Discovery II

[@nexusoflife]

If we were not limited by money what would be the most technologically advanced spacecraft we could make using current technology?

[@fragomatik]

In my opinion: 1. Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) eg. A.C.Clarke Mars Transfer Vehicle - kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYupnX6ZaLmNpbM ...or... 2. Bi-modal Nuclear Thermal Rocket (BNTR) eg. Copernicus-B Mars Transfer Vehicle - kzbin.info/www/bejne/nX7bgp2XpJJ5q8k The nuclear thermal rocket has a very high technological readiness level (TRL 5). IIRC they provide 3 to 5 times the impulse of chemical rockets. The extensive NERVA tests done during the 60's & 70's achieved the performance required to fulfil a piloted mission to Mars. The NTRs provide thrust by super-heating liquid hydrogen using a nuclear reactor. An NTR vehicle requires solar panels for power, as the nuclear reactor is used for thrust only. The BNTRs provide thrust the same way, but also incorporate Brayton converters to generate electricity from thermal energy when the reactor is "idling"...so no PVAs are required, which saves mass. The above example vehicle designs are from NASA's updated Design Reference Architecture 2009-2014, and both feature artificial gravity modes. If we wanted to go to Mars ASAP, and money was no object, then I believe NTR/BNTR propulsion would be the logical choice since it's a well-known and effective rocket technology that would return the most immediate benefit through minimal development and sufficient funding. On the other hand, there could be a breakthrough "any minute now" in ion/plasma-type drives (eg. magnetoplasma, nuclear-electric, VASIMR, etc) and that would be a game changer. But for now I reckon nuclear thermal is the closest to being an achievable, practical-technology, advanced propulsion system. Just my 2-cents worth!

[@stainlesssteelfox1]

The only problem I have with NTR is that long term storage of cryogenic hydrogen is a nightmare. I'd go with methane. Only 2/3rds of the ISP, but far easier to store, and still twice that of most chemical fuels. The other problem I have is the spinning hab section. Not of itself, but the way it connects to the non-rotating spin section. Has anyone actually come up with a large aperture pressure coupling that is functionally frictionless? You can get one or the other, no question but both? However, this is an absolutely stunning rendition of the Discovery II concept, well done!

[@curmudgeonextraordinaire1884]

It’s more lack of will than money. Many don’t think space is a priority and some don’t think we should spend any money on it

[@lavenderlilacproductions]

I've also seen ammonia suggested. The heat cracks it and the ISP is about twice a chemical rocket. ​@@stainlesssteelfox1

[@stuartyoung4182]

...but before it could be completed, the Russians sent the "Leonov" in 2010 to rendezvous with the "Discovery I" in orbit around Io...and the rest is history! ;-)

[@fragomatik]

Lol, perfect comment! It's interesting to note that the Discovery-II design was an homage and an update to the original Discovery designed for "2001: A Space Odyssey". ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050160960.pdf I had the opportunity to chat with Craig Williams who was lead on the NASA/GRC team that designed Discovery-II. His colleague Fred Ordway (sadly now passed away in 2014) was the original NASA consultant for Kubrick's movie in 1968, and along with Arthur C. Clarke worked on the vehicle design. In the D2 source paper, the authors wrote: "It is also known that Clarke realized the need for a considerable expanse of radiators, but could not find a design that was aesthetically pleasing to the professional filmmakers." Which harks back to our conversation about the Hermes from "The Martian"! Filmmakers' aesthetic sensibilities often override scientific authenticity!

[@MinhNguyen-cx2gz]

"I thought you were going to call it the 'Titov.' Ahh, we change last month."

[@milky_wayan]

Random but the visuals fit amazingly well with the Avatar soundtrack's "You Don't Dream in Cryo" if you start the *song* at 00:13 and play this video (on muted) right way

[@fragomatik]

Hey yeah, just tried it...seems to fits nicely...cheers!

[@nubeees]

That looks awesome!

