Solar Electric Propulsion - Revision history

RichardWSmith: added link

2024-12-30T20:50:03Z

added link

Michel Lamontagne at 15:45, 5 November 2024

2024-11-05T15:45:23Z

Michel Lamontagne at 15:59, 2 May 2024

2024-05-02T15:59:31Z

Michel Lamontagne at 15:52, 2 May 2024

2024-05-02T15:52:45Z

Michel Lamontagne at 15:47, 2 May 2024

2024-05-02T15:47:29Z

Michel Lamontagne: Created page with " SEP Category:Propulsion"

2021-08-27T14:06:50Z

Created page with " SEP Category:Propulsion"

New page

SEP
[[Category:Propulsion]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 SEP is more mass effective and cost effective compared to most Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) proposals for the inner solar system. However, electric propulsion is not very interesting for crewed missions, due to the high mass requirements and long travel times.  Chemical propulsion has been used for most missions instead.
-SEP might be useful for cargo transfer to and from Mars, although the practical difficulty of landing materials carried by SEP make it less attractive.  Chemical propulsion vehicle are configured in such a way that they can carry out aerobraking, which can significantly reduce the deltaV requirements of an orbital transfer, while aerobraking is difficult to devise for SEP vehicles.  Chemical propulsion can also use the Oberth Effect for significant deltaV gains.
+SEP might be useful for cargo transfer to and from Mars, although the practical difficulty of landing materials carried by SEP make it less attractive.  Chemical propulsion vehicle are configured in such a way that they can carry out aerobraking, which can significantly reduce the deltaV requirements of an orbital transfer, while aerobraking is difficult to devise for SEP vehicles.  Chemical propulsion can also use the [[Oberth effect]] for significant deltaV gains.
 SEP is basically a fuel saving device. If fuel in Earth orbit is very cheap, many of the benefits of SEP disappear.  The development or orbital fuel transfer and the expected advent of much lower cost transportation to Earth orbit will reduce the interest of SEP compared to chemical propulsion.  SEP might be applicable to bulk transfer of materials, but InSitu production will tend to be cheaper than SEP, and likely favored by Martina settlers.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 SEP is more mass effective and cost effective compared to most Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) proposals for the inner solar system. However, electric propulsion is not very interesting for crewed missions, due to the high mass requirements and long travel times.  Chemical propulsion has been used for most missions instead.
-SEP might be useful for cargo transfer to and from Mars, although the practical difficulty of landing materials carried by SEP make it less attractive.  Chemical propulsion vehicle are configured in such a way that they can carry out aerobraking, which can significantly reduce the deltaV requirements of an orbital transfer, while aerobraking is difficult to devise for SEP vehicles.
+SEP might be useful for cargo transfer to and from Mars, although the practical difficulty of landing materials carried by SEP make it less attractive.  Chemical propulsion vehicle are configured in such a way that they can carry out aerobraking, which can significantly reduce the deltaV requirements of an orbital transfer, while aerobraking is difficult to devise for SEP vehicles.  Chemical propulsion can also use the Oberth Effect for significant deltaV gains.
 [[Category:Propulsion]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 2 May 2024
Line 5:		Line 5:
	SEP might be useful for cargo transfer to and from Mars, although the practical difficulty of landing materials carried by SEP make it less attractive. Chemical propulsion vehicle are configured in such a way that they can carry out aerobraking, which can significantly reduce the deltaV requirements of an orbital transfer, while aerobraking is difficult to devise for SEP vehicles.		SEP might be useful for cargo transfer to and from Mars, although the practical difficulty of landing materials carried by SEP make it less attractive. Chemical propulsion vehicle are configured in such a way that they can carry out aerobraking, which can significantly reduce the deltaV requirements of an orbital transfer, while aerobraking is difficult to devise for SEP vehicles.

		+	SEP is basically a fuel saving device. If fuel in Earth orbit is very cheap, many of the benefits of SEP disappear. The development or orbital fuel transfer and the expected advent of much lower cost transportation to Earth orbit will reduce the interest of SEP compared to chemical propulsion.

	[[Category:Propulsion]]		[[Category:Propulsion]]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) is a combination of solar power as an energy source, and electric propulsion as an drive engine.
-SEP is more mass effective and cost effective compared to most Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) in the inner solar system. However, electric propulsion is not very interesting for crewed missions, due to the high mass requirements and long travel times.
+SEP is more mass effective and cost effective compared to most Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) proposals for the inner solar system. However, electric propulsion is not very interesting for crewed missions, due to the high mass requirements and long travel times.  Chemical propulsion has been used for most missions instead.
 [[Category:Propulsion]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 2 May 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:

−	SEP	+	Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) is a combination of solar power as an energy source, and electric propulsion as an drive engine.
		+
		+	SEP is more mass effective and cost effective compared to most Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) in the inner solar system. However, electric propulsion is not very interesting for crewed missions, due to the high mass requirements and long travel times.
		+
	[[Category:Propulsion]]		[[Category:Propulsion]]