Its a FACT that there are a bunch of known asteroids (NEAs) that are signifcantly easier to reach energy wise than the moon.
I provided a link earlier. Its physics/astronomy/orbital mechanics 101.
NASA aint “zooming” anywhere anytime soon. Virtually all trips, manned or unmanned, are done as close to possible at the minimum energy levels possible. Once NASA starts REALLY hauling big buttloads of stuff around the solar system its gonna get even worse, not better.
If someone cannot even accept that basic fact and at least accept the possiblity that even though the trip might be longer, it might still be easier /cheaper overall, then I don’t know what to say (well, I do, I am just not allowed to here).
Oh, I understand all right. I never claimed any degree of expertise on this subject, but I understand enough to follow along. I ALSO understand that, despite your nastiness, you have provided exactly zippo, despite being directly asked to back up your assertions. I have NOT been asked for a cite, which is why I haven’t bothered looking anything up.
I’m sorry, but this is counter intuitive to me. The amount of energy it takes to get to someplace in space is only one part of the equation if we are talking about a manned mission. The greater factor is time…how LONG does it take. How LONG will the astronauts be exposed to potentially lethal radiation? The longer a trip takes the more supplies one must bring, and the greater probability for the astronauts to be caught out in a solar storm (not to mention the greater time they will be exposed to cosmic background radiation, micro meteor strikes, and other nasty stuff you find in space).
Again, I ask for a cite that this is not so. Stranger seems unwilling to make the effort, and instead is playing silly games. So, I ask you for a cite. Not a cite showing that it takes less orbital energy to get someplace, but that it’s cheaper/better/whatever to go to those places with a manned mission than to someplace close, such as the moon. All it will take is a credible NASA cite and I’ll take my ‘junk food pop-sci t.v. programs’ knowledge and go play somewhere else.
How many fucking ways can I say that the class of Near Earth Objects include planetoids that are closer than, quicker to reach, and require lower energy requirements to intercept than the Moon, a fact you could discover for yourself by just copying the worlds “Near Earth Object” into a search request field and pressing “Search”. If you can’t be bothered to look up anything for yourself or make any investment in increasing your own diminutive fount of knowledge on the topic, what interest should I have in doing this for you?
As for this all-encompassing, authoritative cite that addresses the specific question, no, I don’t keep a passel of NASA mission planners, planetologists, and orbital mechanics gurus in my wallet. Nor do I have any interest in “cite-jousting,” particularly with a poster whose claims are as ill-informed, insubstantial, and lymphatic as these.
Please clean the foam from your muzzle. I’ve put ‘Near Earth Object’ into a search engine called ‘google’ and have failed to see any reference to NEO’s that are closer, time wise, to the ‘earth’ than the ‘moon’ is. If you know of such an ‘object’, then instead of blowing a ‘blood vessel’, try putting in a ‘link’, ehe?
IOW, you gots nothing. Your post is your cite, and I should just shut up and bow to your obvious superior, um, craziness…er, I mean knowledge. Or something.
Well, here is a former NASA planner, and while I realize he is not highly regarded, his Mars Direct mission isn’t exactly something I pulled out of my ass either.
Yeah, the plan is a bit dated, but on my junk science TV shows they talk missions of this kind all the time. I don’t know why this stuff is setting you off (I’d suggest upping the voltage and maybe some meditation), but I don’t see how what I’ve said is that far off the wall…nor why you can’t be bothered to look up a cite if it’s this obvious. It SHOULD be easy for you to get one, after all…
In any case I think I’m done with you for this thread. Get a cite or don’t, it really makes no never mind to me. <better left unsaid>
-XT
Lets say I wanna travel from the east coast to the west coast to go digging for very bulky beanie babies.
Once I get there, I plan to mine for beanie babies for many months on end.
I have two choices to get there. A big semi sorta truck that travels only a few miles per hour but gets several miles per gallon. Or the same sorta semi that travels a hundred miles per hour but gets much much worse gas milage.
If I take the fast one, hey, I only need a few samiches to hold me over till I get there. If I take the slow one, I need food for many weeks.
