On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:22:34 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61155725

It's a priority because there is a launch window in 9-10 years time, just about enough time to get the hardware designed and built.

Spending resources on this does not preclude doing other projects too.

Mars isn't going anywhere.

On 19/04/2022 14.41, W wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:22:34 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
>> Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61155725
>
> It's a priority because there is a launch window in 9-10 years time, just about enough time to get the hardware designed and built.
>
> Spending resources on this does not preclude doing other projects too.
>
> Mars isn't going anywhere.

And it's doing it at 24 km/s

--
Michael F. Stemper
Deuteronomy 10:18-19

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 7:43:20 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 19/04/2022 14.41, W wrote:

> > Mars isn't going anywhere.

> And it's doing it at 24 km/s

While it's true that Mars is *in motion*, as a consequence of being
in orbit around the sun, it still isn't "going anywhere" in the sense of
being on the way out of the Solar System, or otherwise becoming
inaccessible in future.

Of course, Mars _could_ have a slight secular increase in the
semi-major axis of its orbit, but for practical purposes of space
travel, it's inconsequential.

John Savard

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:12:09 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 7:43:20 AM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> > On 19/04/2022 14.41, W wrote:

> > > Mars isn't going anywhere.

> > And it's doing it at 24 km/s

> While it's true that Mars is *in motion*, as a consequence of being
> in orbit around the sun, it still isn't "going anywhere" in the sense of
> being on the way out of the Solar System, or otherwise becoming
> inaccessible in future.

> Of course, Mars _could_ have a slight secular increase in the
> semi-major axis of its orbit, but for practical purposes of space
> travel, it's inconsequential.

Or, in simpler language, if you're going around in circles, you won't
get anywhere. That's even true if you're going around in ellipses
instead.

Although if the ellipse has a high enough eccentricity... but Mars
is not in that category.

John Savard

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:43:20 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 19/04/2022 14.41, W wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:22:34 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> >> Personally, I can think of better uses of limited funds. This will likely gives clues as to why so many of these type of planets exist, but we should be concentrating on the potentially habitable worlds, not gas-giants.
> >>
> >> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61155725
> >
> > It's a priority because there is a launch window in 9-10 years time, just about enough time to get the hardware designed and built.
> >
> > Spending resources on this does not preclude doing other projects too.
> >
> > Mars isn't going anywhere.
> And it's doing it at 24 km/s

It's been going around the same ole star for billions of years. It will have a new launch window every two years. Uranus' launch windows are over a decade apart.

Try to read for comprehension, OK?