What can we do about Bennu?

[attofishpi]

You can't catch it.
Because...
Mass: 78 billion kg
Average orbital speed: 28.0 km/s

I've caught it - on paper, I've solved the problem insofar as my knowledge allows. Started thinking about it, detour via comedy central himself, thought about it some more, solved it! The answer to "What can we do about Bennu?" is:

"Attach a solar sail to the magnesite chunk - if that's what it is, like a parachute creating drag, the rubble will keep going, the thing will break apart, and the chute will slow the main magnesite piece for entry into earth orbit."

Thanks for your somewhat belated vote of confidence, but I've answered the question to my satisfaction, using feasible technological solutions. And I know I'll be dead by 2135, but we have to start thinking about this now. I mean, look how they dragged their feet on solving climate change!

2135

I'll be 173...yeah, I ain't sweatin' it.

Good for you then!

Ya know, by now, we ought to have multiple colonies in near and far orbit, on the moon, and on Mars. We have the know-how (or did till NASA got pussified). We've kept all our eggs in one basket for far too long.

Despite the amazing things Nasa has done, it doesn't seem there's a consistent practical vision for getting into space. Maybe it's the politics, but it's like they're starting from scratch over and over.

Applying the same broad brush stroke logic brought to the climate change solution, I reckon you'd catch an asteroid, park it in orbit, and build a tether, before even looking at colonising the moon or Mars. The space elevator is key - a tether dangling down into high earth atmosphere - from an asteroid in low earth orbit - a gap of about 100 kilometres. Not an elevator built from the ground up - but downwards from a geo-synchronous rock, to an altitude that could be reached by balloon. When we can move cargo and personnel up and down, to and from Earth at minimal cost, we can mine the virtually infinite resources of the solar system - and the funding problem is over!

Did you happen to catch the story about the asteroid that would make everyone on earth a billionaire? It's the same with magma energy - the potential is vast beyond our imagination, and we're throwing away the opportunity. Dare to dream I say!

https://www.mining.com/web/the-golden-a ... llionaire/

DId you say 2135, that could cause problems for our 300 year anniversary for Queen Victoria, all the sages are going...i guess i best put plans in motion for this project rather than taking the day off from school any day a major assignement was due, and spend the day in the reference library, doing it to hand it in a day late.

OK, it's easy peasy - the moment we know with certainty that Bennu's gonna bang our mother (mother Earth) , we attach propulsion units at a predetermined point on its circumferance that is perpendicular to its direction of travel...when i say, predetermined - we dont want it coming back around another visit, perhaps directing it into the Sun if feasible would be a good option.

..anyway, still not sure what i am going to wear for the annniversary ball.

[Vitruvius]

OK, it's easy peasy - the moment we know with certainty that Bennu's gonna bang our mother (mother Earth) , we attach propulsion units at a predetermined point on its circumferance that is perpendicular to its direction of travel...when i say, predetermined - we dont want it coming back around another visit, perhaps directing it into the Sun if feasible would be a good option. ..anyway, still not sure what i am going to wear for the annniversary ball.

Parking an estimated 30 million tonnes of metal in Earth orbit - could be an enormous boon to our species. I'm assuming that by then, we've tapped into limitless clean energy from magma and used that to address the climate and ecological crisis. I'm guessing we're getting on top of it - desalinating and irrigating, everyone's well fed, there's major projects like forest repair, house building, slum clearance, everyone has a job, opportunity to develop skills, earn wages, buy things they want and need. We recycle all our trash, extract and sequester carbon, and produce all our energy carbon free. 2135 - it's all coming together. And if not, then by 2135 - any people left will probably be praying for a direct hit!

Assuming we don't predestine ourselves to an early and ugly exit from existence, the next step, surely - is to catch an asteroid, and build a ladder - hanging down from space, into the top of the atmosphere. Lifting cargo and personnel back and forth, from earth, into orbit by balloon, would make space habitable - and open up the opportunity of infinite resource. Imagine living in the asteroid belt - mining water, metals, minerals, carbon compounds they contain. If we got our act together things could go really, really well for us for thousands of years - we could exist long term in the universe, and maybe figure out what it's all about! But maybe you're right, and the only thing to do is dispose of Bennu - a sail would naturally push it directly away from the sun, widen its orbit, and so sail into the night! Is that what you're suggesting? Or is this just all about your rocket?

