2 ms·
That's for a minimum energy Hohmann transfer, and within the launch window. To be truly threatening, nukes aimed at Mars have to be much more wasteful in terms
by iwwr 5y ago
That's for a minimum energy Hohmann transfer, and within the launch window. To be truly threatening, nukes aimed at Mars have to be much more wasteful in terms of payload for the reaction mass. You can get to Mars in a day or less, but with a lot more energy needs, it's a matter of what you're willing to pay.
- gus_massa 5y agoWhat's the time for a realistic scenario like "I'm in a hurry but I don't have unlimited money" ?
- iwwr 5y agoI would imagine a human civilization with a sizable Mars city is already pretty adept at putting big payloads into space, so their understanding of "cheap" might be considered quite wasteful for the present day. On the other hand, if you can hide nukes in small packages in Mars orbit, maybe you don't need to launch all the way from Earth.
- gus_massa 5y agoThe exponential part of the rocket equation makes time reduction too difficult even if you have a bigger budget. I found this from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars > Shorter Mars mission plans have round-trip flight times of 400 to 450 days, but would require significantly higher energy. A fast Mars mission of 245 days round trip could be possible with on-orbit staging. In 2014 ballistic capture was proposed, which may reduce fuel cost and provide more flexible launch windows compared to the Hohmann.