"I think if the tech can be proven the money will come. "
I just started up this 501C along with Go Fund Me you may be interested in. ;0)

Seems y'all are hung up on Mars.

While science might have ideas on how to terraform a planet the sad fact is planets are big and complex and any terraforming effort is going to take millions if not billions of years to get to the point it could support Earth life. Its just not gunna happen.

What I'm talking about is the effort to stage ANY destination with materials and supplies so if we do go there for any mission, we have some type of resource available that doesn't need to be mined, processed and manufacured.

Like, if you are going to have a mission to the Moon, send up a series of missions to drop habitat components and with each mission send some fuel, some oxygen and whatnot. Then, on mission start you already have the things needed to set up the habitat and the support needed till resupply missions can get started.

It doesn't matter if its the Moon, Mars, and asteroid, IO, Titan or a orbital station.
The ISS was built one section at a time.
The same planning could make other destinations possible.
We have the ability to hit the mark.

If we send a rover, why not include some O2, fuel or food stuffs along with the rover package? Why not remote construct a habitat in orbit around a planet or any other body? Fit with mission supplies. Just add people when ready.

It is physically impossible to construct a vessel on Earth big enough to hold and support large numbers of people and still be able to put it into space.
The only way to exodus this planet 'in mass' is to construct the vehicle/station in space where it doesn't have to break free of the planet's gravity.
Everything needed by people in space or on another world will need to be taken there at first. There are no hammers on the Moon. You can't just pop over to the store and pick up a bolt. You can't stop in at AirGas and refill your O2 tank. It all has to be sent there, either with you or before you get there. All I'm saying is to send it before so it is there when we get there.

I'm pointing out that there isn't any missions to start doing this for any destinations. I think there should be. I think we should be launching support to any and all possible destinations where mankind might go.

If you haven't noticed I'm nowhere as nearly hanged up on Mars as Elon is. ;0)

We have to start travelling in multiples of the speed we do in space or previsions will be for not through the distance traveled to the stash point. Pharmaceuticals are showing fast degradation because of radiation which would be something to be very aware of.

$10K a pound in the shuttle to space and density safeguards against radiation so...


Speed's the answer.

Speed is not so critical for materials and inanimate objects.
Speed is only critical for living things.
The supplies can be sent on a slow boat and they are no worse for wear.

If there was a manned mission to IO being planned, why not send as much of the IO habitat and support materials there as possible before sending the manned mission?

Inertia is more difficult to overcome with higher mass. Not only to get up to cruising speed but to slow down again.
If the manned mission is not carrying all its destination support materials with it (only in-flight support materials) it is lighter and the inertia is not as great.

You send a series of unmanned supply missions that require no life support and little shielding. Include some robotics that allow mission specialists to gather and partially construct the habitat by remote.
Then you send the manned mission and the astronauts arrive at the site in a turn-key or close to turn-key condition.

Lots of people think that speed is vital for space exploration but they don't consider that if you reach .8c you still need to slow back down.
The reason speed (time) is such a factor is because living things perish, they age and die.
Science fiction leads you to believe there can be ways to preserve the living process by freezing or hyper-sleeping but there is no way to prevent decay over long duration that allows a person to be intact when revived.
No real Rip Van Winkle.

The fastest way you get a manned mission to IO is to make the craft light enough and protected enough to get the people (and other life sensitive supplies) to the destination as fast as possible.

For longer distance (like to Proxima Centauri) the only current solution to the Rip Van Winkle problem is to send generation ships. Problem is, we don't have the technology to do that.
So, at our current technology level, we are shackled to this solar system, for now.
We are limited to the technology we have right now and we have the technology to send supply drops and staging materials for the destinations in our reach.
But, we don't even do that?

We took everything we needed to the Moon with us.
It gave what, a day, two days support at the destination?
This is because we could only carry so much with us.
Had we sent support before the manned mission, perhaps we could have stayed on destination for a longer duration.
The Moon is pretty close compared to other Near-Earth destinations.
Mars, IO, Titan cannot be visited by carrying everything we need with us.

There is no house on IO.
Many think to go to IO we need to load our house on a wagon and take it with us. What I'm saying is to send the house there first so its already there when we get there.

Okay, you brought up IO, you do understand that would put a person in space twice as long as Kelley was out there?
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/health-risks-of-space-travel#1

The longer it takes to place stores in space or take on the journey the more radiation will accumulated.

Food stores would be radiated then the radiation would be consumed radiating the astronauts, structures would be radiated to then radiate what ever was put in the structures, remember some forms of these radiations out there have a half life of 1.6 million years.