[attofishpi]

OK, it's easy peasy - the moment we know with certainty that Bennu's gonna bang our mother (mother Earth) , we attach propulsion units at a predetermined point on its circumferance that is perpendicular to its direction of travel...when i say, predetermined - we dont want it coming back around another visit, perhaps directing it into the Sun if feasible would be a good option. ..anyway, still not sure what i am going to wear for the annniversary ball.

Parking an estimated 30 million tonnes of metal in Earth orbit - could be an enormous boon to our species. I'm assuming that by then, we've tapped into limitless clean energy from magma and used that to address the climate and ecological crisis. I'm guessing we're getting on top of it - desalinating and irrigating, everyone's well fed, there's major projects like forest repair, house building, slum clearance, everyone has a job, opportunity to develop skills, earn wages, buy things they want and need. We recycle all our trash, extract and sequester carbon, and produce all our energy carbon free. 2135 - it's all coming together. And if not, then by 2135 - any people left will probably be praying for a direct hit!

Dude, I think they call some of your above 'idealism' - dunno cbf looking it up to be sure to be sure. I used to have such sentiments, but trust me...not sure of your age, but pretty much everyone is in woteva you think this life is.....for...themselves.

Yep. We are in a world full of sell fish cunts, and i've experience a lot of those.

I couldn't give a shit if the population of Earth halved by the end of the year.

Also, please do not start sucking the internal heat of my planet out to insist on population growth - the heat within is required. Our Sun has plenty on offer, I suggest shift your thoughts outward rather than inward.

Assuming we don't predestine ourselves to an early and ugly exit from existence, the next step, surely - is to catch an asteroid, and build a ladder - hanging down from space, into the top of the atmosphere. Lifting cargo and personnel back and forth, from earth, into orbit by balloon, would make space habitable - and open up the opportunity of infinite resource. Imagine living in the asteroid belt - mining water, metals, minerals, carbon compounds they contain. If we got our act together things could go really, really well for us for thousands of years - we could exist long term in the universe, and maybe figure out what it's all about! But maybe you're right, and the only thing to do is dispose of Bennu - a sail would naturally push it directly away from the sun, widen its orbit, and so sail into the night! Is that what you're suggesting? Or is this just all about your rocket?

Ya, Uncle Bennu? Send it into the furnace of my Sun. Regarding space lift - just build one - all you need is a heavy object upstairs, I think from memory man-made radioactive elememts are very dense - maybe just rocket them up there in individual consignements...dunno can't say I have researched the subject and to be honest - it's still a lot of enery required to scale.

GO HYDROGEN!! (from Oz sunshine!!)

[Vitruvius]

GO HYDROGEN!! (from Oz sunshine!!)

Solar is not a ludicrous idea of itself, but Australia exports 350 million tonnes of coal per year to Asia. Producing solar energy for the Australian domestic market won't change that. It will reduce, in some small part - GHG emissions that would otherwise have been produced by Australians, but that's all. Even if solar met all of Australia's energy demand, it would not solve the global problem. Are you really willing to spend massive amounts of tax payers money, building solar energy infrastructure to reduce GHG's - while Asia pursues an unsustainable path of development based on coal? Magma energy is a better approach. It is adequate to the global challenge, can exceed current energy demand, has the potential to produce excess energy to sequester carbon into the future, and can be developed and applied as a global good - using world funds, so as not to leave the poorest behind.

[attofishpi]

GO HYDROGEN!! (from Oz sunshine!!)

Solar is not a ludicrous idea of itself, but Australia exports 350 million tonnes of coal per year to Asia. Producing solar energy for the Australian domestic market won't change that. It will reduce, in some small part - GHG emissions that would otherwise have been produced by Australians, but that's all. Even if solar met all of Australia's energy demand, it would not solve the global problem. Are you really willing to spend massive amounts of tax payers money, building solar energy infrastructure to reduce GHG's - while Asia pursues an unsustainable path of development based on coal? Magma energy is a better approach. It is adequate to the global challenge, can exceed current energy demand, has the potential to produce excess energy to sequester carbon into the future, and can be developed and applied as a global good - using world funds, so as not to leave the poorest behind.

