NASA's NEW Nuclear Mars Rocket Engine is somehow better & faster than SpaceX Starship...
Переглядів 97,281
День томуNASA's NEW Nuclear Mars Rocket Engine is somehow better & faster than SpaceX Starship...
===
#alphatech
#techalpha
#spacex
#elonmusk
#starship
#spacexstarship
===
Subcribe Alpha Tech: www.youtube.com/@alphatech496...
===
NASA's NEW Nuclear Mars Rocket Engine is somehow better & faster than SpaceX Starship…
www.space.com/nasa-darpa-nucl...
gizmodo.com/nasa-darpa-lockhe...
Sources of Images and Videos:
Randolph Visuals: / cosmicalchief
TijnM: / @tijn_m
C-bass Productions: / @cbassproductions
TheSpaceEngineer: / @thespaceengineer
Ryan Hansen Space: / ryanhansenspace
Christian Debney: / @christiandebney1989
LabPadre Space: / labpadre
Cosmic Perspective: / @cosmicperspective
Everyday Astronaut: / everydayastronaut
SpacePadre : / spacepadreisle
BWX Technologies, Inc. / @bwxtechnologies
David Willis: / theprimaldino
USLaunchReport: / uslaunchreport
U.S. Department of Energy: / @energy
iamVisual: / @iamvisualvfx
StarshipGazer: / starshipgazer
Groundtruth: / @groundtruth4442
===
NASA's NEW Nuclear Mars Rocket Engine is somehow better & faster than SpaceX Starship...
Six months. This is the period that Elon Musk has estimated for the journey to Mars with Starship, the vehicle is currently operated by a total of 39 Raptor engines.
But you know, six months is very long for anyone, including you and me. And of course, NASA also doesn’t like that.
Therefore, NASA revealed a new engine that will use a new energy source. They claim that it will be more powerful, safer, and can get humans to Mars faster than the Starship and Raptor engines.
So what is that engine? How it’s better than the SpaceX Raptor engine? Why NASA is so confident with its engines?
Stay tuned as we dive and more in today's episode of Alpha Tech!
@yondu689 Місяць тому
It will take NASA 70 years to build it and it will be way way over budget.
@stevenI613 Місяць тому
might see a demo in 2040 and 50 billion later
@rje4242 Місяць тому
NASA doesn't have a new Nuclear Rocket engine. they have a study on paper saying "yeah, this could be cool if somebody made one." there is a company in england that is actually building and testing such an engine, and has discussed a partnership with SpaceX. For comparison the Raptor was in use in 2019 and has been scaling up production since.
@paulmoffat9306 Місяць тому
NASA HAD a working, fully tested and flight ready Nuclear Engine ready to go, in 1974! President Nixon cancelled that along with ending the Apollo missions.
@gregoryfaith4303 Місяць тому
@@paulmoffat9306 Even Nixon, who was a crook, saw it was way too expensive and nixed it.
@TheRetroManRandySavage Місяць тому
NASA couldn't put together a toy from a kinder egg.
@danielbishop2142 17 днів тому
😂 So true
@edwardriffle29 13 днів тому
That is why darpa will do the work
@dingdongheadyuue Місяць тому
The huge problem besides COST is complicated, as hydrogen is almost impossible to seal being the smallest molecule, as small as its atom. Dreaming
@zagreus5773 Місяць тому
The Space Shuttle used hydrogen as fuel. You know you can liquify it, right?
@The1QwertySky Місяць тому
@@zagreus5773 its very hard tho
@jessicatymczak5852 Місяць тому
It already been done for the last 50 years
@jessicatymczak5852 Місяць тому
@@The1QwertySky not really.
@The1QwertySky Місяць тому
@@jessicatymczak5852 it also takes a LOT of energy to get hydrogen, which would be way more efficent to just use the electricity directly to power a motor. Also it takes a LOT of space to store hydrogen, hydrogen cars have way less range than EVs like teslas and in q crash you will end up in low earth orbit in pieces. Just look at atleast 1 hydrogen car review and you will know what I mean
@MrBigDave65 Місяць тому
This rocket engine would not replace the Merlin or Raptor engines. It would only be used while already in space.
@jessicatymczak5852 Місяць тому
Correct. Nuclear engines have an excellent isp but a very poor thrust to weight ratio. Victor Von Braun was considering it for the Saturn V second stage where TTWR was not so essential. Now there is an even better way to get much higher isp, read “Thermo-Electric Rocket Thruster” if you want to know more (down to 18 days). ☺️
@t4t4s0l 8 днів тому
If i got a buck for a every super cool plan the NASA came up with and then failed to deliver after we ended the Moon missions, i would be a billionaire
@jamesrichardson1 Місяць тому
Has it been tested???
@user-wx1jk6ls1z 16 днів тому
One day we will be building nuclear rockets on the moon where helium-3 is abundant and the material needed to build them will be available.
@Orozco_PNW День тому
Though this is likely many years away, it at least doesn't obsolesce the Starship because Nuclear Rockets will likely never be used for orbital launches, but rather as an interplanetary express.
@richard--s Місяць тому
SpaceX would not hesitate to include new better engines. Why not. But they are not available yet. Let them first learn to fly a reusable big rocket. It's a word first. No one has done this before. Then when better engines are on the horizon, they can develop them further and use them in their spacecraft. But don't wait 50 years until these new engines become available. Use what we have. And by the way, what do you expect on Mars? It's the same as in open space. No air to breath outside. You have gravity, congratulations! But nothing more. You don't win anything when you arrive faster on Mars. You also have very tight crew spaces on Mars. It's not a big relieve once you are on Mars.
@richard--s Місяць тому
Oh I see, I wrote "It's a word first" ;-) Maybe a word first, but it's a world first ;-)
@ryanab01 Місяць тому
NASA doesn't even build rockets!
@andrewcliffe4753 Місяць тому
Can this engine get a rocket off the ground or do passengers need to transfer in orbit. What happens if an atomic rocket explodes on launch
@voytek3999 Місяць тому
You have Excellent Point! The Whole Idea is not only BS(!), IS HS!!! 😮😢😢😂😂😅😊❤ And I'm Not Talking about The Technical Ability and Multiple Technologies We Need to Build This SHIP In Orbit....!😊❤ Let Assume that WE Have It!!!😊❤❤ It Will take 20hours at 3G(!) To Accelerate to Full Speed And 20hours at -3G to Decelerate by Mars! GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!!!😢 I'm being Sarcastic..... I don't know Who Will Survive THAT?... Not Me...
@apaitiadrivationo5628 21 день тому
NASA has being saying this for the last 60years, I'm growing old already 😅🤣😂
@johnbrobston1334 18 днів тому
Odds are that if this thing is built it will be launched on Super Heavy. Nobody's going to allow a nuclear rocket to be launched from Earth--too much radiation in the exhaust.
@stanleydavidson6543 13 днів тому
No they with go to orbit with starship and super heavy carrying the nuclear engine
@Bamdd5 Місяць тому
Nuclear thermal and nuclear electric rocket engines will be the future of exploring/colonizing the solar system. Chemical rockets will still be needed to get off earth, but these new rockets will be used to travel between planets.
@alphatech4966 Місяць тому
Thank you for your comment!
@dloui5214 Місяць тому
wow , nasa has made a great progress ! we'll be able to see the commercial version within the next 200 years .
@somewhereinsthlm2153 Місяць тому
One can attach a Nuclear Thermal Rocket to the back end of Starship to push it forward. This is a win for SpaceX too.
@alphatech4966 Місяць тому
Thank you for your comment!
@drgror2047 Місяць тому
Somehow? Laws of physics and basic knowledge of rocket engines and ISPs when testing? Clickbait tittle
@deezynar Місяць тому
At a certain point on the trip to mars, you have to flip the ship around and fire the engines to slow you down so you don't blow by Mars. Some mission in the future will have a mechanical failure of some kind that will keep them from refiring the engines.
@danstory4286 Годину тому
The nuclear ion engine is 80s tech that uses water for fuel. On 150 gallons of water, it could maintain 1g of accelleration before flipping over and doing it again for the remainder of the journey. Optimal time to Mars 36 hours.
@d_baumberger Місяць тому
NASA can’t put anything in space and they’ve got something new on the growing board. It’s funny.
@user-om7yl4dz8h 13 днів тому
So basically invent nuclear fusion (which is perpetually 25 years in the future). Then when we get to the moon, there’s helium-3 just lying around under every rock to fuel it. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@redpillcommando Місяць тому
By the time NASA gets off of it's fat bottom and actually builds a atomic rocket, Elon Musk will have five star hotels on Mars.
@3dfxvoodoocards6 14 годин тому
6:40 - “Send a crew to Mars in 2030”…. Maybe 2130….
@stephend4909 Місяць тому
So its an engine project. Nothing yet built or tested. Just guesswork huh? How NASA.
@user-ot7nt9tb2q 5 днів тому
You still need to use current rocket propellant to get into orbit. After that, a nuclear rocket can get to the solar system.
@antonzaretsky9166 Місяць тому
Mean acceleration of a proton in the Large Hadron Collider: 190M g Acceleration necessary to achieve 76% of speed of light in 354 days: 1g
@chrisshea3244 Місяць тому
NASA can't even get a rocket off the ground. They delay delay delay. Space x runs circles around NASA
@zagreus5773 Місяць тому
SpaceX planned to land on Mars two years ago... Artemis 2 is delayed because of SpaceX a well.
@The1QwertySky Місяць тому
@@zagreus5773 spacex planned and still plans to land on mars around 2030 wdym?.
@zagreus5773 Місяць тому
@@The1QwertySky The original plan was to land 2 cargo Starships on Mars in 2022, then 2 cargo and 2 crewed ships in 2024. Look it up.
@thomasrehbinder7722 7 годин тому
NASA post Apollo can't even find it's own arse without GPS.
@nicksmacro Місяць тому
From the perspective of anyone with the broadest knoledge of the subject, this is truly offensive clickbait. I gave the video 35 seconds where you affirmed the bullshit statement in the click bait title and I click off. Do better...
@Peter8831 Місяць тому
Glad you said that. All these ALPHA TECH videos are terrible Clickbait. I can believe people fall for it, unless these are fake comments.
@brianmatthews232 Місяць тому
Good luck not getting a leak in Hydrogen storage for months...Ah we don't have any fuel to stop us hitting mars or whizzing past it?
@ChuckyRed06 7 годин тому
I can explain quantum physics in a simple analogy. The thing about space travel and the extreme distances between planets is simply because things can't stop. If you were in a spaceship and were able to stop on a dime, everything else that is moving will crash into you obliterating you. Just like if you can travel the speed of light,the smallest particle that collides with your space vehicle will destroy it,even a grain of sand. Matter is always moving and in space all matter has gravity. Even a human. If a human was launched in space and could survive billions of years at first small microscopic dust will begin to collect around you and over millions of years that dust will turn into rocks. Matter in space is always moving and more than likely it's moving away from each other. Our solar system has balance but when you enter the galactic scale things begin to alter physics
@EVMANVSGAS Місяць тому
If anything Elon will throw these on his rocket and still beat NASA by 30 yrs.
@TheRetroManRandySavage Місяць тому
For sure. Elon will beat them at their own game, as per.
@reksmeyok1957 28 днів тому
This is a theory which is too good to be feasible for NASA to produce faster and more economical than SpaceX any kind of faster rockets.
@emameyer 22 дні тому
if this works, Starships can be used as cargo ships. so still plenty usefulness there
@kevinbissett293 Місяць тому
I would sure like to know more detail about the science of exactly what makes this engine feasible. For example, How big would an engine have to be. ETC. I am very detail orientated. Great Episode my Friend. I want to say, Happy Easter to You and Your Team. Happy Easter to All that follow Your Channel. Happy Easter to Elon Musk and his team. Great Episode. Thanks for The All the Work You and Your Team put in this channel. Making each Episode Possible.
@Madness-go3uk 7 днів тому
This should be developed fairly quickly as they already did all the research back in the 50s with project Orion I believe they even made test models
@mikey33409 28 днів тому
Building engines are an art. and we got a few ideas thank u ms
@riderpaul Місяць тому
Starship would still be required. There needs to be something to get people into space and then you need something to land people on Mars. The nuclear rockets should just stay in space. Essentially SpaceX should have a fleet of starships orbiting Mars and Earth to ferry people to and from the surface. The designs of the Mars and Earth starships would be substantially different.
@protorhinocerator142 Місяць тому
NT doesn't have the raw power to blast a heavy payload into orbit. It's kinda like the ion propulsion. It's great for efficiency, meaning long fuel life, but its output is too slow to get anything to orbit. You have to already be in orbit.
@knowledgeisgood9645 Місяць тому
Fission: maybe if the materials needed can be found and the weight can be practical. Fusion: We can't produce it anywhere except in bombs. The one time it was produced in a lab the lasers used used orders of magnitude more power than the one produced in the reaction. To hope for a rocket using fusion will remain a hope for many more decades.
@scottrussell6781 Місяць тому
5000 mph will not get you to mrs in 12 days
@jessicatymczak5852 Місяць тому
Nope, way off, that will not even get you to orbit. More like 1200 days.
@gottfriedheumesser1994 Місяць тому
Fusion energy would be superb! As an old guy, I will soon be waiting for it for seventy years. As long as it does not work on the Earth we need not think about shooting it into space. Nuclear rockets I can only imagine in the upper stages of spacecraft as they do not spoil the earth in case of failures. So nuclear-driven rockets are superb. We only need to get them operating.
@The1QwertySky Місяць тому
you dont know what a nuclear rocket engine is, do you
@vyacheslavromantovsky1238 Місяць тому
Nuclear rockets might be good for a trip between 2 Planets (first around home planet and next around distination planet), but not for starting from a surface or landing on a planet.
@gottfriedheumesser1994 Місяць тому
@@The1QwertySky As you know everything ...
@denismoran670 Місяць тому
dON'T WORRY, EVERYONE! tHE nasa/lockheed martin COMBINATION IS ENOUGH TO IDEA NEVER GETS OFF THE DRAWING BOARD! wHOSETHE PENSIONER? iS IT pRESIDENT bIDET? Loved the'slower than **** through a Xmas goose' !
@Flutes2000 17 днів тому
I think that even if they had a working prototype "better" is a concept that should be left for after FAA launch approval. Boom, woops... More like a space only concept until all the bugs are worked out, and even then, good luck finding someone at the FAA willing to be in the same room with your environmental assessment.
@CraigPybus Місяць тому
You don't use a device puts out loads of radiation to take off or land on a planet that you intend to live on. If it is a rocket you don't make it carry tons of shielding. Both fission and fusion are best as propulsion between planets and unless we have huge breakthroughs in managing radiation, we can use Starship to take off and land. It may even be possible to use the fission or nuclear rocket to push something like Starship to Mars orbit, and push it back. You don't want to drag it. Place its fuel tank and Starships propellant tanks between the reactor and the people.
@jessicatymczak5852 Місяць тому
The fuel is the shielding, it is not the issue. And you would still use chemical engines to land or take off from planets. The actual radiation issue is space radiation, cosmic rays and solar flares. This is why this would be better, all that hydrogen is an excellent radiation shield
@jojodinger4431 11 днів тому
Nasa needs competition. A good thing what's going on now. A modern day space-race. Let's hope that Nasa shares their knowledge freely in future. At the end it should be a victory for humanity not just for the US, right? I am sure Elon Musk enjoys the fact that he is awakening the sleeping giant Nasa. And if the USA would spend a little bit more for creative rockets instead of destructiv rockets then just that would give more hope for humanity too. Peace to the world.