[@fragomatik]

Thanks! It's my 1st full HD 1080p upload...did it play smoothly for you? It plays smooth as butter from my local drive and on my smart TV, but it appears a bit stuttery to me when playing thru youTube :( I wonder if yt's re-encoding has screwed it up somehow...?

[@nubeees]

***** Fine for me

[@TheAngryAstronaut]

Hey, man. Hope you've been well. Just letting you know that I'll be using this INCREDIBLE animation in a video about colonizing Titan in the more distant future. Of course, as in the past, I will adhere to your rules, and give you credit. Maybe I can bring you a lot of subs this time since I've recently passed the 15K mark on my channel. THANK YOU for your generosity. I can't wait to show your talent to a new audience. :)

[@fragomatik]

Hey Angry, no worries. Congrats & thanks for the heads-up! Have a great weekend, mate! 🚀🧑‍🚀

[@TheAngryAstronaut]

@@fragomatik Thank you. I used the animation only in the last 30 seconds of my most recent video...and was so exhausted that I forgot to give u credit. Will get that added to my description in a few hours and my next video (which is actually about the Discovery 2) will have more proper credit in the video. Sorry...I am releasing three videos in three days and my mind is short circuiting. Lol

[@fragomatik]

No problemo! Stay cool, Angry 😎

[@TheAngryAstronaut]

@@fragomatik So...I stopped at a BO facility at the Cape and rashly asked if I could photograph the New Shepherd capsule in the lobby. They refused, of course. Any chance that you could ask someone on my behalf? Maybe I could release a pro BO video for a change. Lol

[@fragomatik]

​@@TheAngryAstronaut Dude, I have absolutely no pull with Blue Origin...or with *anyone* really lol! All I can suggest is contacting their media department thru their website: www.blueorigin.com/latest/submit-a-media-inquiry ...or you can try emailing them at: [e-mail]

[@smokeless7774]

Brilliant piece of work again Frag. Love the "Blue Danube". Plays just fine on KZbin btw.

[@fragomatik]

Thanks Smokey! Glad u enjoyed, mate :)

[@smokeless7774]

***** Just out of interest, how many man-hours go into making a 2 minute animation like this? (I'll understand if its on a "need to know " basis!!!)

[@fragomatik]

Smokeless777 This one took about 4 or 5 weeks (on-and-off) to build the 3D model and set-up the animation - call it 180 hours. Then about 2-3 days to render all the frames, edit the clips and output the completed video. So all up around 250 hours. In comparison, my Nautilus-X video kzbin.info/www/bejne/noDFk39qeaiYqas took about 1200hrs (about 3 months), including a full month of just rendering frames :)

[@smokeless7774]

***** Thanks for that Frag.Such dedication deserves more views!

[@cezar211091]

that was beautiful. made my day. good job..

[@fragomatik]

+cezar211091 Thank you...glad you enjoyed!

[@cezar211091]

***** =)

[@Spingus_Rongong_III]

THIS SHIP COOKS, SERVES, EATS AND DEVOURS, ALL WITHOUT LEAVING A SINGLE QUARK OF A PROTON OF AN ATOM OF A CRUM great animation btw

[@philip9186]

I love this animation! Thank you fragomatik :)

[@fragomatik]

Hey Phil, thank you! Glad you enjoyed!

[@jonniiinferno9098]

The Angry Astronaut sent me - subbed !!!

[@fragomatik]

Thank you and welcome! I only post 3 or 4 times a year, but I always try to make it something interesting. Enjoy! 🚀

[@Radialguy]

Why is so many people bitching about that storing hydrogen is dangerous sure getting from earth orbit will be pain job but if u assemble spacecraft on lunar orbit with manufactured lunar materials it will be much cheaper to build. it is middle of the vacuum of space, how its supposed go up into smoke if there isn't air. and also it isn't hydrogen that is used as fuel, it is deuterium and helium 3.

