How Nuclear Rockets Will Get Us To Mars and Beyond!

[@ntm4]

A little more detail: The difference between the proposed nuclear thermal engines and the nuclear powered satellites that NASA has been using for decades is the former actually involves a fission reactor while the latter is just using the heat of decay from a lump of radioactive material to produce electricity.

[@leonardgibney2997]

"A lump of radioactive material to produce electricity" something there for future power stations?

[@mrzoinky5999]

Yeah the Cassini probe, Perseverance rover etc use an RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator) which uses a non-enriched Plutonium source that as it decays produces heat. So you have heat from that on one side of a thermocouple junction, and the cold of space on the other side of that thermocouple junction and you get a voltage produced. It's only a couple hundred Watts, but it lasts a LONG time. These are expensive items to produce and on Earth we have so many other/better options for producing electricity.

[@bazoo513]

@@leonardgibney2997 No.

[@lordofallpotatoes4336]

@@mrzoinky5999 actually it’s the curiosity rover that uses nuclear power and not the perseverance rover, it uses solar power.

[@termi_sh]

This man is severely underated

[@glennnile7918]

It's great to see people are starting to see the benefits of nuclear. The Greenest form of energy.

[@palfers1]

I'm an old fart from the Apollo era and spent my life doing engineering R&D. This new channel is great, so subscribed. Great presentation, fair and balanced, intelligent, with solid information density and the right sprinkling of levity. Keep on keeping on! I expect that in a few decades we'll have mature and portable fusion power, probably aneutronic using hydrogen and boron spitting out alpha particles which can be directly converted to electricity or thrust.

[@leonardgibney2997]

Beam me up Scotty.

[@TimLongson]

The biggest barrier to faster space exploration/technology development is, as always, political will - you have to motivate politicians to CARE enough about it, which primarily means "vote winner" to fund. A space race, where countries want to be the best/first to reach new goals is an EXCELLENT motivator, so a space race between the USA, China and Russia is a GOOD thing!

[@squigglesmcjr199]

Thats why we have crypto and crowd funding...

[@omnislasherRX7]

There is another insurmountable barrier... and its the same as the reason we haven't been back to the moon since the early 70's... aliens. I'm not kidding.

[@mbukukanyau]

I would rather politicians solved inflation issues first, amd declare the world economic forum is a terror organization

[@asahmosskmf4639]

Omni i actually watched nasa sit on their ass for 20 years until musk came along... not sure its all aliens... plus a trip to the moon is planned.

[@mbukukanyau]

@@asahmosskmf4639 Space X is a NASA project

[@jmstudios457]

I feel NTRs are great for making LEO/Cislunar shuttles, as well as fast track missions or sending large payloads to the inner planets. NEP really shines for long distance travel, the outer planets.

[@simateix6262]

Im just happy to be alive to witness all this happening

[@XLessThanZ]

An idea I had, similar to your video, was autonomous cargo ships (no crew) that land on Mars and waits. Preplan long trips (years) knowing they'll always occur. Fuel requirements would be the launch rockets like Space X's, then nuclear or ion propulsion could take over till we reach Mars, then enough fuel to land autonomously. The rest is storage for anything. Individual fuel chemicals, building materials, etc.

[@Prof.Megamind.thinks.about.it.]

Hello , Rocket-Folk ! 🤓 You are discussing chemical-fuels here ; and have already acknowledged that nuclear propulsion-systems are less than ideal for manned and S.T.O. operations . You are correct in your presumption that most solid-rocket propellants are not efficient enough for the above ; their specific-impulses are just too low . There is however , a combination that does have the necessary performance , while offering the simplicity/durability of solid-rocket operation . This combination is hydrazinediium and hydrogen-pentoxide ; frozen-solid at below 30°F . The Hy&Ox molecular-bonds are fairly weak , so the atoms let go easily . The non-cryogenic temps also consume far less energy than cryogenic propellents . The end result is a solid-rocket with hydrolox-like performance . Safety does demand specific architectures , in order to mitigate the possible risks . I have written about this in other venues , and will hint at one in a Comment below .

[@phoenixdickeson3868]

Nuclear energy is actually rather safe if you have a good handle on it, almost all accidents have occurred due to human error and old technology that was not receiving the funding it needed due to public image, with our current know how, we could build cheap high quality nuclear reactors that could even recycle nuclear waste and produce no green house gas, however with the image and funding being put to this topic, it just won’t happen, in fact, more reactors are being torn down than built, and right in a time when people are looking for an energy source to replace coal until renewable energy is to the level it needs to be. Btw there are far more deaths and accidents associated with hydro than nuclear

[@jessepollard7132]

NASA used to have nuclear thermal rocket engines built and tested for possible launch. Congress threw it all away.

[@trmon8890]

The Nuclear Ion engine is the best we have at this time. If we continue with this technology and with the future developments will be exciting to see in 2050

[@Prometheus7272]

We should have done it by now

[@f.duarte5276]

you guys are killing it, keep it up!

[@allannicolascampos4126]

Love it, it's so dam cool all of this stuff

[@salzen6283]

Great video we appreciate your efforts and editorial style :)

[@darylniewald1624]

Great job! Really enjoyed this episode!

[@aaronhane488]

Love the content, 5 stars! I’m going to watch every space video y’all come out with!

[@ianmorgan3005]

Love the graphics and narration 👍😎

[@johnspears6128]

Excellent job good information keep up the good work!

[@r-saint]

The second tank is not always containing Oxygen, but it contain what's called Oxidizer. Often it is Oxigen, but often it is not.

[@khaccanhle1930]

What other atom can be used as oxidizer which is NOT oxygen?

[@r-saint]

@@khaccanhle1930 Oxygen (O2) Ozone (O3) Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and other inorganic peroxides, Fenton's reagent Fluorine (F2), chlorine (Cl2), and other halogens Nitric acid (HNO3) and nitrate compounds Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) Peroxydisulfuric acid (H2S2O8) Peroxymonosulfuric acid (H2SO5) Hypochlorite, Chlorite, chlorate, perchlorate, and other analogous halogen compounds like household bleach (NaClO) Hexavalent chromium compounds such as chromic and dichromic acids and chromium trioxide, pyridinium chlorochromate (PCC), and chromate/dichromate compounds Permanganate compounds such as potassium permanganate (KMnO4) Sodium perborate Nitrous oxide (N2O), Nitrogen dioxide/Dinitrogen tetroxide (NO2 / N2O4) Potassium nitrate (KNO3), the oxidizer in black powder Sodium bismuthate (NaBiO3) Cerium (IV) compounds such as ceric ammonium nitrate and ceric sulfate Lead dioxide (PbO2) Sodium dichromate (Na2Cr2O7)

[@zaquevynne4281]

I was looking for a channel to cover these tops on a consistent basis and you’re doing it. Thanks bra

[@_AdamTamimi_]

Great video as always

[@Machiavelli2pc]

Amazing video! Subscribed! Keep up the videos! (:

[@humanbeing7779]

Love the video!

[@bob38161]

Awesome channel!! Thanks for the great work! :)

[@richard--s]

There is also a deep space exposure on Mars, not only during the travel between Earth and Mars (8:09). So it would not matter to reduce the stay in space from 3 years to 2.5 years for one mission to Mars, stay there and fly back after 2 years. There is no substantial gain. But there is a substantial gain if you would fly to Jupiter or Saturn, a faster propulsion would bring you there in a few years instead of 10 years. That's quite some good gain.

[@donaldmichaellumsden2714]

Forget Fishon reactors . Thats actually yesterdays tecnology . The next power source will be Fushion reactors10X the power of a nuclear reaactor,. It may take us 50yr to develop it ,but i figure that is about how long the rest of the tec is going to take to develop also . This is only about how long it has taken to decide to go back to the moon . I would like to be around long enough to see it happen , but I doubt it .I am already 50 yr old , But you never know. Medical tec is also developing about as fast or even faster than Space tec . So perhaps I might see. Fushion rocket tec before I die . And that COULD be the engine that gets us to Alpha Centari It will certainly be what gets us around the solar system . DML

[@AirGuitar]

Great video!

[@juanfermin1841]

Nuclear power sounds great but what is taking them so long. I can't wait.

[@SyphonGaming]

Man just send me on a nuclear powered space station across the universe. It would be like playing in the game Deep Rock Galactic but real life

[@p_p]

love this channel.. keep going

[@stevemickler452]

Solar thermal/electric beats nuclear thermal/electric to Mars a ta tiny fraction of the cost. It takes longer from LEO to escape but can have a much better electricity production per unit mass for the use of ion engines in the cruise phase. The concentrating mirror means triple junction PV for high efficiency and specific power production than the heat engine nuclear electric requires.

[@iamjmeitei4724]

Nicely explained

[@ПИЦКВлад]

Great start❗️

[@GrendelMTL]

Uh Russia doesn't have a "Great Track Record" on Nuclear Safety either...

[@niolss]

Voyager and other smaller space craft use the radioactive decay to create small amounts of electricity. Not for propulsion but for giving electricity to instruments and stuff. A reactor would be able to creat much more energy

[@jessepollard7132]

too bad it is banned from use.