@Just1heyU Місяць тому
Brings the vastness of space travel into prospective. 🌎
@vensroofcat6415 Місяць тому
Aside from all the AI generated nonsense in this video (greenhouse gas methane being environmentally friendly, electrons triggering fission, etc), there's also that hope for nuclear fusion instead of fission. It has significantly higher energy and lower risks. Also recent developments working on quite different designs of fusion generators could eventually produce rocket relevant side products. Nobody will fly stadium sized tokamak. But some compact linear generators or other solutions could actually work as safe and decently efficient impulse generators. Plenty of solar energy up there.
@alkishadjinicolaou5831 Місяць тому
Is the engine in development?
@patsal1948 Місяць тому
It doesn’t make sense to go so fast because you just add the challenge of slowing down to land safely. can’t use Mars’ atmosphere to air brake. If they could figure it out, that would me cool, even if its just used for taking robots and supplies.
@jeffalbrecht1 Місяць тому
Spacex should jump on this. Don't wait for NASA or it will never get done.
@davidmoor8096 Місяць тому
I would assume the current optimum solution would be a Chemical engine to achieve high Earth Orbit then switch to Nuclear Fission engine for interplanetary travel, then back to Chemical engine for planetary landing. FYI: Nuclear Fusion has been achieved in the Laboratory, but not stable or in a cost effective way, YET! FYI: Nuclear Fusion is INHERENTLY fail safe. Failure of ANYTHING and the reaction stops! No need to do anything. If the required parameters are not met NO reaction. AND very limited waste material. As to extraction of raw materials, lots of water is all that is required AKA the oceans!
@jimparr01Utube Місяць тому
You have failed to highlight the most important difference between chemical and nuclear propulsion. NO WAY (at this time) can nuclear engines lift anything into orbit. But - they can utilize the constant low thrust over days to exceed the performance of any chemical rocket in respect of velocity over an extended period of time when free of gravity's shackles. A moon landing/takeoff may be practical with nuclear propulsion. Probably not Mars and definitely not Earth. But hey. I live to be wrong and hope I am.
@jimrt1738 Місяць тому
And the moon is made of green cheese 😂😂😂😂.
@aof9964 9 годин тому
Isn't Draco Russian?? Nevermind I'm thinking drago from Rocky 😂
@quinton3997 14 днів тому
It would be a death sentence for everyone that goes to mars
@MobileGamer18x Місяць тому
They tryna run that check back up 😂
@JustSimplyHack 17 днів тому
They will finally release a functional one in 25 years
@riderpaul Місяць тому
Lol, liquid hydrogen is the lightest gas discovered "to date". Lol
@StopTheBurn Місяць тому
NASA can't get past themselves to build anything. 😅
@warrenjm9 Місяць тому
Oh, but they HAVE built things. Just not for a commercial market like SpaceX has.
@KiwiBrowserSupport Місяць тому
If nasa laugh or shows attitude means they must have made but with no disclosure policy
@marinmitu995 Місяць тому
Will the nuclear engine have a static fire? And FAA approval of course !
@jem5159 16 днів тому
Easy, use both. NASA for most of the personal. Starship for hauling the hardware and other essentials. 😕 maybe?
@timcouillard3499 Місяць тому
What happens if there is a launch miss hap ? 😳🤔😔
@warrenjm9 Місяць тому
NASA has a lot of talk these days, but not much carrythrough. They can talk nuclear thermal rocket all they want. Where IS it? Just like SLS. They launched one. When is the next scheduled? I see Sept 2025, 18 months away. Then we wait another 12 months.
@warrenjm9 Місяць тому
And how are they going to get clearance from the FAA to launch a NUCLEAR FISSION REACTOR into space? And, while it won't need LOX, what WILL it use for reaction mass?
@mori2740 Місяць тому
Does human body can endure that much acceleration and speed?
@babbagebrassworks4278 Місяць тому
New energy source, Sam Altman might be interested in that. Head of Space Force said their Fusion engine is better than the Chinese version.
