🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BwwKo2.6vt@breeze.rsre.mod.uk>, black@breeze.rsre.mod.uk (John Black) writes:
>Maybe a near comet approach could be a good thing. I did a rough calculation 
>and estimated that there must be something of the order of 10 to the power 11 
>metric tonnes of water. Maybe in 130 years time somewhere on the Earth could do
>with some water, eg the interior of large continents affected by drought. I 
>know that one of the effects of the greenhouse effect is to make sea levels 
>rise, but that is salt water, no good for crops, and still would be hundreds of
>miles from a continental desert region. The comet presumably is almost pure
>water and therefore would be ideal for crops, drinking etc.
>
>So if in 130 years technology is sufficiently advanced, it could be possible
>to alter the orbit of the comet so that it goes into a stable orbit around the
>Earth. The trick then would be to "chip" bits off the comet and "land' them
>in the appropriate region of the Earth. This would be the most difficult bit
>since viz the probable cause of the Tunguska event (see previous article on
>comet hitting Earth) you would end up doing the equivalent of nuking the region
>The comet could also be an almost infinite supply of water for lunar bases if
>there are any by then. 

Well, if we've got the technology to drag a comet into orbit (that sucker is
BIG and moving at what, about 70,000 mph relative to earth?), then break it up
and ship fragments down to the surface, don't you think it's also likely we'd
have the technology to build a desalination plant and a pipeline?  Cheaper? 
And easier?

>Maybe this is all too much "pie in the sky" (no pun intended :-), 130 years is
>much too short to evolve technologies to do this sort of stuff, witness  what
>could be viewed as comparativly slow progress in maned spaceflight in the last
>20 years (still that's probably a function of the spending). So this sort of
>stuff is more like 500 years off in the future. 

No, the problem is that you're ignoring the fact that if the technology for
what you suggest existed, then we'd be capable of dealing with that sort of
problem in much simpler ways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.