Orbital mechanics midterm tomorrow. A bittersweet match
Good luck, may you do well.
Well, at least you tried to provide a video for evidence, although from what I’ve seen so far I’d say you’ve chosen poorly. I’ll come back to this later, first I want to come back to Mars vs. Moon, which you still haven’t provided any evidence of why the Moon is so superior.
First, I just got off watch and had the opportunity to look up some numbers: Earth surface to Moon surface and back to LEO has a total dV of 20,740. Since we have not seen a plan on how to refuel on the Lunar surface, the rocket would need to either carry its entire fuel payload with it, or we would need to launch a separate vehicle from which to refuel the return craft. This, of course, does not account for actually landing the rocket, which would currently require even more fuel.
Earth surface to Mars surface, on the other hand, with NO gravity assists (I believe a Lunar assist would provide ~500 dV on its own) is 18,910 dV: 10% less than that of the Lunar trip. On the upside, there is already a well-defined plan on how you can refuel once you’re on the surface of Mars using the resources available on the Martian surface. This means we don’t have to carry any fuel there at all: a return vessel can carry more non-fuel supplies with it, and/or we don’t have to “waste” a second vessel as a storage tank.
Looks like in terms of launch efficiency, Mars is winning.
The Martian surface, while certainly hostile, is less hostile than the Lunar surface. It is not a near-vacuum, it has a much lower temperature differential, it is not in a state of cycling between pure light and pure night every 15 days. It’s not any more expensive or difficult to send spare vessels with supplies to maintain life for extended periods of time than the Moon is, and each of those vessels could be designed to offer a fully-fueled ship ready to depart. The Martian gravity is stronger than the Moon’s, which should be less unhealthy for colonists long term (citation needed).
Looks like in terms of colonial longevity, Mars is winning.
The best argument the Moon has for it is the far shorter trip with far more launch windows, but as previously stated any situation that is going to require immediate rescue is unlikely to be met with a successful recovery. Launch windows for the Moon might be frequent, but weather and other factors don’t make them infinitely available, and the nearest rescue is still three days out.
If you’d like to make a logical, reasoned argument as to why the Moon is so superior, please do. It’d be a refreshing change from your complete lack of actual critical analysis to date.
I’ll go ahead and turn to the video now, and explain why the video you’ve selected is…poorly chosen. The opening to each paragraph will be a time stamp from the video for reference.
0:00 - 2:00 : Well, it was certainly a charming introduction. Except for the part where the minuteman missile was not intended to deliver a payload to, you know, survive. Oh, and that part where NASA didn’t even believe it possible to economically land the first stage for reuse. The attack on Musk and those who are interested in his ideas is entertaining, at best, but the strawmen built and torn back down are a poor effort at actual reasoning.
2:00 : While undoubtedly facetious, his bringing up companies that deliver products not considering rockets as a viable means of transport is forgetting a few minor details. Minor like: cost per unit of delivery. Minor like: the technology only began to exist a few years ago. Minor like: it’s not important to ship non-perishable goods quickly, but more important to ship them cheaply.
2:15 : NASA, Russia, and China all wrote the idea of a reusable first stage off as impractical many years ago, and only recently began revisiting the idea, largely because of SpaceX’s success.
3:00 : Oh no, a digital simulation! The horror! Imagine, using a rendering of a concept to provide visuals to someone who has never seen into your mind before! It must be a sign he’s a liar! If only digital renders could be used legitimately!