I'm in the speed camp brother, at least until we can manage a means of creating an electromagnetic field to encapsulate anything and everything needed for long slow ventures into space. Even then at the rates of speed we travel it would take many generations of families to reach the nearest solar system outside our own.

Light years, 186,000 miles a second for one year, that's hardly even perceptible.

I am aware of radiation issues concerning astronauts and organic materials but I wasn't aware that metals and composites gather and hold radiation that can be transferred to humans and organics?
Now I'm curious about it.

I think it would be a good test to send different materials into a solar orbit to be captured and studied for the different effects.
Didn't we already do a sample return mission to a comet or something?
I wonder if the hardware was radiated to the point it was dangerous?

A couple decades ago, my neighbor worked at NASA and we used to sit around the pool with a beer talking about space exploration.
He was saying that the distance and propulsion issues were not as bad as the effects of the cosmic radiation on the astronauts.
I haven't read up on NASA lately but I believe they are working on that radiation problem.

When I consider the conditions on Earth when my grandchildren are my age over-population will be in emergency mode.
There are 3 ways to rectify an over-population problem.
1. Start culling people. (I hope it doesn't come to that)
2. Inhabit and make viable more of the planet.
This would involve constructing habitats and farming the oceans and deserts.
Perhaps subterranean?
3. Planet exodus.
This will involve a lot of money and science as well as dedication of the people acting together for a common goal.

The over-population problems 100 years from now will be a global problem.
It will require global dedication and global solutions.
The easiest thing to do is to just start killing large numbers of people.
The smart thing to do is to start working on the solutions right now, while we still can.

I won't live long enough to see anything happen but my grandchildren could.

Granted, I can see your point about shipping materials to planets or moons only to become unusable. We need to do some tests and look at the results and work the problems so we can. If we dedicate the resources to find out how to do it, then we can do it. Who knows, in finding a way to expose materials to radiation without adverse effects might transfer to the technology that keeps people safe in space. If we never try, we will never know.

I wrote a quip about the radiation problem awhile ago, it involves an accidental discovery...

Ketchup - Who Knew?

Back in the early years of the 21st Century mankind was helpless against the effects of cosmic rays.
All until a simple space accident by hungry astronaut.

Randy Boudir haphazardly sprayed a packet of Ketchup onto a cosmic ray detector in the old ISS.
He hurriedly commenced to clean up that awful red mess from the sensor and noticed it had stopped registering any cosmic rays. As he wiped the mess away, the detector once again started spurting forth data.
On a hunch, Randy spread more ketchup onto the detector and it went eerily silent again. A simple swipe confirmed his discovery.

Next time you take your trip to one of the outer planets just remember that its only a thin film of ketchup that protects you from a relentless shower of deadly cosmic rays.

Thanx Randy!

Estimated top speed of the Juno spacecraft relative to Earth before insertion into Jupiter's orbit — Fastest man-made technical object.
165,000 MPH 0.00023 value of c (speed of light)

Speed of light or other electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum or massless particles.
670,616,629.4 MPH 1.00 value of c

We are not even close to making something with structure attain light speed.
Not even half of light speed.

Duration is the only feasible method of travel (at our current species technology level) given the vast distances involved.
It only makes sense to explore how to make duration livable and expand from there.
Holding out for speed = no donut.

"I am aware of radiation issues concerning astronauts and organic materials but I wasn't aware that metals and composites gather and hold radiation that can be transferred to humans and organics?
Now I'm curious about it."

Radiation mutates cells by ripping away electrons from the cellular structures, sure we irradiate some foods to increase shelf life but it isn't the same type of radiation found in space. There is a difference, Ionizing and non-ionizing radiations, non-ionizing is used to extend shelf life.

https://www.livescience.com/61680-will-spacex-roadster-survive-in-space.html


"Didn't we already do a sample return mission to a comet or something?"

First hit from Google is the link below. I believe we have landed on a comet or asteroid but I can't place a name and it didn't make a return as the probe was nearing at the end of it's life so they made the crap shoot landing and pulled it off if memory serves me.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/nasa-osiris-rex-asteroid-sample-return-mission-arrives-bennu-180970937/

"I wonder if the hardware was radiated to the point it was dangerous?"
There is a reason everything from space is handled with great care, even after it makes reentry.