If my gas is ungodly expensive, which choice do you think makes more sense?
The analogy really doesn’t work, because most of the expense for ‘gas’ is to get the stuff into orbit. Also, when driving coast to coast you don’t have to carry your air,water, etc with you…and you don’t have to worry about the fact that a longer trip will increase the probability of sudden and painful death (usually). Also, the price of gas is a constant, regardless of how quickly you travel…i.e. if you go fast or slow, the places you stop for gas are going to be approximately the same, I should say, within some margin of error.
However, even if I pretend that the cost of fuel is variable, going slow is still going to be more costly than going fast, even if the fuel itself is more expensive going fast than slow, because going slow means you spend more time on the road (staying at motels, eating at restaurants, etc). No? If I can drive from coast to coast in 3 days, that’s 3 nights of lodgings and 3 days of food. If I drive and it takes me 2 weeks, even if I save a ton on gas it’s going to cost me 2 weeks of food and lodgings…which is going to significantly add to the cost. It seems intuitive to me, though hopefully Strangers head won’t explode.
I guess you take the Concord to work and everywhere you go too huh ? :rolleyes:
I give the frack up. You can’t blame me for trying though. You cant even concede that it is EVEN remotely possible under certain conditions that slow and easier is cheaper than fast and harder ? If thats the case, you’ll NEVER understand what I and Stranger and others are trying to say.
If someone else has a legitmate question I’ll try to cover it. Otherwise, I am certainly out here. Too bad, because this could actually be an interesting thread.
The delta V to get into low earth orbit is about 7 to 8 kilometers per second. The delta V to visit the moon is an ADDITIONAL 6. Near Earth asteroids it ranges from about half of that to anything as high you can stand.
When you get to low earth orbit your only about half way to anywhere energy wise.
I don’t see how this analogy works either, to be honest. But the rolley-eye thing was a nice touch.
Perhaps if either of you tried to actually explain what you are on about, instead of being so dismissive, then you would have had a better chance? I mean, it’s a thought. A cite showing that it would be better to go slow would have been nice too…instead of merely asserting it as fact then getting all hot and bothered when I didn’t agree…well, that could have worked too. Since both things seem beyond you (and since Stranger is probably twitching on the floor in need of immediate medical assistance at this point), I guess that’s that.
Ok…taking that at face value and asking for nothing more than your word to back it up, it still doesn’t answer the point about actual cost. So, it takes more thrust to get to the moon than to get to some NEO’s…I never denied that. But what is the additional cost due to the longer duration of the trip? I’m not buying that the additional fuel for a higher initial thrust to get to the moon balances out the lower thrust but significant additions in weight for more shielding and more supplies. I grant that I’m no expert, but if you want to convince me then SHOW ME…don’t assert your supposed superior knowledge by just telling me.
I’m more than willing to concede this point if you will actually do the donkey work and either explain it mathematically or give me a freaking cite showing that this is the case. Otherwise, all I’m seeing out of both you and Stranger is a whole lot of hand waving and in his case blood vessels bursting for no reason that I can see.
Ok…but if I have to move 3 times the supplies to orbit then it’s going to cost 3 times as much, leaving aside the fact that moving 3 times more stuff, even at low velocity is going to cost more energy than moving less mass at a higher velocity. F=MxA, right?
Apologies. No need to tell me I’m being an asshole in the other thread I’m in as well. I need to take a break from posting to deal with some RL stuff that’s got me on edge.
Sorry to folks in this thread and the others for being so irascible.
From the NASA-JPL website: NEO Groups. Note that Atria, Atens, and Apollos groups are within close approach of Earth orbit. Many of these fall into resonance orbits that make them periodically more accessible than the Moon, and all have negligible gravity against which to have to lift mined materials.
JPL also cites John Lewis’ Mining The Sky, which has somewhat detailed concepts for sustainable extraction and industry in space. I think that Lewis is a bit speculative, but he makes some good points regarding why it makes sense to focus on exploitation of asteroids in favor of Lunar habitats.