Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

NASA's crazy mars idea!

  1. Sep 23, 2005 #1
    surely building a craft to go to Mars without any infrastructure is pretty pointless & will end up being as beneficial as the moon. Wouldnt developing a petrol station in orbit be a better idea, and then a interplanetary ship that doesnt land but stays in space & a way to get up & down to it from ground. This seems like a better more useful infrastructured way of doing it that would allow for future missions etc. Also note that fuel can be harvested from orbit with electromagnetism to collect & pressurize it if need be.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 24, 2005 #2
    What good would that do? Would that explore the surface for possible landing sites from the ground? no. Would it be beneficial to us? not really. Would it cost money? Way more than NASA has. Can this collection method actually be done with our current technology? Not to my knowledge, no. So why is sending a probe or two to find if theres water on it for possible terraforming, or for possible landing sites of other mars bound craft, Crazy in your eyes?

    The Moon was very beneficial to us, as well. We learned much about our universe, invented new technologies that helped speed along the process of computers and communication technology, as well as other technological advancements.

    I believe what they did was a very good idea, and that your ideas are a bit... ahead of our time.
  4. Sep 24, 2005 #3
    They can find all the water they want on Mars, Just land a probe at the edge of its polar ice cap. only ovious place to look concidering we know there is moisture there, Not all water, but, It's the best place to explore even for Arctic type life forms (micro-bacterial) under the rocks just like they found at our own Artctic region here on Earth. It frustrates me every time NASA sends a probe to a tropical region of Mars. Duh!!!!!!!!
  5. Sep 24, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It simply requires less energy, and therefore less fuel and mass, since one does not have to change the orbital inclination by sending the satellite/probe to near equatorial orbit.

    from Ice belt 'encircled Mars equator' - and" Europe's Mars Express probe may have found evidence for a band of ice that once spanned the Martian equator."

    Harvesting fuel on orbit is problematic because of the very low particle density (essentially a vacuum). It certainly would make more sense to lauch a fuel depot to orbit mars and wait there for astronauts to arrive.

    No need for a manned spacecraft to take everything along. They just need a well shielded craft and go complete orbital transfer as quickly as possible - but that requires more energy than say a Hohman transfer.
  6. Sep 24, 2005 #5
    forget the fuel harvesting, but my main queston still holds. ay down some infrastructure first or all missions will end up being expensive one-offs, rather than something that can be built upon.
  7. Sep 26, 2005 #6
    It is much easier to build the station over there, after we have an areoestrial base. Sending a station from Earth-orbit to Mars-orbit is pretty damned expensive, fuel-wise and economically. The gravity well of Mars is much less steep than ours, meaning less fuel (and less cash!) is needed to launch a spacecraft or space station into LMO.
  8. Sep 27, 2005 #7
    I agree, thats why I was suggesting a simple craft to get us into earth orbit to meet up with an interplanatery ship(that never lands, just orbits) & dump any left over fuel into the space station that they meet at ready for transfering to the interplanetary ship. An old adapted shuttle might do the job, with a rocket supplying it
  9. Sep 27, 2005 #8
    i like the the idea of launching from a space station or even from the moon think about how much fuel we would save not have to escape from the earths gravity
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook