• nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you’re asking about the shielding, probably the mass required for materials that are generally used for radiation shielding. If the craft is built terrestrially, the amount of energy necessary to launch would be insurmountable with current chemical rockets.

    Now, if the craft were manufactured in space (and forming of the shielding materials were practical in low-G), the problematic materials could be shuttled up over time, making it a non-issue. This would, of course, also mean that the craft could not be used for re-entry and would require landing craft. And there’s all the logistics challenges (supplying air, etc). Probably though the direction that will be necessary for long-distance space craft.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Despite the downvotes, you do make an important point. In order for space travel to be feasible, efforts are needed to mitigate and reduce the environmental impacts of chemical rockets. For cargo, it could be possible to use electromechanical means of propulsion that may involve acceleration before what a human body is capable of.

        Best would likely be a space elevator powered by nuclear and/or renewables. This could greatly reduce the amount of pollution involved in transiting between the Earth and orbital positions.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Plants consume CO2. As CO2 levels increase in the air, plants grow more photosynthesizing material to take advantage of the resource.