"A couple decades ago, my neighbor worked at NASA and we used to sit around the pool with a beer talking about space exploration.
He was saying that the distance and propulsion issues were not as bad as the effects of the cosmic radiation on the astronauts.
I haven't read up on NASA lately but I believe they are working on that radiation problem."

I used to buy lasers from a NASA engineer and we met in Texas for some business, had a chat about fishing through the ice on Europa with a product I developed. He mentioned some gal he wanted to introduce me to at NASA but it didn't happen.

"When I consider the conditions on Earth when my grandchildren are my age over-population will be in emergency mode.
There are 3 ways to rectify an over-population problem.
1. Start culling people. (I hope it doesn't come to that)
2. Inhabit and make viable more of the planet.
This would involve constructing habitats and farming the oceans and deserts.
Perhaps subterranean?
3. Planet exodus.
This will involve a lot of money and science as well as dedication of the people acting together for a common goal. "
Although there have been some horrific plagues through history we're seeing strains of viruses and such unlike what we've known. HIV, AIDS, MRSA....

Man hasn't hardly started to build down yet and we have a lot of restate under our feet with the potential for energy sources at the same time while the knowledge and ability to bring light down with us as I've mentioned previously. The tilling could go for more land mass after materials of value are drawn from them.

"Ketchup - Who Knew?

Back in the early years of the 21st Century mankind was helpless against the effects of cosmic rays.
All until a simple space accident by hungry astronaut.

Randy Boudir haphazardly sprayed a packet of Ketchup onto a cosmic ray detector in the old ISS.
He hurriedly commenced to clean up that awful red mess from the sensor and noticed it had stopped registering any cosmic rays. As he wiped the mess away, the detector once again started spurting forth data.
On a hunch, Randy spread more ketchup onto the detector and it went eerily silent again. A simple swipe confirmed his discovery.

Next time you take your trip to one of the outer planets just remember that its only a thin film of ketchup that protects you from a relentless shower of deadly cosmic rays.

Thanx Randy! "

Likely a conductive metallic surface was cleaned by the acidic properties of the Ketsup and dampened while the Ketsup was in place as it holds a lot of water. Water is really pretty dense, density stops radiation as I mentioned before.

Thanx...

~ NASA

~ A different NASA page

~ and another NASA page

While I didn't email anyone and ask a specific question about inorganic structures 'infecting' astronauts, there is no 'focus' information on it either. The research and measurements being done concern how radiation affects the human body directly. Perhaps I didn't read enough but a search of NASA shows no mention of the transference of radiation from structures to the human body.

From the Tesla article you posted:
http://www.livescience.com/61680-will-spacex-roadster-survive-in-space.html
The real forces that will tear the car apart over hundreds of millions of years in space, Carroll said, are solid objects and — most importantly — radiation.


William Carroll, a chemist at Indiana University and expert in plastics and organic molecules.

There is absolutely nothing related to inorganic materials transferring radiation to other structures including people.

If we were to go with the information available we could still send metal and other non-organic (non-carbon) structures to proposed destinations.
Aluminum, tin, steel basically any compound without carbon or a carbon base.
Plus, any carbon based materials will not be sitting for hundreds of millions of years waiting for us to go use it. I'm sure after a time it will get brittle but extreme cold also makes things brittle.

Given William Carroll's caution, you would think that the Mars Rovers would fall apart. That the Mars orbiters would fall apart. They have plastic and carbon in them.

With a 1.6 million year half-life you would think the museums that house recovered Apollo artifacts would be quarantined.

The Apollo 11 Command Module Columbia is on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC.

Pressure Suit, A7-L, Armstrong, Apollo 11, Flown
NASA transferred the spacesuit to the National Air and Space Museum in 1971 and is currently not on display at the National Air and Space Museum. It is either on loan or in storage.

The Apollo Lunar Sample Return Container (ALSRC) was an aluminum box with a triple seal manufactured by the Nuclear Division of Union Carbide.
On the moon, while samples were being loaded, the seals were protected by a Teflon film and a cloth cover which were removed just prior to closing the box. Two ALSRC's were used on each mission.
The sample-laden container was opened under controlled conditions in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory at the Houston Manned Space Center.
It was transferred from NASA to the Smithsonian and placed on display in 1970, soon after its historic mission.

If radiation gathered in these structures with a half-life of 1.6 million years they would be locked away in Yucca Mountain right now.
The fact that they were displayed so soon after recovery indicates there were no harmful 'elements' present.

So here's how I see it...

Construct habitat and support structures from the same materials as the Apollo recovered items, satellites and rovers.
Load that stuff into a few hundred heavy lift rockets and ship them to the planned destinations of future manned missions.
Include robotics to pre-assemble much of the habitat and set up 'camp'.
Include extra O2 and other chemicals, maybe a few spare space suits.

Figure out a way to keep humans safe in a space environment.

Build a ship with the shielding and support needed for the trip there and back.

Since it doesn't need to carry the house with it, it will be lighter and faster.

Bingo bango, yer fishing on Europa.

Oh and lets also remember that many planets DO and some moons DO have magnetospheres (or are protected by their planet's).



Even Mars has a magnetosphere, not much, but it is there...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=92&v=cz5tSegU16E

I don't go to youtube videos without a title.
Copy the video title and put the link under it.
If it intrests me, I'll look.

Example:
How Dangerous is Deep Space Travel to Mars and Beyond ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyUwSJ5pXS0
Didn't watch that one either but at least I know what its about.
However, it was uploaded by Curious Droid and that doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence to its validity.

However,
Space Travel to Mars - Neil DeGrasse Tyson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTZpW7IID30
Uploaded by Natural World has a bit more validity than the previous.

A couple of observations. First, it doesn't make much sense to send supply missions to either the moon or Mars unless you actually intend to send people there to use the supplies. There is a lot of lip service being paid to creating a permanent human presence on both worlds, but not much will or actual funding. The present NASA budget is the lowest it has ever been as a percentage of GDP. That isn't going to get us anywhere beyond discussion.

Now, the entire question of IF we should do it is another discussion entirely. Humans tend to explore. It is part of our nature, and in my view, among the better aspects of our nature. The idea that colonizing the moon or Mars or both will ease population pressures on Earth, however, is a fool's dream. Those worlds might provide an opportunity to allow human populations to expand, but we will never be able to lift more than a few thousand people off this planet no matter how good we get at space travel. We will still have all the same population and ecological pressures here, so we might as well start facing that fact and stop trashing the place.

I think we are a lot more advanced in space travel than what we are being told..

Good points all around.

The main point that I feel has the most impact is that we will not have the technology to lift a significant portion of the population off the planet.
There is a limit to how heavy something can be to make orbit.
Even if the ludicrous idea of a 'space elevator' were to become a reality, it still wouldn't lift enough of the population to be significant. Even if you have 1,000 rockets lifting 100 people at a time that is only 100,000 people.
By the time we could build the facilities to launch and the facilities for destinations, our population will be a few billion more people.

What is important to consider (IMO) is that eventually, this planet is going to be unable to support us and that could spell doom for our species.
These distant destinations might be the only way our species might survive.
As an extinction alternative. Earth is uninhabitable but humans still exist elsewhere in the solar system.
It doesn't 'fix' the population problem on Earth but it might prevent species extinction.
That is why I feel it is important to continue trying.

On the idea of 'staging'.
"If you build it, they will come"
Given our current technology level, we "can't" just go build a habitat on another world.
We do have the technology to send things to other worlds.
If we have stuff already there, it is much easier to decide to go put them to use than to start fresh with no resources. The staging point becomes a reason for destination.

Right now, world population is not a world concern.
Most of the world is oblivious to the issue and those that are aware are not giving it the focus it should have.
People will ignore the problem until its in their faces.
Then it will be so far out of control, nothing will fix it.

Space exodus is not a NASA only responsibility.
It is a world responsibility.
Governments AND civilians should be working together to make it happen.
It would require a rethinking of priorities.

Lets say we found out the Earth were going to be hit by an extinction level collision. The entire world would pool together to try to find a solution.
No cost would be too great. People's entire priority structure would support the endeavor.
Well, we are facing an extinction level event.
More people are being born than are dying and those alive are living longer.
We are out of balance.
The extinction level event is already here we just don't want to see it.

You put building materials on any world (or in space) and someone will find a way to go there.


I think we are just as advanced as we are.
I think that most people choose not to think about it so have no idea how advanced we are.
I also think some people think we are more advanced than we are because they are not paying attention to it.
They see movies and games and think that is reality.

I had a discussion about the physics of space battles and it was amazing to find out how deluded people were about it.
For example;
If you could fire a gun in space.
The bullet would exit the barrel but the gun, and anything attached to it would also move away from the explosive force. The bullet and the gun would travel at the same velocity until they hit something or the motion were counteracted.
So, if your battle cruiser fired a broadside at a target, the battle cruiser would also move sideways in the opposite direction. To arrest this motion, the cruiser would need rockets on the opposite side firing at the same moment with the same force to stabilize it.

Oh, on the space battle example, I failed to note that mass of the battle cruiser would have impact on its reaction but it would still react.
Without a counter-force a strafe would send the ship spinning on that axis.
It has to do with the physics of attitude adjustment that anyone can see if they ever watched a shuttle dock with the ISS.
Little puffs firing sideways adjusts the trajectory of that big heavy shuttle.
Space craft don't bank, there's nothing there to bank against.

If you put a supply cache in space 1/2 way between Earth and Mars, you have to stop to dock with it unless it is orbiting something, then you have to change your motion to its in order to dock with it. At that point, you lose the momentum you had for your destination. You have to reinitialize the movement needed to reach your destination.
What you could do is, given the technology that we don't currently have, park the supply cache and as your craft approaches, fire a thrust that allows the cache to catch up with you. Then you could dock with it.

Given our present technology, it only works if we stage at the probable destinations. This is because we will be stopped there.
When we send missions to other worlds we use gravity assist. We don't just aim at Mars and shoot at it.



We use gravity assist to build speed and then again to reduce speed.
All plausible scenarios for a manned mission to Mars and back involve a landing craft and an orbital/travel craft.
The craft reaches Mars, a lander goes to the surface, it takes off and docks with the main craft and the main craft then takes the explorers home to Earth. There is nothing that says the lander and take off craft has to be the same craft. You could send 'packages' that contain an outfitted launch craft so its already there.

Let's say Mars. Mainly because that is the public target for the next big step in manned exploration.

You already have a habitat set up that was robotically built. The manned mission only needs to take the stuff that won't last, that has to be protected. Everything else is already there, including fuel, water and O2, maybe some dirt.
You know you are sending people so you also send up surface travel like a couple of rovers.
You already have the mission laid out, you send up two return craft ready for blast off.
Then you send the manned mission.
You might park a fuel satellite in orbit 'just in case' that your return craft can use if it needs a fuel resupply. The craft could dock with the fuel satellite while the explorers are on the surface.
When the return craft is again manned and ready to start its return journey it makes a few orbits and uses Mars gravity to slingshot it on its way.

Uh, Folks, more than Humans will have to be transported to a new colony.
An entire ecosystem will have to be transported, too.
That means transporting life forms other than Humans.

Oh, I agree.
Colony is getting a bit ahead of it all tho.

There have been colonial habitat experiments done on this planet tho that explored the flora and fauna needed for survival.
Its not as diverse as you might think.
Plus the results are based on relative short-term experiments in pristine conditions.

If a seal ruptured in the Biolab, the plants and animals didn't die like what happened to Mark Watney. If the rivet seam on a panel rusted out, they just ordered a new panel and rivets.

On another world, there is no supply except what you either send there or take with you.
You can't call and order a pack of rivets for delivery.
If the organic matter in the growning substrate (soil) dies, and you don't have replacement organic matter you die.

The dirt in your garden is composed of organic material that comes from the living process of the Earth in Earth-like conditions. Some might be able to be grown in a lab but it would be a serious scientific endeavor to get just right for optimal growing conditions. Plus, you would need to mass produce those organics in an abundance to satisfy the plant growth needs.
Then, for each animal, insect and bacteria on site, you would require support.

However, in the short-term, habitats could be made with support for establishing scientific knowledge and figuring out what is needed and what isn't. No need to try to set up a complete ecology.

If it works out, ecological additions might be added slowly over time to accomodate a diverse bioshpere. We couln't take a herd of cows to Mars but in a few hundred years, with the right science, we might have a herd of cows on Mars.

Then you have to remember that only the initial cows will be Earth cows.
Any cow born on Mars will be a different animal because it will be gestated on a planet that has significantly different conditions than Earth, including gravity.
The Tomato plant will have different growing patters than one on Earth.
Less sunlight (unless it will always have grow lamps), less gravity, less pollination, hell that Martian Tomato may not look or taste like a tomato. It might even be deadly or poisonous? It might have spores that disolve habitat seals. There is no science on it because we haven't done the science because we haven't been there to do the science.

Water is water, right....wrong.
There is water right here on this planet that you can't drink.
There's sea water, heavy water, water from reactors.
Finding water on a planet or moon isn't enough.
We need to find out if that water is safe for consumption.
Lets say the water is salty. Sea water can be refined to drink.
Will we have water refinery equipment and chemicals available to treat enough water for the explorer team's stay duration?
Can we currently drink reactor water, even after processing?
We might reintroduce it thru dilution but can we take water from a reactor cooling pool, process it and drink it?
To dilute, requires an abundant supply of fresh clean water.

