Too bad it results in an 11 year transit time though! Flying direct would save almost 8 years of that...
Too bad it results in an 11 year transit time though! Flying direct would save almost 8 years of that...
Maybe they could produce more fuel and oxidizer in situ, and maybe Earth is a more attractive target for aerocapture, and maybe gravity assists line up better one way or the other, but it's not a bad starting point to assume a round trip is far more expensive than a one-way trip.
I'm not sure on what basis he thinks Starship might be able to get there in the first place.
It is an interesting question for sure, especially given that one of the stated goals for Starship (IIRC) is to enable exploration of the outer planets.
Can you fit that equipment in a single Starship, by mass and volume? Is that what we're talking about here? No idea.
[1](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ktjfi/deltav_map_of...)
Also, you're reading that delta-v map completely wrong. The red arrows mean you can aerobrake. So it only takes about 4.1km/s to reach Saturn if you start out at a highly elliptical (near escape) Earth orbit and do a large departure burn at perigee. (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Interplanetary ...the 7.3km/s if the burn is done starting in LEO, minus the 3.2km/s benefit you'd get if starting near c3=0. Or you add up the numbers on your delta-v map that can't be done using aerobraking, and you get the same 4.1km/s delta-v if starting from Earth escape.)
...so a fueled up Starship could send a payload direct to Titan and still have enough propellant to propulsively brake back to Earth orbit immediately after sending the Titan payload on its way.
(But that's just one option... Lots of other vehicles could do it if you used refueling or some high performance kick stages or in orbit rendezvous.)
Why is that?