Understand, I am disgusted that on the one hand Oz govt state they want to reduce CO2 emissions while refusing to tax CO2 emitters, and making us locals pay through the nose for energy - still predominantly fossil fuel based - while private companies are exporting mega tonnes to Asia.

When I state HYDROGEN - which would be converted via SUNSHINE - I mean, this country can export that rather than coal.

Your magma idea is not required. In fact, from what I have read in other thread(s) re this, is that actually the magma is not touched - so why not just call it 'hot-rock' stuff!! The amount of tech and wasted effort on that compared to what we could do to utilise the energy of the Sun, much simpler ergo efficient.

[Vitruvius]

GO HYDROGEN!! (from Oz sunshine!!)

Solar is not a ludicrous idea of itself, but Australia exports 350 million tonnes of coal per year to Asia. Producing solar energy for the Australian domestic market won't change that. It will reduce, in some small part - GHG emissions that would otherwise have been produced by Australians, but that's all. Even if solar met all of Australia's energy demand, it would not solve the global problem. Are you really willing to spend massive amounts of tax payers money, building solar energy infrastructure to reduce GHG's - while Asia pursues an unsustainable path of development based on coal? Magma energy is a better approach. It is adequate to the global challenge, can exceed current energy demand, has the potential to produce excess energy to sequester carbon into the future, and can be developed and applied as a global good - using world funds, so as not to leave the poorest behind.

Understand, I am disgusted that on the one hand Oz govt state they want to reduce CO2 emissions while refusing to tax CO2 emitters, and making us locals pay through the nose for energy - still predominantly fossil fuel based - while private companies are exporting mega tonnes to Asia. When I state HYDROGEN - which would be converted via SUNSHINE - I mean, this country can export that rather than coal. Your magma idea is not required. In fact, from what I have read in other thread(s) re this, is that actually the magma is not touched - so why not just call it 'hot-rock' stuff!! The amount of tech and wasted effort on that compared to what we could do to utilise the energy of the Sun, much simpler ergo efficient.

I use the term magma energy to distinguish my approach from the other main form of geothermal - which is actually hydrothermal. Hydrothermal taps into underground hot water, and this imposes inherent limitations, I hope to overcome by drilling through hot rock, lining the borehole with pipes, and piping water through - so that all the steam pressure is contained. This would not only prevent geological instabilities, but also solve the replacement rate problem hydrothermal suffers from.

Australia has sunshine and wide open spaces in abundance. Solar would seem obvious - but there are drawbacks. It's low grade energy for one thing, diffuse energy gathered from a large area and concentrated. Then you need lots of water to produce hydrogen. The wide open spaces are inland, and the water at the coast. Transmitting energy along a cable has significant energy costs; first stepping up the voltage costs energy, then it's about 10% per 1000km. Then, conversion into hydrogen also costs energy. Because of the distance the energy would need to travel - from a solar farm covering 225,000 square miles, a large part of the energy you're producing goes to producing that energy, before you produce any hydrogen. So, we come to the question of energy return on infrastructure costs - and by far the most infrastructure efficient technological solution is to use magma energy to produce electricity and hydrogen - on the same site.

Solar panels last 25 years, use rare and toxic metals in their manufacture, and so are very difficult to recycle. Then there's maintenance over their 25 year life-span, and the cost of replacement in 25 years. Magma energy infrastructure would last; and produce base load clean energy, constantly. Not just during the day. That's 50% better, right there! And then, consider the potential for development - you've got your huge solar array, barely finished building it, what then? You have to replace it at enormous cost in 25 years - that's your next challenge. So even if solar met global energy demand, it could not exceed it. Even if you stopped producing GHG's, you can't sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle. Magma energy has that potential - and more besides.

btw, Don't worry about draining the earth's heat energy. It's a lake of fire, horizon to horizon, 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around. Around half its heat energy is generated by radiogenic processes, and it kicks out about 50 TW of heat energy all the time anyway - so no danger at all, any amount of energy we harness to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability, will even make a dent.

