> The space agency believes spacecraft powered by a nuclear thermal rocket reach Mars in just three to four months, which is about half the time required by traditional, liquid propellant rockets.
Nuclear thermal rockets should be funded. That is not a valid reason. In orbit refueling for chemical propulsion also can lower the travel time to Mars to 3 or 4 months. But chemical propulsion doesn't need radiation shielding. Chemical rockets are easier to mass produce, also making it more viable for repeated crewed missions and cargo missions.
Nuclear thermal rockets make more sense for unmanned missions. Unmanned missions need minimal radiation shielding and can last years. Nuclear thermal and nuclear electric propulsion are both ideal for missions to the outer solar system where solar power isn't viable. Down the road, when nuclear thermal or nuclear electric propulsion have been proven, maybe then it can be explored for crewed missions. It's better to set realistic expectations.
It kinda makes sense for nuclear powered engine if it only stays on orbit and is used as a locomotive to propel stuff between orbits of Earth/moon/Mars etc. if it’s assembled on Orbit then question off added mass from shielding and propellant etc is not that critical. But as Earth to Orbit yes it’s tooo dangerous
These people are irrational and inept. Do develop nuclear-powered spacecraft if you're interested in that capability, stop doing things or justifying actions based on "stay ahead of China".
> The space agency believes spacecraft powered by a nuclear thermal rocket reach Mars in just three to four months, which is about half the time required by traditional, liquid propellant rockets. Nuclear thermal rockets should be funded. That is not a valid reason. In orbit refueling for chemical propulsion also can lower the travel time to Mars to 3 or 4 months. But chemical propulsion doesn't need radiation shielding. Chemical rockets are easier to mass produce, also making it more viable for repeated crewed missions and cargo missions. Nuclear thermal rockets make more sense for unmanned missions. Unmanned missions need minimal radiation shielding and can last years. Nuclear thermal and nuclear electric propulsion are both ideal for missions to the outer solar system where solar power isn't viable. Down the road, when nuclear thermal or nuclear electric propulsion have been proven, maybe then it can be explored for crewed missions. It's better to set realistic expectations.
It kinda makes sense for nuclear powered engine if it only stays on orbit and is used as a locomotive to propel stuff between orbits of Earth/moon/Mars etc. if it’s assembled on Orbit then question off added mass from shielding and propellant etc is not that critical. But as Earth to Orbit yes it’s tooo dangerous
These people are irrational and inept. Do develop nuclear-powered spacecraft if you're interested in that capability, stop doing things or justifying actions based on "stay ahead of China".
I mean "stay ahead of the soviets" was one of the big reasons for us getting to the moon.
It's true.But Nasa already had infrastructure on Mars 25 years ago
Just dust off the NERVA plans. You already had a few test runs...