you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Three years? A low energy transfer orbit gets you to Mars in less than a year. In the past, theoretical crewed missions were planned with an 8-9 month travel time. With enough propellant, could get that down to just over three months. And that's with chemical rockets, not some hypothetical nuclear or torch drive.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    More importantly .... what exactly is gained by this incredibly risky biochemical process?

    • Less need for food supplies (seems like recycling/growing more is less challenging than human hibernation)
    • Ummm less boredom?

    It seems orders of magnitude cheaper, safer, and with more immediately Earth-beneficial spinoffs to focus on making more and better bio-recycling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Humans who are active in space already have to spend a lot of work keeping up muscle and bone mass. Animals in hibernation under normal gravity also lose bone and muscle mass.

    Imagine doubling that up, just to save a few sandwiches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments