The Moon is oficially a part of Mars

Finally!

Attached: moon.png (1280x720, 294K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/mNJ4arjp4U4
nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Going to Mars will require doing some things between the earth and the moon. What he's saying is that the moon will be a part of going to Mars.

Attached: herp.png (150x150, 47K)

From a programmatic sense, this is absolutely correct. NASA is using experience in lunar operations to inform, and possibly support, Mars missions.

This is obviously what is being said ( badly, in true trump fashion).

Its " bigly" or oranges/origins all over again. Leftcucks are truly in a sad state if this is the kind of shit they latch on to.

>im going to interpret everything as stupidly as possible and then take my own interpretation literally and then bitch on the internet about the orange man and how bad he is

Attached: 1525720197169.png (645x729, 82K)

You probably do the same thing with AOC.
>horse woman bad
>”stupid liberals making fun of trump”

>The Moon is oficially a part of Mars

missions to mars will be more efficient if we gather fuel from the moon for the journey.

so any serious attempts at putting men on planets or moons in our solar system will require some sort of orbital fuel depots, lunar fuel harvesting, possibly even lunar manufacturing from materials on the moons surface.

Because it would be cheaper to launch lunar resources (fuel, finished products) out of the moons lower gravity well, than to have to push it up all the way from the surface of the earth.

Delta V for earth orbit is around 9.4 kilometers per second.

(Delta V is the "total change in velocity" if the rocket does a nonstop burn using all of it's fuel, shorthand for fuel efficiency.)

Since travel through space is a bit different from earth, in that earth has friction to slow you down from air, contact with the pavement or ground (even if you are using wheels), fuel efficiency is usually measured in distance from a fixed point.

Orbit, however is a different thing, as you are constantly moving in a very narrow region of space (that being the level of gravity well you are currently occupying.)

Therefore, the only way to accurately gauge fuel efficiency in terms of being in orbit, isn't distance traveled, because you don't have to burn fuel to travel continuously in orbit at 7.8 kilometers per second......

You measure your change of velocity, which increases the apoapsis of your current orbit, and also changes your orbital trajectory, so that it may at some point down the line intercept another gravity well (say, the moon or mars), and thus you can slow down once you get there, and turn your hyperbolic (shooting past the planet) orbit into a circular orbit that keeps you in the gravity well of the planet/moon.

Considering that anything you launch into space has to be traveling at a rate of 7.8 kilometers per second relative to the surface of the earth, AFTER you get it above the 300 kilometers of atmosphere....

continued...

you would need a huge amount of fuel per unit of mass you are trying to put into orbit.

current prices for orbital insertion are around $1,891 dollar per kilogram, so if you weigh 80 kilograms, it's going to cost about 100k to put you in orbit, this does not count luggage, for which you must pay extra.

The point of a lunar propellant (read: fuel) base, is to lower the cost of putting fuel in your spaceship, by lifting it out of a weaker gravity well, and thus needing to use less propellant per unit of mass, thus being less in terms of total agregate launch costs.

The less it costs, the more times we can go to mars and back for the same money.

Also, the more stuff we can ultimately ship ther

You can tell how deranged people are when they genuinely believe that Trump means that the moon is literally part of mars

The thing is, AoC is unironically mentally retarded.