- Thread starter Ross365
- Start date
Misterg
Member
- Messages
- 1,749
- Location
- North Wales
Farside
Badly Welded Man
- Messages
- 6,485
- Location
- Ireland
You'd only need a sixth of it, shirley.
gaz1
Member
- Messages
- 20,566
- Location
- westyorkshire
whilst the moon does have gravity its alot less than earths we can still use rockets or air to land it on the moon
whilst i may not know its weight it wont be a hard landing
and to a degree if it does land a little hard makes no difference as its taken materials to the moon
the worst issues would be the solar panels how to get them to land whilst not damaging them with the landing but compared to being sent from earth to space they should last rather well
daleyd
Member
- Messages
- 10,482
- Location
- Wrexham, North Wales
So, you’re going to spend an absolute mountain of fuel in getting it to escape LEO, and travel to the moon. Then when you get there you’ll likely need to spend another mountain of fuel to slow it down. Then you’re just going to land it, despite it never being designed to land, and with parts of it approaching 30 years old and end of life.
As I said, things always seem easier when untroubled by reality.
As I said, things always seem easier when untroubled by reality.
Morris
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 2,287
- Location
- Northamptonshire.
daleyd
Member
- Messages
- 10,482
- Location
- Wrexham, North Wales
I think I read somewhere it would take more fuel than all the missions flown so far to the space station, in order to get it to the moon.
If we just move the earth to the left a bit, the moon will come with it due to gravity, but because the space station is in space it'll stay in the same place. But once the earth and moon have moved, the space station will now be closer to the moon than before. Just don't mix up your left and right or you'll make the situation worse.
It's as simple as that. I can't see what all the fuss is about.
gaz1
Member
- Messages
- 20,566
- Location
- westyorkshire
the alternative is a higher orbit or burn it up
send it to the moon is my opinion as its reusable materials on the moon much better than burning it up too nothing
a waste of reusable materials which can be meted down and remade
yes the moon becomes a scrap yard but a reusable scrap yard in the future
daleyd
Member
- Messages
- 10,482
- Location
- Wrexham, North Wales
But again you’ve not answered the question of practicalities - how do you deliver a rocket with the amount of fuel required to push 400 odd tonnes of stuff which wasn’t designed to go that way in order to send it to the moon to get probably crash land where it may or may not be useful in decades to come, Doesn’t sound like a useful endeavour to me. If you need stuff for a moon mission you would design it as such and send only what you need.
With a wave of the hand you’ve just ignored all that, so it sounds like a great idea.
With a wave of the hand you’ve just ignored all that, so it sounds like a great idea.
Maxakarudy
Member
- Messages
- 384
- Location
- West Mids
NASA will continue to write things about their plans, just enough to keep hopes alive in the space community, big headlines
lots of buzz words, new discovers that benefit mankind, promises of this & that etc, but nothing will ever happen, excuses will be made.
lots of buzz words, new discovers that benefit mankind, promises of this & that etc, but nothing will ever happen, excuses will be made.
Bullet2012
Member
- Messages
- 5,438
- Location
- on average about 200 miles from the ISS.
Get comfy , this could be fun
