0
$\begingroup$

They can stay on the moon only around for 3 days because of the fuel but they need around 6 months to reach Mars. Now they are working on the Propellant depot project to be able to reach the moon and stay there longer. Why did not they use the Mars Mission technic? They can use the Mars Mission scenario for the moon mission and they can stay on the moon longer and no need for the propellant depot. Is there a difference between the Mars-Moon Mission propulsion systems?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ They don't need propellant to stay on the Moon longer. More propellant is needed to go farther, such as to Mars, not when you're staying on one location. If further Apollo missions weren't cancelled they would have had longer stays on the lunar surface than Apollo 17's 3 days. To stay longer on another planet/moon you just need enough food reserves and the final limit would be if electricity run out. $\endgroup$
    – Greenhorn
    Jan 16 at 8:55
  • $\begingroup$ If there is no Propellant issue, why are they working on the Propellant depot project? I have read 70% of the propellant is consumed only to reach LEO. please, why the Chinese mission stayed only 3 days on the moon to collect only 1.7 km from the moonstones. $\endgroup$ Jan 16 at 9:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I asked a related question: space.stackexchange.com/questions/49633/… $\endgroup$
    – Greenhorn
    Jan 16 at 9:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.