 | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Oddly enough most of the technology being discussed here actually exists, even though many of you would debate that fact. I would like to share my thoughts on this matter, as well as addressing the poster's original question here. Flight Time (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) By way of a purely information-gathering question, as opposed to some smart- alec sniping, I ask the following: Using this 1G acceleration, rather than having some last minute braking once you get to Mars, could you (or would you want to) (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Yes, that was (assumed? implied? you choose) in the question. See Todd's solution, (URL) Steve (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) smart- (...) once (...) 24- (...) Thanks for the clarification! (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Huh? Standard rockets carry all the fuel they need -- no air required. That's mostly what we've been using way up there, from the start. (...) But rockets aren't about efficient production of energy, they are about the efficient *storage* and (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Transit Time to Mars
|
| (...) Yeah. But that's not the problem - 1G constant acceleration is utterly impossible with current tech. (...) Quite possibly. (...) And when the Shuttle solid-fuel-booster blows, you get what? I don't think any of us are going to forget that day (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| |
