Time it takes for Lunar Travel

If we ever decide to resume lunar exploration (even if it is robotic at
first) is there any chance that propulsion or fuel systems have improved
enough where we could get there in 1 day instead of 3?

JoeL

"Mr.XyZ" wrote in message
news:WQmje.19418$ye1.152@okepread06...
If we ever decide to resume lunar exploration (even if it is robotic at
first) is there any chance that propulsion or fuel systems have improved
enough where we could get there in 1 day instead of 3?

JoeL


Not with current propulsion systems. Going to the moon if you accelerate to
a velocity that gets you there 2 days earlier then you have so much excess
velocity that you have to use braking rocket propulsion to slow your vehicle
down so you can accomplish a moon landing.

Since the moon has no atmosphere that can be used for aerobraking you
cannot evade this particular problem.

Mike Walsh

"Mr.XyZ" wrote in message
news:WQmje.19418$ye1.152@okepread06...
If we ever decide to resume lunar exploration (even if it is robotic at
first) is there any chance that propulsion or fuel systems have improved
enough where we could get there in 1 day instead of 3?

Gee, what's the rush?

This reminds me of the second episode of Futurama. Frye is told that
they're going to the moon. He's tremendously excited, and asks if he can
recite the countdown:

Frye: 10.... 9.... 8.... 7....

Leela: We're there.

Frye: 654321!


--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

"Michael P. Walsh" wrote in message
...

"Mr.XyZ" wrote in message
news:WQmje.19418$ye1.152@okepread06...
If we ever decide to resume lunar exploration (even if it is robotic at
first) is there any chance that propulsion or fuel systems have improved
enough where we could get there in 1 day instead of 3?

JoeL


Not with current propulsion systems. Going to the moon if you accelerate
to
a velocity that gets you there 2 days earlier then you have so much excess
velocity that you have to use braking rocket propulsion to slow your
vehicle
down so you can accomplish a moon landing.

Well, technically you have to use braking rocket propulsion with a 3 day
course.

You just need MORE fuel this way.


Since the moon has no atmosphere that can be used for aerobraking you
cannot evade this particular problem.

LITHOBRAKING! :-)



Mike Walsh

Mike Combs wrote:
"Mr.XyZ" wrote in message
news:WQmje.19418$ye1.152@okepread06...
If we ever decide to resume lunar exploration (even if it is robotic at
first) is there any chance that propulsion or fuel systems have improved
enough where we could get there in 1 day instead of 3?

Gee, what's the rush?

Who wants to sit in a silly tin can if they can instead be on moon?
space really sucks as a landscape ;-)


This reminds me of the second episode of Futurama. Frye is told that
they're going to the moon. He's tremendously excited, and asks if he can
recite the countdown:

Frye: 10.... 9.... 8.... 7....

Leela: We're there.

Frye: 654321!


well, 1g transport to moon would be nice ;-) And would take a comfortable
3.5 hours. Getting there (much) faster gets rather tedious fast:
~ 2.5 hours at 2g
~ 2 hours at 3g
~ 1h40 at 4g
~ 1h30 at 5g
~ 55 minutes at 14g

The two ways of looking at this a
* humans will most probably never make it to the moon faster
than in an hour
* it might be fesible to daily commute to work (and back)
from your apartment on Moon at some point in the future.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...

well, 1g transport to moon would be nice ;-) And would take a comfortable
3.5 hours. Getting there (much) faster gets rather tedious fast:
~ 2.5 hours at 2g
~ 2 hours at 3g
~ 1h40 at 4g
~ 1h30 at 5g
~ 55 minutes at 14g

The two ways of looking at this a
* humans will most probably never make it to the moon faster
than in an hour

Well, until a transporter is developed! :-)

(speaking of which, anyone read Penrose's theory of why electrons and
photons can "be in two places at once" but macroscopic objects can't be?)


* it might be fesible to daily commute to work (and back)
from your apartment on Moon at some point in the future.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...

"Michael P. Walsh" wrote in message
...

"Mr.XyZ" wrote in message
news:WQmje.19418$ye1.152@okepread06...
If we ever decide to resume lunar exploration (even if it is robotic at
first) is there any chance that propulsion or fuel systems have
improved
enough where we could get there in 1 day instead of 3?

JoeL


Not with current propulsion systems. Going to the moon if you accelerate
to
a velocity that gets you there 2 days earlier then you have so much
excess
velocity that you have to use braking rocket propulsion to slow your
vehicle
down so you can accomplish a moon landing.

Well, technically you have to use braking rocket propulsion with a 3 day
course.

You just need MORE fuel this way.


You are right of course. And that is a good deal more fuel,
as I assume your capitalization is meant to indicate.

Mike Walsh

In article WQmje.19418$ye1.152@okepread06, Mr.XyZ wrote:
If we ever decide to resume lunar exploration (even if it is robotic at
first) is there any chance that propulsion or fuel systems have improved
enough where we could get there in 1 day instead of 3?

Today or in the immediate future, no. An extra two days just doesn't
matter that much. In the absence of a specific, urgent reason for cutting
two days off the travel time, it would be done only if propulsion
performance so greatly exceeded minimum requirements that using propulsion
capabilities quite wastefully would incur no important penalty. Barring
major breakthroughs, that won't happen soon. Eventually, perhaps.

Cutting Mars-expedition duration from 3 years to 1 year would be much more
interesting.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:


Since the moon has no atmosphere that can be used for aerobraking you
cannot evade this particular problem.

LITHOBRAKING! :-)


Ranger. Ben there, done that.

(Intentionally, of course. I'm not referring to failed soft-landings.)



--

You know what to remove, to reply....

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" :

Well, until a transporter is developed! :-)

(speaking of which, anyone read Penrose's theory of why electrons and
photons can "be in two places at once" but macroscopic objects can't be?)

Nope. The problem with Penrose is even when he is wrong, he is so brillantly
wrong that he still leaves me feeling stupid

Earl Colby Pottinger


--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp