What if Minmus existed IRL?

[Sanic]

 I know this question has been asked time and time again, but since I don't like to necromance, I shall ask this question again.

Assuming that a scaled-up Minmus was in a stable orbit of somwhat reasonable inclination, and didn't melt, how would its existence affect the history of space exploration?

Edited January 16, 2016 by Sanic

[fredinno]

It wouldn't exist. In the alt. Solar system thread (which I encourage you to read) Minnmus would probably evaporate over time- it's too close to the sun for its ices to be there, even underground. That's why we changed it to a M-type asteroid moon.

[lajoswinkler]

Let's say it's not icy and that it could survive Earth-Moon perturbations.

It would probably be an additional interesting target for unmanned landers. I'm not sure if it would attract people to land on it.

[Sanic]

1 hour ago, lajoswinkler said:

Let's say it's not icy and that it could survive Earth-Moon perturbations.

It would probably be an additional interesting target for unmanned landers. I'm not sure if it would attract people to land on it.

Yeah, it would probably take around 4km/sec DeltaV instead of the regular 3 or so km/sec for the Moon.

So basically no manned landing.

[Gaarst]

5 minutes ago, Sanic said:

Yeah, it would probably take around 4km/sec DeltaV instead of the regular 3 or so km/sec for the Moon.

So basically no manned landing.

I actually think we would have landed on Minmus before the Moon, if it were not for the duration of the mission.

It is easier to make a small lander and a big TLI stage than the opposite. Minmus's weak gravity would have made it very attractive.

We would probably have seen a Mars/Venus like distribution between the US and USSR: one focussing on the Moon while the other one goes to Minmus.

[magnemoe]

Some theories says that the collision who created the moon generated two moons one large an one small who collided later. 
Not sure if they could both have stayed, other option is an captured asteroide, might be stable if far out and in resonance with Mun or in L4 or L5. 
An asteroide the size of Gilly or Mars moons would be more realistic here, good chance of an manned mission, if not it would be an natural target for SLS and orion, 
Shorter travel time than earth near asteroids and cheaper to get too than the moon because no landing. 

[Kaos]

We would send a lot of missions to minmus to find out, what makes it so incredibly more dense than anything else in the solar system.

[Sanic]

2 minutes ago, Kaos said:

We would send a lot of missions to minmus to find out, what makes it so incredibly more dense than anything else in the solar system.

This is a scaled up Minmus, of somewhat more reasonable density.

[Tw1]

3 hours ago, lajoswinkler said:

It would probably be an additional interesting target for unmanned landers. I'm not sure if it would attract people to land on it.

Sure it would. Not that much more reason was needed to land people on the Moon anyway.

Just like in KSP, you'd need less delta V for landings, but more for getting there in the first place. Landers would be lighter, but you'd need to bring more life support.

 

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Kaos said:

We would send a lot of missions to minmus to find out, what makes it so incredibly more dense than anything else in the solar system.

Yes, idea is an smaller moon further away from earth. downside is longer traveling time, upside is easier to take off and land on. 

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Some theories says that the collision who created the moon generated two moons one large an one small who collided later. 
Not sure if they could both have stayed, other option is an captured asteroide, might be stable if far out and in resonance with Mun or in L4 or L5. 
An asteroide the size of Gilly or Mars moons would be more realistic here, good chance of an manned mission, if not it would be an natural target for SLS and orion, 
Shorter travel time than earth near asteroids and cheaper to get too than the moon because no landing. 

It would have to be at least 100x less massive than the moon to be stable in L4/5.

3 hours ago, Kaos said:

We would send a lot of missions to minmus to find out, what makes it so incredibly more dense than anything else in the solar system.

Then they would find it is made almost entirely of metals.

[Ralathon]

40 minutes ago, fredinno said:

It would have to be at least 100x less massive than the moon to be stable in L4/5.

Mass of the Moon: 7.34e22. Mass of Minmus: 2.6e19. So it would easily be stable in the lagrange points.

But that would cut the main drawback of a Minmus trip: Travel time. Landing on minmus IRL would be easier on every front than a lunar landing. If you want to keep the tradeoff in challenges you need to put Minmus in a 3 to 1 resonance or something.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, Ralathon said:

Mass of the Moon: 7.34e22. Mass of Minmus: 2.6e19. So it would easily be stable in the lagrange points.

But that would cut the main drawback of a Minmus trip: Travel time. Landing on minmus IRL would be easier on every front than a lunar landing. If you want to keep the tradeoff in challenges you need to put Minmus in a 3 to 1 resonance or something.

Actually, again in the Alt. Solar System Thread, turns out that KSP bodies are technically 100x lower in mass than in IRL (read it if you want to know why). So, Minnmus would actually be 2.6e21, which is too big. But this thread isn't really about possibility, let's keep that to the Alt.Solar System Thread...