OT - Mars Mission

Not Responding said:

Pres Bush said that a Lunar base will help any mars mission because the moon's lower gravity will
make it cheaper to launch a spacecraft.

Is it me or the Merkin that's missing something here? Surely, unless you build your rocket
ship, Barney Rubble style, out of moonrocks you'd have to lug your space ship parts up from
Earth anyway.

PS. I think a manned (or 'inhabited' to use non-gender-specific terminology) is excellent news; I
just can't see the point in going via the moon.

I'd imagine he's thinking of a reusable spacecraft, in the style of the shuttles. Once it's got to a
lunar base, the lower gravity to launch from there means less fuel needed, so if it returns there
for the next mission instead of earth, I can see why it *might* be cheaper.

Of course, they'll need to work out some way of generating fuel up there rather than lugging the
stuff up from earth each time - but then again that might offer cost savings even so if combined
with other things.

Someone needs to be bored enough to work out exactly how different the costings would be to cart
fuel up there for a re-useable one vs one-time/re-useable straight from the earth. I'm not bored
enough yet.

Velvet

Not Responding said:

Pres Bush said that a Lunar base will help any mars mission because the moon's lower gravity will
make it cheaper to launch a spacecraft.

Is it me or the Merkin that's missing something here? Surely, unless you build your rocket
ship, Barney Rubble style, out of moonrocks you'd have to lug your space ship parts up from
Earth anyway.

PS. I think a manned (or 'inhabited' to use non-gender-specific terminology) is excellent news; I
just can't see the point in going via the moon.

I suspect its because you can send it in bits to the moon and then build it up and launch from
there. That would be cheaper because you use a standard launcher and launch the heavier vehicle from
the lower gravity than have to build a mega launcher to get it off the earth in one piece.

Tony

Velvet wrote: .

Quoted message said:

Of course, they'll need to work out some way of generating fuel up there rather than lugging the
stuff up from earth each time -

Just wait until its day time and the moon will be down there so the fuel will fall there on
its own !!!

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Not Responding said:

Pres Bush said that a Lunar base will help any mars mission because the moon's lower gravity
will make it cheaper to launch a spacecraft.

Is it me or the Merkin that's missing something here? Surely, unless you build your rocket ship,
Barney Rubble style, out of moonrocks you'd have to lug your space ship parts up from Earth
anyway.

PS. I think a manned (or 'inhabited' to use non-gender-specific terminology) is excellent news;
I just can't see the point in going via the moon.

I suspect its because you can send it in bits to the moon and then build it up and launch from
there. That would be cheaper because you use a standard launcher and launch the heavier vehicle
from the lower gravity than have to build a mega launcher to get it off the earth in one piece.

Tony

reminds me of the old joke _we're launching a manned space probe to the sun, we'll be Ok because
we'll land at night!_;-)

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect its because you can send it in bits to the moon and then build

it up

Quoted message said:

and launch from there. That would be cheaper because you use a standard launcher and launch the
heavier vehicle from the lower gravity than have

to

Quoted message said:

build a mega launcher to get it off the earth in one piece.

Yes but why expend all that energy getting your spacecraft bits out of one gravity well and then
dropping them into another (albeit shallower) before going to your destination when you could build
up your craft at a lagrange point and save all the hassle (and waste) of dragging your vessel off of
a planet again.

To wander even further OT, why bother with Mars? Lethal radiation, no atmosphere (and due to the
lack of a magnetic field, probably no hope of terraforming a new one) and again it's out of one
gravity well and into another. Head for the asteroids! That's where our future lies (assuming we
have one).

Tim

Tim Downie said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect its because you can send it in bits to the moon and then build

it up

Quoted message said:

and launch from there. That would be cheaper because you use a standard launcher and launch the
heavier vehicle from the lower gravity than have to build a mega launcher to get it off the earth
in one piece.

Yes but why expend all that energy getting your spacecraft bits out of one gravity well and then
dropping them into another (albeit shallower) before going to your destination when you could
build up your craft at a lagrange point and save all the hassle (and waste) of dragging your
vessel off of a planet again.

To wander even further OT, why bother with Mars? Lethal radiation, no atmosphere (and due to the
lack of a magnetic field, probably no hope of terraforming a new one) and again it's out of one
gravity well and into another. Head for the asteroids! That's where our future lies (assuming we
have one).

Tim

what's so gr8 about the asteroids?

Velvet said:

Of course, they'll need to work out some way of generating fuel up there rather than lugging the
stuff up from earth each time - but then again that might offer cost savings even so if combined
with other things.

Probably not, NASA are currently experimenting with ION drives as a alternative to heavy and
expensive combustable fuels.

Regs

Jon

Jon Farmer said:

NASA are currently experimenting with ION drives as a alternative to heavy and expensive
combustable fuels.

Don't these people have dilithium crystals? Tcah! Apathetic bloody planet.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

To wander even further OT, why bother with Mars?

Cos the Merrcains can't allow the Chinese to get there first (or to inhabit the moon for that
matter. Mind you, if there was oil there..........

Robert

you know? said:

Jon Farmer said:

NASA are currently experimenting with ION drives as a alternative to heavy and expensive
combustable fuels.

Don't these people have dilithium crystals? Tcah! Apathetic bloody planet.

LOL

But is that an "apathetic bloody planet" or "a pathetic bloody planet" or a clever
shorthand for both?

--
Michael MacClancy Random pleonasm - "I never make predictions, especially about the future."
- Attributed to Samuel Goldwyn www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

Just zis Guy said:

Don't these people have dilithium crystals? Tcah! Apathetic bloody planet.

LOL

nmp.jpl.nasa.govionpropfaq.htmlOpen ↗

Regs

Jon

Just zis Guy said:

Don't these people have dilithium crystals? Tcah! Apathetic bloody planet.

They do but when the risk analysts heard Scotty's opinion that "they're no going take it" they
insisted that a safer alternative was used.

Tony

Just zis Guy said:

Don't these people have dilithium crystals? Tcah! Apathetic bloody planet.

No, but they've got an Infinite Improbability Drive. How else can anyone explain the presence of
That Man in the White House?

"Pure history, man. A talking monkey" - Z. Beeblebrox.

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Michael MacClancy said:

is that an "apathetic bloody planet" or "a pathetic bloody planet" or a clever shorthand for both?

Apathetic, definitely. In the view of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, anyway.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Is it me or the Merkin that's missing something here? Surely, unless you build your rocket ship,
Barney Rubble style, out of moonrocks you'd have to lug your space ship parts up from Earth anyway.

It's Dumbya. There's already been a few Nasa quotes in the press about how it would have been nice
if Dumbya had checked with them first...

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

It's Dumbya. There's already been a few Nasa quotes in the press about how it would have been nice
if Dumbya had checked with them first...

You didn't watch the opening episode of To the Moon and Back about the Kennedy Moon programme? It
would appear Kennedy didn't ask either before his man on the moon by the end of the decade speech.
I've used it a number of times to show that what appears impossible may be possible but you won't
find out until you assume its possible and work out how it could be done.

Tony

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

It's Dumbya. There's already been a few Nasa quotes in the press about how it would have been nice
if Dumbya had checked with them first...

Loved the response of one person to an interviewer on the radio

"Isn't this a lot of money to spend on going to Mars when there are so many more important problems
here on Earth?"

"Well, the whole program costs less per year than Americans spend on snacks for their pets"

Tony

Tony Raven said:

the whole program costs less per year than Americans spend on snacks for their pets

Not a surprise. The US also spends less per capita on foreign aid than any other industrialised
nation, but is top of the list in military aid. Amazing - who could have predicted that?

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

what's so gr8 about the asteroids?

Nothing, they're horrible. Cream is available though.

(Sorry 2b so obvious).

Niv