21-09-2005 23:07									#31
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DanS Actually, the cost for fuel and other incidentals to get off Earth (e.g., helium) isn't much.

So this statement is correct?

	21-09-2005 23:08									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The rolling eyes smilie!!!!!!!!!!!

	21-09-2005 23:10									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Yes, that statement is correct. Mostly, the cost to get off earth is tied up in the R&D and manufacturing of the turbopump for liquid engines.

	21-09-2005 23:10									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by DanS Actually, it's a misconception that going to Mars from the moon would save fuel. Going from the Earth to the moon requires more energy than going from the Earth to Mars.

Exactly. So we need to start either assembling and/or fabricatiing the gear away from the earth.

	21-09-2005 23:12									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Yes, that statement is correct. Mostly, the cost to get off earth is tied up in the R&D and manufacturing of the turbopump for liquid engines.

Which are needed to get the massive amounts of fuel that are required into orbit!

	21-09-2005 23:12									#36
	Support Apolyton

I'm all for orbital assembly, given a limited number of pieces to assemble.

	21-09-2005 23:16									#37
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DanS Actually, it's a misconception that going to Mars from the moon would save fuel. Going from the Earth to the moon requires more energy than going from the Earth to Mars. In any event, the cost in fuel isn't immense.

Of course thatīs correct,
it isnīt the question of total fuel consumed for the mission.

Iīll explain it further:
You build the spaceship in Orbit or on Luna.

Of course the rockets flying to Luna to bring parts which canīt be processed on Luna itself would consume lots of fuel.

But, this doesnīt affect the spaceship built.
The spaceship (if being built in Orbit/Luna) just doesnīt need fuel to escape a gravity of 1 G (and also wouldnīt have to be aerodynamic).
The Spaceship wouldnīt be cheaper (it would even be more expensive than one built on earth),
but it would be able to carry more payload (as, instead of having more tanks which hold fuel for the Spaceship to escape gravity you could add more bays which hold payload)
If constructed in Orbit or on Luna the spaceship built could also be bigger than one built on earth, as it hasnīt to undergo the stress which it would if started on earth.

There would be a further bonus if you build some kind of spaceport on Luna.
You could have manned missions go from Luna to (for example) Mars and which also end on Luna. With Spaceships which never touch earth.
The Astronauts just get transferred to the Luna base, climb in the Spaceship which brings them to mars and after completing their mission just land on Luna again where they get transferred to earth again.

	21-09-2005 23:17									#38
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by reds4ever Which are needed to get the massive amounts of fuel that are required into orbit!

Hey, if you want to split hairs, then be my guest. I don't think it will get you anywhere.

	21-09-2005 23:17									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Can we stop calling the Moon "Luna"?

	21-09-2005 23:23									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DanS Hey, if you want to split hairs, then be my guest. I don't think it will get you anywhere.

And if you don't want to admit you are wrong then thats fine too.

Directly or indirectly, fuel is currently a (maybe the?) massive expenditure in spaceflight the way we do it at the moment. You were saying "the cost for fuel and other incidentals to get off Earth (e.g., helium) isn't much." I was saying you were wrong...... Unless you have a way of teleporting fuel/incedentals off Earth?

No splitting hairs there.

	21-09-2005 23:24									#41
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by reds4ever Can we stop calling the Moon "Luna"?

Of course we can,
but why should we stop calling earthīs moon by its name?

	21-09-2005 23:25									#42
	Got spare money?

Proteus: You're forgetting that it takes extra energy to land on the moon and then you're in a gravity well. Mars has an atmosphere, which gives you a landing for free. There is no reason to involve the moon in any aspect of this, when you have orbital points that could serve more easily.

	21-09-2005 23:29									#43
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by reds4ever And if you don't want to admit you are wrong then thats fine too. Directly or indirectly, fuel is currently a (maybe the?) massive expenditure in spaceflight the way we do it at the moment.

And I'm telling you that you're wrong. Just do the calculations. How much fuel is required and how much it costs to put it in orbit? Then figure how much it costs to design and manufacture all the other structures and launch them into orbit. Now, I'll admit that if launch costs were lower, then design and manufacture of the other structures might go down somewhat.

Anyway, the point is that even if fuel were free, either on Earth or in orbit, the cost to go to Mars wouldn't be that much cheaper.

What am I missing?

	21-09-2005 23:38									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The cost of the fuel is irrevent (to this argument), the cost of launching the fuel is the expense.

