222
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 May 2026
222 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
84668 readers
5754 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What matters is the effective exhaust velocity. For chemical rockets it's 3 km/s. The article doesn't seem to mention it?
On top of that, ion drive travel is notoriously slow. So it's not good for human travel because you would need more life support system for the longer journey, including more food and water, which makes the rocket heavier and is thus undesirable. It would only be useful for cargo transport where it doesn't matter whether it spends 6 months or 3 years in space.
Yeah, those PhDs at NASA are stupid. They should read Lemmy.
Amazing coincidence that his tattoos depict the physics and engineering needed for space travel.
Nah ion thrusters are way more likely to be useful for human travel because they are supposed to thrust constantly. Chemical rockets thrust for minutes, not months.
If they start the Mars mission from LEO then the ion drive can supplement a small fuel burner or slingshot.