The VASIMR Engine - 0.000167 c / 50 km/s

[@asteronx]

For more information and actual testing, refer to their KZbin channel, 'adastrarocket': kzbin.info/door/xeMhYzV4id_Z9NrXoR-GqQ

[@osvaldofranco9036]

how do you make or get such great animations for your videos? 🤔

[@nic.h]

@@osvaldofranco9036 they give a credit to the blender team at the end, so I'm guessing blender is involved at least, and they also say graphics are in house at the end of the credits as well

[@Technodude255]

tyty!

[@asteronx]

@@Technodude255 XD

[@asteronx]

@@osvaldofranco9036 A lot of hard work. When creating an animation, you must think through thoroughly from start to finish what you are wanting to create. Don't be in a hurry, take your time and learn what needs to be done correctly. In addition, detail is important if your computer can handle it. The entire process, learning and creating, takes time. Our work, everything, can only improve.

[@Shadowsnshades]

Been hearing about this engine for well over a decade. When are we going to see this baby at work in space?

[@asteronx]

The engine has been and still is being tested: www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VF-200

[@lookabomba32]

One day soon I hope. Your right though, it's been a little over 10 years since it was announced.

[@Unmannedair]

Development is going too slow. They should bump noggins with Elon. I'll bet that would change quickly if he got involved.

[@aquarius5719]

The issue is funding. R&D work with milestones, not quarter results. If it was Intel, microchip R&D is funded with the profit of microchips, which provides a continuous stream of money. But this company is pure R&D and investor culture is more likely to bet of failed synthetic CDOs that caused 2008 crisis (basically betting money on a wounded horse in horse race) than this engine (tech innovation) which has passed all the very demanding NASA milestones to this point where the next milestone requires funding. And the latest outcome of milestones are very exciting as it was more powerful than expected. It is a shame that people now bet on more wounded horses like CLO derivatives instead of this engine. If Dr. Chang had gone through having commercial activity, it would have delayed the quest for technocal solutions to the problems posed by R&D itself. Unlike Intel there is not an army of people behind R&D.

[@rubikfan1]

Well the electric needs to these engine is huge. You basicly need a nucleair powersource. So unless that is allowed its not going to happen

[@RegCostello]

"What's wrong Scotty?" "Captain, we've a problem with the ion cyclotron resonant heater"

[@exionem]

Greetings from Costa Rica. The Ad Astra Rocket company is 2 hours from my home place. One of my goals is to visit his facility and hopefully meet the man himself. From my understanding Mr. Diaz has been working since the late 70s in this engine. Hopefully it will come to fruition one day.

[@FalloutConspiracy]

I was literally thinking about this engine just today. Wow, perfect timing!

[@carrisasteveinnes1596]

When it's really, I can use it to run my ride on lawn mower. I have a lot of lawn.

[@nathan92238]

I’m so excited to see how this technology develops! Ever since I saw 39 days to Mars on the cover of popular mechanics I’ve wanted to work on something like this, but first I should probably focus on my undergrad finals

[@gonzalomorenoandonaegui2052]

AsteronX Thank you man I've been waiting for a video covering this engine for a long time

[@ajbufort]

Wow, that guy and his company sound awesome! Thanks for this. :)

[@ladislavmajersky9200]

He is getting funding for 20 years and still no working product delivered. Even if delivered it requires MW of power which we do not have.

[@aquarius5719]

It is way more revolutionary than what you think it is. From chemical to VASIMR is a quantum leap in space travel. The next probably would be warp engines in the distant future.

[@marco8696]

​​​@@aquarius5719fusion engine is much better than vasimir and it will happen soon! The warp drive probally near impossibile...

[@herescomesthenotoriousmichael]

Brilliant, as always

[@johndavis6119]

This is wonderful news. I hope these concepts prove out and are implemented. We’re getting closer to warp.

[@jonadams3486]

I spoke to my brother of such possibilities. Thanks I've been a fan for a while 😊👍

[@MadMadDude]

Great Video.. Thank You for putting this out. Please keep them coming :-)

[@HoldmyARK]

Yay!

[@josevenegas9191]

So proud of Dr. Chang, also the minds that are working on Vasimir with AdAstra Rocket company here

[@commandosolo1266]

"...To reach Mars in only thirty nine days." For comparison, the Mayflower sailed from Southampton to Cape Cod in seventy days.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

the 39 days claim is bullshit based on unrealistic and non existing nuclear reactors with near impossible power to weight ratios. With the very best near term nuclear reactors (fission, but also fusion) you can get to Mars in no less than 6 months with VASMIR.

[@commandosolo1266]

Not being an engineer, @@rogeriopenna9014, I'm far from qualified to debate the point. I merely quote the data provided by the video. If you would argue the matter, you'd need to take it up with AsteronX, not me.

[@gfopt]

There has never been a credible explanation of how this engine could reach Mars in anywhere near 39 days. Not even with a zero mass power source.

[@ckdigitaltheqof6th210]

Its calculate to be nine months, due to the sad consept of canister bulk burning fuel, that must take idole duriation, if you traveled non stop in a massive space station at the rate of gravity fall, it won't be long to a place even like Mars, also way more comfortable

[@orangeo5344]

@Rogerigo Penna Does it matter though? 6 months is not a crazy long time for how long you have to travel

[@allanchurm]

nice clear info about this engine thank you

[@bringtheideas460]

When can we expect an update on muon catalized engine? And I would be happy to know exactly how are the muons generated.

[@asteronx]

We are going to provide everyone with an update, we are busy working on several technologies, let's see what take place this year.

[@francisdavis1271]

Several KZbin articles are available. There are opinions that the efficiency of muon production isn't as advertised as well as fusion yield.

[@nil981]

"Advertising is legalized lying." - H.G Wells.

[@gregmarsters2434]

Unsaid caveat: The power required for matching the thrust of a chem engine means needing a city block sized power plant sending electricity to it. That is why current space craft that use these engines powered by solar panels get about as much thrust as the weight of a piece of paper.

[@torg2126]

Or a relatively tiny fission reactor

[@Iazuz]

I just feel most of the stuff you guys are working on are actually in production somewhere under black projects..

[@thomashiggins9320]

A plasma engine with a temperature of 10 million degrees K would be very, *very* hard to conceal from anybody. Conspiracy theory, much?

[@linecraftman3907]

@@thomashiggins9320 not really, it would fit in a vacuum chamber of some research facility

[@Iazuz]

@@thomashiggins9320 If you say so..

[@Iazuz]

@@linecraftman3907 100% plus that is max temperature .. You don't need 10 million degrees to make this engine work.

[@punkypinko2965]

If it's not for war it's not in a black project. Governments don't create black projects just for the sake of science and exploration of other planets.

[@limabravo6065]

With those temperatures you could increase the exhaust density by injecting something like heavy water just before the exhaust leaves

[@mysteryguest9555]

Would love to see a working prototype.

[@asteronx]

The actual test firing: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYnFiqKul6xsraM

[@mysteryguest9555]

@@asteronx Any updates to the progress of this engine?

[@asteronx]

@@mysteryguest9555 I would suggest that you visit their channel, have a look at their videos: kzbin.info/door/xeMhYzV4id_Z9NrXoR-GqQ

[@Iazuz]

Excellent work.. I have not come across another KZbin channel like this one very informative...👍👍👍👍

[@philgooddr.7850]

the key issue is the power source, the lightest by far being an efficient solar photovoltaic sail since by definition in space, we have the space for it, while solar winds can provide also additionnal thrust or orientation control. 80000 sq feets of sail would provide well over 20 MW of power for a powerfull journey..

[@alarmclock7709]

When are you guys doing the EFE craft model

[@asteronx]

Not to worry, we're working toward the goal.

[@alarmclock7709]

That’s good 👍

[@masonman_2113]

@@asteronx your making a miniature version of it?

[@johanvargas5401]

this is amazing!

[@garymartin9777]

It may be able to reach high velocities but it also has to slow down before assuming orbit and that takes just about as much time as it does to accelerate to top speed.

[@aquarius5719]

Going from Earth to Mars is climbing to a higher orbit. Slowing down when climbing a mountain is not that hard.

[@SetMyLife]

So it's electrically powered. That energy has to come from somewhere

[@matthewjacobs141]

Nuclear

[@Yora21]

All that is needed now is for someone to build a fusion reactor that can be put on a space ship. Which should happen any moment now, I am sure.

[@christopherjohnson2171]

@@Yora21 Maybe there will be a functional fusion reactor somewhere on Earth in 100 years, maybe. And then even longer to be small and powerful enough to go into a space craft.

[@olivierdeplanques708]

very interesting video, congratulations...

[@PromethorYT]

As much as I want to get excited about this, I learned that most technologies that sound too good to be true are always 20-40 years away from being a real thing. Even if this engine was proven working and safe right now, it will take YEARS before it's even considered for space travel or even tested in space. Isn't this engine being in 'testing' for years now? I heard about this a long time ago and it amounted to nothing yet. Makes me think of Fusion, a possible concept yes, but not gonna happen before I die.

Thats why you can get a bit excited, because this tecnology its been away for 40 years, and now they are ready to test the real thing in space, maybe months from now.

[@doctormcboy5009]

true and the hazards of just being in space has not been resolved. we are at least a generation away.

[@disintegrator1013]

No one: The engine: reaches up to 50km/s top speed AsteronX: has 50K subscribers

[@blackoak4978]

No, the PARTICLES reach a speed of 50km/second. Go ahead and punch a brick wall at 10m/s(typical speed of a punch), see how much acceleration you actually impart to the wall. With the particle not specified, and the flow rate nowhere to be see, the actual thrust is impossible to know

[@disintegrator1013]

@@blackoak4978 well if it keeps accelerating for a certain amount of time it CAN go up to 50km/s

[@creightonfreeman8059]

The primary issue preventing VASIMR from being implemented is the portable nuclear reactor and radiative cooling needed to provide the megawatts of electrical current needed . I think several companies are currently working on such reactors though, including Rolls Royce.

[@leerman22]

Never mind that, the waste heat simply by powering the thing needs substantial radiators, even if it's solar powered. It's basically a microwave oven with a magnetic bottle to heat up the gas and send it out one end. The TWR is much lower than regular ion thrusters for a given power consumption since this thing is massive. VASIMR only makes any sense if a good portion of the plasma propellant's energy comes from undergoing nuclear fusion saving on shoving electricity in there (aneutronic fusion, too, otherwise neutron heating). Might as well settle for ion drives then skip to fusion drives when that works out.

[@ronaldwhite1730]

Thank - you .

[@carlbrown5150]

Hell of a pipe dream.!!

[@arendellecitizen208]

The concept for the engine is very badass. Although the problems of using that engine should have been mentioned. For example I believe that just as ion engines that engine requires massive amounts of electric energy for reasonable thrust. You can't just strap it on the starship, you will need giant solar panel arrays, maybe heavier then the starship itself or a nuclear reactor, which raises safety and publicity concerns. It has potential in some niches, but it's not magic (unfortunately).

[@josephcler3299]

I'm a big fan of the VASIMR rocket, but where did you get the figure of 20 starships are needed to refuel a single starship in orbit? It is actually approx. 7 tankers needed to refuel a starship fully.

[@patricofritz4094]

It is almost time for Orbital flight I am so excited !

[@RandomGamer-qy6ys]

We need a update on solitons warp drive

[@asteronx]

We have plans to publish the results of our latest developments.

[@harlandfazardo799]

What would be the power source for such a propulsion system

[@Freedom2x462]

USS Enterprise, a moving ISS, we need two of them!

[@joesaiditstrue]

39 days. shortening the travel time also makes manned flights to Mars that much safer, as the turn around for supplies and emergency missions would be so much more reliable and efficient

[@peterbarratt8699]

One 'might' be able to get there in 39 day, but, one has to slow down at the destination. Add another 26 months for that process. What materials do we posess to contain a temperature of 10 million degrees? Sweet nothing.

[@aquarius5719]

@@peterbarratt8699 Nope. Half he trip accelerate, half the trip decelerate. Result 39 days. And Mars is uphill in a higher orbit which helps to decelerate.

[@readhistory2023]

For those not familiar with metric 50,000 meters per second translates into 111,846 miles per hour. Voyager with gravity assist is the fastest manmade object currently and it's going 37,994 miles per hour. NASA and the other space agencies were sending up probes with basically VW engines and he went and built a top fuel hemi. Maybe we can colonize space after all.

[@donpindol778]

Resonant cyclotron mean they microwaving gas so it's expanding at exhaust chamber. They need to scale this up and more power is needed from nuclear power plant eg. LFTR. Target is 1G pull

[@blahblah3347]

Would be nice if you could talk about the specific advantages of your engine. Your site states it's less efficient than the NEXT thruster, but has better Isp. Is it cheaper than NEXT? lighter? Right now it seems like not much gain for much higher complexity compared to other ion engines.

[@jeffbenton6183]

NEXT is both cheaper and lighter than VASIMR. VASIMR's main advantage is higher thrust and specific impulse over other engines and the fact that it can cycle between a higher thrust, lower specific impulse and a lower thrust, higher specific impulse mode. In rocket science, specific impulse is *really* important. The fact that VASIMR has about 900s more Isp than NEXT is a pretty big deal. It also has a reliability advantage over gridded ion engines (though Hall effect thrusters have the same advantage)

[@bishalnath24]

So when do we leave ?

[@dmk1948]

What happened to the plan to put a test of this on the International Space Station?

[@aquarius5719]

Money perhaps? It is not cheap to put something up there.

[@Azaleus19]

Does the Muon g-2 experiment have any impact on the Muon Catalyzed Engine?

[@Skylancer727]

Can definitely say a better video than your older ones. Less breaks in your explanation, still has the fantastic renders (something you seem to be pretty good with or know who to work with), and as a whole a more realistic less sci-fi concept. I like sci-fi and all but sometimes it is better to hear something a bit closer to reality every once and a while like Issac Arthur going from mega structures to "The Nuclear Option" or "Near Future Robotics". Shame this tech likely won't get actually used in space for another 10 years yet due to the system how we test new technology. Actually sounds kinda promising though I question how much it does to differentiate itself from a hall effect thruster or thermal nuclear propulsion.

[@bashredpath]

What would happen if they combine 5 or 6 of these engines and one centered of those other engines

[@nil981]

Ahhh an early plasma torch drive.

[@KaliferDeil]

Where do you put the nuclear reactor that is going to power it.

[@raymondhuot1684]

Is there a possibility to use this high temperature to initiate a fusion reaction ?

[@starchives2365]

Humans have been generating fusion reactions for decades, most of the necessary components can likely be found in your home. The problems are sustaining a reaction that generates more energy than was required to produce it. So far, fusion costs more than it can give back.

[@markgillman4488]

In theroy, do we have a working model, that will not conflict with the laws of quatom physics, in vacuum? Please answer

[@mikesailin]

The video was good as far as it went, but I didn't hear any discussion about the availability of the inert gas fuel or its cost or weght, etc

[@haimbenavraham1502]

No point in sending humans to mars, without this innovation on board.

[@dlewis8405]

I got very excited about VASIMR about ten years ago. But digging deeper I learned about a couple major drawbacks. The first is energy requirements - the engine basically runs on electricity so you would need a big nuclear reactor to power it. The second issue would be the problem of deceleration. A VASIMR ship could get to Mars in 39 days but it would zip past the planet unless it had a means of shedding velocity.

[@baderalsaleh4691]

I think we may gain stronger thrust if we could heat and compress the ions by magnetic field and then release it. Also, I believe we have several types of ions, and we can choose the right one. But, the question is it possible to split the ions?

[@hl_scientist1964]

HOT GAS GAS GAS, MAKING FUSION EN'MASS.

[@shawns0762]

I believe it is possible to make a fission rocket that uses an electrical current to fission uranium or plutonium in a linear fashion without consuming hydrogen which would make it ideal for interstellar travel, anyone who is interested should watch "best method for interstellar travel" and "liquid plutonium rocket". The videos also have info on the constant 1g acceleration method, with this a ship can get to Alpha Centauri in just 3.6 ship/7.3 Earth years and have gravity the whole way (and that includes turning the ship around half way and decelerating). A 10 ton ship would need a mere 10 tons of continuous thrust. A ship can span the entire diameter of the Milky Way galaxy in 12 ship/113,000 Earth years with this method.

[@davidgifford8112]

Sorry I read his book, was bewildered where the high efficacy was. It turns out I’m not alone, Robert Zubrin has dismantled this as a viable IP transportation propulsion system. It produces the thrust but at a engine mass that negates its advantage for these ludicrous transit times quoted.

[@aquarius5719]

Zubrin also "dismantled" the idea of Musk of Battlestar Galáctica huge fleet of ships and Musk proved him wrong. Now you have a giant starship in the works. It is easy to criticize. It is difficult to create and solve problems. If Zubrin wants to reach Mars his own way he should build what is needed, like Musk or Chang did. Then he will learn to respect hard working people thinking on solutions.

[@mkivy]

About time! We cannot live with anxious technologies….such as liquid propellant….that type of propulsion is antiquated and archaic! Time to step into the 21st century. Thank u 🙏🏻 all…

[@Klaster_1]

The video feels like a school project. None of the questions that popped into my head were answered, which videos of this type usually do. The efficiency claim was not explained at all, there wasn't even a mention of where the engine would get the electricity from or for how long it can operate.

[@josepo513]

wait, so it's 0.01 or 0.000167/c??

[@proffessasvids]

Will it run in the atmosphere? Can we use one dragging the 1/4 mile? Xx

[@nil981]

Running such an engine in an atmosphere would be like detonating a fusion bomb constantly every second. It would most likely be limited strictly to space travel.

[@proffessasvids]

@@nil981 that's fine... We'll get the crowd to sit a couple of miles from the track lol! I jest xx

[@clementvining2487]

@@nil981 It needs a vacuum to work.

[@timothygooding9544]

I don't get why its always about "this engine can get you there is ___ amount of time" is that with the same proportions of fuel to payload? How much more payload could be delivered if it were to take the same amount of time? Why go faster if you could burn less and bring more payload? Comparisons like isp and force (aka efficiency and how long a burn would be needed for x amount of delta V) are much less vague. The long transfer time is because that is the most efficient method we have

[@tonyug113]

to put into context - originally nasa was going to send a Vasmir version to the space station - for station keeping (2015 i think) - In that case the power was going to be provided via a set of capacitors which would possibly trickle fill with spare power ready for a station boost. Didn't happen but think problem was at nasa end - possibly end of space shuttle? not sure how long they have tested engine for continuously on earth though - i vaguely remember 200hr being on their website at some point (though this seems low to me) but have no idea how long the mars burn would be - anyone remember the mars propsal for this - is it on all the time ?

[@yanis905]

What is the onboard power supply needed to create the magnetic fields on the ICH and the nozzle? With such high draw, I guess that it will require a massive amount of electricity. Are they planning to use fuel cells? Otherwise a good chunk of your Starship will be used up to stack batteries. Plus, it would only operate in vacuum, from LEO. A 10Mdeg plasma plume would probably not behave very well on a launchpad at sea level

[@sbeveridge]

Very interesting, but no real detail. I would like to see some calculations of the power requirements to move a meaningful payload between Earth orbit and Mars orbit. How are they going to generate the power - solar arrays or nuclear reactor? How much reaction mass will they need to be ionised?

[@JonathanSchattke]

Some of Diaz' early designs used as many as 4 RCH stages - which would give peak energies about 10,000 times higher, with the same mass flow. Right now he just wants to get one unit (two mirrored thrusters and a power system) working as a space craft, which would be ideal for satellite or even large system transfer to geosync. He has also used Hydrogen and heavy metal plasmas.

[@JamieSteam]

Heavy Metal Plasma sounds like an early 80s rock band

[@MylesKeef]

As mentioned in the video (and many other comments) this requires quite a bit of energy still. Also, you still need fuel (Argon possibly; or helium harvested from the moon!). When in space, you need to provide a constant flow of Argon to maintain any plasma. To generate more thrust also probably gets tricky because of Paschen’s Law. Basically, with a fixed electrode gap (as shown in the schematic) the voltage will have to change in relation to the pressure created by the Argon to effectively maintain plasma. Nonetheless, I’m sure this is all possible, and I would be super curious to see some results from these tests!

[@asteronx]

For more information, check out their KZbin channel and website: www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/ and kzbin.info

[@kobuspieterse6405]

What are the power consumption for this engine

[@tommycorcoran5769]

Was the C speed off by a decimal? My conversion says 1.66E-4 C.

[@bozo2830]

What ever happened to David Adair who built a fusion rocket 60 years ago?

[@davidrichards2113]

I’ll believe it when they allow development of a 200 MW SPACE REACTOR.

[@asteronx]

This is our engine/reactor, it can be converted to either one: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b5ukhourgZJppcU

[@garyliu6589]

Where does the gas come from?

[@francoisroussel1]

Is it possible to inject some hydrogene gas somewhere inthe reacto to boost it for emergency breakink or avoiding collision?

[@ritterkreutztrager]

Hey folks, although our solar arrays are less massive now-a-days compared to just five years ago, me thinks VASMR just doesn't produce enough thrust for 39 days to Mars. What is the mass of the fuel for both acceleration and deceleration to Mars? 10 kW kilopower KRUSTY reactor = 1800 kg , that's for only 10 kW. I thing VASMR uses > 10 kW to function. I don't know what the mass of a appropriate solar array would be....(if you opt for solar instead.) Then there's the payload...what is that mass? Respectfully, I just don't think (all things considered) that VASMR has the specific power to move fuel, power supply and payload in any meaningful way.....wish it had more oomph than it does. : I. , Kevin

[@stevemickler452]

Great comment. You nailed the basic problem: electric power to run it. Current solar is around 4 kg/KW, but this can be dramatically improved if concentrated sunlight is used in conjunction with SpectroLab triple junction cells that can operate at 900 Suns (if kept below 100 deg. C by active cooling) and at 40% efficiency. I believe over 5 KW/kg is feasible at one A.U. Magnetic reconnection propulsion is far superior to VASMR in that it is less massive/thrust, is more efficient electrically, can operate at far higher specific impulse and does this by using the same trick the Sun uses to send out a flare. BTW beamed power by say laser to similar PV can have superior performance to antimatter but is feasible today.

[@andrewcliffe4753]

No mention of power source to drive this

[@asifhussain2074]

BriLLiant research en PLasma engines.

[@johnleicester3812]

when?

[@ivancarrasquillo4577]

[@BladeCaptain-TRMN]

I can see the need for particle shielding. Like most SciFi spaceships use. to protect more from solar radiation, as well as space debris.

[@juliocesardemoraesbarros5585]

How do it gets or produces power to run?

[@givicat]

A great engine, for now it takes us about 6 months to go to Mars and with it it would be a matter of 15 days.

[@khaccanhle1930]

Would the Kilopower reactor be able to power these engines? I think nuclear power is the only way to make ion engines feasible.

[@larrytroy3758]

Has 1 been built?

[@rob_sj.2636]

what if we wanted to reach the moons of jupiter or saturn, how long would it take to get there using this engine?

[@tuxuhds6955]

The vessel that uses it should be called a Witcher Class Spaceship.

[@KirkParro]

Looks like a two-stage ion thruster, or an ion engine with overdrive. I think they need a cooler name, how about "Oscillation Overthruster"? I think that YoyoDyne will allow it.

[@j.muckafignotti4226]

Of course a John BigBooté would have to be involved. We know Lord John Whorfin is still around! 🤪

[@anodominate]

I also agree that Elon/SpaceX should use VASIMR engine in the starship. Or they can use both chemical and VASIMR engine same time,cause the final strship would have 6 Raptors engine,so it would be great if they used 3 Rvac Engine & 3 VASIMR Engine. I think it would take just 30 days to reach mars.

[@alanparsonsfan]

Surprised that no one has asked this: How much electrical input power is required to run the VASIMIR? I.E.. how many batteries(Tesla Walls, etc.) would have to be on board to allow a Mars round trip voyage?

[@asteronx]

The VX-200 engine is still being developed, the most recent test was at 200 kW. www.adastrarocket.com/Gar-AIAA-2011-7247.pdf

[@aquarius5719]

Tesla solar panels may work.

[@dylanpeterson6449]

Just missing one major issue... the mars version of vasimir requires a very large nuclear reactor to power it.

[@aquarius5719]

Elon Musk solar panels could do the trick.

[@dylanpeterson6449]

The 39 day to Mars version takes over 100 to 200 MW of energy. That is a lot of solar and solar doesn't work as well the farther you get from the sun... Nuclear is the only option for human Mars missions with ion drives.

[@bertloreto9507]

I wonder how could we use an old CRT gun coupled to a microwave ovens MAGNETRON and some plasma to achieve something similar ... hmmm so so many similarities. Love this research .

[@ryandugal]

Just 30 years away right...

[@elenikaferhati7075]

keep making good videos:)

[@jeffreydavis1846]

Very cool

[@Zywl]

There are too many questions unanswered, if this is so efficient and promising why is no one using these engines yet? What are the most challenging technical difficulties to make a functional VASIMR engine today? How much energy is required to send a probe to mars in 30 days? Can we store that energy using batteries with current technology?

[@yuseffnehru8612]

So the field force is wrapped around the plasma that's what cause the lightsaber to act like solid matter

[@javiej]

Requires a lot of power, but sounds it could work pretty well when powered by beamed power (laser or microwaves from orbital power stations )

[@Mike-iv3hy]

2 of these engines would send a space ship to Mars in 20 days ! DML .

[@jamesrichardson4741]

So why aren’t space x using them?

[@DeltafangEX]

Because VASMIR, like most electric engines are terrifyingly efficient but have virtually no thrust. It takes a VERY long time to accelerate up to appreciable speeds and that will count for deceleration too. The only reason it cuts down on such far travel is the because its fuel source is much lighter than traditional chemical fuels. The major issue is the cost/output/weight of a powerplant strong enough to actually power the damn thing.

[@worldbestt-shirtshoodie-go6184]

@@DeltafangEX We cannot even pass through Earth's radiation...

[@DeltafangEX]

@@worldbestt-shirtshoodie-go6184 ...what?

[@alvarofernandez5118]

@@DeltafangEX he's likely a moon shot hoaxer - thinks we didn't go to the moon because the van Allen belts will kill you, cook you, and give you wedgies, so we can't reach anywhere in these geniuses' minds.

[@alvarofernandez5118]

It's been in development since the 1980s as I recall. Which makes me wonder what the holdup is, although I expect the answer is "NASA."

[@Thorbrook]

how are ya ganna slow down the space ship? just curious

[@Hamdad]

Spin it around, fire engine in the other direction