[attofishpi]

I use the term magma energy to distinguish my approach from the other main form of geothermal - which is actually hydrothermal. Hydrothermal taps into underground hot water, and this imposes inherent limitations, I hope to overcome by drilling through hot rock, lining the borehole with pipes, and piping water through - so that all the steam pressure is contained. This would not only prevent geological instabilities, but also solve the replacement rate problem hydrothermal suffers from.

Australia has sunshine and wide open spaces in abundance. Solar would seem obvious - but there are drawbacks. It's low grade energy for one thing, diffuse energy gathered from a large area and concentrated. Then you need lots of water to produce hydrogen. The wide open spaces are inland, and the water at the coast.

Most of the entire coast of Australia has barely anybody around. In fact north of where I live the is lots of low lying land, perfect for heliostat sun reflection, drawing in saltwater, providing LOADS of energy for conversion to Hydrogen, providing LOADS of FRESHWATER for farming etc..

I wish I did Engineering at UNI - would like to do a feasibility study and if ok, buy a block of land out there and start setting up a scaled down version.

Transmitting energy along a cable has significant energy costs; first stepping up the voltage costs energy, then it's about 10% per 1000km. Then, conversion into hydrogen also costs energy. Because of the distance the energy would need to travel - from a solar farm covering 225,000 square miles, a large part of the energy you're producing goes to producing that energy, before you produce any hydrogen. So, we come to the question of energy return on infrastructure costs - and by far the most infrastructure efficient technological solution is to use magma energy to produce electricity and hydrogen - on the same site.

All irrelevant to what I am suggesting. And forget solar panels.

Solar panels last 25 years, use rare and toxic metals in their manufacture, and so are very difficult to recycle. Then there's maintenance over their 25 year life-span, and the cost of replacement in 25 years. Magma energy infrastructure would last; and produce base load clean energy, constantly. Not just during the day. That's 50% better, right there! And then, consider the potential for development - you've got your huge solar array, barely finished building it, what then? You have to replace it at enormous cost in 25 years - that's your next challenge. So even if solar met global energy demand, it could not exceed it. Even if you stopped producing GHG's, you can't sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle. Magma energy has that potential - and more besides.

As above, forget solar panels. Definitely forget the magma thang, not required. The moon has great potential for heliostat energy production - has lots of water apparently (and no clouds )

btw, Don't worry about draining the earth's heat energy. It's a lake of fire, horizon to horizon, 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around. Around half its heat energy is generated by radiogenic processes, and it kicks out about 50 TW of heat energy all the time anyway - so no danger at all, any amount of energy we harness to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability, will even make a dent.

That's what Charles Dickens said about enriched plutonium.

Assuming we don't predestine ourselves to an early and ugly exit from existence, the next step, surely - is to catch an asteroid, and build a ladder - hanging down from space, into the top of the atmosphere. Lifting cargo and personnel back and forth, from earth, into orbit by balloon, would make space habitable - and open up the opportunity of infinite resource.

I don't think you excelled at physics? Apart from the bollocks of actually catching that thing as per Sculptors points.

This cargo lift by BALLOON? By the time this balloon gets to the upper atmosphere nearing a vacuum, that balloon is barely going to be able to carry a peanut.
lol.

Imagine living in the asteroid belt - mining water, metals, minerals, carbon compounds they contain.

Sounds more boring than working on a mine on Earth. (I have a few friends that do)

If we got our act together things could go really, really well for us for thousands of years - we could exist long term in the universe, and maybe figure out what it's all about! But maybe you're right, and the only thing to do is dispose of Bennu - a sail would naturally push it directly away from the sun, widen its orbit, and so sail into the night! Is that what you're suggesting?

No fuck the sail, I said propulsion units at a predetermined point on the circumference perpendicular to its direction of travel, ensuring Bennu has no chance of returning in the future.

Or is this just all about your rocket?

Is this a euphemism? You do know I'm straight right? - HEY maybe you are female - YES it's ALL ABOUT MY ROCKET!!!

[Vitruvius]

Most of the entire coast of Australia has barely anybody around. In fact north of where I live the is lots of low lying land, perfect for heliostat sun reflection, drawing in saltwater, providing LOADS of energy for conversion to Hydrogen, providing LOADS of FRESHWATER for farming etc.. I wish I did Engineering at UNI - would like to do a feasibility study and if ok, buy a block of land out there and start setting up a scaled down version.