[@DrayseSchneider]

I've read the document, but I can't see why the radiators aren't angled to stay within the shadow of the radiation shield, or why the propellant tanks aren't withing the shadow either. I did read that the radiation is directed laterally, but that can't possibly be all the radiation, in particular high-energy neutrons, won't backscatter toward the craft proper? They clearly talk about using a radiation shield between the engine and the craft proper and mention concerns of radiation and neutrons from the engine. It's a really nice looking spacecraft otherwise and you've done an excellent job modelling it.

[@fragomatik]

Good question! Best I can figure is that the integral rad shielding built into the reactor design provides an adequate shadow shield. The toroidal-field coils are protected with 1/4-arc carbon-graphite shielding ~0.5m thick. These TF-coil shields converge at the forward end of the reactor which shadows the tanks and radiators (see article page 23, right-column, line 4): *"However, the convergence of the shields at the forward (crew module-facing) pole of the reactor provided an estimated 60° shadow shield. This was sufficient protection for limited human operations around the vehicle aft and protracting systems (i.e. propellant tankage and radiators). An equivalent amount of shielding was removed in the corresponding location aft of the reactor since the largely skeletal divertor/magnetic nozzle coils had their own shielding."*

[@DrayseSchneider]

Yeah, I had read that already. I wasn't too sure how they got a 60 degree arc for their shadow shield. Particularly where they talk about having a smaller shield than some other proposed spacecraft, which only have about a 20 degree shadow shield. My first read, when I commented, I wasn't convinced, but I have read it over several times to understand it. It seems the reactor is composed of twelve coils arranged around the center axis (p. 21), and each coil has its own shadow shield. So, it seems that the sum of the shadow shields of each of the coils provides the 60 degree coverage. Following a frustrating night of not finding any protractors in my house, I imported the image from page 4 in the PDF into The Gimp. After measuring the angle of the proposed shadow shield, 30 degrees for a half-shadow, I was convinced that, assuming that the 60 degree shadow shield is correct, the tanks and radiators didn't need to be specially angled. This brings me up to a vaguely related point, and I'm about to go off on a tangent rant here now, so fair warning. I've recently watched Interstellar. While I enjoyed the movie, I think they would have been further ahead adapting an existing design for the Endeavor, such as the Discovery II in this video, then what they went with. No noticeable propellant tanks, aside from the initial boosters that launched the lander from earth. Plasma drives incorporated into certain modules in the habitat ring, powered by fusion, and still safe for human habitat, or at least passage, through that module, and those modules must have been fully shielded too! It also boggles my mind that they were waiting for a miracle to solve a problem of heavy lifting, and the resulting testing and solving of the engineering details, when there has been a solution since the 1960's by way of the Orion Project based on already existing technology, albeit with its own engineering details to be worked out. Had they gone with the Orion Project they would likely have solved those details faster than they were waiting for the miracle. Also, while the Orion Project would have left a great deal of radiation on the planet from all those rockets boosting into space, the planet is destroyed in the book from manipulating the gravitational constant. But I guess there would have been no story had the author done that. Okay, my little rant is over. XD

[@fragomatik]

Well, full marks for going to the source material for answers! And that's a clever way to use Gimp - such a good free graphics tool! The fact is, we have to show some faith in the actual rocket-scientists who design these things for NASA and GRC. These guys have designed systems that can take us to the planets, with only a shoestring budget to work with! As for "Interstellar", I enjoyed it too. But as is usual with Hollywood entertainment, enjoyment is dependant on ignoring the many, many obvious and basic omissions and mistakes they make for "aesthetic reasons". My argument is that they could still make an entertaining, great-looking, and exciting film, while respecting the scientific and technological niceties - but unfortunately they always dumb-it-down for the masses. Personally, I think movie-makers too often underestimate their audience in this regard.

