Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

Status
Not open for further replies.

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
18,335
Long term. Refueling off earth for one or two sure, negligible... long term though, having to send up payloads of fuel not only to get there, but to launch off mars and return, eish... the plan is building rocket fuel plant on moon to fuel everything... sure, still need to send up peeps from earth, but fuel required to send up 100kg person vs thousands of tons of fuel... yeah, if we plan to have any colonisation of mars only feesible way to do it is mine moon and fuel from there.... until we get control of gravity that is;)
Ice.

It’s on the moon *and* it’s on Mars. Sure, how you mine it and process it is different, but why would we need to fill-up for a round-trip at the moon when we can top-up on Mars?

Long term of course...
 

Temujin

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
10,086
Ice.

It’s on the moon *and* it’s on Mars. Sure, how you mine it and process it is different, but why would we need to fill-up for a round-trip at the moon when we can top-up on Mars?

Long term of course...
Its the launching of fuel into orbit from earth thats the cost(and mars). You need to carry a few hundred tons of fuel just for the trip(excluding the launch). That fuel needs fuel to launch it. 500grams costs around $10k to get into orbit. Launching from moon instead of earth saves 65-70% of fuel required per trip. Having ability to refuel on mars is also required, that would then save even more on % of fuel per payload, making it even more feesible to go from moon as you wouldn't need to carry additional fuel for the 're-launch'...
Best would be have base on one of mars moons too... so, just like only launch people from earth to moon, same on mars to phobes or one of em, then big fuel requirement from moon to moon trip, ie, only need enough fuel to get from planet to moon, don't have to launch all that additional weight into orbit, which can then bring fuel down to save 80-90% vs launching from planet(haven't done math), but something like that...
 

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
Its the launching of fuel into orbit from earth thats the cost(and mars). You need to carry a few hundred tons of fuel just for the trip(excluding the launch). That fuel needs fuel to launch it. 500grams costs around $10k to get into orbit. Launching from moon instead of earth saves 65-70% of fuel required per trip. Having ability to refuel on mars is also required, that would then save even more on % of fuel per payload, making it even more feesible to go from moon as you wouldn't need to carry additional fuel for the 're-launch'...
Best would be have base on one of mars moons too... so, just like only launch people from earth to moon, same on mars to phobes or one of em, then big fuel requirement from moon to moon trip, ie, only need enough fuel to get from planet to moon, don't have to launch all that additional weight into orbit, which can then bring fuel down to save 80-90% vs launching from planet(haven't done math), but something like that...
You actually just made me curious as to how much of a fuel saving can be achieved by leveraging the orbits of the moons versus the orbits of the planets relative to one another. Seems to me that if you were willing to be patient, you could haul huge masses between the two for dollars on the penny compared to a Mars-Earth or Earth-Mars trip.

It seems the moons of Mars are also tidally locked, so the calculations ought to not be too complicated...
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
18,335
Its the launching of fuel into orbit from earth thats the cost(and mars). You need to carry a few hundred tons of fuel just for the trip(excluding the launch). That fuel needs fuel to launch it. 500grams costs around $10k to get into orbit. Launching from moon instead of earth saves 65-70% of fuel required per trip. Having ability to refuel on mars is also required, that would then save even more on % of fuel per payload, making it even more feesible to go from moon as you wouldn't need to carry additional fuel for the 're-launch'...
Best would be have base on one of mars moons too... so, just like only launch people from earth to moon, same on mars to phobes or one of em, then big fuel requirement from moon to moon trip, ie, only need enough fuel to get from planet to moon, don't have to launch all that additional weight into orbit, which can then bring fuel down to save 80-90% vs launching from planet(haven't done math), but something like that...
$1 400,00 odd per kg for LEO on Falcon Heavy.

Cost is going to be eye-watering whichever way you look at it.

For me ‘tho, you’re going to get a *lot* of LEO launches for the price of rovers, plants and shuttles on the moon... Also, don’t forget the cost of a station in lunar orbit.

I’d rather spend the money getting rovers to Mars where they can start digging and turning dust into thrust... But that’s just me, and I’m no NASA physicist. Some really, really smart people will be making these calls.