[@tjobse2839]

Verry intresting topic. Thank you!

[@foobarrel9046]

The exhaust from a nuclear thermal rocket should not be radioactive, since the actual nuclear fuel will not be blown out the end, only the heated propellant gas, which, if it is ordinary hydrogen, cannot become radioactive even if it were in direct contact with the fuel elements, and in any case it is almost certain to be separated from them by a coolant loop.

[@jessepollard7132]

actually, hydrogen can become radioactive, but for this use, is minimal.

[@DklassEnt]

Cool video!

[@ManOleg38]

This "long duration" need to be a long time stage testing.

[@lukemercier5475]

Commenting to help the new channel and nice vid

[@warcraft3frozenthrone381]

I agree that nuclear engines are our future. But I think it is better to have fusion than fission because it produces more energy

[@viljokanniainen3090]

costs more

[@michaelsmith2723]

But we don't have fusion and won't for quite a few more years.

[@jxmai7687]

Thorium molten salt reactor is one of the best way to go.

[@chimbrazo5435]

Incredible video

[@Kitchguy]

Love your page

[@pikachu6031]

Just a small point to add to your superb video. When rocket fuels are mixed and then sent to the combustion chamber, in a Rocket or in the case of a Jet Engine (Kerosene) The fuel is ignited and then it BURNS, it does NOT Explode! And it’s the rapidly expanding hot gasses that produce thrust, using Neuton’s law of motion! If it Exploded, the whole Rocket or Aircraft would be destroyed!! Keep them coming though. An Excellent video!!!

[@tfcabral]

I love the idea of nuclear-thermal rockets. The ISP is vastly greater, the potential for deep-space (solar-decoupled) power generation is Game-Changing, plus they're (as you say) cool as hell! This is why I use them in my hard SF novella, NIGHT MUSIC (please search if interested: not looking to spam this thread)

[@jessepollard7132]

sure - but treaty bans its use.

[@adamhill2223]

I love the sound tribe art!!

[@randolphtorres4172]

THANKSGIVING

[@TexanUSMC8089]

We've had nuclear powered submarines for many years. Sub Sailors are used to living in tight quarters for months at a time. They go to sleep 1000 feet under the surface of the ocean. They make their own fresh water and air from the ocean. It's their life. Space Force should probably be move out of the Dept of the Air Force, and become their own branch. Sending rockets to orbit and operating in an atmosphere is the AF domain, but once a ship is in space it probably should be operated by Submarine Sailors. The first operations going to Mars should initially be a joint operation between NASA and Space Force using Astronauts and Submarine Sailors. You could probably add in Navy divers. They know how to do all kinds of work from a big bulky suit.

[@squigglesmcjr199]

Yup

[@istvansipos9940]

just all the lift offs and landings and all the G forces that come with it. Not really submariner territory. Sure, you can find submariners who can endure that, but why would you? Then you have to train new submariners and train the handpicked submariners to become astronauts. it is more effective to recruit from your entire population. It is a bigger pool of potential astronauts, and you have to train the selected few only once, with no retraining

[@whiterabit998]

Very well spoken!

[@kyle9663]

Good content

[@micheltremblay4774]

They will be powered by "Cold Fusion" which is a lot safer and can be of almost any needed size. What we know of it is just a fragment of what is going on in labs now. Thanks for the update, Take Care.

[@jessepollard7132]

There is no "cold fusion".

[@arunmoses2197]

I would really love if warp drive spaceships were invented!!!

[@kylebarton778]

I should have made this video :P. I've been saying this since middle school. Thank you for making it.

[@TheEpicBeastyGamerPlays]

13:12 WW3 - if you only knew when you made this video what Russia would do now with attacking Ukraine and threatening anybody who intervenes with nuclear attack...

[@fella9293]

It just a matter of time, Nuclear is the best candidate for a rocket fuel.

[@youcouldbesohappy]

The Rolls Royce SMR project is looking at ways they could implement one of their mini reactors for use on a lunar base or similar.

[@Eisenkieffer]

Nuclear power is the best option we currently have for long duration space travel. And in my view that includes human “space” travelers who require massive amounts of energy to sustain high density populations on the earth’s surface.

[@jessepollard7132]

sure - now change the treaty banning the use.

[@Eisenkieffer]

I am referring back to the use of NP for energy generation on spaceship earth. After all, we sentients are passengers on this planet, and are potentially facing a billion year voyage. To where? Not important.

[@BlackDotPatrick]

Nobody seems to describe how rocket engines work. Engines create a high pressure that push in one direction because there is a hole in the other direction. You can create that high pressure in many ways but it's simply a pressure differential resulting in the rocket being pushed in one direction. People get caught up in the "equal and opposite reaction" thing which sure is technically true but there's nothing special or magical with the exhaust coming out of the engine nozzle. It's just a result of the high pressure built up in the engine.

