Assume an asteroid capture and return mission is being planned. What team specialties would be needed?
Also, what types of supplies would be brought along? Assume habitation on the asteroid (Ceres) for an extended period of time, about two or more years, for the time needed to break orbit, travel 5 AU's, match velocities with Earth, and low orbital insertion. Ignore the propulsion problem, I've already got that figured out. Oxygen can be recycled, as can water, and other things.
I've already got my opinions, but I'm curious to know if there's anything I didn't think of.
Give me your best thinking on this. It's going into a novel, and a screenplay. (I'm being ambitious.)
posted
It sounds like the only thing left for us to consider is basic maintainance. I'd say that there are three basic kinds you need to consider. The most obvious is primary/auxilliary engineering maintainance, you need the right supplies and people to keep your propulsion and lifesupport working for a couple of years. The second is medical, doctors to keep everyone healthy. And then you have mental/emotional, stuff to keep everyone happy above and beyond mere preventiong of mental breakdowns.
Without knowing more about the type of propulsion and life support technologies you're using, I don't really know how specific I could get. The only thing I can say for sure is that a high-bandwidth connection to Earth would probably be a good idea.
I hadn't thought about the need for psychiatric resources, but that would be needed, no doubt about it. Good idea.
As for propulsion, initial breaks from the asteroid trajectory would be accomplished with a multitude of relatively small propulsion units, used to stablize the asteroid's spin, then a low yield nuclear device would be set off in nearby space to jolt it out of it's orbit and send it toward Earth, everything heavily calculated in advance. I wouldn't want it to hit Mars or something on the way in, or worse, get hit or captured by Mars. (I'm still fine-tuning this, mind you. It depends on how differentiated the asteroid is in composition. I plan to use remote drones like the NEAR project to ground radar map the interior.)
i have included mining crews, trained on the Moon, which has been slightly colonized at this point, along with geologists, a few astrophysicists(spelling?), a complement of scientists from many different fields, technicians, a medical crew, and a crew of astronauts who are living in the spaceship that brought them, which is station-keeping and providing shuttle services to different parts of the asteroid. There are also a few people serving as security in addition to their other duties, keeping the peace if you will. And now, a few counselers.
[This message has been edited by Netstorm2k (edited January 31, 2005).]
posted
If you want to minimize population, you could collapse a few of the specialties into individual characters. Isn't that usually the way they run missions?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted
What about prolonged exposure to (relatively) high levels of radiation? You'll either have to shield the crew all the time, or deal with the health and mental effects, especially over a 2-year period.
Depending upon your scenario this might not be a major issue, but I think you should deal with it somehow, even if only be mentioning why it isn't an issue.
This would hold true for the trip out and back also. During the trip, the crew could be shielded by locating the crew compartment in the center of the vessel and by making sure that water tanks form a barrier to the most likely source(s) of radiation as well.
quote: low yield nuclear device would be set off in nearby space to jolt it out of it's orbit and send it toward Earth,
Something about this makes me nervous. I think that would be too uncontrollable to be a useful propulsion method. Are there any other feasible propulsion methods available? What kind of tech level do you have?
posted
I was worried about the nuclear device, too. But I don't know enough about it to say if it's a good or bad idea. And a remotely-controlled solar sail is right out; the solar winds are blowing in the wrong direction.
Maybe multiple ion drives on the surface ... nah, that wouldn't help either. Hmm... perhaps a tug ship would be the best choice. Good idea you have going, though.
But, what you really need on your ship is someone who can cook. Maybe two people in case one gets radiation poisoning like Mike suggests. Because bad food will cause a mutiny every time or at least some serious malcontent. Give the people good food and they'll be mostly happy and will do what's expected of them.
This advice comes from someone who for four years ate in Marine Corps chow halls.... and it was awful. Luckily, while stationed in Japan, we were fairly close to the Air Force Base and we could eat there using our meal cards and pretending we had business on that base for the day. It was definitely worth the 15 minute drive and it save a lot of whining on our parts, I suppose.
