Daunting space mission: Send astronauts to asteroid

[Quantum Windbag]

The distance from the earth to the moon is a mere quarter of a million miles. The distance from the earth to Mars averages around 300 million miles. Building a base on the moon would require enormous resources and a lot of time. And you would still have to go 300 million miles. The moon may be smaller than the earth. It may have less gravity, but it's still a world. Much larger than an asteroid.

Does that mean we should just ignore it? There is water, and everything we need to make atmosphere, present on the moon. Building a base on the moon and using it as a staging area for the trip to Mars would actually save us money.

Some asteroids are miles across. Some are made from water. Water can be broken down into oxygen and hydrogen.

You must have gotten your hands on a brand new science book. I hope the third grade reading level was not to much for you.

Most NEOs are miniscule. The only large asteroids we know of are all beyond the orbit of mars. FYI, that means that we would actually have to pass Mars to get an asteroid like the one you are describing.

We've been using the same old chemical rockets since the 60's. We need to develop new technology. Rocket fuel won't get us very far. It burns too fast. The rocket have to be huge. Remember, we are talking 300 million miles. We used enormous rockets to get us to the moon and back and didn't even have enough fuel left to land. We had to splash down.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

If I climb outside a rocket and throw baseball in one direction I will me a rocket engine, and the baseballs will be fuel. Ion engines are rocket engines, and the fuel actually leaves them faster than the fuel leaves most chemically fueled rockets. It is not the speed of the fuel that matters it is the thrust. F=ma is a very simple formula, one I am sure even a person with your limited intelligence will understand. What makes a rocket go is how much mass you throw away and the acceleration at which it is thrown. Simple Newtonian physics.

By the way, we splashed down because we decided that made more sense than trying to land a rocket on land, not because we could not carry enough fuel to do so. It was an engineering decision, something that is beyond your limited brain's ability to understand the trade offs involved.

I think the right wing has difficulty understanding "innovation" and "new technology". Even here, they still want to do things the old fashioned way. They are not "forward thinkers". They are always "looking backward".

That is rich considering that you want to build ion rockets and use them to launch payloads into space from Earth's surface. I might be backward and hate new technology, but I at least understand how it works.

NASA's on board with this. They are excited about it and they are the ones that went to the moon.

NASA is not excited about this, they are just doing it because it is the only way they will exist until someone comes along with enough brains to see just how utterly stupid it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see no advantage to go to a asteroid. Its a waste of money, no?

No.

Where you have water and electricity, you can sustain life. Some asteroids are nearly sold iron. They could be mined. Others are pure ice. Ice is water. With electricity, you can break water down into Oxygen and Hydrogen. Hydrogen is a great fuel. Spaceships with football field sized solar panels can produce huge amounts of electricity. Imagine being able to refuel any time you want. Having smaller ships or rocket packs running on hydrogen and oxygen. Electrically generated light and heat.

There is so much possibility there.

Imagine having enough of a brain to realize that the asteroids you are talking about are outside the orbit of Mars.

 

[American Horse]

The distance from the earth to the moon is a mere quarter of a million miles. The distance from the earth to Mars averages around 300 million miles. Building a base on the moon would require enormous resources and a lot of time. And you would still have to go 300 million miles. The moon may be smaller than the earth. It may have less gravity, but it's still a world. Much larger than an asteroid.

Some asteroids are miles across. Some are made from water. Water can be broken down into oxygen and hydrogen.

We've been using the same old chemical rockets since the 60's. We need to develop new technology. Rocket fuel won't get us very far. It burns too fast. The rocket have to be huge. Remember, we are talking 300 million miles. We used enormous rockets to get us to the moon and back and didn't even have enough fuel left to land. We had to splash down.

I think the right wing has difficulty understanding "innovation" and "new technology". Even here, they still want to do things the old fashioned way. They are not "forward thinkers". They are always "looking backward".

NASA's on board with this. They are excited about it and they are the ones that went to the moon.

As you said the distance from the Earth to the Moon is a mere quarter of a million miles, and that is a few short days away, Mars is 1,200 times more distant on average. The gravity well of the Moon is a fraction that of Mars. Escape Velocity from Mars is 34.1 km/s and from the Moon only 1.4 – that’s just 1/24th the energy requirement if the two are interchangeable. At present we do not have the technology to land human beings on Mars, at least as far as NASA is concerned; we do have that for the moon.

On Mars, we either come in too fast and hot, or we have to use thrusters to brake and land. We have brake/thrust technology for moon landings, and that can be developed to a higher degree on the moon before going to Mars; contrariwise, an asteroid operation is not good practice for a Mars operation. The distance/journey time to asteroids approaches that of a Mars mission, and requires the development and applications of technology that will not benefit us for Mars missions– the Moon does. If we are training for long duration tolerances for crews, then asteroid missions would be good for those, but the moon offers that too.

To state there is nothing useful on the moon to justify a base or bases there (and I don't say you said that) is not accurate. There is plenty there, including water (we can take hydrogen for fuel), and Oxygen is abundant (lunar crust is 40 percent oxygen by mass) as a fuel compenent, and there are others yet to be discovered. Just recently our lunar explorer revealed that the large bulge on the near side and a much smaller one on the far side, just around the limb, named the “Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly” (C.B.T.A.) is abundant in the element thorium. Thorium is on the surface there, and like uranium, is excellent for producing nuclear energy, and in the process does not create Plutonium. Thorium would be excellent for use in breeder reactors. I’m not suggesting bringing it to Earth; I’m suggesting that it has use there for powering any energy intensive operation, such as a complete base. We do not know of any similar deposits on Mars. There is ample Uranium on the Moon too, fifty-eight pct. by elemental composition, but uranium is not in known concentrations like the thorium in the C.B.T.A.

It seems to me that a trip to an asteroid, while no doubt useful and potentially rewarding, is full of the potential for disaster that if it happened would stop in its tracks any forward movement of our manned exploration of space. The time frames for trips to asteroids approach those of Mars missions. There is no quick trip back for any trip-compromising-medical-emergency, as would be the case with the moon. The only benefit I see in an asteroid mission is that it would give us some information that would be useful for eventually tapping them or comets for resources; therefore they may provide an economic incentive to go beyond the Earth/Moon complex, out to Mars, (or even beyond) where volatile assets are accessible in concentrations, but that is hugely long range.

So the justification for going to asteroids is if we discovered a wealth of accessible resources on asteroids, then that would incentivize basing on Mars where we’d have Deimos, Phobos, and the asteroid belt all in close proximity, for a grand scheme for development. But the primary one offered by NASA seems to be that of “mastering techniques that could prove useful if a space rock ever took aim for our planet.”
Those are NASA’s words In those quotes.

The moon, is a very accessible as a base, and as such would help develop and accelerate our skills and expertise for manned operations. In either environment we will be operating in a virtual vacuum. I maintain we are much better positioned for a trip to Mars after developing skills and technology on the Moon than spending another quarter century visiting asteroids, a technology and skill-set that seems unrelated to a journey to Mars, other than practicing long, boring, trips with humans in close-in, difficult, and stress-inducing conditions.

You, Rdean, you say that NASA has bought into the asteroid phase of our Mars endeavor, but what choice do they have, really? Their search for justification is in bold 3-pargraphs above.

My post which you quoted mentions the ILEWG. They don’t buy into the new Obama/NASA/Bureaucracy plan. They are scientists, engineers, space industrialists, most likely not driven by conservative idealism, and they are not on board.

The Planetary Society (not an organization of "Luddites" - I’ve been a paying and charter member of since 1980) sees a real problem with the new plan. In the most recent issue (June 2011) of the Planetary Report:

“Join your voice with those of your fellow members as we fight to get politicians to support space exploration. If we don’t act now, damage will be done. We may lose the grand missions of discovery that we had hoped to see and that we hoped would inspire our children to achievements even greater than those of their parents and grandparents. It’s up to us to put space exploration back on course to the best possible future for this planet among other worlds.”The source material for my quotes of the ILEWG (in my post >>> HERE) came from the same issue of the June Planetary Report.

None of this has anything to do with innovation and your suggestion that only liberals have a lock on that. Using an ion drive to power a craft to Mars will no doubt be done unless our progress exceeds that making it obsolete; no doubt that will happen – for example look what happened to fixed wing air flight between 1906 (Wright Bros Biplane) and 1969 (Boeing 747s). That was just 53 years, the same amount of time as between Vanguard with its repeated explosions on the launch-pad and the present moment.


Why are we taking so long?
Read here >>> How We Can Fly to Mars in This Decade—And on the Cheap?
The technology now exists and at half the cost of a Space Shuttle flight. All that's lacking is the political will to take more risks.
By ROBERT ZUBRIN

BTW: and FYI, the liberal demography is much more heavily composed of Luddites than the conservative . . . .

 

[Patrick2]

Ihe International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG), a working group of scientists and others consisting of representatives from space agencies, scientific institutions and industry still leans toward staging any planned exploration of Mars beginning on the moon.

In addition to being the logical testing ground for missions to Mars, the international Lunar Base will be the political sine qua non for human flights beyond the moon. They contend that human missions to Mars are not feasible without some sort of apprenticeship. Bases in Martian caves will require preliminary testing of equipment and methods in lunar caves. They see the known existence of lava tube caves as natural ready made habitats to be exploited for temporary or permanent human presence on the moon and Mars.

I find it refreshing that there are others out there who see another route to Mars than the direct one, albeit after visiting asteroids and other space rocks. Its a good way of keeping our options open. Apparently the industry and others in the international community for space exploration don't want to be led by NASA and American presidents (not even the One) for their space exploration goals.

The distance from the earth to the moon is a mere quarter of a million miles. The distance from the earth to Mars averages around 300 million miles. Building a base on the moon would require enormous resources and a lot of time. And you would still have to go 300 million miles. The moon may be smaller than the earth. It may have less gravity, but it's still a world. Much larger than an asteroid.

Some asteroids are miles across. Some are made from water. Water can be broken down into oxygen and hydrogen.

We've been using the same old chemical rockets since the 60's. We need to develop new technology. Rocket fuel won't get us very far. It burns too fast. The rocket have to be huge. Remember, we are talking 300 million miles. We used enormous rockets to get us to the moon and back and didn't even have enough fuel left to land. We had to splash down.

I think the right wing has difficulty understanding "innovation" and "new technology". Even here, they still want to do things the old fashioned way. They are not "forward thinkers". They are always "looking backward".

NASA's on board with this. They are excited about it and they are the ones that went to the moon.

In fact, It's YOU who have misconceptions not entertained by people who have even an elementary grasp of relevent engineering and physics concepts.

 

[Harry Dresden]

LANETARY TRAVEL • MARS
29
By Evan Ackerman
6:47PM on Feb 11, 2011

Asteroid surfing could be the best way to get to Mars

0
digg

Share
Getting to Mars is going to involve building a huge spacecraft and loading it up with tons of fuel and radiation shielding. Unless, that is, we could just tag along with a spacecraft that's already headed in that direction, like an asteroid.

For an asteroid ferry to work, you'd have to be able to find a rock that's going to pass within a million miles or so of both Earth and Mars, which seems like a long shot. But, if you can wait until 2068, there will be two of them, both of which would drop you off close to Mars in under a year. The plan is pretty simple: just wait around in Earth orbit for the right asteroid to come by, jump on with all your gear, and then jump off again when it swings past Mars.

In addition to not having to, you know, build your own spaceship and stuff, asteroids also offer lots of radiation protection. This is important, since a round-trip voyage to Mars has the potential to increase cancer risk by up to 20% thanks to those nasty cosmic rays. In addition to being big and made of rock, space rocks would potentially have craters and caves that astronauts could hide out in, Millennium Falcon style. Just so long as they make sure it's actually a cave first.

Instead of just waiting around for a Mars-bound asteroid to randomly swing by Earth, another option is to just go wrangle an asteroid ourselves and push it where we want it to go. If we can get to one early enough, even a relatively small solar sail could provide enough thrust over time to nudge an asteroid into a useful Earth to Mars (or Mars to Earth) orbit. The eventual plan would be to stick one or more asteroids in permanent round-trip orbits, so you'd have a continual free ferry service from Earth to Mars and back.

Via National Geographic

 

[Harry Dresden]

here is something from some guys who know.....Dean and myself will understand this stuff......you Republicans will just have to ask someone......

Basics of Space Flight Section I. The Environment of Space

 

[daveman]

For an alleged engineer, rderp is incredibly ignorant about engineering.

I call shenanigans.

 

[Douger]

Warp ?
Plasma Engine Lift Off Set For 2011

 

[daveman]

Warp ?
Plasma Engine Lift Off Set For 2011

No, it's a reaction mass engine. It throws stuff one way and goes the other. And, like any chemical rocket, it still has to carry along mass to throw.

 

[whitehall]

Why do we assume it's America's problem? Because Bruce Willis and Morgan Freeman showed us how to do it in the movies? Let China or Russia take care of the problem. The last one hit Siberia and it took the Russians ten years to get to the site.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

here is something from some guys who know.....Dean and myself will understand this stuff......you Republicans will just have to ask someone......

Basics of Space Flight Section I. The Environment of Space

If Dean and you both understand the same thing that must mean you know as little about it as he does.

Since you invited questions, can you tell me how many objects actually travel a Hohman transfer orbit naturally?
























Would you like a hint?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LANETARY TRAVEL • MARS
29
By Evan Ackerman
6:47PM on Feb 11, 2011

Asteroid surfing could be the best way to get to Mars

0
digg

Share
Getting to Mars is going to involve building a huge spacecraft and loading it up with tons of fuel and radiation shielding. Unless, that is, we could just tag along with a spacecraft that's already headed in that direction, like an asteroid.

For an asteroid ferry to work, you'd have to be able to find a rock that's going to pass within a million miles or so of both Earth and Mars, which seems like a long shot. But, if you can wait until 2068, there will be two of them, both of which would drop you off close to Mars in under a year. The plan is pretty simple: just wait around in Earth orbit for the right asteroid to come by, jump on with all your gear, and then jump off again when it swings past Mars.

In addition to not having to, you know, build your own spaceship and stuff, asteroids also offer lots of radiation protection. This is important, since a round-trip voyage to Mars has the potential to increase cancer risk by up to 20% thanks to those nasty cosmic rays. In addition to being big and made of rock, space rocks would potentially have craters and caves that astronauts could hide out in, Millennium Falcon style. Just so long as they make sure it's actually a cave first.

Instead of just waiting around for a Mars-bound asteroid to randomly swing by Earth, another option is to just go wrangle an asteroid ourselves and push it where we want it to go. If we can get to one early enough, even a relatively small solar sail could provide enough thrust over time to nudge an asteroid into a useful Earth to Mars (or Mars to Earth) orbit. The eventual plan would be to stick one or more asteroids in permanent round-trip orbits, so you'd have a continual free ferry service from Earth to Mars and back.

Via National Geographic

I used to think National Geographic understood basic science.

A few questions.

• How are the astronauts supposed to live while riding the asteroid?
• How can we insure that the asteroid will actually be between the astronauts and the sun when needed?
• How is it less fuel intensive to grab asteroids and later their orbits than to just use ships?
• Do you have any idea how light it is possible to make radiation shielding if you do not use metals?
• Can you explain to this ignorant right winger why we should not go to the moon?

 

[rdean]

I see no advantage to go to a asteroid. Its a waste of money, no?

No.

Where you have water and electricity, you can sustain life. Some asteroids are nearly sold iron. They could be mined. Others are pure ice. Ice is water. With electricity, you can break water down into Oxygen and Hydrogen. Hydrogen is a great fuel. Spaceships with football field sized solar panels can produce huge amounts of electricity. Imagine being able to refuel any time you want. Having smaller ships or rocket packs running on hydrogen and oxygen. Electrically generated light and heat.

There is so much possibility there.

Imagine having enough of a brain to realize that the asteroids you are talking about are outside the orbit of Mars.

We have Trojan asteroids sharing our orbit. I wasn't going to respond to you because you are just so stupid, but I couldn't resist that one. You probably think I'm suggesting there's condoms in space.

 

[rdean]

LANETARY TRAVEL • MARS
29
By Evan Ackerman
6:47PM on Feb 11, 2011

Asteroid surfing could be the best way to get to Mars

0
digg

Share
Getting to Mars is going to involve building a huge spacecraft and loading it up with tons of fuel and radiation shielding. Unless, that is, we could just tag along with a spacecraft that's already headed in that direction, like an asteroid.

For an asteroid ferry to work, you'd have to be able to find a rock that's going to pass within a million miles or so of both Earth and Mars, which seems like a long shot. But, if you can wait until 2068, there will be two of them, both of which would drop you off close to Mars in under a year. The plan is pretty simple: just wait around in Earth orbit for the right asteroid to come by, jump on with all your gear, and then jump off again when it swings past Mars.