[@Radialguy]

1:31 please take tether or something, especially on Jupiters orbit spacewalk is scary as hell

[@Radialguy]

One of the Best animation of orbital vehicle

[@fragomatik]

Lol yes, it would be scary as hell to hang out in the middle of nowhere with just a few layers of spacesuit between you and eternity! But if you look closely you can see that the astronauts are equipped with MMU (manoeuvring unit) which can be used to move around without need for safety tethers. In truth, they would probably use a shielded pod for outside work, as there is so much radiation from Jupiter's magnetosphere - and from the nuclear engine itself. Thanks for the great comment! 🚀

[@AlanCanon2222]

Love the ion propulsion (are the big gold tanks for reaction mass?) but the drive would need to be shut down for EVAs, so the ship doesn't accelerate out from under the spacewalkers.

[@fragomatik]

Yes, the gold tanks are for hydrogen "cryogenic slush" propellant, which is vaporised by the *fusion* plasma reaction to create thrust. In practice I expect EVA would be avoided as much as possible due to the radiation hazard presented by the fusion reactor. But in this instance it was useful to depict the astronauts hanging around the radiators in order to provide a sense of scale 🙂

[@TheTrueAdept]

@@fragomatik actually it depends on the fusion reactants. Using any sort of binary deuterium or deuterium-tritium mix would produce _stupid_ amounts of radiation. A helium-3/deuterium reaction is actually pretty low in rad-count, when all things considered. Binary Helium-3 reactors would be aneutronic and relatively rad-free, when all things considered. Then there is the _holy grail_ of fusion reactions: the proton-chain (aka good ol' standard hydrogen) fusion... which is not only stupid-high energy but extremely low in terms of rad output. Also, you're better off using _water_ as propellant for anything more than a NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rocket), largely because hydrogen is just _stupid_ volumous. 14.12m^3 volumous for liquid hydrogen. Water is literally 1m^3, so you get roughly 14 times the propellant _and_ significant weight savings from all the support infrastructure that is needed to keep the hydrogen in a liquid state. You could use methane/propane but that has the wee little problem of being volumous _and_ a thing called carbon fouling (basically your injector system clogs up with carbon)...

[@JamesPerkins]

@@TheTrueAdept It's true that water is far easier to work with and much more compact. However, with water for every two hydrogen atoms you get one oxygen atom. Oxygen atoms are sixteen times as heavy as hydrogen atoms. That greatly reduces the engine's exhaust velocity. As a result the specific impulse and acceleration plummet.

[@JamesPerkins]

Alan, the acceleration from the fusion reactor engine is ~1.5 milli-g - that's 15 mm/s^2 - so if the astronauts dangle (slowly) at the end of their tethers and mass 200kg all suited up, their actual 'weight' as far as the tether is concerned is ~300g. It should be possible to scrabble along all the craft and climb hand over hand with minimal effort.

[@TheTrueAdept]

@@JamesPerkins problem is that volume causes weight to increase practically _expoentially_ in practice. Additionally, hydrogen's power/weight ratio is just that bad.

[@somsakpanjing263]

Like a futuristic spaceship

[@PaiSAMSEN]

+Somsak panjing The interesting fact is that it can be made by technology less than a decade away.

[@somsakpanjing263]

Dr Galactose Hello, My Space Agency about creating vehicles that were analyzed. Including the development of large vehicles, the possibility of many years and have long-lasting energy.

[@allenjones3130]

I will always associate "The Blue Danube" with "2001:A Space Odyssey".

[@digiacomtech5589]

Nice video but ... If the engines were running providing 1 G of thrust there wouldn't be any EVA going on at the same time and the rotating artificial gravity sections would be stopped. Also, continuous thrust would cause problems for crew in the rotating sections of the craft as there would be a lateral force (forward acceleration of the craft) as well as a additive/conflicting outward Centrifugal force (artificial gravity). You wouldn't want to be under both of these forces for months during the orbital transits.

