/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12315204
>nuclear engine that somehow doesn't need fuel and chemical engines work just fine despite your baseless claim.

>Under some scenarios by which the company aims to send humans to Mars, a Super Heavy rocket would launch a Mars-bound Starship to low-Earth orbit. At that point, the spacecraft would need to top its fuel tanks back up in order to get its payload all the way to the Red Planet. It's estimated that five Starship launches' worth of fuel (as payload) would be required to refuel a single Mars-bound Starship in low-Earth orbit, and this would involve the transfer of hundreds of tons of methane and liquid oxygen.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/nasa-agrees-to-work-with-spacex-on-orbital-refueling-technology/

Versus (in real applications)
>The reactors aboard the George Washington contain enough nuclear fuel to fully power the ship and all of its onboard needs for approximately 20 years.
https://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

One lift and you have a nuclear engine, ready to use, that will need refuelling in 20 years, against 5 refuellings in orbit for trip.
Chances are you will have to stablish something like this in the Moon
https://www.space.com/30838-manned-mars-mission-moon-refueling.html
To make it cheaper than refuelling from Earth.

> urr urr fantasy nuclear rocket
Is technology that exists since the 60s retard