Each person on the crew represents, conservatively 4000 lbs of consumables (that's just food for a 2 year period).
The effects of the nuclear detonation on the asteroid should be predictable enough to use this is something that NASA and other futurist groups have delved into deeply.
Also given the very extended time frame if you have a mixed sex crew you might want to look at the twist of an unintended pregnancy on the mission.
posted
The food issue that HSO mentioned, made me think of something. If this is a two-year mission, bringing enough food to last will be a challenge to say the least, even if it is all freeze-dried or something. A hydroponics bay might be useful and more efficient, especially if composting/recycling facilities are on board. A horticulturist would be helpful, and it is a job that could easily be combined with something else.
Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted
Fresh food would always be an issue, which is one of the reasons for the ship that brought to them to remain in orbit, station-keeping. It will have hydroponics labs with crops genetically engineered for high nutrient yield and rapid growth. Inevitably, there would be some sacrifice, specifically in keeping meat on the table. My crew is just going to have to get used to flavored protein pastes. Easy to eat, easy to stow, and you can fire a bundle of it on a rocket from Earth at intervals, along with other things. Think potted meat in a tube, just made of better ingredients(no ground up pigs feet). As for sex, (someone brought up pregnancy) all the females are on birth control. Although there will be one scene...
Posts: 331 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted
Military MRE's (Meals Ready-To-Eat) can be palatable when heated and mixed with other stuff. I always ate mine cold without trouble, except for the dreaded pork patty, which I summarily tossed into the garbage. I'm told that MRE's have really improved since I left the military. They also keep for 5-10 years or so, don't require freezing, etc. If space is an issue--and it probably will be--they might be too bulky... one MRE, if I recall, is approx. in inches 10x5x2.
My point is that nobody really likes protein pastes, though I concede that they will be a necessary thing/supplement.
It's always about food with humans, ain't it? Wars were started over simple spices, like pepper, for instance.... I think.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited January 31, 2005).]
posted
Uh, forgive me for being dense, but if you're using an impulse event propulsion like a nuke, why do you need or even want a crew on this thing? There is no maintenance required for the propulsion during transit, you just need the one nuke to drop it in towards Earth and a smaller impulse when it gets there to put it in orbit.
I'm at a real loss here. I know you asked us to assume habitation on the asteroid, but now I'm wondering why.
posted
That's a valid question. The reason is that the corporate sponsers who are orchestrating this thing want a ready made mining habitation installed when the rock arrives in orbit. Plus, if they just sent it toward Earth and got off, how would they fine tune the trajectory as needed? The nuke is only to rock it out of it's trajectory and give it a bit of velocity. The actual maneuvering will be with an array of thrusters mounted at strategic points across the asteroid. This is a BIG venture. They've got the money to pay for all the toys. Also, if I just had them detonate a nuke and leave, where's the story? And how would they meet the bad things lying dormant inside? Posts: 331 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted
It isn't cost effective. Not if extra-terrestrial infrastructural developement is still at the stage where you could use a nuke without risking a lot of collateral damage by smaller rocks nudged out of the belt by that nuke you used.
I don't think it's cost effective even if you were pretty well developed. If you were in a situation where it made a difference worth moving the whole asteroid in towards Earth, that means that you're saving serious money by not moving as many workers and components out.
But I can see exceptions in the more general case. Not for the specific case of a system undeveloped enough that you'd just use a nuke for impulse. There will be a lot of rocks moving sufficiently off-course, and you just can't do something like that if you've got a lot of assets spread around. Nobody would insure you, and the entire Belt would sue your pants off for every impact you couldn't prove wasn't your fault.
posted
Was it Ben Bova's or Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars (I forget who wrote it, sorry) that had the "lift" that had been spun out from a large asteroid captured and placed into Earth's orbit? The lift was used to travel from the surface to orbital height in space.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited February 01, 2005).]
posted
Well, in a sense, the nuke is essential, for reasons unrelated to the trajectory change. I need the radiation for something. I've considered using the plume from the ship's drive from the negative delta-V burn, but it wouldn't make sense for the pilot to let the plume wash over the asteroid. Any ideas?
