/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15369154
>Short stays are NOT justifiable from a moral perspective
They're not justifiable from a more technical perspective either. NASA is only considering opposition transfers because of pressure from old space lobbyists and because the military is using them as the public face for space nuclear technology development so a Mars mission using NEP or NTP might be a better sell to congress. Certainly the decades worth of development for a mission that realistically would happen no earlier than 2040 would line many pockets. Only recently have they alluded to the fact that these transfers can also be done by chemical so now they're doubling down on mass autism to imply vehicles like Starship would be bad while ignoring that these transfers take more delta-v compared to conjunction transfers, which reduces payload capability far more than the differences between the proposed propulsion methods.

The safest space for any astronaut that isn't on Earth, is in a pressurized structure covered by regolith as shielding, not loitering in space to get a slightly shorter total mission duration. The next safest place would be in vehicle like Starship which by then would be well vetted versus new technology with more unknown failure modes.