You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Tell me what you think would be the most effective and why. I would like to know if I missed any.
"I am the spritual son of Abraham, I fear no man and no man controls my destiny"
Offline
Nuclear Thermal, I gather will do it. It's off the shelf, safe and have many uses besides a Mars mission. Nuclear Pulse Propulsion (Nuclear Bomb Rocket) is great but probably not necessary to get to Mars. With a terrific thrust and 10,000 Isp, it could nevertheless become the equivalent of a huge ocean liner, independent Solar System explorer, or special, super heavy lifter.
The explanation of Thought Power Propulson made today's laugh!
:laugh:
Offline
I voted for Chemical. I believe that it would be the most "effective" way to go.
I would rather go by Nuclear Thermal or Nuclear Electric but I think the chances of convincing everyone that it could be done cheaply, safely and developed relatively quickly are not very good.
Offline
Nuclear thermal is the obvious choice for a manned Mars mission. Although it will be fairly expensive to develop, the benefits are plainly evident. The USAF considerd using a NTR engine to replace the hypergolic first stage of their rockets, which would have had an efficency of 225% of that for the Shuttle's SSME cryogenic engine, the most efficient rocket in the world.
Instead of a cramped tuna can for four to ride out over 6-12 months of each leg, more of a bulky capsule in the case of Mars Direct's ERV, one ship launched in two pieces by an SDV, perhaps fueled and given a fueled Mars decent lander by EELV HLVs, that is roomie and safe with a heavy-duty cosmic radiation shield that can get there in four months to avoid crew deconditioning.
Plus, this nuclear engine would be reuseable, since it would carry all or most of the fuel it would need to return to Earth from Mars orbit, eliminating the need for a ERV at all.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Assuming that (1) the political will to make nuclear engines can be mustered; (2) that it can be aerobraked (otherwise you need a lot of fuel to slow it down); (3) that it really can be reused (the plans I have seen call for expendible nuclear engines).
Solar electric propulsion to L1 for cargo and chemical propulsion from there on for cargo and people has none of those drawbacks, involves scaling up existing ion engines, and should have lower development costs.
--RobS
Offline
Pages: 1