/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14594520
Except NTP or NEP wouldn't do that.
>>14594485
>39 days require 200 megawatt nuclear power
A 200 MW reactor at least 500 times lighter per kW than the SNAP-10a reactor demonstrated by the US and hundreds of times lighter than reactors in the Project Prometheus proposals.
>>14594510
VASIMR isn't available, in 2017 NASA gave it a goal to exceed mere 100 hours during testing and they've consistently failed to reach it. Even if it worked properly the performance wouldn't be that good. The X3 Nested-channel Hall thruster is like VASIMR but it actually works.

>>14557929
>The total time off Earth with an opposition transfer is 2/3 that of a conjunction, it's a substantial difference in radiation exposure which is why NASA has chosen it.
Will this meme ever die? The radiation exposure is on par, if not worse. NASA used to prefer conjunction transfers in their manned Mars mission architecture but then they finally had to acknowledge that it could be done by chemical propulsion within two decades so in their everlasting quest to do everything in the worst way possible or not at all, they've been investigating opposition transfers and old space is chomping at the bit to turn NTP into the new SLS.
>oh but the extra habitation mass, the extra supplies needed to stay on Mars more than 30 days!
Funny that this usually gets brought up but not the fact that an opposition transfer needs 2-3x the amount of delta-v so far more mass is required overall. Not to mention it would require a separate lander. Fuck anyone who supports this.