Good luck with that. When the rest of the world bursts into flames I'm sure you'll be fine - because you'll have your heliostat, and a clean conscience - that you did not contribute to the global scale catastrophe that will unfold anyway! It the same with nations; they do the same thing. My government proudly announces it's leading the way cutting GHG emissions; but we're a small country, the technologies applied are sub-optimal and do not in themselves constitute a solution; these sacrifices make little or no difference to the global picture - and it's as if the whole point of policy is to disown blame.

Transmitting energy along a cable has significant energy costs; first stepping up the voltage costs energy, then it's about 10% per 1000km. Then, conversion into hydrogen also costs energy. Because of the distance the energy would need to travel - from a solar farm covering 225,000 square miles, a large part of the energy you're producing goes to producing that energy, before you produce any hydrogen. So, we come to the question of energy return on infrastructure costs - and by far the most infrastructure efficient technological solution is to use magma energy to produce electricity and hydrogen - on the same site.

All irrelevant to what I am suggesting. And forget solar panels.

If only you'd used the word heliostat in recent history. You used the word solar throughout your previous post - so you can't blame me for discussing solar panels. I recall now, we did discuss heliostats some time ago - and one thing that stood out in my mind, was Ivanpah's need for a kick start in the mornings - with millions of cubic feet of gas consumed each year. That, and the fact Ivanpah proved unreliable, and was shut down.

As above, forget solar panels. Definitely forget the magma thang, not required. The moon has great potential for heliostat energy production - has lots of water apparently (and no clouds )

I try to forget about solar panels - especially at night, when they don't produce any energy. Nor does a heliostat - so I forgot about that too. I see no good reason to forget magma. If magma can provide constant base load clean energy in sufficient quantities to replace fossil fuels, and I think it can - then surely that's our best bet.

What I'm trying, and failing miserably to show you is the potential of magma energy versus the potential of other technologies, and the implied policy approaches to sustainability. If we have less energy available in future, we will be worse off - and less able to address climate change. Applying technologies that cannot replace fossil fuels - just to reduce some part of GHG's, is little more than a sop to conscience - and imply authoritarian and expensive impositions on society to supplement for the inadequacy of the technology to the problem. Given a source of clean energy more than adequate to the problem - I need have no carbon footprint, and can live in an energy rich environment. Technologically, the circle can be squared - and I humbly submit therefore that, politically, it ought to be considered.

btw, Don't worry about draining the earth's heat energy. It's a lake of fire, horizon to horizon, 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around. Around half its heat energy is generated by radiogenic processes, and it kicks out about 50 TW of heat energy all the time anyway - so no danger at all, any amount of energy we harness to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability, will even make a dent.

Is this a euphemism? You do know I'm straight right?

It's like you protest too much.

"I'm gonna buy a patch o' land, and build meeself a heliostat mate. I don't give a shit if the world falls apart - mate, me and meee heliostat 'll be right!"

It doesn't seem a reasonable position to adopt; so I'm going with over-compensation as a theory, yeah!

[attofishpi]

Naaw, u took all the fun out of that.

BTW, also re capturing Bennu then attempting to use it as an orbiting space elevator (non balloon of course, certain u now understand the flaw in that plan)...you will obviously need to get Bennu into a geostationary orbit, hence hovering above equator.

So.

Good luck with that and your magma plan!

[Vitruvius]

Naaw, u took all the fun out of that.

Leaving nothing for you to remark upon?

BTW, also re capturing Bennu then attempting to use it as an orbiting space elevator (non balloon of course, certain u now understand the flaw in that plan)...you will obviously need to get Bennu into a geostationary orbit, hence hovering above equator.

I don't see the problem, no! Bennu served as a metaphor for the global threat that is climate change, and allowed me to talk about the future - and possibilities beyond addressing climate change, so - no, I don't see any problem, just as you don't see any virtue in harnessing magma energy. Not one good word. Is it that bad an idea?

So. Good luck with that and your magma plan!

I don't believe you mean that!

[henry quirk]

D86C75D8-AD75-4A0E-B8F0-70DF08CFC301.jpeg (53.82 KiB) Viewed 1384 times