Posted on 05/23/2026 9:35:15 AM PDT by Red Badger
I'm not an astronaut. NASA has never asked me to be a part of Mission Control. I'm no expert. I fully admit all of this!
So I guess it's unsurprising that I thought there was only, you know, one way to the moon, namely: You go to the moon and then you come back.
Like, Earth ---> Moon, then Moon ---> Earth.
I kinda figured that was all there was to it!
But apparently, as Space.com reports, it's a little more complicated than that:
A lot of time and effort goes into planning routes for space missions. Researchers look for the most efficient path between planets and moons because spaceflight is expensive. Even small gains in efficiency can save millions.
An international team of researchers say they've found a method of calculating a more efficient route between Earth and the moon using advanced computer modeling.
Again, I pretty much assumed that there was just one route for lunar travel:
Yet it's not so simple. As Space.com notes, "spacecraft that journey through our solar system only use fuel only part of the time," with gravity generally being the "preferred method" due to its being, you know, free.
As a result, "finding a cheap route to the moon has a lot to do with gravity." Everyone is familiar with the old slingshot maneuver to help get a boost in space travel, of course. But the researchers dicovered that "instead of using the branch of the lunar-orbit variate closest to Earth, it's better to enter that variate from the opposite side."
I'm not quite sure what that means, though written out in visual academic-ese it looks something like this:
The resulting savings is significant:
Essentially, the team found that free gravity-based propulsion is more plentiful when taking the hidden path. This newly reported route uses 58.80 meters per second (m/s) less fuel consumption than the previous cheapest known route. Again, even this little efficiency gain would help reduce the cost of traveling to the moon.
You can read the full scientific article here.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42064-025-0297-x?cjdata=MXxOfDB8WXww&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=CONR_BOOKS_ECOM_GL_PBOK_06YUE_GL_ALWYS_DEEPLINK&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100052171&CJEVENT=2dac05ad55eb11f181be00b80a82b824
Those rockets need to save all the fuel they can — there are no Exxons on the moon.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Ping!...........
“AI” could have told them that.
“ there are no Exxons on the moon…”
The whole focus on the next steps to the moon will be to build the gas station there. It’s “cheaper” to fuel up at the moon and take off to Mars and beyond. You can get a lot more stuff up there from earth if you only need half the fuel to get there.
Apparently it did!...........
I doubt it.
When do you know when “AI” isn’t “hallucinating “?
Learn to parallel park so you don’t have to go around the block again.
You can do a lotta weird s**t near the libration points.
Just ask Bob Farquhar.
“AI” could have told them that.
“AI” did not authorize this second post. 😂👍📡
Yet.
Just needed a better presentation and a cool name for it!
Like the “Spaghetti Transfer” - coulda said it was in honor of Italian cultural heritage! The DEI gang at Johnson woulda ate it up!
Oh darn...a pun
But there is a STARBUCKS!................
I plan to just call for an Uber
Or LYFT?...................
The straight arrow route is men shopping. The other one...
Tesla. Charging. Station.
“I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque!”
wy69
I thought it was taking a walk in the moonlight with your sweetie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.