leech@proline.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (01/23/89)
In article <96@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >In article <5740@cbmvax.UUCP> jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: >> Asteroids are very far away (energy-wise) and are unknown >> quantities for the most part (compared to the moon). >Because we haven't explored them. QED. We have more samples of asteroidal material than lunar material, and closeup photos of Martian moons (soon much more if Phobos survives). Combined with spectroscopic and radar observations, there's no question that bulk resources (iron, carbon, etc.) are readily available in the 'roids anytime we care to fetch them. Of course we will want to prospect for near-ideal bodies first. Landing 6 times on the moon does not make it a 'known quantity' by any stretch of the imagination. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.'' - Stephen Hawking
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/25/89)
In article <6310@thorin.cs.unc.edu> leech@proline.UUCP (Jonathan Leech) writes: > We have more samples of asteroidal material than lunar material, Unfortunately, they are not labeled by location. This makes it a little difficult to use them for planning a mining expedition, although they do give us a reasonable idea of what's out there (somewhere). > Landing 6 times on the moon does not make it a 'known quantity' >by any stretch of the imagination. No, but it makes six locations (actually a few more if you count results from some of the unmanned probes as supporting evidence) known quantities, and it gives us some notion of average properties. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu