Astronom findet eine Abkürzung zum Mars, indem er die Reise eines Asteroiden durch den Weltraum verfolgt

Why couldn’t we have discovered this trajectory via computer modeling? Too computationally expensive?

so, purnell maneuver irl?

Well, let’s see if we manage to get a working nuclear engine by the late 2020s.

Astrophysicists hate this one weird trick that will get you to mars faster!

Literally cannot read the article because the ads crash my browser. Great work everybody.

This is of no practical value whatsoever for sending spacecraft to Mars, much less crewed missions. To say the least, the author of the paper has an absurdly overinflated sense of the capabilities of chemical, nuclear thermal, and near-term nuclear electric propulsion. A quick google search shows the author is a cosmologist, so a lack of knowledge of rocket propulsion capabilities isn’t shocking. But still they could have done better background research.

[Link to the actual paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576526002456). In particular, see [Table 4](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576526002456#tbl4).

The Earth departure (launch) [C3 (characteristic energy)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_energy) for the „feasible“ (the author’s word, not mine) case is about 285 km^(2)/s^(2). (A typical low energy Mars transfer has a C3 of ~8-14 km^(2)/s^(2). Solar system escape is ~153 km^(2)/s^(2). The highest C3 ever launched to was New Horizons, 157 km^(2)/s^(2).) Put another way, a C3 of 285 is over 12.3 km/s of delta-v from low Earth orbit (LEO). Launching from Earth’s surface to LEO only requires ~9.5 km/s of delta-v. A minimum energy transfer to Mars requires ~3.6-3.8 km/s from LEO. Solar system escape is ~8.8 km/s from LEO.

That insane amount of energy/delta-v is just for getting into the trajectory to take you to Mars. The resulting insane arrival velocity at Mars is far too high for aerobraking/aerocapture into orbit (or directly entry and landing), so a large rocket would have to be sent along to cancel out most of that velocity at Mars arrival. Then rinse, repeat for the journey from Mars back to Earth. That is just not feasible.

The „rapid“ case from the paper is, of course, even worse. For example, it requires an Earth departure C3 of 758 km^(2)/s^(2) (LEO + 21.9 km/s of delta-v).

Quotes from the paper:

>These values place the 33-day [„rapid“] transfer well beyond current chemical-propulsion capability and into the regime of advanced nuclear-thermal or nuclear-electric concepts.

The „rapid“ trajectory case is also well beyond the capabilities of nuclear thermal propulsion. Nuclear electric could provide the equivalent amount of delta-v–eventually (either the trip will be far longer, or not a near-term technological capability). Also, nuclear electric has very low thrust. Low thrust propulsion over a long time (resulting in an orbit that gradually spirals outward) requires an entirely different trajectory design. The trajectories this paper proposes require relatively brief, high thrust maneuvers.

>In contrast, the term “feasible” refers to rapid solutions whose C3 requirements, although high relative to classical Hohmann transfers, remain within the upper envelope of currently demonstrated or near-term chemical launch performance. The 56-day trajectory is classified as feasible under this interpretation.

Lol, no. The „feasible“ case still isn’t feasible with chemical, or nuclear thermal, or feasible nuclear electric propulsion.

This is not how mission planning nor space navigation works, clickbait bs.