tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post3412779952510665640..comments2024-03-28T00:36:19.403-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: The Weekly MoonshipRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-46215583189745510652017-09-18T19:27:48.394-07:002017-09-18T19:27:48.394-07:00Here is something to make the regular moonship a l...Here is something to make the regular moonship a lot easier.<br />http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2017/09/low-earth-orbit-atmospheric-scoops.htmlJim Baerghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182949391365921637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-8482662678866883082015-07-21T13:05:32.266-07:002015-07-21T13:05:32.266-07:00Calvin: "One more reason to have a moonbase a...Calvin: "One more reason to have a moonbase at one of the poles is that it could fire a beam retrograde to the moon’s orbit all month-long"<br /><br />You could do that from anywhere on the trailing hemisphere of the moon. The advantage of putting the magbeam at one of the poles is that it could turn 180° to point forward or backward. You want forward to bring the earth to moon shuttle up to the velocity of the moon in orbit around the earth or to speed up an interplanetary craft to over earth escape speed. You want backward to send the shuttle from moon to earth.Jim Baergnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-77316845729394108232015-07-07T17:14:31.796-07:002015-07-07T17:14:31.796-07:00A 'spacecoach' sounds like, at minimum, it...A 'spacecoach' sounds like, at minimum, it would just be a hab, logistics module, and a power/propulsion module. Cheap, simple, just enough to get a few people and some cargo to an already established site. Maybe use them to support far-flung research bases scattered throughout the system. Much fodder for stories.<br /><br />Ferrellfro1797https://www.blogger.com/profile/00692480930004754654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-10720093081811800922015-07-06T14:17:23.257-07:002015-07-06T14:17:23.257-07:00Welcome to the discussion threads! Readers and com...Welcome to the discussion threads! Readers and commenters like you are the main reason I have re-launched (so to speak!) Rocketpunk Manifesto.<br /><br />An interesting twist on beamed propulsion - especially the part about the propellant also coming from the beam station, being (I gather?) bank-shot, so to speak, off the spacecraft being hustled along.<br /><br />I don't think this tech would be a great fit for the 'spacecoach', though, for a bit of a roundabout reason. It falls into the class of 'electric railroad' approaches (see top of thread) that are optimized for heavy, steady traffic. Not a drive for heading into the back of beyond. Of course you could fit the spacecoach like those trucks the railroads use for inspection - raise the pantograph and zing along, then start the onboard engine, lower the rubber tires, and head into the boondocks.<br /><br />But since the spacecoach is mainly for the boondocks, no reason for it to carry gear (whatever deflects the beam to scoot the ship along) that it rarely uses. So more likely the spacecoach would simply be shipped as a freight payload to the 'railhead', then proceed on its way from there.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-88202746533799996942015-07-06T08:23:21.598-07:002015-07-06T08:23:21.598-07:00Hello everyone,
I started reading this blog about...Hello everyone, <br />I started reading this blog about when it started to die down and am really excited to join the conversation.<br /><br />I’d like to bring up magbeam propulsion as a really interesting technology for getting around in earth orbital space and beyond. A platform could fire a self-focusing plasma beam at a spacecraft equipped with an M2P2 or plasma magnet to push it, applying a few km/s for a 10 ton spacecraft and a helicon antenna in the hundred megawatt range. Unlike most beamed power concepts, the propellant is onboard the beam platform as well as the powerplant, which in this report is a solar array with a huge amount of battery storage.<br /><br />Link from atomic rockets:<br />http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/space/magbeam/WingleePhaseI_final.pdf<br /><br />Conceivably, you could send 10 ton payloads from LEO all the way to the moon with one platform in LEO and another based on the surface of the moon to slow down the payload from the transfer orbit and do most of the dV involved in landing. The range is much better in weaker parts of earth’s magnetosphere. If the beam on the moonbase could push the spacecraft back into a transfer to LEO, then you could have your weekly moon-Xpress shuttle be little more than a small cabin with life support and a set of magnetic coils.<br /><br />(One more reason to have a moonbase at one of the poles is that it could fire a beam retrograde to the moon’s orbit all month-long)<br /><br />Another platform in a higher orbit could give the payload a boost big enough to do a 50 day transfer to Mars or Hohman to main belt asteroids, except that you need another platform at the destination before you can ferry supplies. <br /><br />This opens up another possibility for the rugged individualist’s “stagecoach IN SPAAAACE.” A few tons for a transhab and the coils for a plasma magnet, the rest inert gas for inflating the magsail and water for life support and RCS. It would get a one time boost from the megacorp’s magbeam out to the frontier where the magsail would protect the pioneers from space weather and complete the rendezvous with the asteroid claim. <br />Calvinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-51581678242491288522015-07-04T07:09:34.395-07:002015-07-04T07:09:34.395-07:00A new post is up: The Space Authority and the Orbi...A new post is up: <a href="http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2015/07/the-space-authority-and-orbital-patrol.html" rel="nofollow">The Space Authority and the Orbital Patrol</a>.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-23458722053002889532015-07-03T20:46:50.559-07:002015-07-03T20:46:50.559-07:00Tony -
SpaceX. I imagine that the actual negotiat...Tony -<br /><br />SpaceX. I imagine that the actual negotiation of launch prices would make Constantine Porphyrogenitus throw up his hands and say 'too Byzantine for me'. Presumably SpaceX is underpricing its short term costs, like anyone breaking into a market. Now it may have to do so a bit more, <i>and</i> convincingly show that the failure was 'normal,' not a sign of systemic flaws.<br /><br />It does turn out that I lo-balled Falcon's performance to date: 19 launches, 17 successes, one partial failure (the primary payload reached its orbit, a secondary payload - in effect filling an empty seat on the bus - did not); and the blowup. A success rate of 89-95 percent, depending on how you rate the partial - the 98 percent estimate for 'industry standard' may be deducting only complete failures. <br /><br /><br /><i>The human future in space belongs, probably for many centuries, to explorers and a minimal amount of vitally necessary logistical support personnel, all of who will want to come home to Earth.</i><br /><br />In the language of the old style Left this might be called 'enhancing the contradictions' of Rocketpunk Manifesto. In an earlier reply I disclaimed being 'realistic', but I probably belabor the practicalities, especially costs, more than most space speculation blogs. And in truth I do play with contradictory or at least inconsistent premises, since I am interested in both real possibilities and operatic conceivabilities.<br /><br />Even my optimistic long term cost ballpark (which presupposes enormous traffic volume) is still way pricey in everyday human terms - $10,000 per night for the most cramped accommodations that have ever had luxury status, and people didn't ride Pullman trains for months on end. A group of billionaires might get their version of Galt's Gulch IN SPAAACE, but I doubt that is what Thucydides really has in mind. <br /><br />In human terms I have no complaint about a space future essentially confined to exploration, since that is profoundly cool in its own right. And the moralist in me is not sure of the need for reprising all our human follies and sorrows in outer space. The writer in me has somewhat different priorities. Which means that I foresee an upcoming post looking more into whether and how a demi-plausible cost structure might yield, if not opera, at least a little song and dance.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-52374297374585537772015-07-03T16:43:09.611-07:002015-07-03T16:43:09.611-07:00Thucydides:
WRT people getting away from it all, ...Thucydides:<br /><br /><i>WRT people getting away from it all, while wealthy people may be able to bribe or otherwise insulate themselves from opressive bureaucrats and the like, historically middle class people are the ones who take the step of moving out. The settlers aboard the Mayflower, for example, would be considered "middle class" by today's standards, and many of the early settlement groups were middle class people looking for a new start away from religious persecution. Commercial settlements would also consist of "middle class" tradesmen and their families, who could be expected to be able to do the work needed or expected in the New World for their wealthy patrons and expedition sponsors back home. So if there is a relatively cheap and reliable means of transportation and the ability to "live off the land" to make a real settlement, then I think there will indeed be a push of sorts for people interested in settling where they can practice their own social, religious of economic beliefs without outside interference.</i><br /><br />No such means are likely ever going to exist. Things may get cheaper, but not to the point that any recognizable analog of <i>Mayflower</i>. I know you grew up on the highly optimistic space fiction of the 70s and 80s. Well, we have to leave that all behind and get serious. Nobody's going to go live in space for political reasons. Few, if any, are going to go live in space for economic reasons. (Even subcontractors for foodservice and things like that are probably going to have to provide highly qualifies and competitively selected personnel, who will serve one or perhaps two multi-year tours, but eventually return to Earth.) The human future in space belongs, probably for many centuries, to explorers and a minimal amount of vitally necessary logistical support personnel, all of who will want to come home to Earth.<br />Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-80018900273950708202015-07-03T07:57:34.114-07:002015-07-03T07:57:34.114-07:00Tony
Point taken about the positioning of the eng...Tony<br /><br />Point taken about the positioning of the engine in the diagram (although since this is an artist's conception there may be things like engine gimbaling which are not really delved into). Oddly enough, on the Spacecoach's own website (http://spacecoach.org/) the artwork they chose is entirely different (and rather less plausible in my mind). In terms of adapting existing design ideas, a truss with "wings" like the ISS, with some Bigelow "bags" and water balloons strung along the side, the "microwave" in the back and a wakesheild up front is easily doable based on current practice and experience. This is going to be bigger and heavier than the 40 tons they estimate.<br /><br />WRT people getting away from it all, while wealthy people may be able to bribe or otherwise insulate themselves from opressive bureaucrats and the like, historically middle class people are the ones who take the step of moving out. The settlers aboard the Mayflower, for example, would be considered "middle class" by today's standards, and many of the early settlement groups were middle class people looking for a new start away from religious persecution. Commercial settlements would also consist of "middle class" tradesmen and their families, who could be expected to be able to do the work needed or expected in the New World for their wealthy patrons and expedition sponsors back home. So if there is a relatively cheap and reliable means of transportation and the ability to "live off the land" to make a real settlement, then I think there will indeed be a push of sorts for people interested in settling where they can practice their own social, religious of economic beliefs without outside interference.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-44965123566305480102015-07-02T22:15:03.865-07:002015-07-02T22:15:03.865-07:00Rick:
Falcon 9 loss. I am still not seeing cause ...Rick:<br /><br /><i>Falcon 9 loss. I am still not seeing cause to heavy breathe.</i><br /><br />I agree, no cause to heavy breathe. Just cause for due diligence on the part of the customers, both existing and potential. Also, let's not forget that the second stage is not a subcontracted module, like second stages on most American launch vehicles. It's a SpaceX product. That means that SpaceX technology and procedures -- all of their technology and procedures -- has to be under scrutiny, simply as a matter of prudence. Just because it was the second stage that failed doesn't mean that's the only place that needs to be reviewed. <br /><br />Put yourself in the shoes of a customer getting ready to lay down $100M for a launch campaign that (necessarily, but also inescapably) puts hundreds of millions of dollars more of spacecraft and years of future revenue at risk. Now your intended launch service provider has had a total vehicle loss carrying a revenue payload. You're going to want complete and believable answers before carrying on. You are also going to look at competitors, maybe not to switch up your game, but to see what you would like to see in SpaceX for risk mitigation. You're going to notice that none of these other companies is screwing around with side projects that increase technical and operational complexity. It would only be prudence, as a fiduciary of your financial backers, to question unnecessary risks. Reusability experiments, even if they weren't the cause this time, are still an unnecessary risk in the context of getting <b><i>your</i></b> payload in orbit.<br />Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-33679966654622360412015-07-02T21:57:39.042-07:002015-07-02T21:57:39.042-07:00The problem with the spacecoach, as illustrated in...The problem with the spacecoach, as illustrated in the io9 link, is that the thruster cluster is apparently mounted rigidly, with its axis normal to the plane of the solar collection array. While not an unworkable arrangement, one that makes more sense is like the arrangement of current solar-electric interplanetary spacecraft -- and ISS -- where the arrays are on gimbaled wings that can be pointed constantly at the sun.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-41557504731856473772015-07-02T13:02:33.372-07:002015-07-02T13:02:33.372-07:00@Rick
Thanks for that info on aerobraking. Anothe...@Rick<br /><br />Thanks for that info on aerobraking. Another little difficulty that Zubrin has been eliding over with Mars Direct while slamming VASIMR.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05741738070067590221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-48595228399273412712015-07-02T12:39:46.175-07:002015-07-02T12:39:46.175-07:00Being a blog, the amount of detailed discussion on...Being a blog, the amount of detailed discussion on things like Spacecoach are limited by space. Some of the advantages of Spacecoach's simplicity can translate into savings for the more complex stuff like life support and so on.<br /><br />Based on the published figure of 40 tons for a basic Spacecoach, two Falcon launches to bring everything into orbit and keeping to Rick's cost estimate for aerospace hardware, we get a $40 million dollar flight article and $100 million to put all the pieces in orbit ($50 million/launch). A $140 million deep space capable craft, or general purpose "pickup truck" for operations from LEO to cis Lunar space seems pretty reasonable. If/when lunar ice or water from NEO's becomes available, then the second Falcon flight isn't needed (how much water costs in orbit from Lunar or NEO sources isn't going to be obvious, maybe it will be cheaper to truck it up from Earth for a while!)<br /><br />Thermal management of the water to keep it from freezing up will be one issue, although it doesn't seem insurmountable (worst case scenario: the huge solar panels are powering water heaters in the tankage when they are not powering the engines). The heat of the spacecrafts systems could also be dumped into the water tanks rather than external radiators.<br /><br />This does sound like a topic worth expanding on.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-7463232760853118012015-07-02T11:53:13.315-07:002015-07-02T11:53:13.315-07:00Nyrath - Another cool link! And I like their '...Nyrath - Another cool link! And I like their 'plumber's guide to starships' series.<br /><br /><i>Perhaps spacecoach is too simple to work?</i> That is sort of my gut feeling, without analyzing the design. The answer to complexity is probably not to take an ax to it, and stuff like using water for everything and living in a Bigelow bag may be more creative than practical. But still ideas worth exploring!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-32549497099650273462015-07-02T10:55:08.166-07:002015-07-02T10:55:08.166-07:00"I looked at the ISS for more than 30 seconds..."I looked at the ISS for more than 30 seconds, and the specific problem for Spacecoach eludes me."<br /><br />Perhaps spacecoach is too simple to work? Its internal systems might be so simple and bare-bones that the various dangers and problems travelers will regularly face cannot all be accounted for? Perhaps it would have to be so large to properly support the passengers that it would take too long and too much money to construct? <br /><br />Geoffrey S Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-15978741144729470092015-07-02T10:17:23.191-07:002015-07-02T10:17:23.191-07:00Rick: From my own back of the envelope for solar e...<b>Rick:</b> <i>From my own back of the envelope for solar electric propulsion, more like acres of solar panels.</i><br /><br />Agreed. This ion-drive design has just a bit more than 150 acres of solar cells.<br /><br /><a href="https://michelresidence.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/large-solar-powered-orbital-transfer-vehicle/" rel="nofollow">Large solar powered orbital transfer vehicle</a><br /><br />Nyrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11528898889244833751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-44307425151851302732015-07-02T09:23:39.820-07:002015-07-02T09:23:39.820-07:00Dragonfly versus chemfuel. I sort of took for gran...Dragonfly versus chemfuel. I sort of took for granted that chemfuel could only do Hohmann-like orbits, since that is what is always discussed. But a little back of the envelope shows that with a high-ish but reasonable mass ratio of 4 (75 pct propellant fraction), the Oberth boot out of a long elliptical Earth orbit can hit or slightly exceed solar escape speed. That will certainly get you to Mars in less than 9 months, though my orbital mechanics fu is not up to saying how much less. <br /><br />Aerobraking at Mars - more strictly 'aerocapture', since you're coming in above Mars escape velocity - would be nasty, because you're coming in WAY above escape velocity. Too low and you burn up; too high and you skip back off on a long, long solar orbit to nowhere. (Or even a solar escape orbit, which takes even longer to get nowhere, for very large values of nowhere.) And even just right, deceleration and heat load will be brutal.<br /><br />We don't know whether solar electric can scale to the Dragonfly requirement, dozens of megawatts and a milligee or so. (The Dawn probe is in the microgee range.) Finding out will no doubt cost a bundle. But if it does scale, there's no obvious reason why Dragonfly would cost more per payload.<br /><br />One thing, electric drive is not an efficient user of lunar ice, since the oxygen would only reduce propellant performance. So you'd just have to throw it away, whatever Luna Base can't use. <br /><br /><br />Falcon 9 loss. I am still not seeing cause to heavy breathe. An 'overpressure event' in the second stage, per early buzz, can ruin your entire day. But what is the Falcon failure rate so far? Maybe 20 percent? That is 10x the industry standard for mature launch systems, but seems about in line for a new stack in its first dozen or so flights. And an 80 percent success rate is about 80 percent better than you'd expect from alt-space flakes. Presumably the market already priced in the new kid on the block factor. it will price it in a bit more, and SpaceX will either roll with the punch or go on the ropes.<br /><br />I have not followed SpaceX or Elon Musk at all closely. My judgment of them is based purely on Falcon, which looks overall like a sensible shoes conservative approach. No aerospike engines or SSTO jive, or even fancy schmancy hydrogen, just lots of kerosene and a single engine type in sea level and vacuum varients. Yes, trying to recover the first stage IS fancy, but unless that did in fact compromise the launch, for which zero evidence so far, the customers don't care what happens to those stages after they are done with them.<br /><br /><br />I looked at the ISS for more than 30 seconds, and the specific problem for Spacecoach eludes me. But I do see another subtle problem with carrying around huge amounts of water. Blackbody temperature at 1 AU is about 255 K. If your water freezes, it will still provide shielding, but it won't come out of the tap or go into the propellant feed lines. Heat management is one of the bigger devils in the details of space travel.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-43378484428208606112015-07-02T09:00:31.928-07:002015-07-02T09:00:31.928-07:00The one claimed advantage of the electric propulsi...The one claimed advantage of the electric propulsion systems in the "Spacecoach" is ISP's ranging from 800 seconds (similar to a NTR) to 2000 seconds, similar to exotica like VASMIR or other ion and plasma engines. Since the engine does not seem as massive or bulky as some of the other proposed systems (and so long as you stay away from nuclear reactors and the mass of shielding), the high ISP is very attractive. Assuming the thin film solar panels work as advertised, the system will be much less massive and have a very high performance compared to the competition.<br /><br />Tony alludes to the lack of thermal radiators, but for the concept illustration I'll put that down more to artistic licence than anything else. Putting thermal radiators on the ends of the booms where the habs are is one possibility.<br /><br />Using water simplifies things considerably, since if you have an issue you can always shunt the water from propulsion to life support to thermal control. This will be somewhat more involved if you have toxic fluids like Methanol or Ammonia, which have to ruthlessly segregated from the water.<br />Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-62752069729404728602015-07-02T07:57:13.290-07:002015-07-02T07:57:13.290-07:00The second stage failure was just the proximate ca...The second stage failure was just the proximate cause of the launch vehicle loss. Root cause analysis may -- and, in the case of aerospace, most often does -- reveal underlying systemic and/or programmatic problems. It's entirely possible, and maybe even likely, that Musk's little side project is a contributing factor. In any case, it's incumbent upon the customers at this point to demand a full accounting and insist that all unavoidable risks be reassessed.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-42853285095741935962015-07-02T00:39:47.801-07:002015-07-02T00:39:47.801-07:00So because of an apparent second stage (or, offcha...So because of an apparent second stage (or, offchance, payload) failure, customers will push to prohibit SpaceX from testing first stage reusability because... their attention is divided or something? That really sounds like a stretch.Elukkanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-84805211346098473962015-07-01T20:31:26.953-07:002015-07-01T20:31:26.953-07:00Thucydides:
...to tell the truth, I suspect that ...Thucydides:<br /><br /><i>...to tell the truth, I suspect that one of the drivers of space colonization will be simply to get away from Earth and not have to deal with Chinese hackers, Vladimir Putin, bankrupt Greek politicians or the annoying political class that is leaning on you at home...</i><br /><br />Anybody that can afford to get away into space has more to live for on Earth, and the resources to make life comfortable enough, if not perfect. If worse comes to worse, you can always bribe the right people.<br /><br />BTW, the spacecoach has one very obvious weakness. Take a look at any picture of the ISS (any one you choose, as long as it shows the whole assembly), then think things through for about 30 seconds.<br />Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-57670982282351628992015-07-01T20:16:19.395-07:002015-07-01T20:16:19.395-07:00Elukka:
No, I really don't think the customer...Elukka:<br /><br /><i>No, I really don't think the customer cares much, evidently not enough to severely bother them. SpaceX has a very robust manifest and they fully intend to test reusability on these flights. One of the customers (SES) expressed interest in using a reused first stage too.</i><br /><br />I really shouldn't have to point this out, but that was before Sunday. Starting Monday, you can bet that everybody on the manifest, as well as everybody in negotiations to go on the manifest, is reassessing every representation and promise SpaceX ever made to them. You can bet the accident investigation will be closely watched and its results combed very fine. If not entirely satisfactory -- and I don't see how it could be, given the circumstances of Sunday's launch -- you're going to see some pretty significant changes in what the customers will be demanding.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-2019583080852168522015-07-01T12:41:11.015-07:002015-07-01T12:41:11.015-07:00Re. the cheap chemical service, if you time it rig...Re. the cheap chemical service, if you time it right, you can get to Mars in about 3 months using chemfuel, thanks to the Oberth effect and L1. Though deceleration may be difficult...<br /><br />Though, it probably won't cost that much more to build a solar dragonfly than it will to build a chemfuel vehicle. You're dealing with less stress on the structure for it remember, and rocket engines cost money as well. It may turn out that the solar array (cells plus fresnel lenses) and engine may not be much more expensive.Cerereanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14935694167944319731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-57718829438447404912015-07-01T10:24:44.894-07:002015-07-01T10:24:44.894-07:00Although. . . the Solar Dragonfly was moving about...Although. . . the <i>Solar Dragonfly</i> was moving about 35 passengers in your proposed Solar Electric Ship. If you already have the in-orbit chemical refueling facilities and assembly due to the settlement of Earth Space, then it's not a stretch to imagine the "slow cheap" service being a chem-ship ride taking six months to Mars. Not as fast or lovely as the Solar Ship, but cheaper and less bulky. <br /><br />That comes later, though. In the mean-time, the Solar Ships are the way to go in Deep Space, and they can take you almost anywhere in the Inner Solar System without the need for refueling facilities at the destination.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05741738070067590221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-78254217311158354212015-06-30T22:36:14.547-07:002015-06-30T22:36:14.547-07:00They are pretty magnificent looking. The first man...They are pretty magnificent looking. The first manned solar-electric ship would <i>have</i> to be named the <i>Dragonfly</i>. I bet you could see it from the Earth's surface as it spiraled outward. <br /><br />I suppose any nuclear-electric propulsion system worth its salt would have some impressive "wings" as well, although they'd be radiator wings instead of solar panels. Good for the eventual trip to the Outer Solar System, with the ship sheltering in the shadow of Callisto. Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05741738070067590221noreply@blogger.com