Why don't they call hemoroids asteroids?
101378
Because hemorroids are small bummers full of hemo and asteroids are small aster (celestial objects)
552556
It is certainly possible that some of the many tiny moons of the larger, gas giant, planets could have come from the asteroid belt.  Those massive planets' gravitational field are prone to capture a lot of debris from the solar system.\n\nWow, FishRN, it must have taken a lot out of you to copy paste that whole thing from the wikipedia article, so much so that you couldnt even list your source.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt
932550
the article from 40 years ago must have been wrong, or more likely more accurate observations revealed that the asteroid posed no danger to earth. The only asteroid that "MIGHT" hit the earth that is known of is the asteroid discovered in 2004 and named Apophis. it will come very close to earth in 2029, so close that it might be pulled into an orbit that will hit the earth on its next approach in 2036\n\nhowever we will not know for sure until we get more accurate measurements of its orbit, probably not till its approach in 2029.\n\nSo don't worry about it, by then we should be able to deflect it, if it indeed will be on a collision course.
1028700
So far our asteroid deflection technology is only hypothetical. We would probably want to study our options in more detail first, as well as learn more about the structure of asteroids. Actual missions to asteroids take lots of time and money, which no one is prepared to spend just yet.\n\nWhich brings up a key point - asteroid defense is pathetically underfunded, in both threat detection and deflection technologies. If more people asked questions like yours, maybe the powers that be would do something about it.
356083
The earth would have more craters than the moon almost, had it not developed an atmosphere.  The atmosphere burns up anything trying to pass through it into a tiny meteorite.\n\nSame reason that mercury is battered with the asteroids.
349562
If an asteroid hits mars, debris is shot up and is sometimes fast enough to escape Mars' gravity. If these rocks get into Earth's orbit, there's a chance that Earth can run into these.\n\nCooldude, please edit your post and give me credit for your first paragraph.
1164830
Oh Boy! got it right. The larger asteroids are also basically spherical. This is ultimately due to the fact that they have enough mass for the gravity to force them into this shape. Of course, there are irregularities, but they are fairly small except for the bulges caused by rotation. The smaller asteroids don't have enough mass for the gravity to have much effect.
1027977
It would be pretty hard to view asteroids in real time as most are quite far, and I don't think Hubble or any of our other telescopes offer real time data to the public, but I would peruse around NASA's website.  I do know that you can watch generalized satellite feed but as far as specifically seeing asteroids, you might have a hard time.  It's not much of consolation, but I know they have photos of asteroids.
743415
Rotation around an asteroid would be pretty tricky, since their mass is low. \n\nCeres would be the best place to start. It kinda has gravity. (And actually, I'd just build my base on there, and not deal with a toroidal structure). The gravity is low enough so that "blast offs" would use very little fuel, but you would still have the stability of a rock. \n\nIf you chose to build the space station in that quadrant, you'd have a firm base on Ceres. (Phobos or Demos wouldn't be bad either --- but Mars is too much of a gravity well.)\n\nThe simple fact is that you will have to assemble it in space, no matter where you fabricate the elements of the structure. Good luck, and keep me informed on your progress. I always wanted to run a pub on Ceres...
1023987
They don't have to. Yes, there are thousands of asteroids, but space is really, really big! The asteroids are so far apart that you could just randomly fly any path through the belt and never see one. They actually have to carefully plot a course to rendezvous with one if that is the goal of the mission, like NEAR or Hayabusa.
583540
I depends on the type of asteroid, a solid one we can deflect, but if it is an aglommerate of space debris, it will be like trying to avoid a shot gun blast.
868944
Bodies beyond a certain mass are spherical due to the nature of gravity which pulls them together. But there are many asteroids and comets that are small and irregularly shaped because gravity can not overcom the strength of the material.
991898
Easy question first, they are there because the gravitational pull of Saturn caused 2 or more objects to collide with enough velocity for the debri not to fall to saturn.\n\nNow the hard one, according to NASA:\n\n"Cassini found that the inner and outer parts of ring B contain rings that are hundreds of kilometers wide (hundreds of miles) and vary greatly in the amount of material they contain. A thick, 5,000-kilometer-wide (3,100-mile) core contains several bands with ring material that is nearly four times as dense as that of ring A and nearly 20 times as dense as that of ring C."
1120480
I had visualized that for small moons, somehow it seemed odd for larger moons. Space Elevators was also a pretty good option in my mind. Cost seems to be a non-issue if you can get those robot armies to work. Big if, but hey, IF, then its really just a matter of getting the bots there and getting them started.\n\n    * Mining asteroids is a royal pain in the tail. If at all possible, mining will be done where there's gravity and an atmosphere. Planets are great big balls of metals and useful minerals, so I just don't see the advantage. The only exception is that you might break off a tiny chunk of an icy body and tow it to an established colony on the moon, to give you carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen. It might be cheaper just to haul up refined chemicals from a colony elsewhere and ship them, though.\n\nYes, mining in microgravity would be highly problematic. There are a number of different groups working on the theories of the problem, and a lot of interesting answers out there. If we are going to make large Colonies or ships, materials will proove to be cheaper to mine from Asteroids than lift from Earth or the Moon.
643111
Because ice-bergs are already on the earth and factored in.\n\nA better question is why we don't capture some frozen comets and drop them in the oceans.  :-)
331302
Theres no system, but lots of ideas.  And none of the reasonable sane ideas include drilling a hole and dropping a nuclear bomb into the asteroid.  Damn you bruce willis, damn you.\n\nConsidering it only takes a meteor of about 50m to produce an explosion the size of a decent nuclear bomb, its very scary, look up tunguska 1908 impact.
950664
I don't know the name, I think it just has a number.\n\nIt is about 1,000,000 km away and is a captured asteroid about 1km across.  It is irregular in shape.  It is in an unstable orbit and will eventually leave the Earth's orbit and enter solar orbit.