Think about air.
Many people think we breathe oxygen but we don't.
We breathe nitrogen with oxygen in it (and other gases).
An atmosphere prosessor in a habitat doesn't just need O2, without nitrogen it would be deadly. The processor mixes components to make breathable air.
Yes, you would send O2 but you also need to send nitrogen and other gasses as well.

The BIG thing is gravity.
Gravity is one of the least considered factors in building an off-world ecology. It effects everything. From how the atmosphere layers to how things grow. It even effects the physicas of structural integrity. How things are built on Earth is much different than how they need to be built on Mars.
How things are on Mars is very different than how things are on a moon or an asteroid from a gravity point of reference.

Then you have dust issues.
I read a while ago that the astronauts that landed and spent time on the Moon said there was dust on everything, everywhere.
On Earth, dust acts differently because of atmospheric differences and gravity. On Mars or an asteroid, it will act different still.

Decay is yet another thing to consider.
On Earth, things decay a certain way. There are studies that examine the different ways and rates different things decay.
Decay rates are going to be different on different worlds.
Some places, they won't be any significant decay, other places, the decay may be fast and have unpredicatable results. What if something dies and the decay process causes an explosive reaction that light the methane on fire?

Without going there and doing the science to find out what happens, we will never know.
Might as well just put yer head in the sand.

I found a news report that relates to this topic:

"Scientists Are Investigating Building a Space Station Inside a Giant Asteroid"

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-are-investigating-how-to-fit-a-space-station-inside-a-giant-asteroid

From the article:

Gravity is not determined by spin.
Gravity is determined by mass.
As you mine your asteroid and remove its mass, its gravity will diminish.
Spin is not gravity.
Spin simulates gravity by using centripital force to hold you against the inside of the spinning chamber. The only thing that has the simulated gravity is the stuff fastened or connected to the surface that is spinning. That force tends to want to throw you outward and its only the suface that keeps you from flying off at a tangent.
What I would like to know is if you are in a spinning chamber to simulate gravity and you jump into the air, will it pull you back to the surface or will the room spin sideways under you? You would probably collide with the furniture.
I once tried playing catch with myself in an amusement park ride that was called the Hell Hole. It was a spinning chamber that pinned you to the wall and the floor dropped down leaving you stuck to the wall. I threw the ball away from me thinking I would catch it and it flew out and down and hit the floor. I could rest the ball on my tummy and it stayed put but as soon as I threw it way from me so it was in mid air, Earth's gravity captured it.
Well, in space, you don't have Earth's gravity to send you back to the spinning surface, you have the asteroid's gravity that will affect you but you won't just go back to the surface.
Plus, I believe there is other physics having to do with the mass to spin ratio that is required for 1 gee. Asteroids that spin too fast or too slow would give different results and mining equipment on Earth is built and designed to operate at Earth gravity.
So now you not only have a diminishing mass you have to custom design the machines to operate for that particular mining operation. PLUS, as you remove mass, the machines will need to be adjusted for an every decreasing gravity.

First paragraph and the article makes no sense to me.


But most of the asteroids are not solid rock (or minerals).
Its been found that all star system bodies are composited by loose debris that gathers under clumps by gravity.
Gravity that causes things to be round.
If the asteriod is not round, chances are it still has loose material in its composition. Its one of the problems with asteroid diversion in ELE scenarios. If you try to push most asteroids they will fall apart. The going thery is to park a gravity source beside an asteroid and allow gravity to change its course.


The article refers to these as "rocks" while they may be composed of rocks, they are not really solid rocks. Plus, even if they were, they could be extremely fragile.
Examining meteorites does not give the substrate conditions in space.
They have been heated and fused.
I'm sure there are asteroids out there big enough for a station that have been heated and fused by the Sun but unless you are talking about moving its orbit, that asteroid is eventually going to go close enough to the Sun for it to be heated and fused again.
Again, you can land a spacecraft on an comet or asteroid but spin has little to do with why it stays there.


Sorry but no scientist with any value makes assumptions in calculations.
Science is the collection and application of facts in reality, not assumptions. Theories may be assumptions but that's all they are...theories and one theory is just one opinion if it is not tested, recorded and repeated by a different process.


No it isn't, perhaps he needs to clean his glasses.

This article is nothing but click bait.
Want to read stuff that makes sense, check out Google Scholar or any of the sites referenced by the articles found there.