Got me thinking about a waystation on Phobos or Deimos now ‘tho... Damn.
 

Tman*

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
3,547

For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!
It would have been epic if Trump said " They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Sun"
 

Temujin

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
10,086
$1 400,00 odd per kg for LEO on Falcon Heavy.

Cost is going to be eye-watering whichever way you look at it.

For me ‘tho, you’re going to get a *lot* of LEO launches for the price of rovers, plants and shuttles on the moon... Also, don’t forget the cost of a station in lunar orbit.

I’d rather spend the money getting rovers to Mars where they can start digging and turning dust into thrust... But that’s just me, and I’m no NASA physicist. Some really, really smart people will be making these calls.

Got me thinking about a waystation on Phobos or Deimos now ‘tho... Damn.
Yeah, as said, long term... makes sense to invest in 'waystations' now if we plan to be venturing through the galaxy. Short term 'exploration', sure, launch it all from earth to plant a flag. I agree with the rovers, i'd be actually rolling out 3d printing bots, having them refining and building small infrastructure tests on moon just to see if they work as predicted, then test on mars, before even looking at and man missions again... may even be able to start growing food for example, could have plantations up there long before first man even steps out on the launch pad
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
41,416
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/us/politics/trump-mexico-deal-tariffs.html


Friday’s joint declaration says Mexico agreed to the “deployment of its National Guard throughout Mexico, giving priority to its southern border.” But the Mexican government had already pledged to do that in March during secret talks in Miami between Kirstjen Nielsen, then the secretary of homeland security, and Olga Sanchez, the Mexican secretary of the interior, the officials said.

The centerpiece of Mr. Trump’s deal was an expansion of a program to allow asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their legal cases proceed. But that arrangement was first reached in December in a pair of painstakingly negotiated diplomatic notes that the two countries exchanged. Ms. Nielsen announced the Migrant Protection Protocols during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee five days before Christmas.

And over the past week, negotiators failed to persuade Mexico to accept a “safe third country” treaty that would have given the United States the legal ability to reject asylum seekers if they had not sought refuge in Mexico first.



 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
41,416
But when this happened the other way around and antifa and other crazy lefties interrupted Republican events it was all fine. Everyone has a right to protest, right?
They have a right to protest
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,851
Israel appears to be a terrible influence in US politics. Undermining the US's 1st amendment (see the recent AIPAC inspired ruling on companies being critical of Israel), interfering with their elections ( likely much worse than Russian influence), undermining US national security and US interests (see the Moore report on USS liberty or how Mossad feeds US intelligence to get them to go to war in the Middle East like the recent ship bombings) etc.
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
20,597
Israel appears to be a terrible influence in US politics. Undermining the US's 1st amendment (see the recent AIPAC inspired ruling on companies being critical of Israel), interfering with their elections ( likely much worse than Russian influence), undermining US national security and US interests (see the Moore report on USS liberty or how Mossad feeds US intelligence to get them to go to war in the Middle East like the recent ship bombings) etc.
I imagine half the world interferes in US politics, i dont believe for 1 second China wont try given the current trade war. They should be preparing a full on campaign in support of the Dems.
 

Emjay

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
10,797
I imagine half the world interferes in US politics, i dont believe for 1 second China wont try given the current trade war. They should be preparing a full on campaign in support of the Dems.
Do you think Russia would go against them? Seems like they would be at odds with each other in terms of who they would like to see in power.

Or did the Russians not want Hillary as POTUS? I am so confused. :X3::rolleyes:
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
21,725
Do you think Russia would go against them? Seems like they would be at odds with each other in terms of who they would like to see in power.

Or did the Russians not want Hillary as POTUS? I am so confused. :X3::rolleyes:
I just think it was someone with a VPN.
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
20,597
Do you think Russia would go against them? Seems like they would be at odds with each other in terms of who they would like to see in power.

Or did the Russians not want Hillary as POTUS? I am so confused. :X3::rolleyes:
I think Russia's goal would just be further chaos in the US. If the US is too busy tearing itself apart then Russia is happy, beyond that they probably aren't too concerned by who is in power. Also despite the show, Russia and China aren't allies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top