@warrenjm9 Місяць тому
Haven't seen evidence of either country actually having a viable working model. The concept might be there, but only a concept.
@leemiah3583 15 днів тому
This is amazing
@omega7311 Місяць тому
So why not use it for energy production on earth
@sp66-know-try-think Місяць тому
The choice of goals and objectives to be solved is more like a pretentious vinaigrette rather than a well-thought-out strategy...
@scifycartoon Місяць тому
My gess This engine only works in space. So it coule be dock to the back of Starship for the jorney between the planet. once in orbit of Mars undock the nuclear stage engine and leave it in orbit until the jorney back.
@warrenjm9 Місяць тому
Except you still need reaction mass. Ion thrusters need a fair amount of xenon to operate. All nuclear engines do is provide a heat source for thermally expanding SOMETHING to be ejected out a nozzle.
@Flutes2000 Місяць тому
Ha, imaging the screaming and FAA conniption fits if SpaceX and Elon announced that they had this nucellar engine we want to try. Yep, NASA's ball, on the other hand NASA would probably need something as big as Starship to carry the prototypes into space where they could safely turn them on.
@Steaphany Місяць тому
Free Electrons trigger Fission ?!?!?
@red7rikki 10 годин тому
Nasal will never get out of the atmosphere simple
@jamessimmer725 Місяць тому
I almost unsubscribed with this fairy tale. Musk said in 2019 this would be good for NASA to try. That was 5 years ago. SpaceX had 96 successful launches in 2023 and ~30 in the first 3 months of 2024. NASA's advances are on paper--not in space. They might save 3 months going to Mars, but you'll have to wait 20 years for a launch date.
@jeremytaylor3532 19 днів тому
That is why Musk said this would be a good project for NASA. They specialize in very long term very difficult projects.
@JustinStLouis-xz7ut 12 днів тому
When you build on a budget you get crap.
@malcolmcarter1726 День тому
Nuclear reactors! Hydrogen! Hmm, soumds like a recipe for diasaster.
@3dfxvoodoocards6 14 годин тому
NASA cannot even send people to the Moon…
@mikecodner7444 Місяць тому
NASA talks a blue streak, but that doesn't build rocket engines.
@jessicatymczak5852 Місяць тому
They never did, they contract it out like all government agencies
@Kmakmizzle 15 днів тому
Wasting our tax money on primitive tech when they know we know they have ET tech. SMH
@CProductU 12 днів тому
Right?? You've seen those craft that zip up. Come on, if it's not ETs, then they gave us tech to build them.
@user-ph9sc9dp2z 8 днів тому
Wow 45 days is less than my guess of 2 months.
@quinton3997 14 днів тому
Notice every time they show a picture of earth you don't see space junk 😂
@Opinionteer Місяць тому
Still have to slow down.
@antonzaretsky9166 Місяць тому
Wouldn't turning 180° for deceleration work?
@markmaugle4599 Місяць тому
Hydrogen is very hard to keep in a liquid state. This engine still used high speed atoms to push the rocket.
@jessicatymczak5852 Місяць тому
It’s called cooling. And it’s much easier to keep hydrogen cold in space then on planet earth, the vacuum is an excellent insulator.
@markmaugle4599 Місяць тому
@@jessicatymczak5852 I understand it require cooling, but 20.28 K (−252.87 °C; −423.17 °F) is really cold. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen.
@jessicatymczak5852 Місяць тому
@@markmaugle4599 helps that space is 3K, yes, it’s not easy but the benefits are huge. However, for shipping cargo I would use something that a snap to store and readily available, water. You has the same ISP as LH+LOX, and it is a real easy to store.
@corb.6837 Місяць тому
Starship did reach orbit.
@protorhinocerator142 Місяць тому
Technically not a full orbit, but it was close enough I'm giving them full credit. They purposely chose a course that would make it come down in a specific location. That was possibly the most beautiful launch ever. The footage was gorgeous.
