U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-09-2019, 09:15 AM
 
7,122 posts, read 1,787,539 times
Reputation: 4214

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
..at least, according to our president*.

Did anyone hear a collision? Was it stolen? Did Trump lose it in a trade deal? Can he even name the planet he's on?

So many questions...

This is a perfect example why I could never vote for a Democrat. Petty irrelevant nonsense like this. And I would never vote for Trump either. How low can it all go? Stay tuned.

 
Old 06-09-2019, 10:24 AM
 
14,188 posts, read 6,430,715 times
Reputation: 14640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
The only ones busting a blood vessel, are the fanatic Democrats as they wrack their brains trying to come up with the worst possible interpretation they can for every comment President Trump makes, no matter how silly or obviously inaccurate their "interpretations" are.
There's no need to try to interpret. trump is simple minded. it's not like his words are deep.
 
Old 06-09-2019, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Virginia
3,962 posts, read 2,034,762 times
Reputation: 10883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
What's indefensible about focusing on the mission to get to Mars???
What's indefensible is the incredible redirection of money and other resources that could better be used to repair and replace aging and crumbling infrastructure throughout the country. Sure, roads and bridges aren't as "sexy" as space travel, but they have a lot more day-to-day value to the average citizen than a rocket mission. BTW, I am not in the least prejudiced against space missions at all; I spent the last 17+ years of my Federal career supporting the Naval space mission. But with the present enormous Federal deb added to the facts of infrastructure needs, a mission to Mars is the last thing this country requires.
 
Old 06-09-2019, 01:51 PM
 
32,461 posts, read 16,628,735 times
Reputation: 17463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
Dane, the current plan is to explore the possibility of extracting fuels from the lunar surface.
You're thinking of the Commercial Lunar Propellant Architecture. Yep, I read the white paper. Optimistic stuff. But even they plan to move the fuel from the Moon's gravity well to where it's needed. It makes sense - lower your heavy Mars vehicle into Lunar orbit to get fueled up, then escape Lunar gravity again, or move just the fuel in a minimal tanker vessel to your Mars vehicle in LEO?

Quote:
And, Mars missions would not land on the moon;
That's what I'm saying.

Quote:
NASA is currently building a second space station that will orbit the moon... it is named Gateway.
Planning it, but yes. It's not going to be used as a literal gateway. Lunar orbit is great for developing deep-space tech - outside the Van Allen fields and all that - but nothing is gained by using Lunar orbit as an intermediary stop.

This is a bit on the primitive side, but it demonstrates the point:



Going to the Moon - even just to orbit - and then on to Mars is a net loss.
 
Old 06-09-2019, 02:56 PM
 
4,989 posts, read 2,007,399 times
Reputation: 2257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
You're thinking of the Commercial Lunar Propellant Architecture. Yep, I read the white paper. Optimistic stuff. But even they plan to move the fuel from the Moon's gravity well to where it's needed. It makes sense - lower your heavy Mars vehicle into Lunar orbit to get fueled up, then escape Lunar gravity again, or move just the fuel in a minimal tanker vessel to your Mars vehicle in LEO?

That's what I'm saying.

Planning it, but yes. It's not going to be used as a literal gateway. Lunar orbit is great for developing deep-space tech - outside the Van Allen fields and all that - but nothing is gained by using Lunar orbit as an intermediary stop.

This is a bit on the primitive side, but it demonstrates the point:

Going to the Moon - even just to orbit - and then on to Mars is a net loss.
No, it's not... you are thinking in terms of only a single flight... you haven't taken into consideration the Delta-V of the fuel necessary to get to Mars and back.

Using your graphic, and assuming 1 main ship and 1 fuel payload, here's the Delta-Vs to Earth C3:

Both payloads launched from Earth - Delta-V = 23.2
LEO to C3 (main ship from earth, fuel from moon) - Delta-V = 19.6
Lunar orbit to C3 (main ship from earth, fuel from moon) - Delta-V = 17.1

Last edited by Ultor; 06-09-2019 at 03:54 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top