4 ms·
The fallacy here is that we don't need a Moon base to make a Mars base in terms of infrastructure. It won't make sense to launch a mission from the Moon to Mar
by elsonrodriguez 3y ago
The fallacy here is that we don't need a Moon base to make a Mars base in terms of infrastructure.
It won't make sense to launch a mission from the Moon to Mars until the Moon has Earth-equivalent industry, and refueling a rocket at the Moon is questionable as the fuel required to go directly from Earth to Mars isn't much higher than putting something in orbit around the Moon.
We can maybe gain some knowledge from a modern attempt at a Moon base that we can apply to Mars, but then what planetoid did we explore to gain knowledge in order to land on the Moon?
If we want to go to Mars, we go to Mars, if we want to go to the Moon, we go to the Moon.
- arein3 3y agoIt's pretty clear you want a moon base before estabilishing a mars base (seems common sense why). The fallacy here is that you need a capitalist reason, and that is wrong from a multitude of aspects.
- elsonrodriguez 3y agoIt isn’t clear to me. One is not a prerequisite for the other, they can be done independently. Am I missing something?
- epicide 3y agoIt's the same reason we did a slingshot maneuver rather than just point a rocket straight at the moon: leverage. Metaphorically, you use time as a fulcrum to exchange a larger total travel distance for not dealing with as much gravity head on. If we want to go to Mars, it makes sense to establish a moon base that we can use to store fuel and other supplies. Rather than having to escape (as much of) Earth's gravitational field and then head to Mars immediately after, we can utilize what we've gradually built up on the moon.
- elsonrodriguez 3y agoI was under the impression that the aero braking greatly reduces the amount of fuel required to land on mars vs the moon, and due to this the Saturn V had enough lift to put a crew on mars. If Apollo-era hardware can get to mars, why rendezvous at the moon?