Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jeremymorrison88 t1_ixe1smq wrote

No. It's taken us 60yrs just to get back on the moon and we're not even there again yet. Cost and logistics are the biggest issues for Mars landing.

9

SLCW718 t1_ixe7s7d wrote

It didn't really take us 60 years to go back to the moon. After the Apollo program, the political landscape changed, and the decision was made not to pursue additional manned lunar exploration. It's not as if we were trying to go back all these years, but just couldn't do it. It was a calculated decision not to return until relatively recently.

19

fivestarusername t1_ixedxo8 wrote

Right but OP isn't asking when it will be technically feasible to send people to Mars. They're asking when will we do it and that means accounting for the political landscape.

6

Guy_Fieris_Hair t1_ixeocfs wrote

If we could throw money at it and remove politics, we would be living on Mars.

4

Wagyuwithketchup t1_ixe5pge wrote

From what ive heard, there is little gain to physically return to the moon and that is why we havent really been super into the idea. Mars on the other hand is a different thing since its a planet that we might inhabit one day.

3

thicc_snek t1_ixe8loq wrote

We will gain a lot from a permanent moon base. Its a big stepping stone on our journey to mars.

6

all_m0ds_are_virgins t1_ixfns6w wrote

What a logistical/infrastructure nightmare. But it's probably a wet dream for a bunch of egghead engineers out there.

1

Shmav t1_ixed63y wrote

You realize the majority of fuel rockets use is just to break earth's gravity, right? Having a spaceship gas station on the moon seems like a pretty big win to me.

0

wgp3 t1_ixejxvn wrote

You're exactly right which is why you're exactly wrong too. The majority of fuel is used getting into earth orbit. Once in earth orbit it takes basically the same amount of delta v to land on the moon as it does on Mars. This is due to the atmosphere of Mars being capable of slowing you down whereas no atmosphere on the moon. So a fuel stop on the moon is quite useless for going to mars.

As for a fuel stop in orbit around the moon then it becomes more likely. However, it would be easier to have one in earth orbit rather than lunar orbit. So it would be a long time before any fuel depot would be needed around the moon. Definitely not needed for any initial Mars missions.

4

Shmav t1_ixesn6y wrote

Taking off from the moon would still require less fuel than taking off from Earth. That would allow the spacecraft to have a lot more fuel to get to Mars and maneuver once there.

Also, they could launch a craft from the moon to refuel the craft headed for Mars, further reducing their fuel consumption. There are a few ways to skin that cat and make the trip to Mars easier and safer. In space travel, easier and safer seems like a pretty good idea to me.

−1

wgp3 t1_ixf12xs wrote

Taking off from the moon to go to mars would take less fuel but ignores the fact that we have to take off from earth first. You either take off from earth and go to mars, or you take off from earth go to the moon and then mars. To skip taking off on earth requires us to build out mining, manufacturing, and ship launching stations on the moon. All monumentally more difficult than just fueling up in earth orbit.

The trip to mars is not safer or easier by building out manufacturing and mining on the moon and then doing cryogenic transfer in deep space. Much safer to use earth resources and cryo transfer in earth orbit where if something goes wrong it can more easily be rectified.

There's a few ways to skin a cat but that doesnt mean they're all equal for the current tech level.

6

xylopyrography t1_ixepifj wrote

We never tried to go to the moon from 1972-2016. The technological development stopped.

The SLS technology is integration between 60 year old components.

The only new Moon-capable technology being developed is Starship, which really only started in 2016.

1