3:30 : Yes, a fully fueled rocket is potentially dangerous. So dangerous in fact, NASA only let people observe rocket launches from dozens of miles awa…oh. Three miles away? With nothing between me and that oh-so-dangerous rocket? I’m pretty sure I’ve even been to Cape Canaveral for the Shuttle launches because I grew up in Florida, and my Dad and I love space travel. I’m sure that shaving twelve hours off a flight could not possibly be worth a drive that numbers tens of miles though, right? Right? Anybody? Furthermore, his analysis is dishonest. While the rocket might contain enough energy to equal the number of bombs used to destroy a city in WW2, explosions do not scale linearly. Furthermore, a rocket is only fully fueled at launch: when landing, it’s as close to empty as you can push it on purpose. Furthermore, manned rocket missions for SpaceX (for NASA, anyway) have systems in place that permit the crewed portion on the vessel to safely escape any potential mishap at Max Q, so the passengers are safe at all times from launch to landing. Furthermore, a BFR would not be fully fueled for an Earth-to-Earth trip: that much fuel would be able to get to the Moon and back, why would you waste that much potential cargo capacity on fuel you won’t burn? Uhm, uh, no. Regarding the noise, again, I’m quite certain that a drive of a few dozen miles (which could even be included in the ticket price for the trip!) is still far more convenient than 12 extra hours of flight. Clearly, we’re not going to be launching these rockets from downtown Manhattan, so…why are you overlaying the explosion radius (of a dishonestly larger explosion) on a site we wouldn’t launch from? Why are you using video from an early failed launch, of a design that clearly would never be used for this sort of trip, as evidence? Seriously, we know the current rocket tech is not adequate for this purpose.
6:30 : You’re complaining…about a boat. And the loading time from boat to rocket. You’re complaining about a two hour pre-loading time in a world where you have to show up to airports two hours before boarding time, with half an hour beyond that for settling in and taxiing to the runway? Even if we assume two hours at the start and finish and an hour flight, that’s still only five hours for an around the world flight. London to New York is six hours by conventional airplane, and that’s not including the check-in times for a MUCH shorter flight.
~7:30 : Again, the maximum fuel capacity would not be the launch fuel capacity for an Earth-to-Earth flight. Why is he not grasping this extraordinarily simple concept?
~8:30 : Ah…he seems to be under the impression that every person on earth is petrified that their rocket will explode and kill them. I’m quite certain I can find a list or two of people who not only disagree with this, but disagree with it on technology that is far inferior to anything that would be used for this purpose. Also, he seems to be under the impression that the current statistics on rocket survivability are applicable to future technology. This is funny, of course, because his video shows a chart demonstrating airplane safety improving over time, much like commercial rocketry would. He then goes on say rockets are intrinsically unsafe, but uses the Shuttle as his demonstration: the Falcon 9 has a module that can escape (as mentioned above) at Max Q, the most inescapable time of a rocket launch. Are we sure he’s utilizing all the logic available to him for this part of the video? Furthermore, if the fuel cost is “only” $200,000, and the rocket is as close to 100% reusable as possible, I’m pretty sure the cost per ticket is not going to the $1,000,000 he suggests it will be. I mean, math is hard, but it seems pretty simple to me in this particular situation.
11:00 : His argument is that making a rocket reusable reduces its payload. While true, I fail to understand what his point is: we’re not shooting for geostationary orbit, we’re shooting for intercontinental travel. I think I’m starting to get a bit repetitious here, but it requires far less fuel than traveling out into space. Again, not sure why he fails to comprehend this extraordinarily simple concept.
12:00 : Says he wants to see space. Says he’d rather take a plane. Ah…forgive me for being unsure, but unless I’m missing some detail, I don’t think those two goals are compatible?
13:15 : He says it costs $10,000 per kg to put something into LEO. While showing a bit of text that says the Falcon 9 costs $2,200 per kg to put things into orbit. Uh…is he just outright stupid? I feel like we’re reaching levels of stupid not seen in a very long time. If you’re going to do some economic analysis, at least provide the evidence that supports your analysis, and not something contrary to it. He then says we only need half of the energy, so that number falls to $1,100 per kg using existing technology at existing technology prices. I mean, we’re already at 10% of his quoted price of $500,000, which is a number I don’t even fully trust given his current failure at demonstrating mathematical skills.