In addition to not having to, you know, build your own spaceship and stuff, asteroids also offer lots of radiation protection. This is important, since a round-trip voyage to Mars has the potential to increase cancer risk by up to 20% thanks to those nasty cosmic rays. In addition to being big and made of rock, space rocks would potentially have craters and caves that astronauts could hide out in, Millennium Falcon style. Just so long as they make sure it's actually a cave first.

Instead of just waiting around for a Mars-bound asteroid to randomly swing by Earth, another option is to just go wrangle an asteroid ourselves and push it where we want it to go. If we can get to one early enough, even a relatively small solar sail could provide enough thrust over time to nudge an asteroid into a useful Earth to Mars (or Mars to Earth) orbit. The eventual plan would be to stick one or more asteroids in permanent round-trip orbits, so you'd have a continual free ferry service from Earth to Mars and back.

Via National Geographic

I used to think National Geographic understood basic science.

A few questions.

• How are the astronauts supposed to live while riding the asteroid?
• How can we insure that the asteroid will actually be between the astronauts and the sun when needed?
• How is it less fuel intensive to grab asteroids and later their orbits than to just use ships?
• Do you have any idea how light it is possible to make radiation shielding if you do not use metals?
• Can you explain to this ignorant right winger why we should not go to the moon?

Riding the asteroid? It's not a horse. How do astronauts live while in the space station? I suspect it's very similiar.

We know where asteroids are because we use things like "telescopes".

Some asteroids are miles across weighing billions of tons. We won't "grab" them.

Radiation shielding? Some asteroids are nearly solid iron. Also, we have been developing new alloys. There are planes made from carbon whose windows and doors are "lasered" opened. I'm sure the last 10 years on the International Space Station have been used for more than just "sight seeing".

The moon is a mere quarter million miles from earth. Mars is 300 million miles from earth. The distance from the earth to Mars and from the Moon to Mars is virtually the same. Better to build a gas station half way than next door.

 

[Harry Dresden]

here is something from some guys who know.....Dean and myself will understand this stuff......you Republicans will just have to ask someone......

Basics of Space Flight Section I. The Environment of Space

If Dean and you both understand the same thing that must mean you know as little about it as he does.

Since you invited questions, can you tell me how many objects actually travel a Hohman transfer orbit naturally?
























Would you like a hint?

geezus QW take it easy.......you did see this little fella at the end of my retort...........did you not?......

 

[American Horse]

The "asteroid ride" concept is beyond ridiculous.

1. All asteroids rotate just like earth does so we'd spend half our time exposed to radiation from the sun, and still be 100% exposed to cosmic rays, so there's no advantage. We already have ample good methods for radiation shielding while in deep space.

2. Once we attain the speed of the asteroid there's no advantage as a mode of transportation because we'd already have the speed and orbit we'd need to reach our destination.

3. The rotation of the asteroid would nullify our use of solar panels and they'd be rendered only 50% effective to its shadow effect. (See 1)

4. If we're going to draw energy from the asteroid by mining volatiles, we don't have that skill-set, and that would complicate a simple coast to Mars at any rate. (See 2)

5. The asteroid concept seems to be a matter of taking a straightforward model and complicating it to a point of never happening.

6. Waiting for the right asteroid is going to be a long wait.

7. OTHERS?

 

[American Horse]

It was a Democrat congress and president that cancelled the Superconducting-Super Collider back in 1993; It's the Democrats who cancelled a real plan to get to Mars by developing our capacity to do so from basing on the moon begun more than 40 years ago; It's the Republicans who now cancel the James Webb Telescope, the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope which could answer some of the same questions as the SSC. NASA should never have name the scope after Senator James Webb.

But it's exclusively Dems and Liberals who oppose irradiated food, genetically modified food, DDT reprising the scourge of malarial deaths in Africa where it could be used selectively . . . .

When I talk to my friends some of who are libs and some who are cons, it's the cons who support going to Mars, and the libs who condemn spending the money on it.
I think the libs are seeking an elegant way of nullifying the manned exploration of Mars, substituting the perfect for the practical.

Who are the real Luddite's vis-a-vis science?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No.

