To win the race to Mars, NASA is prepared to go nuclear

Tom Costello reports from the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, where NASA is developing nuclear rockets to take humans to the Moon and beyond.
» Subscribe to NBC News: nbcnews.to/SubscribeToNBC
» Watch more NBC video: bit.ly/MoreNBCNews
NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories. NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. We deliver the best in breaking news, live video coverage, original journalism and segments from your favorite NBC News Shows.
Connect with NBC News Online!
NBC News App: smart.link/5d0cd9df61b80
Breaking News Alerts: link.nbcnews.com/join/5cj/bre...
Visit NBCNews.Com: nbcnews.to/ReadNBC
Find NBC News on Facebook: nbcnews.to/LikeNBC
Follow NBC News on Twitter: nbcnews.to/FollowNBC
Get more of NBC News delivered to your inbox: nbcnews.com/newsletters
#NASA #Mars #NuclearRockets

[@freedomle4022]

Wouldn't it be great if we could come together as a species and work together to get off this rock. Imagine the progress.

[@user-io8bm6gz5z]

not ever gonna happen, sadly.

[@MrBen527]

F dat, I'll stay!!

[@MurphyTheOldMan]

it will never happen cause we are just chimps

[@wildramena8283]

Wouldn't it be great if people respected this "rock" called Earth that has given us life and numerous joys for all these years instead of using all this money, time, effort, and resources on hopping to other planets that we have no true idea of how it would biologically and psychologically affect humans?

[@FinGeek4now]

If the UN states said, "All of the nations will divert their military funds for 1 year into a unified space program", humanity would have a rotating space station in orbit for people, a station for manufacturing, a colony and manufacturing plant on the moon, a reprocessing plant on Phobos, a research colony on Mars, and would have spacecraft and probes in the asteroid belt to get material from the asteroids, reprocess the materials on Phobos, and then bring them back to Earth for manufacturing and production.

[@Callsign_Prophet]

100% support NASA going this route. We can't just ignore the possibilities because it sounds scary.

[@killdeerperiland3303]

what

[@gavinpretorius3564]

We have nuclear subs? Why is it scary.

[@peepoos]

@@gavinpretorius3564nuclear subs cant crash and spread nuclear waste across the the sky and rain down on people

[@mr.mirror1213]

@@gavinpretorius3564 ikr

[@highjenks3d]

​@@gavinpretorius3564exactly

[@jarederisman5279]

I love when mainstream news covers space. No political shadiness or manipulation, just straight up facts.

[@DB742]

Only time some profit motive or military agenda isn't in motion.

[@supergamergrill7734]

@@DB742 well actually, nuclear rocket engines do have applications and with the militaries very big budget. I’m sure nasa pitched this to them to get some of their research funding. Not to say I dislike this. I’m happy both the military and Nasa are benefitting from this

[@MrBassbump]

@@supergamergrill7734I’m sure NASA and The Pentagon would work together on this adventure.

[@Mr.aAdDies]

What about all the china fear-mongering and whacko Cold War era “Americans in space bs?

[@meepk633]

"I like when the media says stuff I agree with."

[@eddycharles4274]

Competition is the key to getting to Mars. That’s what got us to the moon.

[@tracyjohnson5486]

Glad to see NASA is looking at the work done on NERVA and, I assume, updating it with today's technology. No use re-inventing the wheel when it was sitting in the "garage" the whole time!

[@peterdamian_7]

Instead of NERVA I see NERV!!😏

[@dougcampbell5133]

It takes 6 months every two years to get to Mars.

[@JenniferA886]

True… 6 months every 24ish months. However, newer technologies may improve this 👍👍👍

[@serronserron1320]

With chemical propulsion. But nuclear assisted propulsion could get astronauts to Mars in 3 months or less.

[@TheGalacticIndian]

​@@serronserron1320 There are already far better technologies out there, that are able to deliver things to Mars surface within mere days. And people within over a week.

[@hawkdsl]

The two years is the closest route, however there is a Earth, Venus opposition route that's between those two years (every 19 months). How cool would it be to do a drive by of Venus on your way to Mars!? Anyway it's actually a better route, as you can use the gravity assist from Venus to speed up. It's free energy.

[@hawkdsl]

@Robloxian Lives Matter true

[@watchwithgramdalf]

What a brilliant report! Hats off to the host

[@dexterz3]

This new "space race" to Mars is the greatest thing that has ever happened so far. So inspiring, positive, exciting; uniting humanity over a common goal!

[@jasbob]

Huh? It's not uniting

[@ajlifesolutions7072]

Lol 😂 so sad…so we can’t fix this planet so let’s travel to another one..🤷🏼‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@B-Shells]

@@ajlifesolutions7072 “You could make the same argument about doing anything cool. How could you make art when there are so many problems in the world? Why build a Large Hardron Collider and discover the Highs boson when there are so many problems in the world? Why study philosophy? Why eat fancy food? We could subsist on ramen and send the money to starving children in Africa. Besides the complete absurdity of an argument that rules out literally anything besides whats on somebody’s narrow list of what's important there's a strong ethical argument for going to space. Reverence for life is the highest value in basically every ethical system. Going to space gives virtually unlimited opportunities for life to exist that wouldn't be possible if we stayed on earth.”

[@snodd8377]

​@@ajlifesolutions7072 We probably destroy mars before we save earth

[@mhxxd4]

Nah the greatest thing that's ever happened so far is miami women

[@petekwando]

There is always risk when dealing with fissile materials, and we need to take every possible precaution when launching nuclear drive powered craft. But for interplanetary missions, chemical propulsion just doesn't cut it. And as the piece suggests, there is absolutely a geopolitical dimension to this - the new space race could begin very soon.

[@jefflee1189]

youre extremely advanced at stating the blatantly obvious

[@manofsan]

nuclear drive doesn't get used until the spacecraft is well into space, away from the Earth. until then, it's just a nuclear payload that's inactive and not being used

[@Ben942K]

@@jefflee1189 do you think it was obvious to everyone else who read it besides you?

[@supergamergrill7734]

@@jefflee1189 Never underastimate peoples idiocy. I mean, people would rather go fossil fuels than nuclear because fossil fuels provide more jobs.

[@dinmavric5504]

the new space race lol. russia has hardly funds to continue the war in ukraine, it aint happening boss, not unless the sanctions are lifted and that's not happening for a good decade.

[@pommenoir237]

I like how it's no longer a question of if but when... Waiting to see the winner of the new space race

[@maxpro751]

I don’t think countries would care that much 😂.

[@Alderite]

@@maxpro751 I think countries do care. Once the new space race ramps up, countries will going to follow suit. Humanity had a knack on following trends

[@coltcoltcoltcolt45]

It’s obviously SpaceX with fully and rapidly reusable vehicles, essential to making multi planetary life feasible.

[@snieves4]

Amazing that 50 year old technology is ahead of everyone else…

[@killman369547]

Crazy how "if it ain't broke don't fix it" became a revolutionary idea.

[@nickalderman5943]

and if fission is that good, imagine the leap to fusion engines. I really hope this brings back the enthusiasm for terrestrial nuclear power as well.

[@The_Isaiahnator]

With Starship's ability to send over 100 tons of mass into orbit, it seems like assembling a nuclear-powered space tug in space, piece by piece, is a better option than traveling by chemical propulsion instead. And since Starship will be fully reusable, it could be done relatively cheaply. We could credibly build the types of ships seen in Ridley Scott's _Alien_ series. The ships would have to stay in space, though, while chemically propelled ships would have to ferry people to and from the surface of a planet. If the planetary infrastructure of whatever world people travel to doesn't yet exist to shuttle people in this manner (i.e., no existing spaceports), then maybe a dedicated hangar bay on-board the space tug, packed with several mini Starships (think dropships), could do the trick. But I'm really just letting my imagination run wild here. I'd love to see what real-world solutions they come up with.

[@1ndragunawan]

150 tons with Raptor 2, could be higher with the new Raptor 3.

[@kathleenrobertpogue6818]

But it can't get 100 tons to orbit.

[@The_Isaiahnator]

@@kathleenrobertpogue6818 Haha, I meant aspirationally, in its final form. It can't even send itself to orbit at present, but I'm confident SpaceX will succeed.

[@wingsley]

If SpaceX's Starship and/or Blue Origin's New Glenn is to become a vital launch vehicle, central to the needs of NASA and the U.S. Space Force, we have to ask the question of Congress: how will the ongoing politics of the federal budget and the debt ceiling affect our space budget? NASA's current Space Launch System ("SLS") rocket is powerful, and Artemis One was a huge success, but SLS is designed to be a throw-away rocket. It cannot be re-used. And SLS can only launch once, maybe twice, per year. And SLS costs $4.1 billion per launch. SLS is a budgetary boat anchor for NASA, and future efforts that require a super-heavy launch vehicle, including missions to the Moon and Mars, will suffer from its cost and low launch cadence. To put it simply, the longer NASA continues to rely on SLS, the longer SLS will soak up funding like a giant sponge, and the slower our pace to the Moon and Mars. Meantime, will Congress allocate adequate funding for NASA to utilize private launch vehicles like Starship and New Glenn? If the funding isn't there, how will NASA be able to put these vehicles to work? And if Blue Origin manages to get New Glenn fully operational in the next year or two, will NASA support further development in subsequent years? Look at SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket; fully re-usable. Now look at Falcon Heavy: also re-usable, and essentially three Falcon 9 rockets put together to form a more powerful ship. Will NASA encourage Blue Origin to do the same thing with New Glenn? A three-booster version (a la Falcon Heavy) would give NASA an additional super-heavy launch vehicle alongside SpaceX's Starship, making it easier to either supplement or retire SLS. But that will only happen if Congress allows it to happen. They don't call SLS the "Senate Launch System" for nothing...

[@Hook5G]

or they can live on the space ship like on Zenon one of the movies shows the parents living on the space station but they also work there and have family... imagine being able to live in space on a space ship!!

[@GamerBoyRobby]

It wasn't a bad start! A bad start would have been it blowing up on the pad. Anything past that was considered a success. The pad damage mostly was a crater the engines made under the pad which is being improved as we speak

[@jmd489]

This

[@dinmavric5504]

It seems you SpaceX fangirls want to portray a great failure as a great win? The Soviets did it a long time before SpaceX did with the same rocket, it's not "icing on the cake" nor is blowing up a success. But believe what your great lord Elon tells you, in reality he knows nothing, and the rocket blowing up was a result of his leadership.

[@tsa3b]

If it didn't blow up at all that would have been good...making blowing up at all .............bad 🤯 amazing

[@srs6461]

@@tsa3b no

[@AugmentedPixel]

First good story Iv seen in the news in years! Great job!

[@user-mp3eh1vb9w]

It was a huge mistake on US part to cancel nuclear rocket testing back in the 70s because of nuclear concerns (while I know it was the peak of the cold war) Shame, we could have explored space or even have launched multiple multi planetary missions.

[@alukuhito]

Americans are more interested in politics than space though.

[@gilian2587]

The Orion Design concept was just a bad idea, though.

[@Barabel22]

@@gilian2587 Different kind of design. Orion drives built and used only in space may be a future plan though. Getting to around 10-20% or light speed. Torch/fusion drives may be the best future bet though, able theoretically to get to 90+% of light speed.

[@gilian2587]

@@Barabel22 The Daedalus project sounded more realistic. Yeeting hbombs behind you and propelling yourself with the radiation pressure sounds like it would permanently render any passengers inert from the resultant g forces alone.

[@Barabel22]

@@gilian2587Look up how the orion project works. It used a pusher plate with huge shock absorbers to take the shock of the blasts, and ablative material on the pusher plate so there’s no damage to the ship. Losing about 0.008mm of ablative material in each blast.

[@mvsorola]

Neat report! The video of the five engines is mind blowing!

[@kylereese4822]

Saturn 5 - 5 engines with 1 missing it could fly 2 missing it`s a rapid return trip home... Star Ship - 32 engines even with 7 not working it still could take off - fly...

[@vidyaishaya4839]

They sure were big! 23 engines means there more chances of failure, but with advancements inn technology, the risk is minimized.

[@FrankyPi]

@@kylereese4822 And how is that surprising? Also, it was 8 not working with 33 total number. One engine out out of five for Saturn leaves 80% thrust, 8 out of 33 for Starship leaves 75% thrust, which was a failure because that is not enough to get into orbit, it was going too slow, should've been inside hypersonic range by the time of booster cutoff, but it didn't even reach Mach 2, so no, it can't fly like that, the only reason it lifted off and flew until it failed is because those 8 didn't go out all at once, but gradually.

[@noisyboy87]

Imagine all the things we could achieve if we didn’t care who gets the credit for it.

[@GnomeChomsky9999]

Why don’t you start?

[@dumitrulangham1721]

Well that what makes it fun what makes progress and create competition!

[@thetruth65756]

yeah, because if you discovered something amazing you definitely wouldn't want credit right?

[@GnomeChomsky9999]

@@thetruth65756 Hey he invented not getting credit for stuff. Like every other KZbinr….

[@dumitrulangham1721]

But that whole point of space race it creates competition! And innovation!

[@nizamieminov3648]

It was a mini documentary. Amazing.

[@JoeyBlogs007]

The nuclear engine can stay in space indefinitely and simply dock onto a rocket carrying the hydrogen fuel, as long as it always keeps a docking tank of hydrogen full.

[@bennethrodriguez1435]

only issue is that storing hydrogen for a long duration is extremely difficult due to its temperature- needs more research to be done

[@snyperghost2262]

​@@bennethrodriguez1435 maybe not in space since space is really really cold

[@bennethrodriguez1435]

@@snyperghost2262 actually ,its much worse in space- while space is extremely cold, it has a pressure of 0 because its a vacuum. as pressure decreases, boiling point becomes lower, so the hydrogen or any other fuel will boil off from its tanks rapidly

[@snyperghost2262]

@@bennethrodriguez1435 yes that is why engineers will implement advanced storage techniques or other active cooling systems. Another thing I'd point out is a hydrogen atom is so small that if not stored properly can easily slip through the atomic structure of the mental storage containment. Currently there are 4 approaches to hydrogen storage. 1.high pressure storage 2. Cryogenic storage 3.metal hydride storage 4.cryo adsorptive storage. But to be perfectly honest the nuclear thermal rocket will be a hybrid because it will also be powered by ion propulsion as well as nuclear thermal.

[@FrankyPi]

@@snyperghost2262 Heat transfer is very inefficient in vacuum, it gets boiling hot with side facing the sun, while material in the shade drops to freezing temperatures, none of those temperatures are lower than what liquid hydrogen needs to be kept at, which is 20 Kelvin. I will need active cooling and very good thermal insulation to minimize boiloff.

[@jacksonheaton5236]

News needs to get they’re facts right. The booster didn’t FAIL to separate, it simply didn’t reach the altitude in which it was supposed to within the time because of the loss of engine power.

[@genznation6707]

You guys are rock! that is incredible i do hope that everything might happen earliest

[@patrickperkins9641]

Love when he wears the handkerchief.

[@randomvideos6228]

petrify the crew while travelling

[@edissonsilva5402]

The good side of competition is that it forces everybody to try their best in achieving the goal of reaching Mars

[@triocha233]

Dad ? That you bro ?

[@nickl5658]

Reaching mars is not a problem but continuing human habitation years, decades after the first landing. Else it would just be like the Apollo space program. Land on the moon and that is it.

[@planetsec9]

Wow, just wow, what an awesome overview of everything coming up in space, this is gonna be amazing if they pull everything off. I hope more people understand SpaceX is not in competition with NASA but that NASA and SpaceX and other American companies are competing with China

[@coreytaylor5386]

yeah, Im sure NASA is actually pumped to be able to have designing rockets relieved from their duties by private companies so they can focus more engineers and have more budget to spend on on probes, missions, and new technology rather than spending billions of what little budget they have on designing a new rocket every few years for a launch

[@planetsec9]

@@coreytaylor5386 SLS... lol

[@coreytaylor5386]

@@planetsec9 thats a job creation program that started over a decade ago before half of the launch providers launching payloads even existed, and its probably going to end as an expensive lesson in failure too

[@davidfognini8526]

Problem: we US never went to the moon only in the fantasies of Nasllywood 😮

[@erikjohnson9075]

​@@davidfognini8526 get a life. Then get a textbook and realize how little you know.

[@1ciroloid]

Just like the boss man says, “Do whatever it takes to get there --- and back.”

[@mjribes]

This is not a "bad start". The launch in April far outstripped expectations

[@guttergeeks]

Exactly. Typical media distortion.

[@chriswhite3692]

Yea, typical distortion of what actually occurred.

[@bigdogben]

The race is officially on, everyone in the space community have been talking about it but now that its being told to the general public and the administrator saying that we must go to the moon first

[@JordanR34948]

U do realize your being lied to

[@bigdogben]

@@JordanR34948 about what?

[@JordanR34948]

@@bigdogben cgi and we never want to the moon if that was true why would elon biggest newest rocket blow up

[@JordanR34948]

We don’t even know was at the bottom of our ocean and they changed the names of countries

[@penonpaper3132]

​@@JordanR34948 Because it is a private, fully reusable, two staged rocket, and the most powerful launch vehicle ever built. The Saturn V was a government funded national effort to demonstrate technological supremacy against the Soviet Union. Literally 4% of the entire US budget went into NASA and the Apollo moon missions back in the 60's. Also, exploring the bottom of the ocean is pointless from an economic or militaristic standpoint.

[@bjt81366]

If the money was spent on this technology through the 60s we would already have people living on the moon and perhaps Mars.

[@diocletian607]

The american ppl didnt care for it, they do now, with groups of the ultra rich paying big money for just a trip to space.

[@williammarrero4184]

I like how they keep pushing back the schedule to Mars. It was originally supposed to happened in 2016.

[@coryleblanc]

cuz it's all fake, God's firmament is real

[@astroevada]

@@coryleblanc Or, and just hear me out, sending humans to Mars is incredibly costly and difficult.

[@coryleblanc]

@@astroevada i dont think you get What i said

[@astroevada]

@@coryleblanc Sorry but the skydome doesn't exist.

[@NickRobbins82]

Then it was moved to 2024 or 2026 now it's 2040

[@martinlisitsata]

1:00 actually that's not true , if you terminate the flight yourself its not unscheduled , just not planed

[@0kw781]

The booster didn’t “fail to seperate” starship simply didn’t make it to the point where it would seperate. The reason the FTS was enabled was due to spacex losing control of the vehicle.

[@olafmesschendorp147]

It actually did fail to seperate. Quote from somewhere in the livestream of the testflight: ''we should have had stage seperation by now''

[@S1L3NTIGamer]

@@olafmesschendorp147 this is incorrect. The announcers didn’t have 100 accurate information as to what was going on. They had the flight plan. SpaceX later confirmed that they had lost control, the FTS was activated, then 40 seconds later the rocket RUD’d. The second stage separation was never triggered.

[@TwinTurboOnly]

Wrong lol

[@FrankyPi]

@@S1L3NTIGamer Which is not surprising because it was supposed to be inside hypersonic regime and reaching around 70 km by the time of booster cutoff, but it didn't even reach Mach 2 and not higher than 39 km, all those engines going out is the culprit, too much thrust lost and it was too slow.

[@Condor-uc2lw]

Credit where credit is due that was a very good unbiased report :)

[@Htleveryday]

8:42 *_switches to suspicious heavy bgm after a moment of silence while displaying another scene from the sky_* .

[@whattha_huh]

The need for nuclear rockets can't be overstated. Space is big. We can't just carry infinite supplies on a long mission. Imagine a road trip that takes years and you can't stop until it's over.

[@user-io8bm6gz5z]

"despite a bad start" ya right, smear merchants... they were flying a prototype and werent expecting it to even make it that far.

[@alien9279]

Starship is off to a great start tbh, that test flight was always going to end with a bang. Got so much further than anyone expected tbh

[@sashaputin2746]

@Coma White they didnt the big the tanks didnt have anythign they dont even use them, they didnt even know the imens power of starship the launch was a complete succesful

[@joannewilson6577]

@@sashaputin2746 They knew very well because all their test was at 50% of the power and a few sec only and it was already way too powerful for their silly launch pad.

[@sashaputin2746]

@@joannewilson6577 when they did the static fire they did 50% and the pad was intact its not until 100% in which it didnt withstand either way the launch was a massive success idk why ur so anti spacex

[@EvilNeuro]

@@sashaputin2746 incorrect. It did cause damage at 50% many times esp the full engine static fire

[@sashaputin2746]

@@EvilNeuro no when they did the static fire it was fine thats why they launched

[@JesusChristDenton_7]

_"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle forever."_

[@frankymuthiani7000]

Thanks

[@3l3llala13]

I hope to see a manned Mars landing in my lifetime.

[@joannewilson6577]

You will if you live another 20 years...

[@kylereese4822]

Saturn 5 was downgraded in size and destination.. It was meant to be bigger and for Mars... but you got 2nd prise The Moon...

[@djhasta5031]

Can we solve world peace before we go to Mars? It's cheaper and Mars don't need our human problems.

[@tayler2396]

It's not cheaper to defeat Russia, China, North Korea and Iran in order to bring world peace.

[@potatomo9609]

Working on an objective larger then all of us together as a species is a method of achieving world peace.

[@tayler2396]

@@potatomo9609 There's no evidence for that. A unipolar world with the USA at the top has resulted the freest, most peaceful and profitable era in history when considering population growth. The US and close allies must dominant the air, land, seas and space.

[@omarbaba9892]

Oh what try and fix a problem that will never be solved?

[@djhasta5031]

@@omarbaba9892 that's the whole point. Why we going to Mars when we just going to end up in another war with China and Russia on a different planet?

[@frankymuthiani7000]

Every effort should be combined and ideas shared together for the better secure world.

[@AlexanderYap]

I think it will be faster to develop robots with superior AI to explore Mars than to develop the technologies to safely send fragile humans there. Better yet, send robots first to prepare the site for humans later, for example construct the habitat, extract water, oxygen, etc.

[@hypergraphic]

Exactly. We can already 3D print a lot of stuff, and it's going get a lot better.

[@ethangriffin3328]

The issue with this line of thought is that it keeps every human on earth. There’s a problem with that. Long term of course. The issue is that there is essentially a guarantee that life on earth will be wiped out one day. When this happens humans & all the life in the universe that we actually know exists, is dead. Do we want that? Imagine a world where humans are interplanetary and effectively life in our little corner of the universe becomes abundant. That’s the future I like to contemplate. Granted, in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really matter. It’s very unlikely life in earth ends anytime soon - but whether it’s an asteroid, rising temperatures, even declining birth rates, supervolcano eruption, nuclear war, what have you - at some point something is going to go horrible wrong and wipe humans and most of the life on the planet off the map.

[@NateShiesty_]

Supposedly they have a Rover on mars

[@leoiscool5480]

That is the plan

[@4chukwuebuka]

@@ethangriffin3328 great reply. I have a feeling that we might actually be the only sentient beings in the universe. I know it sound ignorant but people always forget to bring into mind how rear life truly is.

[@chasetran8592]

We might not get to experience interplanetary in our time. May the continuing generation embrace it.

[@Alderite]

I think we do, Its mindboggled to see that the first Airplane flight was in 1903, It took just 66 Years to finally have people landed on the Moon, so things will go well in 40-50 years

[@GHO5T3DFreelance]

Trust me every time i sit on the toilet I'm prepared to go nuclear , so whats new?

[@dragonskull473slayer9]

Im from Huntsville,AR

[@SA-247]

Is any one concerned that if this nuclear rocket is involved in an explosion on the launchpad or re entry the ramifications would be devastating?

[@OGG18]

Do you know how many nukes were tested in the middle of the ocean or in the desert ? i dont think a single rocket is worrying

[@alterbr33d]

@@OGG18 A nuclear explosion just outside of the atmosphere would create an EMP blast that would destroy many satellites disabling communication, GPS, television, etc.

[@sundial-el3nt]

We need Warp speed.....🚀🚀🚀

[@darkstorminc]

Well if someone could figure out the energy problem we might have warp capability. The major issue is the amount of power required to even begin testing of the science. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.

[@sundial-el3nt]

@@darkstorminc true the power cost is chief obstacle but the problem will be solved by AI..

[@darkstorminc]

@@sundial-el3nt AI can't solve everything.

[@sundial-el3nt]

@@darkstorminc it will solve the conundrum of power cost re warp bubble as stated in the Colbierre theory of warp speed...AI may destroy us all as in the terminator movies but it may also help us reach the stars...😏

[@MEDIADIPPP]

Adversary is craaaaazy

[@Waywind420]

I suspect that AI will eventually provide us with clarity as to what technologies are possible. That includes space travel and it's likely people are going to be disappointed to find out we're pretty much confined to our solar system.

[@TAPATIOPLEASE]

Wrong. We're currently being visited by civilizations that are obviously not from our star system. Its multiple species at that and we have multiple ships, if we replicate the tech we're fine.

[@carsoncollins2439]

So I asked a scientist where the highest chance of sending a rocket into a space was, and they told me the equator...

[@julianruffles3167]

Imagine that going bang on the launch pad

[@Aztec1050]

I’m proud to be Chinese American, I’m 100% American, my ancestors built American railroad

[@bakerkawesa]

Best to improve the reliability of spacecraft before throwing a radioactive wrench into the works

[@arvont1]

Nuclear rocket engines are reliable - they have something like 90% less moving parts than a conventional, chemical rocket engine. There is a video from the US National Archives, which is here on KZbin on their official KZbin channel, which provides detailed information on the testing they conducted in the 60s. They conducted full-scale tests where they ran the nuclear engine at full power for an hour - multiple times if that’s not reliability, I don’t know what it is.

[@orionSpacecraft]

@@arvont1 I think they meant that if a conventional rocket carrying nuclear material failed, then results would be catastrophic

[@StinkyGreenBud]

Who cares who gets to Mars first? This is a human achievement. Not an individual's.

[@ramunasstulga8264]

This is about mars colonization, if Chinese lands first their military will have a lot strategic places to take, assumingly they might also be able to get more supplies if they can find valuable minerals

[@mnm2007]

Why didn’t the module that will keep the astronauts on top separate before the explosions

[@jonny5696]

Always nice to be living in the prequel timeline of The Expanse.

[@zacharythomas8617]

I still haven't watched that, do you know where it's streaming?

[@DiegoGomez-pk5tg]

@@zacharythomas8617 Amazon Prime

[@Astropoliy]

Yeah, if the Europeans don't wipe out humanity because of war 😂

[@randmorf]

Just don't put the plans on any computer tied to the Internet, or the Chinese will get the plans and build their version in 3 to 5 years after ours comes to reality.

[@hatchedcoast7495]

They teased their next gen rocket and it looks exactly like starship lol they already got the files...

[@slappycrappy9942]

Yah and promptly blow it up. Haha mabey they should get their road skills up to standards first

[@prandomable]

China is trying to surpass the US like US trying to surpass the USSR during the Cold War Space Race.

[@kylereese4822]

There`s about 7 WWW systems in use... and 1-2 are for the public... GPS is owned by the US military...

[@prandomable]

@@kylereese4822 GPS is USA. GLONAAS is Russian. Galileo is Italian/ESA/European. And now China has their own GPS called BeiDou. Over 100+ countries are using it. India might also have their own GPS too, they already have their own satellites.

[@stefanlennartsson9860]

I hope we can unite humanity first and then progress will be infinitive.

[@tomjegs___]

And I hope I fart $100 bills and rainbows

[@JJReveron]

This is not a bad start. It's a successful start.

[@couriebrinson1779]

Best of the best

[@bbtank3000]

Anyone else concerned about the sudden interest in deep space travel? Like what aren't we being told? It's like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

[@KSTGClan]

The elites want to be out of earth so they can reset humanity on earth buy using nuclear weapons to wipe us out

[@katyweilportland4418]

It would be excellent to have a follow-up story to this one. A story that looks into what would happen with the nuclear waste products in space, starting with the waste products that come from the test. Those products won’t just go away, they will hang there in space. If we do enough of these tests or expeditions that waste would end up somewhere, wouldn’t it? Competition between rival countries is not the best reason for scientific exploration. Sure, it got us to the moon and that was phenomenal. But can’t we evolve past fear-based, conflicting, political ideology-fueled technological development? Would be a very interesting follow-up story here. Thanks.

[@jakeh2049]

It would stay in space long enough to no longer be radioactive. She said it in the video. People misunderstand and have an unfounded fear of nuclear waste. When considering the amount of energy you get for a given amount of fuel and for how long, the amount of nuclear waste produced I s minuscule compared to everything else humans are doing. In Finland they literally take kids on field trips to waste storage facilities set up like a museum where you can stand on top of a cell and feel the heat rising off it and it is totally safe. Saying something is radioactive for 1000 years does not mean it it is dangerous for that long. It just means it takes that long to go to ZERO. But it actually does decay to a safe level relatively quickly. We are exposed to low radiation all the time. Medical field, sensing devices, process controls, heck even just going outside. Radiation does not equal death, there are even studies showing it may actually be beneficial. (For example: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128222047.htm ) It is frustrating because this ignorance is the reason we aren’t fully powered by nuclear which would be the greenest, safest, most efficient and reliable solution by far.

[@jakeh2049]

Also, judging from your comment you sound pretty well-written and I hope I’m not wrong in thinking I can say this without you being insulted. But really this whole kumbaya, “let’s move past all this competition” stuff honestly seems really naive to me. Competition is 100% what got us here, and yes it did come with negative consequences but net it was worth it. If you disagree here it’s a whole other discussion. Competition is so far engrained in what humans are that I don’t think it’s even possible or desirable to remove it. Please look up Robert Sapolsky’s free course on behavioural evolution if you want your mind blown on this stuff. My point here is that we aren’t going to just “evolve past” a competition mindset here. It’s not that easy. Utopia doesn’t, arguably can’t and shouldn’t exist. What we COULD do, is try to understand fully our own psychology and ENGINEER a system that would use every quirk we have (including competition) and rig the incentives, and disincentives, in the direction we would like to go. If this system outcompetes, then others will naturally want to adopt or join it. This is a very rough and incomplete idea and you can forsure poke some holes at it, but I believe it’s far more realistic than just “let’s all get past this bickering and all get along” type of fantasy.

[@planetsec9]

They are testing DRACO in GEO (10,000km) orbit, by the time any debris or waste product from that ever reaches the Earths atmosphere it would have decayed and become inert, thats why they are using HALEU fuel too, short half-life life and non-weapons grade.

[@DaveDahuh]

The engines only work in vacuum

[@formerfofcastudent7470]

The radiation of the sun would be more dangerous than the nuclear waste

[@jonathanerno8810]

So it's a competition and here we are sharing to our competitors our game plan. Good job.

[@porudoryu]

After watching DS9 and understanding how Ferengi minds work, I can only assume that if there are no competition and greed, humanity will be stagnant. I guess working together to achieve similar goals are kind of irrelevant for our species.

[@MRi2thesky]

Our bodies are evolved to exist on this planet. Extended time in gravity environments that differ from ours wreaks havoc on the body. Curious as to how they plan on addressing that. Just look at what happens to astronauts who stay in orbit for long periods of time. The trip alone is 14 months out and back

[@user-mp3eh1vb9w]

That's one of the many problems that would be tackled. We will see though, in 2040 we might be able to edit our genes or dna to better suit space travel.

[@astroevada]

Artificial gravity by spinning the spacecraft could work.

[@user-mp3eh1vb9w]

@@astroevada wll if you jump and push yourself to the opposite side of the craft's rotation then you will have a problem unless it is rotating somewhat slow

[@omarbaba9892]

Bruh a Russian guy spent a year in zero g and had zero long term effects

[@GreenPartyHat]

We need a President to announce a Mars mission like JFK did with the Moon.

[@jameswatson5807]

Not with 31 trillion debt.

[@GreenPartyHat]

@James Watson it's not that much money. Use spacex starship. Fly there, refuel and fly back. No more than 20 billion.

[@jameswatson5807]

@@GreenPartyHat Yes it is a lot of money, this is a one way trip, NASA expects a manned Mission to Mars will cost up to $100 billion. They keeping it real and honest.

[@astroevada]

George H W Bush, Dubya, Barack Obama and Donald Trump already did so. It's just that the one Obama suggested is actually being carried over through the Trump and Biden administrations.

[@jesusthugmusic]

Very interested in any reaction that may occur from our current anti nuke system. The tic tac ufo.

[@MrMars-sb3yq]

It's not a race, this is for the betterment of humanity. stop hate mongering

[@regolith1350]

Cutting the travel time to Mars by just one third hardly seems worth the trouble of making nuclear propulsion the centerpiece of a Mars program. It *MIGHT* be justified if Earth and Mars were static objects, but they're not. They both move, so the distance between them fluctuates radically over time. Which is why there's a limited launch window every 26 months when the two planets are optimally positioned. There's also a launch window for the return trip back to Earth for the same reason. You can't just launch to Mars any day you like, nor can you launch a return trip any day you like. Getting to Mars one-third faster will give you a bit more time AT Mars for exploration but it does absolutely nothing to speed up the return trip launch date, which is dictated by when the planets are once again aligned. Nuclear propulsion is kind of a distraction because the TOTAL time savings on a several-years-long Mars mission will be... about two to three months. That's IT. For crew survivability, we're better off pre-positioning supplies on the surface and maybe even a backup spacecraft in Mars orbit. And that's not even taking into account how much cargo Starship can carry. To use an analogy, imagine there's a drawbridge that connects two sides of a river. Now imagine that bridge connects only once every 26 months. It doesn't matter if have fancy new sneakers that allow you to walk that bridge in one-third less time than with your old shoes. You're still gonna have to wait a long time before you can cross back.

[@johnwinter2252]

A nuclear engine will drastically improve the delta-V. Also, without the additional fuel, there's more payload capacity. There are many many more benefits to using a nuclear engine.

[@markthebldr6834]

It's still a theoretical prototype so they have to start somewhere. Don't you think there could be improvements? Also, what about further missions or unmanned missions?

[@potatomo9609]

An engine with higher efficiency will eventually allow us to launch payload not at optimal launch window - it has enough delta-v to compensate for the longer trip time. And this is just the beginning of nuclear thermal engine. There are more powerful design like gas cores nuclear thermal rocket that could have the efficiency of a turbo air plane engine on earth, and there are some fancy designed like nuclear salt water rockets that could bring you to percentage of speed of light. Nuclear engines has magnitude more of potential then chemical engines. This is a necessary first step for us to become a true interplanetary species.

[@SteffiReitsch]

Dude, NASA knows more about this than you do. Now go back to sleep.

[@regolith1350]

To the commenters who've responded, yes I understand your points about the potential of nuclear, but my point is don't let Perfect be the enemy of Good. Don't let hypothetical future tech distract us and derail us from using proven existing tech. The last thing we need is to wait 20 years for nuclear only to discover it's still 20 years away, and we never get to Mars. I've been hearing my entire life about this revolutionary tech or that game-changing doodad or this other gizmo that will finally open the floodgates blah blah. A lab experiment is far from a prototype, and a prototype is far from a working system with all the ancillary & support stuff built out, and a working system is far from a reliable, repeatable, cost-effective system that's more than a one-off. And that's not even taking into account all the non-technical variables such as political will, organizational inertia, contracting waste, etc. Pinning our hopes on "the mostest, bestest technology" at the expense of other considerations is how we get Too Big to Fail projects that are billions over budget and decades behind schedule like the origami-folding nightmare of James Webb where engineers are spending years figuring out how to shave a few GRAMS of weight here & there, while other projects see their budgets vanish as a direct result of Webb's overruns. All because they wanted the mostest bestest shiniest super duper cutting edge magic thing instead of merely a really really good excellent telescope that did the job. And to the person saying "dude, NASA knows more than you", that's not even an argument. It's like saying the sky is blue or water is wet. You're not clever for saying it. Yes NASA knows more than me. But NASA also took a decade and $40 billion to recreate an underpowered Space Shuttle without the orbiter. NASA also lost a Mars mission because they forgot to convert between metric and imperial. And NASA also killed 14 astronauts. So tell me again, "dude, NASA knows more than you" because that's still not an argument.

