3 ms·
I'd expect that's about the size of the problem. Putting an aircraft carrier on mars, but with the carrier deck used to grow food, and the "propulsion" energy g
by jaggederest 8y ago
I'd expect that's about the size of the problem. Putting an aircraft carrier on mars, but with the carrier deck used to grow food, and the "propulsion" energy going to electrolyse and feed forward into the sabatier process.
Give it 3-5 of the A4W reactors for "a year between transit windows" redundancy, and you're starting to get into the ballpark.
Putting a pair of $13 billion dollar, 110,000 ton nuclear vessel on mars would "only" cost $110bln. A steal, really, when you think about it.
- gotocake 8y agoIt would cost a lot more, that’s just the cost of lift raw tonnage of the carriers themselves. You also have to lift the machinery to assemble and maintain them, spares of pretty much everything, and the cost of developing and lifting all of that. I think we’d all be looking at the “modest” billions inflate into enormous trillions before we knew it. Of course if it actually worked it would potentially be worth it.