	21-09-2005 23:41									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by reds4ever Can we stop calling the Moon "Luna"?

3rd world//subordinate?

	21-09-2005 23:46									#46
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by reds4ever The cost of the fuel is irrevent (to this argument), the cost of launching the fuel is the expense.

Do the math. NASA is figuring to spend $10 billion or whatever for a heavy launcher to get to the moon, but the overall program will cost $110 billion. IOW, for NASA, launch for this program is not the big expense.

Now, I agree that the private sector could do everything for about 1/10th this cost. This might change some of the considerations.

	21-09-2005 23:47									#47
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Spend the money on a Space Elevator, it is becoming technically feasable. It is just outside our capability and we now could theoretically do it. Cutting the cost of Orbital Improvement by half.

It'll also allow us to paradrop units with drop pods anywhere in the world.

	21-09-2005 23:50									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Assuming we are stuck with chemical rockets in one form or another for near-mid term. The manufacture of fuel away from the Earth should be looked at for a long term goal. That way a manned mission to Mars requires enough thrust to get the crew and life support etc to the Moon (with minimal fuel weight), pick up the fuel and off they go. Less fuel/ smaller rockets size etc. Easy!

	21-09-2005 23:51									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DanS Proteus: You're forgetting that it takes extra energy to land on the moon and then you're in a gravity well. Mars has an atmosphere, which gives you a landing for free. There is no reason to involve the moon in any aspect of this, when you have orbital points that could serve more easily.

Of course,
Luna has a gravitation, even if itīs much lower than on earth (which would mean that maybe you should park/build the Spaceships in Orbit around Luna).
The benefit of starting a spaceship from Luna would be, that perhaps you could process some things required (fuel components, oxygen) on Luna (which could mean that the moon could be used as refueling station )

	21-09-2005 23:52									#50
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Do the math. NASA is figuring to spend $10 billion or whatever for a heavy launcher to get to the moon, but the overall program will cost $110 billion. IOW, for NASA, launch for this program is not the big expense. Now, I agree that the private sector could do everything for about 1/10th this cost. This might change some of the considerations.

I don't have the breakdown of figures, care to share?

	22-09-2005 00:15									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'm in agreement with those expressing doubt as to the usefulness of the Moon as a 'staging area'. Physics alone make such an endeavour impractical.

	22-09-2005 00:17									#52
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: The benefit of starting a spaceship from Luna would be, that perhaps you could process some things required (fuel components, oxygen) on Luna (which could mean that the moon could be used as refueling station )

What would the benefit be of that? It takes a lot more energy to get from the Moon to Mars than from Earth Orbit to Mars.

	22-09-2005 00:19									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Here's a very good delta-v diagram showing how much it costs in energy to get from one place to the next (Earth, Moon, Mars).

http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~chirata/deltav.html

	22-09-2005 00:21									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS Here's a very good delta-v diagram showing how much it costs in energy to get from one place to the next (Earth, Moon, Mars). http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~chirata/deltav.html

No chance. I finished work earlier

	22-09-2005 00:26									#55
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by reds4ever I don't have the breakdown of figures, care to share?

I'm afraid I thought I did, but I don't.

	22-09-2005 00:31									#56
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by DanS I'm afraid I thought I did, but I don't.

I've been trying to dig them up, and going off at very intesting tangets whilst failing to find them.

	22-09-2005 00:42									#57
	Inflate your Upload Space

I wouldn't be surprised to find that much of the cost in that $110 billion was for NASA to keep the rocket team together, even if they don't need it at the time. I haven't decided what to make of that. This money is more of an organizational requirement fairly unique to NASA and the way it has chosen to complete the mission than anything inherently to do with rocketry.

	22-09-2005 00:45									#58
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Lets be real. It will cost over $200 billion by the time US lands on the moon.

I wonder how much of this would be going foward if China had not launched a man into orbit and called for plans to land something on the moon??

But, anyway, if you're going to invest $$ for a mars trip I think the moon is a good stop for pratice. it's a long way home from mars... better to work the bugs out only 250,000 miles away.

	22-09-2005 00:45									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yeah, I suppose hire 'n' fire wouldn't work at NASA!

	22-09-2005 00:48									#60
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

To be clear, they hired well before this program got going. There is no physics that dictates they use an already existing incredibly bloated engineering jobs program in order to do their next rocket.