I got this crazy idea for a Mars mission. Why not send a fully stocked ISS there first & leave it in orbit?

Question

Me bad , I should have made it clear that THE ISS would be unmanned and would carry everything needed for the crew when they arrived including supplies for the trip home. It would also provide a safe place to go to if a problem arose on the outbound journey.

Answer 1

It's amazing how people can read a clearly stated question and give you such crazy answers. Your idea is a good one, and in fact we DO have the technology to do it right now. It would also create a good deal of jobs and economic growth in the aerospace community.
The hardest part would be in maintaining the ISS's orbit over Mars until we could man it.
But, don't let the first two answers get you down.
Lots of idiots also think we never landed on the moon, too. Just because they post it doesn't mean they're right.

Answer 2

Many reasons, not the least of which is the rocket equation which will tell you that you need an amount of propellant larger than the ISS to send the ISS to Mars orbit. Also, the ISS must be restocked every 6 months and constantly repaired by the crew living on board. Easier and cheaper to just send a large can of supplied to Mars. No fancy space station, just a simple metal container. Of course such a stash of supplies is useless if no people are at Mars, so don't waste the $ to do it until some people are ready to go.

Answer 3

each and every challenge that NASA performs could desire to have congressional approval, a particular fund quantity specific, and can't deviate from this script. Congress has basically appropriated money to NASA's Human Spaceflight courses for Low Earth Orbit missions, no exceptions, ever because of the fact the Nixon administration canceled the Apollo challenge. A manned software to return to the Moon grow to be approved through G. W. Bush, yet canceled through the Obama administration a pair of three hundred and sixty 5 days in the past. So now, even the Constellation software seems to be killed off. undergo in innovations, now that each and every person the companies that had contracts for the Apollo missions have had to alter their centers to the desires of as we communicate's marketplace, or went out of employer, the startup expenses for manned spaceflight previous Earth orbit would be intense. and ultimately, the obtrusive answer is... our robotic probes can do ninety% of the flaws human beings can do on Mars, with 0 hazard to life or well being of folk, and at approximately 0.002% of the completed fee.

Answer 4

ACtually, your idea is similar to one that Edwin Aldrin (Buzz Aldrin) had about 25 years ago - an orbiting station around Mars, and a freely traveling "cargo/human" ship in a solar orbit that crossed Earths' and Mars' orbits every 6 to 9 months. A 'docking module' would detach from the cargo/human ship, and jump off at Mars, using aerodynamic braking & rendezvous with the orbiting station. When it was time to leave mars, 18 months later, they would leave orbit & dock with the cargo/human ship, and ride it back to Earth.

Answer 5

You're right . It's crazy. The ISS has no propulsion system to get there and would need constant resupply missions.

Answer 6

France announced last week they will send people to Mars in about 5 years. Considering the riots in Paris last year, my guess is they are looking for a place to send muslims so we can have peace on earth.

Answer 7

Because that's unbelievably expensive, and we'd have to put it together here, in space near Earth, and then launch it there from space. We don't have the technology to do that right now.