[@fragomatik]

Thank you! This is a great comment, and what you say is pretty much spot-on! But... Granted, in the EVA sequence you can see the hab section spinning, however in all fairness, there is *no* view of the engine in that sequence so there is no definite sign that the engine is actually running or not 😜 In actual fact, if it was running, the astronauts would likely be fried by radiation from the fusion reactor! Most probably any EVA would be avoided totally - except in the most dire emergencies. A maintenance/repair drone or remote would be a more likely option I believe. The only reason the EVA sequence is included at all is purely for artistic reasons - the astronaut figures provide the viewer with a sense of scale. As for the engines, of course in this design the fusion engine doesn't run continuously. It is used at the beginning to rapidly accelerate, and then again at about the half-way mark (more-or-less!) the vehicle would be rotated 180-degress and the engine used to decelerate as it nears the destination. Also, if the engine was capable of continuous thrust at 1G, there would be no need to rotate the habitat for artificial gravity, as that would be provided by the continuous acceleration/deceleration. If you haven't read it already, you may find the source document of some interest: ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050160960.pdf Thanks again for the great comment! 🚀

[@andrewshouse9840]

​@@fragomatik The main issue would seem to be how do you have a hermetic seal between the static and rotating sections? At least with Discovery, the centrifuge was entirely contained inside the pressure sphere.

[@fragomatik]

@@andrewshouse9840 Yes, this is a classic engineering problem! In terms of using centrifugal systems to simulate gravity for a piloted spacecraft, it's probably best to avoid this issue altogether by simply designing the craft so that the *entire thing rotates!* With that solution: mid-course corrections/manoeuvres would require spin-down--> course-correction--> spin-up again. This of course entails additional mass/resource & energy costs, but is relatively easy & trivial to design for. Or, as you mentioned, one could put the entire rotating assembly within an airtight enclosure, with the resulting additional mass & energy & friction being put down to "the cost of doing business"! However, if we absolutely *need* to have a stator/rotator set-up, then there are various well understood & well established engineering solutions commonly used in similar contexts. "Hermetic" mechanical seals are commonly used in such high-performance applications as submarine drive shafts, jet-engines, and power generator turbines etc, often involving solutions such as ablative seals, and/or ionic-fluid lubrication materials. Of course, wear & tear requires crucial regular maintenance and replacement of ablative materials and/or lubricants, but there's nothing "show-stopping" about these requirements. Yes, they're expensive and require high-accuracy manufacturing tolerances (which is typical of aerospace engineering really!), but well within the realms of practicality - depending on the desired application. There are also simpler solutions available for some situations, such as "synchro-mesh" systems - an example of which is illustrated in my *Alpha LEO Station* video here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/apKkkJpoiLWNiq8

[@andrewshouse9840]

@f r a g o m a t i k Well, I'm a fan of the enclosed-centrifuge or spinning the entire ship. It you try to get clever with a static/spinner setup and something goes wrong halfway to Mars, what do you do? The fewer ways things can go wrong, the better.

[@fragomatik]

@@andrewshouse9840 Yes, simple is best, for sure. Spinning the entire craft is my personal favourite, and IMO the best example of that is something like 'The AC Clarke', or 'Concept 6'. There's also the "tumbling pigeon" method, as used by 'Copernicus B'. Of course, as an artist it's fun to illustrate the different strategies that rocket-scientists have come up with over the years. If you haven't already seen them, my play-list "Piloted Planetary Exploration Vehicles" shows examples of most of the artificial gravity methods mentioned above, as well as a few centrifuge-system designs.

[@jessesands4099]

Well Done Space Travel To Jupiter And The Blue Danube Go Hand In Hand!👨‍🚀🚀🛰🪐🌌🌠🎻🎼🎼🎼🎵🎶🇺🇲

[@MountainManMike]

yup plays... fine. great animation!

[@fragomatik]

Ah, thanks for that! :)

[@KAKU560]

オリジナルのDiscoveryには、プロペラントタンクが無いですからね。リアルな造形だと思います。 両サイドのパネルは、太陽電池では無く、廃熱のためのラジエーターかな？　太陽に対して横向いているし。

[@fragomatik]

Yes, the large panels on the sides are radiators. The original Discovery was also designed by NASA, but the director Stanley Kubrick didn't like the way the large tanks & radiators looked. He wanted a more streamlined shape, so he overruled the NASA consultants.

