4 ms·
How? Space is not like driving a car. To go higher you've got to burn fuel to gain velocity and altitude, do go lower you've got to burn fuel to slow down. If y
by twistedpair 12y ago
How? Space is not like driving a car. To go higher you've got to burn fuel to gain velocity and altitude, do go lower you've got to burn fuel to slow down. If you're going the wrong direction or angle, you've got to burn a ton of fuel to change that (i.e. if at 90deg to ISS, you've got no velocity vector in common). And that's just my armchair assessment that ignores the myriad complications of spaceflight.
This is a common misconception, however. For example, people want to know why Columbia didn't just buzz over and hook up with the ISS rather than burning up. They were at a different altitude from ISS and could not have made the jump with available fuel.
- XorNot 12y agoConversely this is why space mining is kind of a big deal. If we could get large quantities of pretty much anything that works as a propellant without launch costs, that would change a lot of things.
- TheLoneWolfling 12y agoEven aluminum mined on the moon would be potentially useful. And due to the oddities of space travel, it costs a lot less delta-v to go from the Moon to Earth orbit than it does from Earth to Earth orbit, especially if you do aerobraking.
- lucb1e 12y ago> How? Space is not like driving a car. Isn't it? You drive, you burn fuel. You take more fuel with you, it costs more fuel to get going. Some vehicles (spacecraft or car) require more fuel to drive the same distance than others. Sure, space flights are much, much more expensive, but I don't see how it's so different. If it's not worth it to spend the extra fuel to get there, refuel, and continue to the original destination, then just say so.
- twistedpair 12y ago> Isn't it. You drive, you burn fuel. I'd refer you to the Rocket Equation [1]. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation