|
|
|
|
|
|
by panick21_
1516 days ago
|
|
|
Well, they are all chemical engines. We have no chemical engines that would work well for launching. In space we do use a lot of solar electric propulsion and lots other things that Goddard knew nothing about. Nuclear thermal propulsion could potentially be used but that has a whole host of issues where its not clear that its actually worth it compared to chemical. SpaceX Raptor is approaching pretty much the peak of what is doable with chemical and if its fully and rapidly reusable it can bring the price to orbit down. What really matters is not what method you use, but how much does it cost to go to orbit, or from LEO to Mars. From that perspective something like Starship is on a totally different level then anything that came before. |
|
|
I mean that’s what chemical engines are for. You aren’t launching off the ground with any of the electric based systems, and accidental radiation concerns have always hobbled nuclear engines.
But, yes point taken on using them outside the atmosphere. However, they don’t improve our ability to launch manned missions greatly (at least not for the foreseeable decades).