[@parkpunk2]

Yes please.

[@n0_XcusZ]

Appears far more efficient then the 1st.

[@fragomatik]

The original was more like this one, but Kubrick overruled the NASA consultants that designed it because he didn't like the football-field-sized radiators. He wanted something more "streamlined". Yet another classic example of movie makers ignoring real science for cosmetic purposes.

[@camarocarl7130]

Please tell me there is not an AE-35 Unit onboard.

[@fragomatik]

"𝑰'𝒎 𝒔𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒚, 𝑫𝒂𝒗𝒆...𝑰 𝒄𝒂𝒏'𝒕 𝒅𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕."

[@kellywilson-lawson1857]

I have a question how do the crew get down to the planet/moon's surface? Cause I don't see a lander on this craft

[@fragomatik]

It's already landed, that's why you can't see it, duh! :p

[@kellywilson-lawson1857]

+f r a g o m a t i k I get it now

[@badbeardbill9956]

Why land? As far as I'm aware, the target is at a lagrange point or something.

[@willwinters3910]

I'm certainly no engineer but wouldn't the solar panels need to be angled or placed in some sort of perpendicular array? Running parallel seems to be awfully inefficient.

[@fragomatik]

This design doesn't use solar panels. The flat panels to either side of the strut assembly are *not* solar panels - they are heat radiators. The fusion engine generates a lot of heat - some of which is used to generate electricity using the Brayton Cycle - but most of the heat is rejected/radiated via the radiators. That's what all the "plumbing" is for - to distribute coolant in the closed-system thermal rejection system. *For more information refer to the source document linked in the video description.*

[@SailorBarsoom]

It's wee bit stuttery for me, but then EVERYTHING on KZbin has been stuttery for me tonight. I'm using the girlfriend's computer, and I think there's something wrong with it. In fact, I blame her cat. Problems of feline origin aside, this is a nice video and I like it. That music sounds... familiar.

[@fragomatik]

Haha, damn cat fur gets everywhere doesn't it? That's the price you pay for the privilege of sharing your life with them. Since the Discovery II design is sort of like NASA's homage to Kubrick's '2001:A Space Odyssey', I thought "Why not rip-off the music as well?" ;)

[@SailorBarsoom]

*****  Works for me. But I'm home now, and I don't have a cat of my own, so I'm going to watch it again. Hold on a bit... OK it's much smoother now.

[@craigwilliams7823]

***** Dear Mr. Fragomatik: I just watched your video "Discovery II" for the first time. You did a wonderful job! I never expected our concept to be brought to life like that. I will pass this link on to the others who worked on it. My only regret is that you did not contact me. The last person I was in communication with from the motion picture, Fred Ordway, passed away only last month. He would have enjoyed it also.

[@fragomatik]

Craig Williams Hi Craig, Thank you for the lovely comment, and thanks to you and your team for the inspirational concept! I was very young when I first saw *2001: A Space Odyssey* at the cinema in the early 70's. My young mind was absolutely blown-away by the grand vision it evoked of humanity's potential destiny amongst the stars... Your paper on the Discovery II concept vehicle generated that same "sense-of-wonder" within me, and inspired this video. Thanks again!

[@craigwilliams7823]

***** Perry, I have a similar relationship with the film; inspired me to work for NASA. But much of my experience has been in engineering and launching rockets in the more "pedestrian" ways. One of the members of my old team has already linked this to a website for an upcoming NASA conference on advanced space propulsion. ( aspw.jpl.nasa.gov ) What are the legalities in posting/linkin your work? I don't think they have procurement money to pay royalties and no one is making money off of it (they are mostly government & academia types). Would an attribution to you/your company suffice? It is a great piece which I could easily anticipate getting more facetime at other future venues. Please advise. [e-mail]

[@theutopianoutopioan464]

Ah! The days when we thought we'd have this technology and be living in space! Such a dream was I guess, never to come true.

[@badbeardbill9956]

Oh. The tech isn't the problem.

