That no matter how little fuel you need to leave a moon it has little or no advantage when you can make your return fuel on Mars? It takes about the same fuel and rocket power to reach either one. You need to carry little fuel for the return either way. There is almost no difference in lift capacity required for the same package delivered to either Mars or its moons if CO2 is converted to return fuel.
The difference is you have to invest in at least one launch ahead of time to send the fuel station to Mars. You also have a third launch if you use a second fuel module as a backup as Mars Direct does. This can be used for subsequent missions if not needed on the first. The first and third launches do not involve risk to human crews. You have one human crew enduring the hazards of 12 months of 0 g with a respite in a significant gravity. A moon only mission leaves you with over a year in low gravity and a significant reduction in the potential of human research.
Regards,
Mark
Space/Science » in reply to "You need to take your return fuel with you to a Martian moon which means you also need the fuel to carry it. "
What Is So Hard For People To Understand?
The whole thread (30 posts)
- Orbiting but not Landing on Mars
- And What Are You Talking About With Regard To Launch Windows?
- It's Far Past Time You Read Something On Using Martian Resources Raoul
- "You need to take your return fuel with you to a Martian moon which means you also need the fuel to carry it. "
- re: It's Far Past Time You Read Something On Using Martian Resources Raoul
- The problems with using Martian resources for the return trip.