4 ms·
First, we would need some time to get the experience to reach that rock. Then, considering the effort spent acquiring experience, it would be better to focus
by guylhem 13y ago
First, we would need some time to get the experience to reach that rock.
Then, considering the effort spent acquiring experience, it would be better to focus on a large asteroid.
In fact, it would be even better if we could find a way to spare some of the effort to put it on a stable earth orbit.
Wait then, couldn't we put this big rock already in stable earth orbit called "the moon" to some good use?? It's not like we've never been there tens of years ago!!
EDIT: gravity and chemical composition are valid reasons to mine an asteroid, you are totally right. Yet if we wanted not to mine but to have a colony to edge our bets for a meteor strike, IMHO the moon seems to be a better choice. However, I should have been clearer with my thoughts, I stand corrected :-)
- yew 13y agoThe biggest strike against the Moon is gravity - its gravity well is deep enough to make rocketry expensive, even if nowhere near as expensive as on Earth. Even very large asteroids are mostly much less massive than the Moon. For the same reason (mass), asteroid mining is probably more lucrative than Lunar mining (barring materials similar to Helium-3). The Moon seems to have a less diverse composition, with some useful minerals (which are mostly more massive) buried beyond easy reach. The truth is that the Moon is more like a planet than like an asteroid. It is easier to reach.
- abecedarius 13y agoIIRC some asteroids are even less delta-v away than the moon is. It'd be convenient to have one in Earth orbit, but not necessary.