Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NotShey t1_j5z6awx wrote

Reply to comment by phoenix1984 in NASA Validates Revolutionary Propulsion Design for Deep Space Missions by Gari_305

Can't know any of that without more information. We don't know the thrust-to-weight ratio for instance.

In general though, no chemical rocket is going to be able to be run continuously for the weeks and months it would take to travel to mars. You do your burn, then you coast. Optimizing the rocket is about squeezing percentage points of efficiency out of the fuel you carry. In order to do a continues burn, even for a short trip to the moon, much less mars, you would need something MUCH more fuel efficient than any chemical rocket. Nuclear possibly, or an ion drive.

6

Gari_305 OP t1_j5zukrh wrote

>In order to do a continues burn, even for a short trip to the moon, much less mars, you would need something MUCH more fuel efficient than any chemical rocket.

Rotary Detonation Engines are fuel efficient. Here's a youtube video that goes into further detail into the matter.

1

NotShey t1_j5zzj6u wrote

It's still, fundamentally, a chemical rocket. You light shit on fire and sling it out the back end. There are basic physical limitations on how efficient it can possibly be.

6