"Ross A. Finlayson" wrote in message om...
Geosynchronous orbit is much farther away than low Earth orbit, some
22,000 miles or something.
36,000km.
Then, let's see, I think the moon is
600,000 (500-700) kilometers away,
384,400km.
and Mars variously 20 million to
200 million.
54,511,000km to 401,356,000km.
I was reading about the Shuttle-C for cargo and saving the liquid fuel
tanks in holding orbits, I think that's a good idea.
It would be an even better idea if that fuel could be supplied from
them Moon, from where it's much, MUCH cheaper to launch. Only build-
ing an industry mining oxygen on the Moon may be hard. The Moon's
mass is 46% oxygen but extreme temperatures and/or chemical procedures
have to be applied to release it. Focusing solar power to cause the
temperatures can be achieved, but materials containing the ovens are a
tough nut to crack. As for the chemicals, keeping them in a recycling
loop is the tough part, because you couldn't get them on the Moon it-
self.
What prevents
the addition of new modules to the ISS, Freedom, the International
Space Station, every year? What's so great about the ISS's orbit that
it is there?
The lower, the cheaper, especially if you want to add a lot of mass.
You launch it just high enough so it's safe from air friction. No
one's had any ambition in the last thirty years to go any higher up
into space than they absolutely had to. That was 550km for people and
36,000km for TV and radio satellites.
Compare that to the distances above! But it's not quite as bad as it
looks, considering gravity diminishes squared with distance. It's
not as if there's ten times more energy needed for the Moon than for
GEO. You're actually half the way there when you're in GEO, energy-
wise.
--
__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." '__`)
//6(6; İOOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/
http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'