Subject:
|
Re: We're here to go
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:16:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
626 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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!
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 lifting off
from the moon again, then landing on Mars, seems to be fuel intensive--we're
battling gravity on two lift offs and landings.
I don't have any cites, but an orbiting platform around the earth is deemed to
be the best situation for staging exploration missions--no 'batting gravity' for
an interm step.
Now if they get that 'elevator to orbit' thing worked out (like Arthur C Clark's
'Fountains of Paradise'), then we're really in the ball game to do some serious
'getting away from the planet'
Ahh, good stuff :)
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: We're here to go
|
| Dave K and I are both right although the casual reader may not see it. He's right under the assumption that all your mass is going to come from earth and you need a place to assemble all the bits and pieces into a ship that was too big to launch in (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | We're here to go
|
| 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 (...) (20 years ago, 16-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