@OceanTopInc Місяць тому
@@protorhinocerator142 I bet they are glad to get your full credit
@recoilrob324 Місяць тому
This video constantly calls the proposed nuke rocket 'more powerful'...when it's not. It's more 'efficient' meaning that isn't a matter of how much thrust it makes....it can produce a lesser amount for a longer period using the same amount of propellant ending with increased ISP which is a big difference. The Starship will do the burn to escape Earth's gravitational pull and send it toward Mars using only as much fuel as needed to get there while having enough left to slow down and then safely land. The nuke engine will burn for a longer time toward Mars and eventually get up to a higher velocity....but this is a double-edged sword where every excess mph you make to get there needs a corresponding amount of energy to slow back down so you can land. So all the 'it's more powerful' is nonsense...it's potentially more efficient.
@jessicatymczak5852 Місяць тому
It’s with a long a, like in dragon.
@user-mz1su7nu5n Місяць тому
Wernher von Braun The Farther of all rockets please!
@user-ff4su5ji1p 4 години тому
CIA FBI NSA??? NASA..?? NOT ALONE 😢
@Mr1234543211 Місяць тому
They are running after Russian Nuclear tow. Month ago they were screaming about that
@user-xv8yn4ts7y Місяць тому
Hundreds of millions degrees? Uhhh huh?
@francoisdemiras9711 8 днів тому
Bravo à l'Afrique noire de mettre au point des vaisseaux nucléaires pour aller sur Mars👍♥️
@ecoidea100 Місяць тому
I don't know Rick, it looks fake.
@jessicatymczak5852 Місяць тому
No, this is real, was started in the 1960s but then cancelled by Tricky Dick. They made a lot of progress and were two years away from testing a flight worthy engine. Ahh politics, best method our race has come up with to halt scientific and technological advancement
@Ad-rn8wk 9 днів тому
He never explained how they stop the rockets in space
@galimbertino4939 2 дні тому
By turning the rocket at middle trip and keep exhausting gaz toward the destination until it stops.
@RMJTOOLS Місяць тому
If you really want a nuclear rocket do an Orion thumper.
@peronik349 Місяць тому
Very interesting video IF and only IF we have not forgotten the elephant in the room (or rather the herd of elephants)! ! ! From Earth to Mars the most economical journey (in terms of fuel) takes 252 days, spending a little more we reach 180 days (or 6 months) Arriving in the "suburbs" of Mars a braking operation will be imperative (aerocapture or direct reentry mode). Going drastically faster (45 days ~ 4 times less than 180 days) will require braking drastically harder on site (thus having to transport the necessary fuel from the ground) Will the rocket and its crew be able to withstand this braking? ?? A solution would be a very very strong acceleration at the start only so that halfway through we already start to slow down (and therefore spend fuel) to reach speeds allowing an aerocapture or a direct re-entry Another big elephant in the room ; Hydrogen is indeed a very efficient fuel; On the other hand, it has a very big flaw: It has a very low density and in liquid form it only wants to return to gaseous form; in short, bringing hydrogen until Mars for braking will be a major challenge
@Sgreubel Місяць тому
You have 5000.000 MPH on your video headline. What in the world is that?
@Solar2go Місяць тому
A bit of bad science here, liquid oxygen or LOX is not a fuel, it's an oxidizer required for combustion of the fuel, liquid methane.
@zagreus5773 Місяць тому
Nonsense. "A fuel is any material that can be made to react with other substances so that it releases energy as thermal energy or to be used for work." LOX is the oxidizer and liquid methane the reducer, both are fuels of the redox reaction which generates heat. Neither LOX nor methane can generate heat on its own. The reason why oxygen is typically not thought of as a fuel is because it is in the air all around it. So people simply forget about it. But technically it is a fuel.
@petethewrist 11 днів тому
Let them get a M a n on the moon first.
@peterjrmoore3941 Місяць тому
1:39 who apparently would hang the least productive workers in front of his factory
hromadske
Переглядів 1,6 млн
ALPHA TECH
Переглядів 83 тис.
i-shoppers обзоры
Переглядів 33 тис.
PRO Hi-Tech
Переглядів 124 тис.