6 ms·
It sounds like you’re referring to nuclear pulse propulsion, a proposed method of reaching Mars from the Earth’s surface in 2 weeks.[1] I’m not sure what’s “ho
by blisterpeanuts 4y ago
It sounds like you’re referring to nuclear pulse propulsion, a proposed method of reaching Mars from the Earth’s surface in 2 weeks.[1]
I’m not sure what’s “horrible” about it. Research was halted because of the Test Ban Treaty, but if a safe way could be found to get the nuclear material into orbit, why not try it?
2 weeks is far better than 45 days which is what Nasa estimates nuclear thermal propulsion would achieve.
Zero gravity and space radiation are deadly to humans, and the more exposure we can cut, the better.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion
- wkat4242 4y agoIn the 60s we were much too cavalier about nuclear pollution. Barfing out nuclear isotopes everywhere is just not feasible. The whole spacecraft would get polluted with it. The same attitude also gave us the Russian RORSATs, many nuclear reactor cores are still in a parking orbit and will come down at some point in the future. I don't think the launch issue is the main problem: after all the nuclear thermal system also requires nuclear materials in orbit.
- midoridensha 4y agoIt's horrible because it'll pollute outer space with deadly radiation! /s