of course, I don't think we'll have any choice in the matter. Whatever the universe throws at us, we'll have to eat it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram