From: sylvia@email.invalid   
      
   On 01-Jun-21 3:39 am, JF Mezei wrote:   
   > On 2021-05-31 00:46, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >   
   >> Or about 7. That is, six sevenths of the vehicle's initial mass is fuel.   
      
   Unfortunately, I made a really stupid mistake. I'll come back to it.   
      
   >   
   > Thanks for the math reality check.  Just about every science fiction   
   > series from UFO , Space 1999 (which was actually an unofficial sequel -   
   > the plans for space station Alpha were shown on paper on last episode of   
   > UFO) and 2001 all had vehicle capable of traveling at low altitude over   
   > the moon and was wondering how feasable this would be considering the   
   > low gravity.   
   >   
   > But despite that low gravity, your math showed "not even close".   
   >   
   >   
   > But i have to wonder: if to travel from US moon base to the Russian or   
   > Chinese moon base, you use suborbital trajectory, wouldn't that also use   
   > up a lot of fuel because you have to accelerare upwards a lot and then   
   > you have to use fuel to slow down just as much as you land at destination.   
   >   
   > If you "hover", you may need a lot of fuel to hover, but when you get to   
   > destination, you only need to stop your horizontal speed and gently drop   
   > on ground.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)