NASA's NEW Nuclear Engine to visit Mars in Day, Faster & Better Starship!

NASA's NEW Nuclear Engine to visit Mars in Day, Faster & Better Starship!
===
0:00-0:38: Intro
0:38-1:27: Spacecraft travel time
1:28-5:56: NTP & NEP
5:57-8:22: Pulse Plasma Rocket
8:23-10:39: Pulsar Fusion company
===
#alphatech
#techalpha
#spacex
#elonmusk
#nasa
===
Sources of image & video:
iamVisual: / visual_iam
/ @iamvisualvfx
TijnM: / m_tijn
/ @tijn_m
Howe Industries: / @howeindustries8883
@Considercosmos: / considercosmos
Cosmic Perspective: / @cosmicperspective
===
NASA's NEW Nuclear Engine to visit Mars in Day, Faster & Better Starship!
NASA's NEW Nuclear Engine to visit Mars in Day, Faster & Better Starship!
There are many reasons why humans have never explored Mars.
In fact, reaching the red planet, on average around 140 million miles away, will be a mammoth feat.
Colder than Antarctica and with little to no oxygen, Mars is a hostile environment. The longer it takes astronauts to get there and the longer they stay, the more they are at risk.
A roundtrip mission to Mars would last at least an astonishing 21 months: nine months to get there, three months on the planet, and another nine to get back.
NASA's NEW Nuclear Engine to visit Mars in Day, Faster & Better Starship!
Well, are you willing to do this?
But what if there were a faster way to get there? Even more than that of the SpaceX Starship.
Let’s find out on today’s episode of Alpha Tech:
Most rockets today run on conventional chemical fuels.
The trouble is, that all such propellants have a relatively small “energy density” (energy stored per unit volume) and a low “specific impulse” (the efficiency with which they can generate thrust). This means that the overall thrust of the rocket - the specific impulse multiplied by the mass flow rate of the exhaust gas and Earth’s gravity - is low.
NASA's NEW Nuclear Engine to visit Mars in Day, Faster & Better Starship!
Chemical propellants can therefore only get you so far, with the Moon being the traditional limit. To reach distant planets and other “deep-space” destinations, spacecraft usually exploit the gravitational pull of multiple different planets. Such journeys are, however, circuitous and take a long time. NASA’s Juno mission, for example, needed five years to get to Jupiter, while the Voyager craft took more than 30 years to reach the edge of the solar system. Such missions are also restricted by narrow and infrequent launch windows.
====
Subcribe Alpha Tech: / @alphatech4966
===

[@dionysus2006]

There will be hundreds of Starships on Mars before NASAs nuclear powered ship gets there for the first time. Most Starship trips will be cargo anyway where it doesn't really matter how long the trip takes as long as there is a steady stream of ships going to Mars to establish a supply chain. SpaceX has had over 100 launches in the last 12 months. SLS is targeting one per year. The nuclear Mars ship will probably only go to Mars every 2-4 years. You can't build a supply chain that way.

[@lockwoodpeckinpaugh9252]

I think dilithium crystal propulsion needs to develop. Warp speed baby.

[@cruzin6123]

Elon Musk will get to Mars 10 years before NASA has a working prototype.

[@space-stargate]

@@cruzin6123 the only way we will reach Mars in our lifetime is Elon musk NASA will ride it out forever 😂😂😂all that government funding going to waist

[@jackbn9353]

I am a long-time NASA employee, long retired. It is very painful to see how incompetence now rules at NASA.

[@davebone8326]

As long as Boeing isn't building it 😂

[@tommymclean3146]

fact is at such as speed there would be bloody mush with g force lol we are not very dense but force is so this is another pipe dream you could use it for supplies and robots but people be there some time later if theres no accedents caused by human error lol

[@Sparky056]

I sure as hell hope Boeing did not play any part in this new money pit.

[@bigal1863]

You took the words right out of my mouth

[@UnitedWeStandFreedom]

I'm ready to go to mars right now ! Anything is better than trying to live on this planet these days !!

[@anynomoustrooper550]

A nuclear fusion engine will not likely be an efficient launch engine, however, a Space X rocket could ferry a nuclear propulsion capable Mars craft into space where it could propel the space craft to speeds unseen. It would be wise to send several drone rockets to mars in advance with supplies, emergency supplies parts and electronics.

[@tsclly2377]

With Starliner and the Hubble Telescope fiasco, 'heads are going to roll'

[@djohannsson8268]

Project NERVA, proposed and demonstrated a nuclear engine during the late 1950s. It worked exceedingly well. The fear of launching a fully functional nuclear rocket into space, with a chance of a launch radiation disaster, became too high an issue. Today would use a large chemical rocket to deliver the nuclear engine to LEO, and separately transport its fuel rods. Assembled them in space to avoid any launching issues. It's current plan in 2027 is to prove they can accelerate a "small" probe from LEO to the outer solar system. Any Mars missions would require a much larger system.

[@peterpankratz8798]

Finally someone is talking nuclear engines. Cut with the B S about chemical rockets. No way can we reach other planets and stay there without nuclear. I’m sure friends of the earth would it be against it even though nuclear material would exit the planet and never come back.😅

[@billscott1601]

Blue Origin will miss the deadline by years.

[@MrRich2u]

Blue origin can't even get a conventual rocket into orbit...

[@Sparky056]

@MrRich2u: Straight up, and fall back down. Just need to get those pesly parachuites to all work together.

[@KorAllRBare]

I still think flipping four or more electrostatic ?! WAIT! that will come later Err-electromagnetic fields "Sections" strategically to provide enough velocity in any X, Y or Z direction as long as a nuclear generator is allowed, all it needs is enough energy ergo repulsion to double respective sections flipped field to double it's previous velocity. The trick is tying the bulk of the sections electromagnetically so that the section being repulsed is accelerated the most towards the desired direction, to which once moving is strategically electromagnetically recombined as part of the main mass to move the following section that is then electromagnetically flipped and accelerated, similar to "Mag trains" only the Main mass is electromagnetically established and reconfigured on the fly so that three sections repulse one section forward. To which at some point, the fields polarity would have to then be strategically reconfigured for the respective sections to provide deacceleration. Also consider a minimum of 4 X 4 X 4 sections all up 64 sections" so that X, Y, & Z acceleration and deacceleration is possible. Yeah much like those UPA's that are utilising at the molecular level the atoms electrostatic fields, which are energised and manipulated using the energy of hydrogen, yeah our system won't be as sleek for some time, and they will still rely on our extremely crude nuclear understanding, but hey one day, we will drop the current archaic theories on theoretical particles, which will then open the flood gate to a new error in physics.

[@petepete2284]

And of course Blue Origin wont be ready until 2040........... and beyond

[@VAMobMember]

Based on past history we are looking at 10 yrs ofcounrt cases to get initial launch approval.

[@alanblasczyk1779]

Very interesting.

[@philv2529]

"...visit Mars in day (sic)."

[@anttisalminen1110]

If a rocket gets to mars in one day, how many months does it take to get in an orbit (with people) from that speed, same with light speed, with 10g brake?

[@ralphculley4650]

Wishing Could See This Work Thanks for the Fantasy my Friend

[@space-stargate]

NASA Will go back to the moon 2075 and go to Mars 2095 😂😂😂

[@mekhailhasan]

How can I contact you? Thanks!

[@d_baumberger]

NASA 😂. This is funny, not in business for innovation, but job security and a never ending government funding

[@Metalle]

There is a strong balance between national security and real national scientific capability… unfortunately SpaceX is not part of that equation 😂😂😂

[@timbrazell8994]

SLS is program is distributed nationally to spread the money around.

[@Cmdr_DarkNite]

It's not exactly cheap to make innovations in rockets. Also, a lot of things you use in your daily life exist because of space innovation. Lastly, the NTP they are funding is innovation, no?

[@d_baumberger]

@@Cmdr_DarkNite especially when the organization is being run by a bunch of bureaucrats

[@djidroneskathrinstudt1893]

Perfekt! We have in future for rocket to mars …. . We hope your . 🤩😊🚀 nice 👍🏼

[@alphatech4966]

Yes we are. Elon is opening the new hope for humanity

[@djidroneskathrinstudt1893]

@@alphatech4966yeah !

[@ajwharton65]

Where to even start. HALEU exists now, this is still a Newtonian design, hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store (ammonia is interesting). Ultimately, this is just using fission to add to the chemical heat to add to the impulse. And the addition of EM engines seems to feel like science fiction. Bring back the bosses that know that the Orion drive is the way to go for nuclear drives.

[@sp66-know-try-think]

The most universal, logical and safe solution to the problem is to develop high-capacity energy storage devices in Earth's orbit, powering them from the Sun or reactors (the issue is not fundamental). And on the basis of these storage devices, we can design engines with a high specific impulse for flights into deep space.

[@Dave-PL]

I heard such things many times. Unfortunately NASA nowadays can't make anything without subcontractors. Even their subcontractors can't make the things working as should. The biggest success is JSWT but it was postponed almost 10 years, and ate billions of dollars. Even during the launch, nobody was sure it will success for 100%.

[@Good13man]

YES! Nuclear is the FUTURE!

[@apolloxiii5574]

I believe it when i see it.

[@rogerrussell9544]

Says the same agency that has the Starliner at the ISS.

[@greghuckstorf1381]

Nasa can't get their Space Craft off of the Space Station.

[@Head-ck4hu]

It takes mass to move mass. All you're changing is the speed of the mass. And not by much.

[@JimmyRussell-zd5qo]

Good point if you overlook the obvious. Freight is in NO HURRY TO GET THERE. I just shared instructions on how to get PEOPLE THERE FAST AND SAFELY.

[@tomkarels6185]

We need to give it a try. If it turns out to be true. Right on. It would be cool to go to mars and return. After a time.

[@hughwitherington7956]

I would say to the pessimistic that a working reliable nuclear engine may be pie in the sky to you but the point is this. If you don't open this avenue and someone else does then you are stuffed because you will be displaced big time ! And left way behind. So make room for some optimisim because the future without any could be catastrophic !

[@marvinheyd28]

They just need to release the technology that we already have 0. Energy spaceships

[@timbrazell8994]

SpaceX is excluded from developing a nuclear high speed deep space engine? Blue Origin is included? Sounds like politics to me.

[@vec306]

I’ll believe it when I see it.

[@conard5381]

Yes in about 50 years

[@1sames]

They can't get a capsule back from the ISS. How are they going to beat Spacex to mars?

[@ericsullivan3642]

100%

[@charleswillcock3235]

It takes 1 minute.45 seconds to get to the word "could". My preference for KZbin videos is they should be categorised. It happened in the past It happened today or recently It might happen in the future. - It might happen in the future. There is no working example and it could take anywhere from 1 to 1000 years to happen. I might develop a time machine to travel to Mars, there again I might not. Algorithm, please only serve me things which have been at least tested and you have a working prototype.

[@greggiroux9432]

To be fair space x isn’t even close to lunar missions much less mars. The amount of fuel the starship would require to get to the moon is staggering much less mars.

[@stuartmcmahon8870]

This will never while NASA is in charge. It’s taken them a decade to get SLS in the sky..

[@tedjones-ho2zk]

Time frame of 2026, so with NASA involved should happen if at all by 2046

[@gryphon9507]

Your thoughts are correct. That organization is nothing more than a tax money sponge and star-liner and SLS is boondoggle. NASA is now a bureaucratic dinosaur who can even get old tech to function with out billions of dollars and decades of wasted effort.

[@Sparky056]

@tedjones-ho2zk: My friend you made a typeo, thats ok I just corrected it. 2146, Your welcome.

[@tedjones-ho2zk]

@@Sparky056 Thank you, even 2146 may be a little optimistic.

[@JimmyRussell-zd5qo]

No, I just modified the plan. Freight and supplies will be there waiting for the light weight passengers even leave to join it. This can ALL BE DONE after my flying inflatable Mars aircraft explorer's picks a location. I'd say, Olympus Mons size indicates that the cavern's under it are what? 1/3rd the size of the mountain?

[@DavidCons-ek4nw]

Whats wrong with the Tr3bs and the other antigravity space craftwe already have.

[@japfourme381]

No one will acknowledge this, because they don’t believe it, personally I think we are already visiting the Stars, with Secret Black Ops Craft, anti Gravity etc. They will not admit this however, they prefer to dumb us all down with traditional Rocket technology, and to convince us they haven’t yet, managed to discover alternative methods, some of us know better though don’t we?!!

[@davidwebster9788]

What happened to the NERVA engine?

[@spencerthu2956]

​@@japfourme381 I absolutely agree with you. We make it to the moon 55 years ago and the computing back then was less than the phones we have in our pocket!!! Either they lied to us and we didn't go to the moon or they have been lying to us since the 70s!!! 50 years later and we can't even reproduce what we did in the late 60s???! It actually breaks my heart!! I was a little kid in the 80s thinking by the year 2000 or so we would traveling through our solar system and by today (2024) I thought we would be close to stuff we seen in Sci Fi!!! Something doesn't add up! What if the auto industry did the same?? It'd a been unacceptable but yet we don't question NASA? Idk, I wish I was filthy rich because I'd fund it myself . There is something really advanced flying around our skies and I don't think it's aliens! I honestly think it's what you stated and it's black projects.

[@richardhoutman5261]

Hell they can't even get back to earth

[@Sparky056]

@richardhoutman5261: awe, Boeing. Always a good laugh.

[@anamdiolta]

Ok game over for SpaceX , but let's try pick up your guys from the international space station first NASA.

[@myparadiseonbantayanisland9030]

The planets line up on the same side of the sun only every 2 years so return is 2 years after arrival.

[@billakers6082]

Why not figure out how to get your crew back from the space station first.

[@timbrazell8994]

You are spreading disinformation- shhhhh

[@King_Dusty_Of_Pookytopia]

"The Expanse" but for real...

[@tonyburzio4107]

You want to give NASA a bomb disguised as a motor????? ARE YOU NUTS?

[@conard5381]

Now wait a minute what are the coordinates to Biden’s house

[@madusmaxamus8670]

All this sounds good on paper, but creating the real thing will take much time and a lot of money before it comes operational. This happening in 2 or 3 years I don't see happening. More like 5-10 years or more. There is also the problem if the nuclear engine does not make orbit. What then? The other thing is we cannot send humans on a mission where the thrust exceeds 1 gravity. More than that would harm a normal human. Even at one gravity a mission to Mars will take more than a few days unless someone comes up with a way to cancel gravity. Only then could we push a space ship faster.

[@noppornwongrassamee8941]

Being able to maintain a constant 1g acceleration would be ideal, because that would mimic surface gravity on Earth. It wouldn't be harmful to the astronauts at all. However, I'll only believe NASA has built such an engine when they successfully test fly one.

[@jroar123]

Mars is much harder than going to the North Pole. StarShip is the best way to get there and one big problem is fuel. It's going to take SpaceX 9 StarShip launches to refill 1 Starship to make it to Mars. That means to put a mission to Mars, it will take an armada of StarShips to make the trip. An armada of 25 ships. That means 225 Starship launches. At about 40 million dollars per launch, it's going to cost 9 billion dollars just to fuel a mission.

[@alphatech4966]

Thank you for your comment!

[@jroar123]

@@alphatech4966 You are welcome!

[@fionajack9160]

What’s nine bil when your trying to colonize a new planet

[@Paul-wd7mc]

NASAs first mission to Mars should be scrap collection for the amazing amount of probes they have sent and still dont know what the surface and air contain. Nah! wont take any notice this is NASAs equivalent of eating too many eggs and beans.

[@Sparky056]

What the hell are you saying? They can't find the shit they sent there.

[@chrisshea3244]

NASA??? Lol. NASA can't even get off the ground. When they do they can't get home.

[@user-mw3bs8hn1g]

with nuclear fusion we cant achieve even 2 persent of light speed

[@jonathannumer5415]

They will only be showing a demonstration by 2027… that is 3 years… not to mention any form of actual production…

[@conard5381]

Trust me on this any noteworthy breakthroughs will happen in the private sector.

[@chrisgray4239]

Mars is hostile…Bill Nelson should go 🎉

[@JCMills55]

No way NASA can accomplish something like that. SpaceX, yeah probably. But NASA is too much of a bureaucracy to really accomplish anything significant any more.

[@markymark21105]

why

[@aiami2695]

500 times the mach speed to travel to Mars in 10 days, (600,000 km/h). 😁😁

[@alphatech4966]

Yeah! Thanks

[@theshimario253]

its pronounced, dray-co. not dra-co.

[@Sparky056]

Thanks for the correction, We will all sleep better tonight.

[@theshimario253]

@@Sparky056 i knwo its not a big deal but it annoys me when ppl mispronounce easy to pronounce words

[@TinkeringJohn]

It’s also disrespectful to pronounce a person’s name wrong. The AI voice pronounces Suni Williams name ‘Sue-nee’ instead of ‘Sun-nee’.

[@allenfitzpatrick8485]

NASA needs a new Stanley Cubric, help nasa put people on the moon again. .

[@captjon1959]

NASA has a terrible track record for spaceflight in at least the last quarter century. I won't hold my breath waiting.

[@menotyou1234]

Great, it should only take about 6 months for them to Burn thru $100 M, where will the funds to research and build it, and then need more funding to complete.

[@stevenunua2118]

140 million miles...the sun is 93 million

[@10MinuteMoan]

Just dont let Boeing have anything to do with it

[@kevinoboyle8939]

Did I miss something? Does someone have a net positive fusion reactor? If not a rocket that presumes to utilize one is a pipe dream.

[@Bamdd5]

Nuclear thermal and nuclear electric is not fusion nor is it claiming to be

[@vsstreams5750]

Amonia rockets ? PISS POWERD ROCKETS....F**CK Yah lets goooo...😁

[@jonbutcher9805]

Are these going to be with fragile humans on board and wouldn't it be impossible to endure that kind of speed.

[@user-sv2rb1ng4v]

Speed doesn't matter acceleration does

[@jonbutcher9805]

@@user-sv2rb1ng4v uurgh. Very well. Allow me to rephrase the question. "Are these to be crewed vessels and if so would it be possible to endure to endure that kind of acceleration/ deceleration combination. Perhaps with something akin to the water chambers in; Event Horizon, or is it an impossibility at this moment in time." ?

[@Yusuke_Denton]

​@@jonbutcher9805 The projects in this video are about engine designs not a ship configuration, but yeah a ship using these could be manned. It would not have dangerously high acceleration.

[@harryschouten6850]

Keep Boeing out of this.

[@user-dr1vm3pj6q]

This is misleading. Space X can go to Mars in 3 months not 9!

[@Mr1234543211]

Russians already have a better solution for small nuclear engines and the prototype for the Marsian Express. The major problem is the radiation of biological passengers.

[@dionysus2006]

Most missions will be cargo which don't need fast transit times. A Mars colony needs frequent high mass cargo runs. SpaceX is geared for this. They will have a million tons of cargo on Mars before NASAs nuclear ship delivers one.

[@danielroberts6212]

We will never go to Mars . We will never go back to the Moon either

[@jeffk412]

found the bot!

[@tomjohnson571]

You’re clueless…

[@kuatumpoole3632]

Does Nasa Ever stop lying?

[@johnscreekmark]

The worst thing you can do is include pics of that old Dem Nelson in your thumbnails.

[@ronp510]

NASA can’t manage a round trip to the Space Station. They are done.

[@alphatech4966]

Yeah!

[@Trifler500]

I don't know why you would say NASA and not Boeing.

[@jerrywatt6813]

Oho boy the NERVA nuclear rocket project of the 50's 60's again we have a nuclear wasteland at jackass flats in nevada from those days the engine spitting fuel rods out the tail pipe and regular explosions they finally got working well sort of project rover was smaller but still this is nothing new and you need tons of shielding from the naked reactor spewing gamma rays on the crew thats heavy good luck stay out of my town with this one skippy 😊

[@Yusuke_Denton]

Pretty sure this is not that.

[@Magic-mushrooms113]

@@Yusuke_Dentonuntil something goes wrong

[@Yusuke_Denton]

@@Magic-mushrooms113 He's not talking about the same kind of engine the video is talking about.

[@Magic-mushrooms113]

@@Yusuke_Denton interesting

[@jamesrichardson1]

Never see it.

[@Andy6969ful]

I'm sorry but your CLICK BAIT Headline is truly pathetic considering we have two astronauts stuck on the ISS because the damn ship has a bunch of problems. Why would anyone believe this?

[@tpaege1]

I'll believe all this great tek when it's lit in space.. So. Far it's all been studies and no real usable teck

[@swan77a]

Plenty of barren landscapes her on earth, no point in squandering billions for a risky manned mission when robotic landers have already shown us what is there.

[@tracybone3730]

Hey, what about the people stuck in space

[@stewiesaidthat]

Mass does not attract mass. There is no gravitational pull. Gravity, as a force, is stationary plane physics. For every action, there is sn equal and opposite reaction. F=ma. To accelerate mass forward, you need to accelerate mass backward. Gravity is the resistance of the mass to being accelerated. What is being done to neutralize the acceleration in Time that takes place along with acceleration in space.

[@gregdudds5242]

Never work

[@Sparky056]

The grandchildren of the children born this year most likey will not see it. But WTH, we will all be dust by then, Yay

[@djmccullough9233]

can you possibly stop spouting COMPLETE bullshit? Do you know just how much a fraction of light's speed you'd have to be going to make it to mars in a DAY? Id love to know what kind of Fantasy material this ship is made of as a structural engineer. I've always loved vehicles made of Unobtanium. To make it in a day, thats 0.5% the speed of light.. or roughtly 5.4MILLION kilometers per hour AVERAGE speed, Remember half the time would have to be spent slowing back down. earth to the moon the fastest mission to date was about 40,000 kph. 135x faster? .. sorry. not happening. That number is also ONLY if earth is at its closest point to mars.

[@johnpurington6659]

1.4 million miles per hour. And in a vacuum a beer can can theoretically withstand what friction would be imposed on the structure. Aluminum should be good enough. Not a imagined material from science fiction 😂

[@Magic-mushrooms113]

Remember all you need are experiments, videos and announcements, Hollywood does the rest.

[@Shawn-zy9io]

BS ya cant get past the fermament

[@sssssnake222]

Smh😂

[@stephenolson532]

Never gonna happen

[@daisydog388]

Nope 🤪

[@rikkiit452]

Nobody's going to Mars why would you

[@jackman5840]

let me translate "I'm an idiot clown"

[@rikkiit452]

@jackman5840 Id seriously dawt you would want to go and be one of the first people on Mars mate. It has literally fuck all on it. And you would be theirs for years. Probably even die their In ur inflatable tent and a rocket sat at the side of you with no fuel. Good luck

[@JerseyMcgee81]

More hypothesising, no actual results, two steps forwards two steps back.

[@jonathannumer5415]

Three steps back

[@BrotherMichaeloftheCross]

The NASA Chernobyl?

[@prmath]

BS…Baloney and ALL of the above ‼️😱‼️

[@denismoran670]

Blue Origin and Boeing? Defo not a goer, then - NASA still stuck in the 70's! They still haven't paid me for not producing a rocket, the cheapskates! Thanks for the laugh, are you now registered as a comic site?

[@generalrodcocker1018]

nonsense

[@fionajack9160]

Your title seems to say Mars in a day. Your thumbnail says ten days and or 7 to 8 times faster than starship, which would imply 70 to 80 days. Whatever your jumbled numbers mean, nuclear thermal tug would be game changer Zubrins nuke salt water rocket has the appeal of simplicity, but might be technically out of reach for now None cooler than OrionProject fission bombs out the back. Huge-mass of a battle ship could be launched off the earth. Modest fallout only real drawback

[@marianhoban9086]

N0!MARS!

[@quoderatdemonstrandum5442]

Bullshit. Too expensive. Never happen.

[@neilalexander2662]

Another NASA money pit!