~14:00 : You’re going to use Virgin Galactic’s technology to try and demonstrate SpaceX’s idea? I mean, I’m pretty sure V.G.'s price is not at-cost to the consumer, I’m pretty sure it’s instead intended to raise funds for other projects, but even if we ignore that…seriously?
14:45: You’re not going to fly anywhere on earth in the accomodations he showed for 1/100th the price he’s claiming SpaceX would cost. That sort of seating would be FAR more than $5,000 per ticket on any airline I’ve ever seen. Again with the dishonesty.
16:00 : I won’t pretend to have the answers regarding g forces or flight time, but I will point out one basic flaw in his argumentation. For instance, the Shuttle had to bleed FAR more speed than these rockets would need to, so attempting to compare the landing times of the two is, once again, dishonest.
17:00 : Ooooooh, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen someone bring up radiation dosing. It’s funny, because every time I see it I just want to slam my head into the desk in the hopes it somehow gives the other person a concussion. Let’s use the numbers he shows in his video, although even those are (surprise!) dishonest, as the ISS undoubtedly orbits higher than these rockets would bother to go. 20 uSv/h, across a (let’s be generous here!) two hour flight means 40 uSv. Using this handy dandy chart, we see that dosage amounts to…an airplane flight from New York to Los Angeles. That’s…inconvenient, if you were trying to scare the general public by saying flights are radiologically safer than rocket travel.
So…yeah. Please, feel free to contest anything I had to say about the steaming pile of shit that video was, but please make it a logically sound argument. While I do actually read about the EMDrive and Flat Earth Theory often, it’s because I like to actually be informed when I have an opinion, not because I feel an obligation to believe everything I see or read.
Too many typos and bad grammar in my last long post so I’ve tried to clean it up a bit.
Soil properties will indeed vary quite a bit depending upon which spots are eventually chosen on the Moon and Mars. Moon - maybe and also in the region where the Suns light moves into shadow, a large region where a small outpost could be both in the Suns light and also in the dark side, where water ice can be found at the poles and inside shadowed parts of craters.
Query: Are there Electrolytes in lunar water? What will it be like to drink? Like alpine water. Will we need to add anything to lunar water before drinking it.
No doubt after many robotic missions to test the ground around numerous sites. Much like the world war two allied night time missions over to the beaches of Normandy to test the various beach sands for stability etc.
Mars clearly has lots of very different surface material types compared to the Moon. Mars will present the bigger challenge in researching building with the different types of soil.
What I imagine these missions will find is the fine regolith on the surface will soon give way to all sorts of various subsurface layers, each of which will present different problems when pushing the soil up and onto bio-dome habitats. Slippage will be a problem which will need to be overcome and the effects of that forcing the robotic diggers to slide down the sides of the domes. Long extension arms might partially solve this, but then strength and stability at reach will become a real issue, even in low gravity.
So what to do? Machines to pat down the soil. Or maybe soil dug up and placed into a compactor which then also bakes the soil, maybe adding in some extra building/ chemicals/materials brought along on the missions to change the soil under heat and pressure into some more useful building tile which can then be easily laid and interconnected together much like roof times. But baked Mars/Moon soil.
Gravity and soil and the layers there on in will present numerous challenges for the space building engineers to solve. I suspect some compacting and baking process machine might be something that is already being researched. I’ve watched something, somewhere about this very subject only this year but I cannot think where.
Should we practise at all on the Moon? and just work it all out here on Earth and with lots of robotic missions to Mars and then just go for it? I’m not sure, I still think the Moon first.
One reason would be to at the same time as these first test bio-dome habitat R&D missions, various other private companies and corporations could also be laying there groundwork for those space hotels we keep hearing about. First Earth orbit, and then Moon orbit and then Moon surface.
The manned work on the Moon will be hard going, and life up there will be real tough for those first unlucky, or lucky few dozen or so engineers and ground workers. And it will take fit, and tough ground worker types to build those test R&D bio-dome habitats and lay track-ways/walk-ways. Hook up solar panel fields as far as the eye can see. Manage the machines that drill down for subsurface ice water. In some respects, a lot like Bruce Willie’s drilling crew in the film Armageddon, as in the work will not always require Nasa ISS types. There will be the need for ground work, site engineers and foremen. Maybe highly trained and educated ground workers, but tough works non the less.
And that will mean tight living quarters at first, most likely either in the landers or in quick inflatable fast deploying temporary habitats. Which will of course no doubt need space and solar radiation rooms to take shelter in. I’m guessing that will still be a thing on the surface of the Moon and Mars at times. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Testing for all this can be done in part on Earth, buy learning to build and cover these bio-domes out in Earth deserts, right in the middle of some of the worst sand storms we have. Both starting just before the storms hit and learning how to cope, carry on working during sand storms. And if it works on Earth with its 1G Earth gravity heavy sand storms, then it will most likely also work on Mars during those lower pressure sand storms.
Once some sort of Moon hotel can be established, then paying customers will pour in I’m sure. All those Billionaires and Millionaires at first willing to take the risk. This will turn a profit. As will Starbucks and mc Donalds, which will be right there from the start I would imagine. Good PR, good TV news reporting, great TV space shows and live broadcasts from the New Moon bases being constructed. Once on the surface then more of the Moon can be reached and any and all ores exploited.
And lets not forget we HAVE to find the Moons cuboid Monolith whose sides extend in the precise ratio of 1 : 4 : 9 as we all know. Although I never grasped the higher dimensions that Clarke wrote about.
Exploit we will. Bringing back nicely packaged up Moon rock in various small sizes for easy transportation, to be sold online from Amazon. That market alone will be worth the price of hauling the rocks and dust back to Earth.
And then we have the ‘Space 1999’ Lunar Hotel.
’I call dibs on that retro naming by the way!'
Rough and ready as the first iteration will be, it will turn massive profit for sure.
Build a small gym like play dome space on the Moon, pressurised and with soft ground mats and walls etc. Some bouncy things to get some real height to mess about in Moons 0.16ɡ gravity, in a safe warm and pressurised space. That fun will sell itself!
Just imagine that for a minute. What fun!
Fun that will cost a lot of dosh $£ to get to experience.
The very same companies and corporations that back the Moon and Mars base R&D early test phases will no doubt also be the Moon hotel owners. Making space and the Moon turn a good profit.
I admit, this will all be very small scale and low key to start with. And no doubt some small and some major setbacks. Maybe some deaths of ground workers either landing, or on the surface working with pretty massive machinery inside Moon surface suit, able to take the rough & long hours of work that will be needed in the first missions.
I’m sure the urge to escape out of an air lock might be something that someone will eventually do. Going space mad from some missed personality trait missed by the doctors on Earth during selection and training. Its one thing to be sealed in some bio-dome on some desert landscape on Earth with a bunch of other humans, but its going to be quite different for real on the surface of the Moon in the first lander capsules domes. Something doctors will need to be very ware of when selecting crews. But this is not a new problem as we know. But one that might in time rear its ugly head as more people go up to work.
Dealing with Moon and Mars gravity - well thats a whole other story long term. Learning to work long hours in lighter but tougher Moon surface suits will be a challenge I would love to experience. We all know those videos from the Moon of the crews trying to hammer and chip rock samples away from boulders. I have no doubt the materials for those suits will be coming along soon enough, and be tough enough and lighter to wear and work in than what we have right now. Maybe even a Moon version of the current new hard suit Nasa is working on. Surface suits is something I’m very interested in. And Moon and Mars obit suits for working outside orbiting supply and landing craft.
Which does bring us back to whether we should limit the humans sent up onto the Moons surface until the ground robotic machines have created suitable first habitats. Either the boring into the sides of a crater (My fav idea), or self expanding inflatable habitats which can then start to be tiled by these baked compacted soil composites. It would be logical to withhold humans going back to the Moon until some first robotic bio-dome type habitat can be constructed remotely. Just the enormous challenge of getting to that point will be major human space landmark moment.
Once the path back to the Moon is out of basic R&D and ready for the first humans, big global brand name corporations will be prostrating themselves to get there and set up huge Starbucks and Mc Donalds neon signs. To name a couple.
Not to mention the Moon habitat and hotel service industry. Of which I’ve spoken about before as something worth getting into now before the Moon rush of the 2030’s.
Then on the far dark side of the Moon we will see the creation of a deep space telescope station, of that I am positive. The Scientific discovery’s it will give us will me worth doing it.
What a great posting that will be to an outpost in the middle of the dark side of the Moon for 6-12 months.
A shuttle service to and from that base to the main Moon launch and base complex. I’m sure it will be like that lunar journey in 2001 out to tycho crater.
It will all come in time, and quite quickly I imagine once the first small base is established. And launch and flight craft are far cheaper.
I’m not that smart, I do not know space economics or rocket and human systems engineering. But still have more broad stroke ideas and hopes as I’ve written about above and before.
I’ll never be going up into space, I might live to see the first Mars missions and the first permanent base settlement on Mars, maybe. But will I’m sure see the creation and expansion of the first Moon base and hotel in my lifetime.
I still say Moon first, build on that to get us to Mars even quicker. Mars will follow so soon after the first small base on the Moon, I’m sure of that.
Writing walls of text does not make the content correct, this is so God damn skewed that’s it’s nauseating. You use values for the Moon for full trip and only half trip for Mars, justifying the skewed comparison by saying they will refuel on Mars. You can refuel on the Moon too if you accept that fuel processing and refueling operations are of insignificant difficulty, which they are not, not having to refuel is a huge positive for the Moon.
What you are actually saying there is that you can go to the Moon, land there and come back for 10% more dV than just going to Mars.
So, SpaceX just landed two Falcon 9s in three days, in case anyone was interested.
They’re getting better and better at this.
Also, again, stop worrying about Moon or Mars… Lol.
Worry about the BFR achieving its technical specs.
You’re missing some critical details that I know I spelled out, but you’re either intentionally ignoring or incapable of comprehending. I actually did not write anything above and beyond what was required to get my point across, so if you’re nauseated I’d return to learning basic reading comprehension and tips on debating utilizing logic instead of insulting an opinion without giving any sound reasoning behind the insults.
The vessel to Mars is intended to utilize the resources available on Mars to create its own fuel for a return trip. There is no need to send along a second rocket to act as a gas tank, there is no need to send it with enough dV to return without refueling. Calculating the return trip dV is pointless, because it’s unnecessary: the Mars vessels will create a full tank of fuel after arriving.
The Lunar mission, on the other hand, does not have this benefit. There are not enough resources readily available on the Moon to create a full tank of gas. This means you need to do one of the following:
A. Launch separate vehicles to carry the extra fuel required to return to Earth, sacrificing some number of launches for that purpose
B. Carry enough fuel on each vessel to make the round trip without refueling, sacrificing some percent of each vehicle’s carrying capacity to make weight for the extra fuel.
I’m going to give you an example, although it will be a poor example that actually favors the Lunar trip more than it should due to the tyranny of the rocket equation. Other than picking apart the fact that these numbers are wildly inaccurate (because the real numbers actually argue in my favor even more), please feel free to actually use a logical argument to demonstrate how I am wrong. That means something other than misunderstanding an argument, crying because I use a lot of words, and then demonstrating your own ignorance in the subject you tried to single out.
Let’s say, as a purely hypothetical number that in no way represents actual numbers, we have a rocket that requires 1kg of fuel per dV to lift 1,000,000kg (cargo + rocket) to Mars, or 18,910kg of fuel. Of those 1,000,000kg, we’ll say half of it is the rocket itself (500,000kg) and half of it is cargo (500,000kg). This means that every rocket I launch is capable of carrying 500,000kg of cargo to Mars, where it will then utilize a bit of machinery to produce enough fuel to be able to launch itself back to Earth. Fuel it did not need to carry along with it.
Now let’s use that same rocket to get to the Moon, assuming it will carry enough fuel onboard to return to LEO (not even landing!) under its own power (20,740kg of fuel). Since our rocket now must carry more fuel, and we’re not going to be saving any weight on the rocket itself, we must remove that weight from the cargo. With 1,830kg more fuel, we can carry 1,830kg less cargo, so our rocket can only lift 498,170kg to the Lunar surface for a 99.634% efficiency compared to the Mars mission.
Alternatively, let’s send rockets to land near the first series of rockets and be nothing but fuel tanks to refuel the other rockets. Each rocket only requires 15,070kg of fuel to get to the Lunar surface, and can carry an extra 3,840kg of cargo to the surface. To return to LEO (not even landing!), however, each rocket will require an additional 5,670kg of fuel be loaded onboard, assuming no losses or spillages or evaporation or anything else. With a total cargo capacity of 503,840kg of fuel, one ship can refuel itself and 89 (rounded up) other vessels. This means every 90 ships could bring 44,841,760kg of supplies to the Moon, vs. 45,000,000kg to Mars, resulting in a 99.648% efficiency compared to the Martian mission.
So, let’s look at a couple of details:
These numbers were created assuming dV fuel requirements scale linearly. In the real world, where we actually have to live and perform these actions, it does not: per the rocket equation, fuel costs grow exponentially as dV grows. This means the Lunar mission becomes even LESS efficient per rocket. Winner: Mars.
The actual fuel-to-cargo ratios I presented are FAR too small. According to my brief search on Google, getting objects into orbit requires approximately NINE times the mass of fuel as cargo. Using the incorrect assumption of linearly scaling fuel requirements, this means a Lunar mission where each rocket carries its own return fuel drops to 91.2% efficiency, and a rocket-refueling-rockets approach (assuming we want to recover and reuse all rockets) plummets to of every 5 rockets, 3 must carry fuel, or somewhere in the realm of a 40% efficiency. In the real world, the efficiency of both Lunar missions drop even further, due to the tyranny of the rocket equation. Dominant winner: Mars.
Please, feel free to address these concerns with some reasoned statements of your own. While you’re at it, feel free to discuss my analysis of Thunderf00t’s video, as you are also a pretty stringent critic of the BFR as commercial transport, but I don’t recall seeing much in the way of evidence for your assessments.
EDITED TO ADJUST 1,000kg/dV TO 1kg/dV, PER SKYENTIST.
No you can’t and that’s the largest point in the “con” side of the Moon. You’d be restricted to certain polar regions if you wanted ice and there’s almost no carbon deposits on the Moon. If you wanted to synthesize methane and lox you’d have to bring your own carbon, instead they just bring the finished fuel product at the cost of reduced payload to surface.
At any rate, these are engineering & design issues. Why are you being so toxic with personal attacks? No amount of rhetoric can skew the numbers such as carbon density in lunar regolith or the location of ice patches on the moon. This would be a lot easier if we could convince the Moon to be more hospitable but unfortunately asking it nicely or angrily doesn’t change a thing.
This is a really bad estimation because the rocket equation scales logarithmically with the mass ratio not linearly based on mass of propellant and will definitely hurt more than it helps. If you look at a graph of dV based on mass of your craft you’d find that the vast majority of dV imparted on your rocket is when it has minimal fuel left due to the relatively larger accelerations from lower mass with a constant thrust.
