Subject:
|
We're here to go
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:03:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
682 times
|
| |
|
|
By now, everyone knows about Dubya's Brave New Vision of America's future in
space, specifically regarding the Moon and Mars. One of Dubya's selling points
for a permanent Moon base (perhaps modular, in 48x48 squares) is that it will
make it easier to launch spacecraft to Mars "and beyond." But will it?
I believe that one of the arguments is that it takes X amount of fuel to go from
Earth to Mars, but only Y amount of fuel to go from Earth to the Moon and only Z
amount (i.e., less than X) to go from the Moon to Mars. Dubya seems to be
suggesting that, in lauching from the Moon to Mars will use only Z amount of
fuel and will therefore be more efficient than an Earth-based launch.
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?
I'm not interested, for the moment, in legitimate discussions of the propriety
of creating another cash drain for the US taxpayer; I'm worried about the pure
physics, but the math is beyond me. Still, it strikes me as the old riddle
about whether it's more fuel efficient to transport 100 birds on an airplane if
50 of the birds are in flight at any one time.
Thanks for your input. In deference to my ignorance, please keep answers as
non-overwhelmingly technical as possible.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) Boost the fuel (and oxidizer) from earth? Fuel maybe, oxidizer no. The moon has among its most common elements: oxygen, silicon and aluminum Solar cells can be made from silicon and aluminum + trace elements. Just add energy. (and technology (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) If I recall correctly, 90 percent of the fuel of any launch from the earth is used to get thru the atmosphere--that it's only 10 percent that is used for combatting gravity. That said, lifting off the earth, then landing on the moon, then (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | Re: We're here to go
|
| (...) Dollar cost of the total amount of fuel aside, it is more efficient. When you launch a rocket into space, it has to carry itself, its payload, its crew, and its fuel. Making a rocket that can manage that from an Earth-based launch site would (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
