Moon to Mars

OK... Many of you were helpful in explaining the Rover...

Now another...

Below, E = Earth, m = moon, M = Mars


m
E
M


Could someone explain why we need to go to m as a start point
to get to M? Why make tens and tens of trips to m to build
a station to get to M, when we can make one - granted: requiring
more fuel to escape earth - trip to M?

And how will we supply a base on m?

After all, will not a base on the moon require lots and lots of water?
That will be ver very expensive, right?

"Mr. X" wrote in alt.astronomy:

Could someone explain why we need to go to m as a start point
to get to M? Why make tens and tens of trips to m to build
a station to get to M, when we can make one - granted: requiring
more fuel to escape earth - trip to M?


What would you do if you needed a skyscraper to travel to the stars? Would
you build a skyscraper, mount it on a rocker dozen times its size, and
lauch it off Earth, with thrust to be generated to reach 40,000 kilometers
per hour? Or would you build it from parts in a low gravity environment
and lauch it from there with thrust needed to reach only 6,500 kilometers
an hour?

Even better: it's not "what would you choose", but "how are you going to
achieve that"?

And how will we supply a base on m?

After all, will not a base on the moon require lots and lots of water?
That will be ver very expensive, right?

Research of the Moon is also directed at finding possible water there.
Especially the (still unconfirmed) messages that there might be water near
the poles (especially the south pole) might bring a cheaper solution to
that.


--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"

"CeeBee" wrote in message
. 6.67...
"Mr. X" wrote in alt.astronomy:

Could someone explain why we need to go to m as a start point
to get to M? Why make tens and tens of trips to m to build
a station to get to M, when we can make one - granted: requiring
more fuel to escape earth - trip to M?


What would you do if you needed a skyscraper to travel to the stars? Would
you build a skyscraper, mount it on a rocker dozen times its size, and
lauch it off Earth, with thrust to be generated to reach 40,000 kilometers
per hour? Or would you build it from parts in a low gravity environment
and lauch it from there with thrust needed to reach only 6,500 kilometers
an hour?


I'd build it in near low orbit around the earth rather than have to fly to
the
moon, support a base, haul lots of water there.

Even better: it's not "what would you choose", but "how are you going to
achieve that"?

And how will we supply a base on m?

After all, will not a base on the moon require lots and lots of water?
That will be ver very expensive, right?

Research of the Moon is also directed at finding possible water there.
Especially the (still unconfirmed) messages that there might be water near
the poles (especially the south pole) might bring a cheaper solution to
that.


--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"

"Mr. X" wrote in message
news:EHgOb.38155$zs4.20853@fed1read01...
OK... Many of you were helpful in explaining the Rover...

Now another...

Below, E = Earth, m = moon, M = Mars


m
E
M


Could someone explain why we need to go to m as a start point
to get to M? Why make tens and tens of trips to m to build
a station to get to M, when we can make one - granted: requiring
more fuel to escape earth - trip to M?

And how will we supply a base on m?

After all, will not a base on the moon require lots and lots of water?
That will be ver very expensive, right?

The reasons given for going to m a

The moons rocks hold the istory of our own planet and the solar system.
For astonomy observations the moon has no atmosphere and is a very quiet
stable body, so it permits clear viewing.
Set up a base where man can learn to live.
On the shadowed areas near the moon's lunar poles is water ice, deposited by
a steady rain of comets. We can break the water down to hydrogen and oxygen
to make rocket propellant.
Going to the moon would be fairly inexpensive, so I think there would be
many advantages to doing so. There is a great article in the June,2003
issue of Astronomy Magazine.

"Mr. X" wrote in alt.astronomy:

I'd build it in near low orbit around the earth rather than have to
fly to the
moon, support a base, haul lots of water there.

That doesn't cope with the problem of escape velocity.
Escape velocity from the Earth's surface is 40,000 kph, escape velocity
from low orbit is maybe 30,000 km/h.

--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"

CeeBee wrote:

Escape velocity from the Earth's surface is 40,000 kph, escape velocity
from low orbit is maybe 30,000 km/h.

In order to lower the escape velocity to 30,000 km/h the altitude of
the orbit would have to be about 5,000 km. From low orbit the escape
velocity is barely less than from the surface; for example it's
39,000 km/h from an altitude of 422 km.

But what's often more practically relevant is the difference between
the escape and orbital velocities, assuming that there's some point
in the launch platform's orbit at which it's heading in the desired
direction. For interplanetary missions, making the orbit roughly
coplanar with the ecliptic would ensure the availability of such
opportunities. In the low-orbit example above, assuming circularity,
the vehicle would already be travelling at nearly 27,600 km/h, so a
well-timed burn would only need to accelerate it by about 11,400 km/h
to reach escape velocity on a given trajectory. By way of comparison,
the escape velocity from the Moon's surface is about 8,600 km/h.

--
Odysseus