[@rayoflight6220]

Don't forget - any rocket engine, nuclear or thermal, require some mass to be ejected from the nozzle. A nuclear engine could use almost anything, from water to ammonia, to be heated with nuclear power, transformed into plasma, and be ejected from the nozzle. The nuclear reactor only provides the heat. You need tanks full of fuel anyway.

[@CarlosRamos-cn8kb]

I've always have been a astronomy nut love everything science; space travel exetera! But even back when I was a kid & didn't know much about nuclear energy, It was clear to me that nuclear energy had to be the answer to propulsion for space travel! Is practically eternally useful! Folks is coming we will work things out we will go into deep space 🚀

[@anders3995]

Like your YT-channel! What about Thorium? There are a lot of research made already, but not in space..

[@jxmai7687]

they are missing it in this video, with Thorium it will cut down the size of the reactor and much safer.

[@whiterabit998]

I bet everyone watching was also wondering when this was recorded!

[@M_R_243]

We have had nuclear powered ships in the US Navy for decades. There’s nothing "unsafe" about nuclear power. I hope people can educate themselves and move past this phobia about nuclear power-it’s incredibly powerful, lasts for a very long time, and has zero carbon emissions. The very small amount of waste products can be safely disposed of, or stored safely in perpetuity. We need to embrace nuclear power and build more nuclear power plants in the world.

[@jessepollard7132]

The only limits are imposed by treaty banning the use of such reactors in space.

[@reversicle212]

Epic

[@bugstomper4670]

A 'generation ship' would benefit from nuclear rocket engines. The water layer, between the outer hull and inner hull, that would block interstellar radiation, will need it, to stay liquid.

[@frankdalla]

Human beings are creatures of the Earth. It's where we evolved and where we lost our ability to think clearly. Once we started believing in ourselves as universal problem solvers, we started thinking that we could do anything. We cant. We are now so smart that we're stupid.

[@NicholasNerios]

Nuclear powered death-star or rather earth-star habitats aren't too far away.

[@TidusCloudRulez]

Triumph doesn't Just happen, It happens because we as people choose to pursue it Regardless or Risk or Rules when the call comes, Chase it .... Wolf Blass Ad Best Ads Channel.

[@TidusCloudRulez]

I really like the video great job, very informative. But I wanna speed up all this space stuff. And I wanna go to space too and Mars too (dunno how [or care] but want too) even if just to say look at me I was here.

[@srennielsen680]

Good video - but I think we should focus on the moon in this century.

[@jessepollard7132]

Only after the US withdraws from the treaty banning nuclear power in space.

[@mbukukanyau]

You go to Mars, I a, staying here.

[@calebrosen256]

I always thought that if we could convert energy directly to thrust we could theoretically go anywhere we wanted, using an onboard nuclear reactor to power them.

[@TexanUSMC8089]

Why not use Nuclear power, we use them in submarines and ships.

[@MisterSquid1]

Not exactly since you need a reaction mass so you still need fuel, what you're doing is increasing efficiency measured in isp, the only exception would be a dipole drive which uses a laser, mirrors and a light sail to produce thrust but at this point you're going to do interstellar journeys probably

[@dianeneedham6703]

Instead of deorbitting the ISS why can't they ( meaning NASA ) just use it's maneuvering, and or stabilizing thrusters to put it on course to the sun? Or for that matter all the junk in orbit, it would disintegrate harmlessly? I'm genuinely curious if I'm wrong, let me know.

[@nishgriff1]

I like the way you pronounce 'Noo'w'kleyer :)

[@Jam-In-With-Ben]

hi

[@anejz1637]

We could also explore the solar system by using ion engine + gravity of sun and use sun's gravity as a sling shot for a spaceship. Spaceship would go against the sun and go around the sun and used ion engine as a force to go away from the sun that whey it would get a lot of speed with almost no fuel and almost zero cost to go to the end or even further than the solar system. When the ship travel's towards the sun it would use solar cells to power the batteries on the ship for fuel.

[@jessepollard7132]

Can't. the physics of orbits doesn't allow the use of the sun's gravity for a slingshot - which is why the voyagers used Venus, Jupiter an Saturn/Neptune for gravity assists.

[@ampakmedia]

Wow. They were giving us rides to the ISS after our shortsighted NASA was left without a way to get there. I wonder if we would do that for them if the situation was reversed.

[@TgamerBio5529]

How would you land starship on the Mars or other planet if it has nuclear propulsion? You will be spreading radiation everywhere? It would be a better idea to use it as a transit booster in space like; star wars hyper speed rings to sit out in space and use for space travel.

[@_AdamTamimi_]

No views 2 likes

[@markoradivojevic5717]

Who knows what will be the fuel of the future. Or even way of traveling, maybe not thrust, but some gravitational manipulation as Bob Lazar described.

[@jessepollard7132]

totally fictitious.

[@ionutturcutvoda3545]

We will use the microwave warp engine being developed by Tesla of course :)

[@jessepollard7132]

They don't exist.

[@dannypresley5353]

Does anyone ever considered like compressed air I know space don't have air but it does have space can you compress space like in a compressor like air if possible the air can pass through a heater coil system to make the air hot for more traction just an idea

[@jessepollard7132]

NO. that was the idea behind the warp drive.

[@vec306]

Ion propulsion drive

[@jensgeysen9224]

TESLA BOT TO MARS!!!

[@dannypresley5353]

Another question I see that the Mars takes like double time to revolve around the sun wouldn't that make us age like twice as slow as here on Earth just saying if that's the case then as Martians we would live up 240 earth years am I right about this does anyone know for a fact and how long does Mars take to make 1 orbit in other words how long is a day Earth time on mars

[@jessepollard7132]

not a significant difference. Measurable, but not doubling in years (might add a few hours though).

[@angelbeats8996]

I have a question how long would a dark matter engine take to reach mars?

[@richard--s]

You still would need to stay 2 years on Mars before you come home or before you can get new supplies.

[@nadirlezgyar7895]

LEZGIN SPACE PROGRAMME

[@fazeshadowfear4949]

Ik

[@JoesPalace]

seems like a nuclear spaceship would be safer if launched from the moon and kept out of earth orbit

[@MissMarinaCapri]

Ion propulsion while in space

[@sinOsiris]

reusable rockets are most practical now and by the time we hit endless resources all other earthly fatigue diminishes indeed.... all type propulsion technology need to be addressed and at correct manner no time for conundrum maniacs out there nuclear based fission fusion propellant promising so as other on going uniques ---- explicitly -- there are over several billions of people out there to help translate data .... again Mobilization factor kicks in etc etc etc....

[@kritical_2638]

Project Orion

[@KomsoMango]

I'm thinking of the invention of nuclear-proplled space plane like space shuttle. I'll be using Thorium which of course, it has problem. This proposal is that will use as ascent or even descent (Maybe in minimum times because of aerodynamic wings of shuttle) and landing. Great video as always! Full support 💪

[@leonardgibney2997]

So get aboard and sit a few metres away from a nuclear reactor. "Space is as radioactive as all hell". At the time of Apollo science pundits predicted we would be shuttling tourists to and from the moon routinely by the year 2000. I guess as getting to the Moon was a question of beating the Russians so getting to the planets may be a case of history repeating itself. But if space is as radioactive as all hell better you than me.

[@TidusCloudRulez]

I want [Liberty Land & free world/ team USA NASA SpaceX etc ] to speed thing(s) up beat the tourtus('s) etc 😃😃

[@nightlightabcd]

Still waiting.

[@user-ts9or9hc4q]

Engagement

[@ekbergiw]

So no supercritical nuclear engine?? 😢

[@bazoo513]

Interesting video, but with far too many inaccuracies and half-information. You can only dumb down the topic so far before the explanation becomes meaningless. I am not talking of details like the one around 3:00 mark ("there is methane on Mars" - no, there is not in any appreciable quantities; the plan is to use carbon dioxide and water to produce methane via Sabatier process) or neglecting to mention other oxidizers apart from oxygen, or hydrogen as fuel, or hypergolic fuels. You *cannot* explain advantages and disadvantages of nuclear engines and ion thrusters without introducing the concept of specific impulse - there is no way around it. For example, you mentioned that nuclear thermal engine needs a low molecular weight reaction mass, without even trying to explain why. Also, explaining specific impulse will show that nuclear thermal engine is only about twice as "efficient" as the best of H2/LOX engines (RL-10 used in Centaur upper stage), while ion thrusters have an order on magnitude better specific impulse. So, nuclear thermal is a great propulsion solution, but it is not silver bullet. 10:40 - Come on, don't tell me you don't know the difference between a nuclear reactor and a lump of plutonium in RTG ?!? Sorry, this video is an exception to your usually pretty high standard - you dumbed it down so thoroughly that you explained nothing. I know this is not considered good manners, but let me recommend another video doing a much better job explaining nuclear propulsion: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g36vmH2if71jiM0

[@fazeshadowfear4949]

There taking alien technology