Brent Allsop wrote:
> email@example.com commented:
> > 86400 secs/day, not 8640. Your trip takes 1.4 days rather than 14.
> > Also Mars gets closer than 90 million miles, more like 60 or 65
> > million.
> Oh, it doesn't help when you drop a zero, sorry about that.
> Thanks for pointing out the errors.
Since I was only assuming, and approximating that distance to be
sometime near conjunction, not actually 'at' conjunction, then I'm still
free and clear! ;0P
> Wow, constant 1G acceleration is quite fast isn't it! Getting
> to Mars in under a week (even when it is not at its closest to us)
> wouldn't be bad at all.
Yup. This is something I've been yapping about for the longest time. The
problem with current space propulsion is its dependency on mass. We need
Now, given the estimate of two weeks with that americium drive, such a
drive would only offer a maximum of a fraction of a g acceleration.
Frankly I like Zubrin's uranium salt water fission drive concept better.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:16 MDT