[@theutopianoutopioan464]

Bad Beard Bill, The trouble is, it costs too much to put anything into orbit, about $3000 per kilogram is the minimum at the moment, so government space agencies retain a monopoly on human space travel. NASA and ESA have had their funding drastically reduced to the minimum, in NASA'S case, the money is diverted to the military and useless beaurocracies that restrict people's business opportunities with the endless regulations and taxes. There's companies like SpaceX and Bigalow that are at the embryonic stages of making human exploration of our solar system a reality and give civilians access to space to visit and live beyond Earth. Though progress towards opening up space to civilians is very very very slow, but it should be reality by the 2030s.

[@badbeardbill9956]

The Utopiano Utopioan Sure. But the actual tech isn't the problem. SpaceX is getting loads of help from NASA.

[@theutopianoutopioan464]

Bad Beard Bill, The biggest problem is how much it costs to get things into space, it costs at least $3000 per kg to get anything into Earth orbit

[@badbeardbill9956]

The Utopiano Utopioan The biggest problem is the cost of payloads. They usually cost more than to build than to launch.

[@LeonidSaykin]

what happened to Discovery 1

[@fragomatik]

"Discovery" was the version that was used in Kubrick's classic film 2001:A Space Odyssey. Kubrick and Clarke consulted with NASA's Dr Fred Ordway (a colleague of Werner Von Braun) to design a realistic, advanced interplanetary spacecraft. Ordway's team delivered the original "Discovery" design, which was subsequently modified for the film, for aesthetic reasons. In 2001, the advanced propulsion team at NASA Glenn Research Centre, led by Craig Williams, commemorated the film's "anniversary" and the special consulting relationship it represented, by analysing, designing, and presenting a "re-imagined" and updated fusion-powered Discovery - hence the name "Discovery II". It truly is a captivating glimpse into the history of advanced spacecraft design...and the arts! If you're interested, have a look at the original presentation - it's already linked above in the video info text, but here's a direct link to the PDF: ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050160960.pdf

[@09rgs]

Still using the old AE-35 unit I see....

[@fragomatik]

"𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵...𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐'𝘷𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘌-35 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 100 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 72 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴."

[@FQP-7024]

Let's hope that Hal-10000 dosent do as his younger brother

[@09rgs]

Untethered Astronauts? Have Nuclear power, but still have Solar cells.....also, on approach to Jovian Space, the engines would be pointed towards.....Jupiter.

[@qpwodkgh2010]

Beautiful, except the engineering. Let me explain. If you had two rotating sections and were counter to each other, that would be stable, if complicated. Complicated because there are rotating parts, and non rotating parts of the ship. Seals, gears and energy are never going to be perfect, will wear and fail eventually. For example, the rotating shaft on a ship always leaks. Always. So, why not rotate the entire ship? Sure, it doesn't look as cool as what you have, but over complexity in space can get you killed. Best solution is simple, reliable using the least energy.

[@fragomatik]

Although what you said is technically correct, it's also terribly obvious, and not exactly unexpected. But it is a bit churlish to denigrate the engineering as "not beautiful". There are many ways to implement artificial gravity using centrifugal/centripetal 'force' - this is just *one* of them. Examples of other methods (including rotating the vehicle around a short or long axis) can be found amongst my other videos on this channel.

[@mrmucro2704]

The solar panels should face the sun.

[@fragomatik]

The flat panels to either side of the strut assembly are *not* solar panels - they are heat radiators. The fusion engine generates a lot of heat - some of which is used to generate electricity using the Brayton Cycle - but most of the heat is rejected/radiated via the radiators. That's what all the "plumbing" is for - to distribute coolant in the closed-cycle thermal rejection system. *For more information refer to the source document linked in the video description.*

[@mrmucro2704]

@@fragomatik Ok. Sorry, I thought they were solar panels.

[@fragomatik]

@@mrmucro2704 No worries...Hope you enjoyed my videos! 👍🧑‍🚀👍