4 ms·

This point is key: "assuming the availability of resources and fuel-generating infrastructure on the moon" Sure, if the moon is a gas station, then stopping t

This point is key: "assuming the availability of resources and fuel-generating infrastructure on the moon" Sure, if the moon is a gas station, then stopping there to fuel up on the way to mars makes sense. But it's making a big leap of faith that refueling infrastructure and raw materials can be reasonably built on the moon.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
ESA seems to be interested in pushing that angle. The recent announcement was very refreshing to hear[0]. I like to imagine it's Musk radiating enthusiasm for rubbing progress into our faces, but whatever it is, something seem to have caused a renewed interest in manned space projects. Maybe it's just ESA and NASA stepping up their PR game. But whatever it is, I'm thankful and have high hopes! [0] - http://www.space.com/29285-moon-base-european-space-agency.html http://www.space.com/29285-moon-base-european-space-agency.h...
zamalek 11y ago
The moon is rich in He3 - both mining He3 and creating a rocket fuelled by it are in the realm of theory, but it may be possible.
erikb 11y ago
That was my first thought. How do you get all the infrastructure to the moon, and probably regular personnel. For the first few trips this should not be the smart way.
iwwr 11y ago
Low-Earth Orbit -> Low Lunar Orbit: 1.31km/s Low Lunar Orbit -> Lunar surface: 2.74km/s Lunar surface -> Low Lunar Orbit: 2.74km/s Total: 6.8km/s That's more delta-V than a straight flight to Mars, which is between 4 and 5km/s, depending on trajectory. If the Moon were made of fuel, it would still not make sense to land there and take off again. This scenario describes setting up a Moon base and then shoot fuel into LEO (either directly, or with an electromagnetic catapult). From LEO, the fuel is indeed useful, but the industrial infrastructure may be excessive unless you're talking... low-hundreds of launches?

TeMPOraL 11y ago

ESA seems to be interested in pushing that angle. The recent announcement was very refreshing to hear[0]. I like to imagine it's Musk radiating enthusiasm for rubbing progress into our faces, but whatever it is, something seem to have caused a renewed interest in manned space projects. Maybe it's just ESA and NASA stepping up their PR game. But whatever it is, I'm thankful and have high hopes! [0] - http://www.space.com/29285-moon-base-european-space-agency.html http://www.space.com/29285-moon-base-european-space-agency.h...

zamalek 11y ago

The moon is rich in He3 - both mining He3 and creating a rocket fuelled by it are in the realm of theory, but it may be possible.

erikb 11y ago

That was my first thought. How do you get all the infrastructure to the moon, and probably regular personnel. For the first few trips this should not be the smart way.

iwwr 11y ago

Low-Earth Orbit -> Low Lunar Orbit: 1.31km/s Low Lunar Orbit -> Lunar surface: 2.74km/s Lunar surface -> Low Lunar Orbit: 2.74km/s Total: 6.8km/s That's more delta-V than a straight flight to Mars, which is between 4 and 5km/s, depending on trajectory. If the Moon were made of fuel, it would still not make sense to land there and take off again. This scenario describes setting up a Moon base and then shoot fuel into LEO (either directly, or with an electromagnetic catapult). From LEO, the fuel is indeed useful, but the industrial infrastructure may be excessive unless you're talking... low-hundreds of launches?