[@crucial0072]

If the human race would ever learn to work as one, we'd already have colonies on Mars.

[@Dangerooman]

ikr, i always picture what if humans never fought over resources and always work together to increase resources starting from the stone age, we would have had the apollo missions happening in 400 BC but nooo instead we have thieves and warmongers who prefer to keep destroying human potential instead of growing it.. really sad when you think about it

[@hawkdsl]

It is your nature to be tribal. That will remain to be so for thousands of years.

[@mikehunnewell7412]

What stock is Chana space company ?

[@worldatmyfingertips7771]

The guy with the glasses has the frigging coolest voice of them all man, sounds just like one of the ''rebel'' pilots from star wars.....this is so cool!! 😃😃😃😃😃😃

[@billtruttschel]

This piece doesn't come even close to giving SpaceX its due credit.

[@Gentamoru]

Nah it's all about making people hate/fear China for the good of the US' power over the world and eventually Mars

[@ThatOneGuyFromSchool]

Can't wait. The common consumer always gets some cool stuff after they make big breakthroughs in NASA. Maybe eventually we could have miniature nuclear engines for cars 🤷‍♂️ your car could run for a lifetime

[@kennethkho7165]

no, nuclear propulsion accelerates slowly and it's only effective where there is no atmospheric drag

[@BlueDrew10]

@@kennethkho7165 More likely innovations we'd see would be new materials. Although, this could not only result in better awareness of how safe nuclear energy is when properly regulated, but could also result in major nuclear energy efficiency gains.

[@johnwinter2252]

That concept was thought about in the 50s by Ford and almost became a reality. Just imagine the nuclear accidents from car wrecks and you'll realize why they didn't follow through.

[@johnwinter2252]

@@kennethkho7165 No, you're wrong. The amount of propulsion depends on the energy available and we can make extremely high-capacity reactors. KSP isn't real life. Cruise missiles have been made with nuclear propulsion that fly IN the atmosphere.

[@Echidna23Gaming]

​@@kennethkho7165 You wouldn't use nuclear propulsion in a mini nuclear engine for a car, you would have a small nuclesr generator that generates heat which is converted to electricity for an electric vehicle that could last years without refueling

[@Eclipse21392]

If everything wasn’t a competition or race but instead work TOGETHER we would be on mars already

[@JalapenoSteve]

The world doesn't work that way.

[@br00talhonesty]

Does anything happen to earth or earths atmosphere when they launch rockets to space? Someone explain please

[@lazarusblackwell6988]

I will do my part to help manking progress beyond the Earth and our Solar System.

[@frinkfronk9198]

It seems like people are intentionally not discussing an RUD with a nuclear reactor. How could Chernobyl in the upper atmosphere possibly be bad or unsafe? Jesus I want to go to Mars but this is insane. There is a reason they stopped back in the 60s...

[@tomamberg5361]

Encapsulate the fissile material correctly into pellets, and they'll be fine.

[@gustafsone]

It's not like they will be using nuclear energy to launch the vehicle into space. If the rocket RUDs on it's way to orbit, there will be no nuclear explosion. Here is a quote from the DRACO program manager, Tabitha Dodson, at DARPA (who is researching all of this technology): "After launch, the plan is to keep the reactor off until the vehicle is sufficiently far from Earth to turn the reactor on. Therefore, the reactor and materials contained within will remain radiologically inert during launch and during all stages of space operations."

[@frinkfronk9198]

@@gustafsone well that is cool. i still feel a bit nervous about it though. Shooting any kind of nuclear fuel into orbit seems risky to me. It just seems like too much of a risk. Exploding a tiny amount of nuclear material in the atmosphere seems like a planet ending scenario

[@infiniteloopcounter9444]

It may surprise you but significant nuclear explosions in the upper atmosphere have already been carried out as tests. They even created radiation belts that lasted about a decade. Worth looking into nuclear bomb tests as really interesting and not quite as bad as the political fallout.

[@frinkfronk9198]

@@infiniteloopcounter9444 wow OK, that is surprising. I didn't know that. I'll check it out.

[@stephenwilson9872]

You will not ever leave this rock

[@reignman2103]

What exactly are trying to do/find at Mars? Just to say we went there?

[@JigilJigil]

SpaceX (2030): We managed to put the first humans on the surface of Mars. NASA (2030): Due to the technical problems, our plan to send astronauts to Mars will be postponed from 2040 to 2045. NASA (2040): We don't think we will succeed in getting someone to Mars before 2050.

[@MrStringybark]

Space X because it is a private enterprise will then start jacking up prices to billions of dollars per pound to send food and resources so as to support those already on Mars.

[@joannewilson6577]

SpaceX (2030) We need NASA tech and money to send anything on Mars. NASA (2040) We gave tens on billions to SpaceX again and again but they still cannot land on the moon.

[@kylereese4822]

Yea NASA have been saying that since the 1980s....

[@user-mp3eh1vb9w]

@@kylereese4822 well they would have if they didn't cut the nuclear rocket tests. The people were too afraid of nuclear waste even until now.

[@potatomo9609]

SpaceX is NASA. Who do you think is funding SpaceX? And who do you think SpaceX is carrying in their missions? Stop fanboying them.

[@Martin-117]

China Watching this knowing they'll steal the technology eventually when it's perfected saving themselves billions on R&D.

[@alphacompany4837]

😂 facts

[@alien9279]

That rnd is huge for building future tech. Copying someone's homework can only take you so far haha

[@MrStringybark]

"China Watching " So what. If they get in front. The USA will copy them. Life goes on.

[@nesseihtgnay9419]

that is true, they are just waiting to hit the hack button when the tech is ready, UNLESS the US government learns how to up their cybersecurity.

[@Carfeu]

What happens if the reactor explodes in orbit during launch?

[@SALVATION650]

Just land “another” dude on the moon and then we can talk about going to Mars.

[@MrStringybark]

Reporters and scientists should never be put in the same room together nor allowed to interpret their words unless of course there is a professional science fact interpreter with them who then later scans the reporter's copy before "print".

[@twothreefour234]

Musk could drive a car to Mars before NASA could draw the plans.

[@simulationkoyo]

I prefer to send Musk to Mars and leave him there.

[@lukasuon3719]

Where are we on developing warp drive?

[@bobbybutane4004]

If humanity wants to survive forever we must leave earth to continue our species

[@Grant918Tulsa]

What are we trying to survive? The perfect habitat is right here we just need to fix it.

[@cirusMEDIA]

Trying to survive our selves!

[@apothic0n]

Doesnt need fixed

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

It is a mistake to put so much into going to Mars now, we are not ready and we have not done far more important things closer to home. The most important race is around developing Artificial General Super Intelligence with Personality (AGSIP) technology, because if one country dominates in the development in AGSIP tech they will dominate EVERY WHERE ELSE, on Earth and on Mars, regardless if someone else establishes a base on Mars first. Mastering genetic engineering, cellular engineering, and cybernetics down to a subcellular level is another far more important race to win because that technology will not only cure virtually all diseases humanity suffers but it is required to fully align humans with developing AGSIP technology by allowing humans to merge AGSIP technology with their brains/minds to become as intelligent as AGSIPs. Then, on a much less important but still far more important level than going to Mars, we should first build mining facilities on the Moon, refining facilities on the Moon, manufacturing facilities on the Moon, and then begin building spaceships on the Moon which are made and fueled from lunar mined materials. Launching spaceships from the Earth is not efficient and not good for the environment of Earth. Nothing is alive on the Moon yet, thus there is no living ecology we have to worry about harming the living ecology of the Moon. But, more intelligently thinking, whoever first establishes a well developed industry making spaceships on the Moon using lunar materials will then dominate colonizing the Moon, dominate colonizing orbital space around the Earth, dominate colonizing Mars, and dominate the rest of space exploration and domination. BUT... Whoever wins the race for AGSIP technology will win the race to establish mines, factors, and the building of spaceships on the Moon. Even if someone begins building factories on the Moon first, the endeavor is to hard and thus will take so long to become well established, that not much progress will be made before someone wins the AGSIP race which will then allow them to win all the other scientific and technological races.

[@stevenhe198911]

Actually I don't think robots mining will be widely used since it's so expensive, it maybe will be more cheap to put miners on the moon, but that maybe will require about at least 70,000 to 100,000 people for surface and underground operation

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

@@stevenhe198911 I disagree and time will prove who is correct, since that is the only way to know with certainty. But, robots on the Moon will not need oxygen to breath, a pressurized atmosphere, food & water, suffer degenerative health problems due to low gravity, etc. Further, even here on Earth humanity is facing a rapidly developing crisis where AI driven robotics will be able to perform virtually any mental or physical job humans can do within the next decade or two. OffWorld Robotic Lunar Mining CONOPS kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5yooGenn912iJY How Autonomous Robots Are Changing Construction kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHPZp5WFgdZmqpI

[@user-mp3eh1vb9w]

You do know that there are seperate departments for that right? Hence why you have NASA in the space industry.

[@MusingsFromTheJohn00]

@@user-mp3eh1vb9w what? How is that relevant to either what I said or what stevenhe198911 said?

[@bobbykinz7497]

I just don’t like that we are competing against one another we should be working together although completion is great motivation, if we work together we can get it done a lot quicker

[@akabekwaifeanyi8601]

Y'all still wanna take war to space? Humanity is just crazy

[@withonestonechannel]

All this money can be used to SAVE EARTH!

[@darkstorminc]

No better regulations on industry and not electing people who do the bidding of those and fossil fuel companies will save the planet.

[@astroevada]

We can focus on two things at once.

[@kahekilikahahawai586]

So their actually saying that we never landed on the moon? Lol

[@michaellewisjones-7894]

So Neil Armstrong never was really on the moon then...

[@MzG0ld]

exactly !

[@dionysus2006]

Don't be a bozo

[@Junior-rt6xr]

Just like how dinosaurs are real to seems like there’s a lot they’re not telling us and if gods out there, he needs to tell us and show us first

[@prandomable]

Why do people today still doubt the human Moon landings???😮

[@davidflitcroft7101]

I still think that a nuclear powered tug around the Moon, Earth and Mars would solve the propulsion problem between Worlds. We need only to be able to rendezvous with the tug and use other propulsion [e.g. ion] or a smaller nuclear system for course correction. we absolutely must think outside of the box! I do agree with Tyson that robotic missions have their place, and should be used to prepare Mars for human visits. . .

[@pranititiwari6525]

Wishing success and all the best to NASA 🎉🎉

[@yudhirgautam1645]

Yes to ripping off people's tax payer money. haha

[@WeebsArePathetic]

I guarantee the only reason Musk is focused on this is so that he'd go down in history books forever almost like a god. We don't need to focus on faring space right now when we can't even take care of our own planet. Mars just seems pointless other than doing it just to do it. Which is like kind of cool in a way but also seems immoral to waste all that money.

[@MrStringybark]

Unfortunately, the world we live in is not guaranteed to be a permanently safe place for all life, forever.

[@serronserron1320]

The technology to survive on Mars and exploring space will help us solve a lot of our problems back on Earth.

[@michaelmakowski3522]

Some of the greatest humans to have ever lived, remembered thousands of years later by practically every person on earth achieved that cause A- They had the gall to accomplish something extraordinary and B- Many of them did whatever it is they did at least partly to be immortalized like that. Humanity has benefited beyond measure from such people. Alexander the great, Julius Caesar

[@electron6825]

@@michaelmakowski3522 Some of the greatest. And some of the worst.

[@WeebsArePathetic]

@@MrStringybark Yea but we're pretty far off from the world being destroyed any time soon. What I don't understand is how people think we can terraform mars and live there if we can't even do that on the more timid environments on earth.