Posts: 331 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted
Doesn't Jupiter give out a high amount of radiation? Or is that Saturn? It's enough that anyone in the vincinity of one of these two planets would need some serious extra radiation protection (I saw a BBC special on this a month or two back).
So, by having the crew use Jupiter gravity to pick up speed for the return trip to Earth, you've got your radiation. Presuming, of course, it's not Saturn that emits radiation; it might be.
By the way, did you see my comment to your "G'huh?" in the Door topic on FF?
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited February 01, 2005).]
posted
I'm not sure if I'm getting the right picture here, but what if it was an accident? The pilot does more of a fly-by and the plume washes over the asteroid as she (or he ) corrects...
Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted
hmm. That's a thought. It would add a bit of excitement to the early chapters, and it would look good in the screenplay.
Posts: 331 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
Suppose that they wanted to "wash" the asteroid before putting anyone on it. This could be for a variety of reasons. For one thing, melting and compacting the surface could make the asteroid more stable, less likely to shed chunks when you tried to move it. It could also serve as a fairly basic decontamination procedure. If you wanted to land right on the thing, you'd end up "washing" it a little with your thrusters anyway in the initial landing.
Or they might be using some intense radiation imaging to map out the composition of the asteroid before they set up, get a solid idea of what minerals it contains and how solid the entire thing is before they try to build on it.
And if you don't need a high level of radiation, but only a fairly low level directed mainly into the center of the asteroid, you could have them bury their reactor under a layer of shielding for cost purposes, using the bulk of the asteroid itself for most of the shielding. They should probably do that anyway.
posted
I like the idea of combining both ideas. Have them doing what you said first, Survivor, sort of glazing the surface dust. But have them accidentally do it too long (ala Robyn) for some reason, say a computer glitch. That would add complications to their task, and achieve the desired effect. Thanks guys.
Posts: 331 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted
Well, if all that helps you, then we're all pleased. By the way, a thought on the economic viability of this operation. For this operation to be worth the money, there would probably have to be two conditions. One, mining on Earth itself is basically absolutely prohibited. I can see that happening, to tell the truth. Laws don't have to make economic sense, after all.
Further, the minerals reported in this asteroid are very rare and valuable, particularly to certain vital Earth industries that make it possible for life to continue for the billions of inhabitants. Just what those industries are and how they contribute is up to your imagination, the field is wide-open. From dosing the massive urban populations with advanced anti-psychotics (or other mood control drugs) to making fusion-powered CO2 draw-down filters to keep the air breathable without venting it into the environment to manufacturing teleporter pads or robots or whatever keeps the cities of the future running.
As a side benefit, it could be that this asteroid scans as particularly loaded with rare minerals because of the aforementioned bad things lying dormant inside.
posted
One of the major benefits of having an asteroid in orbit is that you can mine it's materials, refine them in microgravity, and use them in manufacturing sites in orbit, rather than go to the expense of boosting them out of the well. The cost for that is still prohibitive, even with advancing science. When your boosting something that heavy, like iron and titanium, it gets crazy real fast.
Posts: 331 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted
The cost of moving something from the belt to orbit around the Earth is...non-trivial, far more than the cost of boosting it from the surface of the Earth into orbit around the Earth, particularly if you use a moderately advanced launch technology like scram-jet/rocket hybrids, rail launching, orbital elevator, and so forth.
And you don't have to boost your vehicle and fuel both directions either.
I'm saying that it would cost less to boost enough stuff into orbit to build an asteroid than it would cost to drop an asteroid of the same mass from the Belt down to Earth's orbit, in sheer terms of delta-vee times mass. The only reason you would expend the energy to drop something from the asteroid belt is because you couldn't get the material from Earth.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
) corrects...
