 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008A Perspective on the Distance to the Moon
If you could get in your car right now and start driving nonstop to the moon at 55 miles per hour, you would get there in a little over six months (27 weeks). If your car could get 20 miles per gallon on this trip, you would need 12,500 gallons of gas. - from the Space section of www.odd-info.com > If you could get in your car right now and start driving nonstop to > the moon at 55 miles per hour, you would get there in a little over > six months (27 weeks). If your car could get 20 miles per gallon on > this trip, you would need 12,500 gallons of gas. - from the Space > section ofwww.odd-info.com That's also a lot of beer and pizza to go. But the frequent pitstops for fuel and don't forget them pesky oil changes and tire rotations are real road-trip killers. Exactly how rad-hard is your DNA? That air conditioning is going to need at least ten fold greater capacity. It sounds like you're going for a one way mission, and therefore reentry isn't a factor. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > If you could get in your car right now and start driving nonstop to > the moon at 55 miles per hour, you would get there in a little over > six months (27 weeks). If your car could get 20 miles per gallon on > this trip, you would need 12,500 gallons of gas. - from the Space > section of www.odd-info.com If it takes six months for a car to get there, then why did it not take the also tiny Apollo command/service/lunar module only three days? > > If you could get in your car right now and start driving nonstop to > > the moon at 55 miles per hour, you would get there in a little over [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If it takes six months for a car to get there, then why did it not take > the also tiny Apollo command/service/lunar module only three days? Velocity! On Jul 12, 8:15 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "javawizard" <javawiz...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If it takes six months for a car to get there, then why did it not take > the also tiny Apollo command/service/lunar module only three days? Velocity! *****Then how did it ever slow down? > On Jul 12, 8:15 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > *****Then how did it ever slow down? Fire the thrusters in the opposite direction of travel in space! Coming into earth, you use the air resistance , reverse thrusters and parachutes! On Jul 12, 8:41 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "chatnoir" <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > *****Then how did it ever slow down? Fire the thrusters in the opposite direction of travel in space! Coming into earth, you use the air resistance , reverse thrusters and parachutes! Come on! That tiny little ship could not have had enough fuel to outdo a car by a factor of sixty....and then even have enough left to slow down. There is some phenomenon here that no one is catching onto. > On Jul 12, 8:41 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > outdo a car by a factor of sixty....and then even have enough left to slow > down. There is some phenomenon here that no one is catching onto. Lack of friction! > On Jul 12, 8:41 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "chatnoir" <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > outdo a car by a factor of sixty....and then even have enough left to slow > down. There is some phenomenon here that no one is catching onto. You're making my brain hurt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V It carried over two thousand tons of fuel and oxygen. 12,500 gallons is only 34 tons of gasoline. You stay right there. I'm getting my chamber-pot.  SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com "When you post sewage, don't blame others for emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L. >> On Jul 12, 8:41 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > "chatnoir" <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > You stay right there. I'm getting my chamber-pot. The Saturn V just got the command/service/lunar module into orbit. It was totally the tiny service module that did all the rest of the super increidible accelerations and decelerations...except for re-entry, anyway. With just that, it should not have been able to travel 60 times faster than a car on the highway. > > In article <DZGdnbzGhoYz4uTVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dn...@posted.internetamerica>, > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > With just that, it should not have been able to travel 60 times faster than > a car on the highway. Lots of the 30% inert GLOW about the Saturn V and of its Apollo mission as payload simply do not add up. Apparently the DARPA laws of fly-by-rocket physics work entirely differently while off-world. Of their getting to/from the Earth-moon L1 was technically doable within the given amount of time and available resources. Everything else was likely accomplished via robotics, except for the hocus-pocus matters of their supposedly doing those moonsuit EVAs. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth >> > In article <DZGdnbzGhoYz4uTVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dn...@posted.internetamerica>, >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Guthball, you forgot to mention "lithobreaking" and that nifty Supercomputer analysis. >>> > In article <DZGdnbzGhoYz4uTVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dn...@posted.internetamerica>, >>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > Guthball, you forgot to mention "lithobreaking" and that nifty > Supercomputer analysis. I actually meant to say "lithobraking", but since either is a figment of your imagination, it doesn't really matter how it is spelled. > I actually meant to say "lithobraking", but since either is a figment of > your imagination, it doesn't really matter how it is spelled. It sounds like a fanciful description of airbag-cushioned landing, adapted from aerobraking. Check out the video link in this article, a time-lapse sequence of the moon occulting the Earth, seen from the Deep Impact spacecraft. - http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080718/sc_space/newvideoseesearthfromalienperspective Another look at how STUPID you are, Mark! lmao! Leaving the Earth and going into orbit is the bulk of the delta-V needed to go to the Moon. The rest is TINY in comparison. Remember there is no friction in space? Saul Levy >The Saturn V just got the command/service/lunar module into orbit. >It was totally the tiny service module that did all the rest of the super >increidible accelerations and decelerations...except for re-entry, anyway. > >With just that, it should not have been able to travel 60 times faster than >a car on the highway. It's called being SMARTER than Mark Earnest! lmao! How much did the Saturn 5 weight? How much of that weight was fuel? You really have NO IDEA how space travel is accomplished. Saul Levy >Come on! That tiny little ship could not have had enough fuel to >outdo a car by a factor of sixty....and then even have enough left to slow >down. There is some phenomenon here that no one is catching onto. Are you really paying attention, Mark? lmao! Seems NOT! 55 MILES PER HOUR won't get you away from the Earth. Hint: They went a LOT FASTER on Apollo. Saul Levy >> If you could get in your car right now and start driving nonstop to >> the moon at 55 miles per hour, you would get there in a little over [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >If it takes six months for a car to get there, then why did it not take >the also tiny Apollo command/service/lunar module only three days? >If you could get in your car right now and start driving nonstop to >the moon at 55 miles per hour, you would get there in a little over >six months (27 weeks). If your car could get 20 miles per gallon on >this trip, you would need 12,500 gallons of gas. - from the Space >section of www.odd-info.com Richard Dawkins uses the example of the age of the earth. Young Earth Creationists say the age of the earth is 6000 years. Dawkins says if we measure the distance cross country from New York to California would be 7 yards. How about......... if we use this blackboard (6' x 4') and chart the age of the earth as 6000 years then adjust for the true age of the earth the black board would be (how big)? How about others? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.