Comparison of Four Space Propulsion Methods for Reducing Transfer Times of Crewed Mars Mission

TL;DR

This study compares four propulsion methods to reduce crewed Mars mission duration within a 2500-tonne mass limit, finding chemical propulsion most effective for shortest travel times and PEMT potentially better for farther destinations.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of four propulsion technologies, including a novel PEMT concept, for optimizing crewed Mars mission transfer times.

Findings

Chemical propulsion yields the shortest mission duration.

Ion engines combined with chemical engines are optimal for low mass and short trips.

PEMT may be more suitable for missions beyond Mars.

Abstract

We assess the possibility of reducing the travel time of a crewed mission to Mars by examining four different propulsion methods and keeping the mass at departure under 2500 tonne, for a fixed architecture. We evaluated representative systems of three different state of the art technologies (chemical, nuclear thermal and electric) and one advance technology, the ``Pure Electro-Magnetic Thrust'' (PEMT) concept (proposed by Rubbia). A mission architecture mostly based on the Design Reference Architecture 5.0 is assumed in order to estimate the mass budget, that influences the performance of the propulsion system. Pareto curves of the duration of the mission and time of flight versus mass of mission are drawn. We conclude that the ion engine technology, combined with the classical chemical engine, yields the shortest mission times for this architecture with the lowest mass and that chemical propulsion alone is the best to minimise travel time. The results obtained using the PEMT suggest that it could be a more suitable solution for farther destinations than Mars.