/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14595458
>NASA's current plans for putting feet on Mars is a EMVE transfer in 2039
Give me a real source like the Mars DRA, you've only moved the goal posts to that after we discussed Mars transfers far too many times while you performed mental gymnastics trying to come up with a reason why opposition transfers aren't complete fucking trash despite that with the lower delta-v required for a conjunction transfer you could literally encase the transfer vehicle in lead and still land a larger payload on Mars. Do you think most informed spaceflight enthusiasts can't tell exactly what NASA is doing when they pretend a human Mars mission is only possible with some far off propulsion method?
>it requires a delta V that chemical propulsion cannot provide
Once again it's dependent on the transfer window, some years chemical could do EMVE, other years including 2039 it couldn't realistically be done by any propulsion they're considering.

>>14585431
>>14585435
It's funny considering that Starship could do all of those missions, even the opposition class mission for which they would need 11 launches and drop tanks. Old space is doing mental gymnastics trying to find a purpose for NTP.