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.
Then for clarity's sake, he should figure out proper placement of parenthesis. You put your parenthetical statements right next to what you are referring to so it's clear. Having it near Mars makes it look like he is making a reference to Mars itself, not "bigger things", with the way it is written.
We can suss out what he likely meant because he surely cannot be literally stating the Moon is part of Mars, but let's not pretend that the way he writes this makes sense as far as sentence structure goes.
I actually think he has heard the theory that a Mars sized object collided with Earth causing a piece of Earth to break off and creating the moon. Just doesn’t correctly remember the theory.
You got me! I forgot to use a comma in a casual forum setting. It doesn't matter that what I was saying is still easily understood from the way it was worded. It's exactly the same as the President of the United States phrasing statements in a way that does affect what he means to say.
You got me! I forgot to use a comma in a casual forum setting. It doesn't matter that what I was saying is still easily understood from the way it was worded. It's exactly the same as the President of the United States phrasing statements in a way that does affect what he means to say.
I'm pretty sure he knows by now that it bothers the opposition and gets a kick out of it!
Where do you guys get this idea? Getting a payload to lunar orbit, let alone the lunar surface, then back out of the Moon's gravity and then off to Mars is a huge delta-v loss. Unless you hand-wave into existence some sort of lunar resource extraction scheme, there's nothing gained by entering the Moon's gravity only to have to claw out of it again.
i would agree with you but for one thing, it takes a huge amount of fuel to reach earth orbit, and even more to break orbit. so unless your spacecraft is large enough to carry all the fuel it needs to get to mars, from ground on earth, you are going to be seriously short of fuel part way through the mission.
remember that every bit of weight costs fuel, even the weight of the fuel itself. the more fuel you carry, the larger the spacecraft has to be, assuming you are also going to carry the necessary supplies to reach mars, and return.
now if you launch from the moon and head to mars from there, you can refuel on the moon base, make sure your provisions are topped off, etc. and that means you are only having to overcome 1/6 the gravity to get into intra stellar space, and away from the earth gravity, which means you are going to use less fuel, so you will have plenty when you get to mars and have to slow down to enter orbit around the red planet.
in this way we can use smaller spacecraft. unless you have a new design for a working impulse engine we dont know about.
God, no. I don’t want him to bust a blood vessel. I’d settle for coherent sentences and ideas.
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.
Where do you guys get this idea? Getting a payload to lunar orbit, let alone the lunar surface, then back out of the Moon's gravity and then off to Mars is a huge delta-v loss. Unless you hand-wave into existence some sort of lunar resource extraction scheme, there's nothing gained by entering the Moon's gravity only to have to claw out of it again.
i would agree with you but for one thing, it takes a huge amount of fuel to reach earth orbit, and even more to break orbit. so unless your spacecraft is large enough to carry all the fuel it needs to get to mars, from ground on earth, you are going to be seriously short of fuel part way through the mission.
remember that every bit of weight costs fuel, even the weight of the fuel itself. the more fuel you carry, the larger the spacecraft has to be, assuming you are also going to carry the necessary supplies to reach mars, and return.
now if you launch from the moon and head to mars from there, you can refuel on the moon base, make sure your provisions are topped off, etc. and that means you are only having to overcome 1/6 the gravity to get into intra stellar space, and away from the earth gravity, which means you are going to use less fuel, so you will have plenty when you get to mars and have to slow down to enter orbit around the red planet.
in this way we can use smaller spacecraft. unless you have a new design for a working impulse engine we dont know about.
Dane, the current plan is to explore the possibility of extracting fuels from the lunar surface.
And, Mars missions would not land on the moon; NASA is currently building a second space station that will orbit the moon... it is named Gateway.
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.
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.
