Subject:
|
Re: We're here to go
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:46:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
168 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
| |
Here’s my quandary: Don’t we still need to transport the fuel from Earth to
the Moon, and doesn’t it take fuel to get there? If so, is this really more
efficient? If so, it is sufficiently more efficient to justify a
multi-billion dollar construction project on the Moon?
|
Boost the fuel (and oxidizer) from earth?
Fuel maybe, oxidizer no.
The moon has among its most common elements: oxygen, silicon and aluminum
|
Speaking of which, here’s
an interesting tidbit I’ve found. I don’t know about the accuracy of the
details, but it seemed sufficiently on-topic to bring it into the discussion.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) We don't yet have fusion reactors, much less ones that use He3, so He3 doesn't yet help us much. Yet. I'd rather stick to tech thats closer to proven (though I acknowledge bootstrappable manufacturing facilities aren't yet in commmon use I see (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
