4 ms·

Landing on the moon would be an expensive diversion to any Mars missions. The moon is an entirely different, and far more hostile environment, you need entirely

Landing on the moon would be an expensive diversion to any Mars missions. The moon is an entirely different, and far more hostile environment, you need entirely different suits and life support systems on the moon. Mars requires lifting far less fuel to land on and return from its surface instead of the moon. Starship is optimized for Mars landings, and will be capable of landing up to 150 tons of supplies, equipment, and humans in a single ship. It can land far less on the moon in the sane configuration.

IXxXI 7y ago
A round trip to mars could require upwards of 10 years of food, fuel and water. A round trip to the moon requires 8 days of food, fuel and water. I think its not difficult to figure out which requires greater lift capacity.
- valuearb 7y ago
  First, Mars round trips typically take 2 years, not ten. Flying to Mars can be done in under two months. Secondly, a fully fueled SpaceX starship in low earth orbit will likely land 100-150 tons on Mars. It won’t be able to land any payload on the moon. Lastly, you don’t need to take fuel for the return trip to a Mars. It’s easy to make there. Fuel will be virtually impossible to make on the moon for decades, requiring every drop to be shipped from Earth. Because of the tyranny of the rocket equation, that requires a massive amount of fuel to land a much smaller amount of fuel on the moon to be able to fly back a tiny payload to Earth. The cost of food, water and fuel on the moon is probably 10x that on Mars. The moon is also a desert, full of razor sharp dust and nearly devoid of resources, as well as commercial and scientific value.
  - IXxXI 7y ago
    Probes travel to mars faster. They have lower mass to fuel ratios. A manned flight with water shielding for radiation. Rotating crew quarters to generate artificial gravity. And other amenities necessary to support human life, will have far higher mass than a probe. It translates to travel time taking longer due to fuel consumption and storage being more limited.

IXxXI 7y ago

A round trip to mars could require upwards of 10 years of food, fuel and water. A round trip to the moon requires 8 days of food, fuel and water. I think its not difficult to figure out which requires greater lift capacity.

valuearb 7y ago
First, Mars round trips typically take 2 years, not ten. Flying to Mars can be done in under two months. Secondly, a fully fueled SpaceX starship in low earth orbit will likely land 100-150 tons on Mars. It won’t be able to land any payload on the moon. Lastly, you don’t need to take fuel for the return trip to a Mars. It’s easy to make there. Fuel will be virtually impossible to make on the moon for decades, requiring every drop to be shipped from Earth. Because of the tyranny of the rocket equation, that requires a massive amount of fuel to land a much smaller amount of fuel on the moon to be able to fly back a tiny payload to Earth. The cost of food, water and fuel on the moon is probably 10x that on Mars. The moon is also a desert, full of razor sharp dust and nearly devoid of resources, as well as commercial and scientific value.
- IXxXI 7y ago
  Probes travel to mars faster. They have lower mass to fuel ratios. A manned flight with water shielding for radiation. Rotating crew quarters to generate artificial gravity. And other amenities necessary to support human life, will have far higher mass than a probe. It translates to travel time taking longer due to fuel consumption and storage being more limited.