Where you have water and electricity, you can sustain life. Some asteroids are nearly sold iron. They could be mined. Others are pure ice. Ice is water. With electricity, you can break water down into Oxygen and Hydrogen. Hydrogen is a great fuel. Spaceships with football field sized solar panels can produce huge amounts of electricity. Imagine being able to refuel any time you want. Having smaller ships or rocket packs running on hydrogen and oxygen. Electrically generated light and heat.

There is so much possibility there.

Imagine having enough of a brain to realize that the asteroids you are talking about are outside the orbit of Mars.

We have Trojan asteroids sharing our orbit. I wasn't going to respond to you because you are just so stupid, but I couldn't resist that one. You probably think I'm suggesting there's condoms in space.

There is one (1) trojan asteroid that has been confirmed leading the Earth in its orbit around the sun, and zero (0) following it.

Which one of is stupid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Riding the asteroid? It's not a horse. How do astronauts live while in the space station? I suspect it's very similiar.

Did you read the article Dresden posted?

For an asteroid ferry to work, you'd have to be able to find a rock that's going to pass within a million miles or so of both Earth and Mars, which seems like a long shot. But, if you can wait until 2068, there will be two of them, both of which would drop you off close to Mars in under a year. The plan is pretty simple: just wait around in Earth orbit for the right asteroid to come by, jump on with all your gear, and then jump off again when it swings past Mars.

Does that sound like a space station to you?

We know where asteroids are because we use things like "telescopes".

Telescopes?

FYI, I ground my own 6" mirror for a reflecting telescope when I was in grade school. I actually met the last man to discover a planet when I was in high school. I went to his house and looked through his telescope. I have been to observatories in 4 states and 2 countries. My favorite was Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory.

I would suggest you take your condensation and your assumption that you know more about the universe than I do and shove it up your ass.

Some asteroids are miles across weighing billions of tons. We won't "grab" them.

The article Dresden posted envisioned asteroids being put in permanent orbit between Earth and Mars. How will that happen if we do not grab them?

That article

Radiation shielding? Some asteroids are nearly solid iron. Also, we have been developing new alloys. There are planes made from carbon whose windows and doors are "lasered" opened. I'm sure the last 10 years on the International Space Station have been used for more than just "sight seeing".

How does that answer my question?

The moon is a mere quarter million miles from earth. Mars is 300 million miles from earth. The distance from the earth to Mars and from the Moon to Mars is virtually the same. Better to build a gas station half way than next door.

There are no asteroids halfway between the Earth and Mars. Are we going to build a gas station without putting it anywhere? Why do we need a gas station anyway, we would use virtually no fuel between the Earth and Mars. Space travel does not work like driving across the country, we coast most of the time.

 

[daveman]

Riding the asteroid? It's not a horse. How do astronauts live while in the space station? I suspect it's very similiar.

Did you read the article Dresden posted?

For an asteroid ferry to work, you'd have to be able to find a rock that's going to pass within a million miles or so of both Earth and Mars, which seems like a long shot. But, if you can wait until 2068, there will be two of them, both of which would drop you off close to Mars in under a year. The plan is pretty simple: just wait around in Earth orbit for the right asteroid to come by, jump on with all your gear, and then jump off again when it swings past Mars.

Does that sound like a space station to you?



Telescopes?

FYI, I ground my own 6" mirror for a reflecting telescope when I was in grade school. I actually met the last man to discover a planet when I was in high school. I went to his house and looked through his telescope. I have been to observatories in 4 states and 2 countries. My favorite was Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory.

I would suggest you take your condensation and your assumption that you know more about the universe than I do and shove it up your ass.



The article Dresden posted envisioned asteroids being put in permanent orbit between Earth and Mars. How will that happen if we do not grab them?

That article

Radiation shielding? Some asteroids are nearly solid iron. Also, we have been developing new alloys. There are planes made from carbon whose windows and doors are "lasered" opened. I'm sure the last 10 years on the International Space Station have been used for more than just "sight seeing".

How does that answer my question?

The moon is a mere quarter million miles from earth. Mars is 300 million miles from earth. The distance from the earth to Mars and from the Moon to Mars is virtually the same. Better to build a gas station half way than next door.

There are no asteroids halfway between the Earth and Mars. Are we going to build a gas station without putting it anywhere? Why do we need a gas station anyway, we would use virtually no fuel between the Earth and Mars. Space travel does not work like driving across the country, we coast most of the time.

Holy shit, but rderp's stupid.