Also you said said 1000kg per dV and according to your maths it costs 18910 m/s of deltaV to Mars that means it’s 18,910 mt or 18,910,000 kg of fuel required. I would work backwards and plug in 19k for the deltaV in the rocket equation and solve for the mass fraction instead. Use 375 ish for Isp. Then once you have the mass fraction you can “choose” a dry mass of the rocket and find out how much propellant you need.
That your whole argument is moot, because this is just plain wrong. Moon has been slated as a stepping stone to Mars precisely for this reason, do a Google search, there is over 30 million results on the topic.
There are also 400 million results for asking google “is the sun inside out” but that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s any merit to those results.
At any rate I would like to read some scientific publications regarding ISRU for propellant production using Lunar resources. Could you find some for me? I’d be interested in finding their relative accessibility and minimum required tonnage of the surface to begin pruduction.
You have successfully addressed none of the concerns i have listed.
If you intend to make a point, make your point. I will not do your research for you.
I’m aware, as I stated several times the numbers I went with were designed to show that even granting an insanely HUGE benefit of math that impossibly favors the Moon situation in ways not physically possible, the numbers still work out in favor of the Mars trip.
Regarding my choice of kg per dV, I was under the impression dV was measured in km/s, not m/s. I’ll change the 1,000 to 1.
Hello team, I’d like to preface this message through making you guys aware of the fact that I am a high IQ poster. Some of the things I’ll do on this forum may seem irrational at the time - but I can assure you, every action that I take has a greater meaning, and unless you also have high IQ you’ll probably not understand the “questionable” things I do on this forum. In conclusion, do not speak to me like we are equals and there will be no problems, thank you.
And why are you being so toxic @skyentist? There is just no way in hell, no matter how well thought through is Mars a better and easier destination for humanity.
You are using scientific facts that are themselves thought through for the Mars argument, you know very well that there are just as many for the Moon, yet you choose to paddle Mars instead.
I’m making a comparison to show your red herring is a red herring. I never attacked you, just your arguments.
You’re right. I even said that in my first response to you before you called me a brainwashed shill
Skyentist is actually being quite neutral in his commentary. My commentary could be interpreted as toxic, but after being told I’m no better than a Flattard by someone who cannot even present an argument based on logic, I feel no obligation to dress up my words.
This mentality is precisely the wrong way to go about finding the answer. The ideal way would be to consider both scenarios as equally viable and, after a careful analysis of the two, deciding which mission suits your objectives better.
Of course, I myself am biased to Mars only because I think it’s the “cooler” mission, so I instead approached it from the standpoint of “What benefits does the Moon offer that Mars does not?”
The only answer I could imagine is travel time and launch window availability. After much consideration, everything else I can imagine favors the trip to Mars over the trip to the Moon, and until someone can demonstrate otherwise to me I see no reason to just blindly follow your blind assumptions about which is the better mission.
Where exactly did I attack you? This?
That’s enough to turn you two into emotional trolls?
And who are you to decide this, a psychiatrist, sociologist, fortune reader?
I’d say your attitude in these examples are more of why I write in a manner I’d call “rude” when I am addressing you.
No, I am someone who is hoping to have a scientific discourse regarding the two missions. That would require you actually provide something akin to evidence, math, logic, etc. Instead, you resort to, and I’m only slightly paraphrasing here, “LALALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU YOUR MATH MEANS NOTHING IN THE FACE OF MY SHOUTING THAT THE MOON IS BETTER BECAUSE I SAID SO.”
For posterity, here is the exact quote I only slightly paraphrased:
Move the goalposts and keep walking.
Not what I came here to talk about. All I wanted was civility and the hope of discussing new ideas and maybe some math. Not sure what changed cyber but you’re not the same person I had fun playing wolf with through the years. I hope you find your way.
If anyone has math related questions to the topic I’ll be around.
How was the test?
EDIT: On a side note, would it be possible for you to give an example of a question from orbital mechanics? I love orbital mechanics, even if I’m terribad at them, and I’m curious what percentage of the question I’ll actually understand, much less be able to answer.