• Thorry84@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Could you explain to us how a vehicle capable of getting payload to Mars would not be capable of putting the same or even a greater payload on the moon? What is the obvious difference in design?

    As far as I understand it, getting to Mars is harder, requiring more energy to get there, more energy to slow down and having an atmosphere to content with. Sure aerobraking is a thing, but in the big picture having to deal with an atmosphere makes things harder and not easier.

    • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      delta v isn’t really a issue if you have orbital refueling and frequent+cheap flights figured out (as long as a full tank can complete a trans Martian injection and orbital capture at mars) , so I’d say they’re both similarly difficult:

      on Mars you have to deal with the atmosphere, higher gravity, etc

      on the moon you have to deal with the dusty surface, so you have issues with landing gear and landing engines kicking up dust

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I saw a graph of our local gravity wells, the moon and Mars are surprisingly similar. The moon has many extra challenges that Mars does not. Propulsively landing on a dust pile is trickier than slowing down with aerobraking.

      • kopasz7@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        And to land on Mars you need both, ideally. The athmosphere is too thin to rely on just aerobreaking and the other would use much more propulsion.