Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Gari_305 OP t1_j5zukrh wrote

Reply to comment by NotShey in NASA Validates Revolutionary Propulsion Design for Deep Space Missions by Gari_305

>In order to do a continues burn, even for a short trip to the moon, much less mars, you would need something MUCH more fuel efficient than any chemical rocket.

Rotary Detonation Engines are fuel efficient. Here's a youtube video that goes into further detail into the matter.

1

NotShey t1_j5zzj6u wrote

It's still, fundamentally, a chemical rocket. You light shit on fire and sling it out the back end. There are basic physical limitations on how efficient it can possibly be.

6