might see a demo in 2040 and 50 billion later

It will take NASA 70 years to build it and it will be way way over budget.

NASA doesn't have a new Nuclear Rocket engine. they have a study on paper saying "yeah, this could be cool if somebody made one." there is a company in england that is actually building and testing such an engine, and has discussed a partnership with SpaceX. For comparison the Raptor was in use in 2019 and has been scaling up production since.

@paulmoffat9306

2 ай бұрын

NASA HAD a working, fully tested and flight ready Nuclear Engine ready to go, in 1974! President Nixon cancelled that along with ending the Apollo missions.

@gregoryfaith4303

2 ай бұрын

@@paulmoffat9306 Even Nixon, who was a crook, saw it was way too expensive and nixed it.

If i got a buck for a every super cool plan the NASA came up with and then failed to deliver after we ended the Moon missions, i would be a billionaire

This rocket engine would not replace the Merlin or Raptor engines. It would only be used while already in space.

@jessicatymczak5852

2 ай бұрын

Correct. Nuclear engines have an excellent isp but a very poor thrust to weight ratio. Victor Von Braun was considering it for the Saturn V second stage where TTWR was not so essential. Now there is an even better way to get much higher isp, read “Thermo-Electric Rocket Thruster” if you want to know more (down to 18 days). ☺️

The huge problem besides COST is complicated, as hydrogen is almost impossible to seal being the smallest molecule, as small as its atom. Dreaming

@zagreus5773

2 ай бұрын

The Space Shuttle used hydrogen as fuel. You know you can liquify it, right?

@The1QwertySky

2 ай бұрын

@@zagreus5773 its very hard tho

@jessicatymczak5852

2 ай бұрын

It already been done for the last 50 years

@jessicatymczak5852

2 ай бұрын

@@The1QwertySky not really.

@The1QwertySky

2 ай бұрын

@@jessicatymczak5852 it also takes a LOT of energy to get hydrogen, which would be way more efficent to just use the electricity directly to power a motor. Also it takes a LOT of space to store hydrogen, hydrogen cars have way less range than EVs like teslas and in q crash you will end up in low earth orbit in pieces. Just look at atleast 1 hydrogen car review and you will know what I mean

What is rarely discussed about manned Mars missions and their propulsion systems ids the fact that the longer the trip last the larger the radiation dose the crew gets. A 6-months x 2 round trip means almost a Sievert of radiation dose, the NASA limit for the entire career of astronauts. Thus, the faster the mission, the lower the dose, and nuclear propulsion is definitely better than chemical.

I hope they get it to work. Gotta go faster...

I love all these stories about NASA inventing stuff, meanwhile they use 40 year old tech, and techniques

NASA couldn't put together a toy from a kinder egg.

@danielbishop2142

Ай бұрын

😂 So true

@edwardriffle29

Ай бұрын

That is why darpa will do the work

@heels-villeshoerepairs8613

Ай бұрын

Ummm, ok.

@TheRetroManRandySavage

Ай бұрын

@@heels-villeshoerepairs8613 Ummm, thanks.😂👍

@heels-villeshoerepairs8613

Ай бұрын

@TheRetroManRandySavage it is amazing that NASA seem to have all this expertise and yet they can't even find the technology that they "lost" to get back to the moon.

6:40 - “Send a crew to Mars in 2030”…. Maybe 2130….

As he said, its been around since the sixties. However each attempt has shown that atomic erosion was massive over the internal structures. On every engine they built the erosion was of such nature as to destroy the engine in a period so short as to make its use lost cause. So far Ive seen only the same theories as tried in the past. I expect, as in the case of the large ion thruster which was abandoned in the recent past and long history of failed attempts to accomplish this very same project, its just so much hot air. I still think abandoning the large ion thruster was a bad move. That one looked very promising... but the money was pissed away and whittled down and we all lost instead.

Has it been tested???

Can I suggest Space X to launch on a Starship then the nuclear is tested in space rather than it blowing up in our atmosphere !

If it is NASA claiming this they should have it ready in about 50 or 60 years and about 10 times the actual budget judging from their track record .

The nuclear ion engine is 80s tech that uses water for fuel. On 150 gallons of water, it could maintain 1g of accelleration before flipping over and doing it again for the remainder of the journey. Optimal time to Mars 36 hours.

One day we will be building nuclear rockets on the moon where helium-3 is abundant and the material needed to build them will be available.

Can this engine get a rocket off the ground or do passengers need to transfer in orbit. What happens if an atomic rocket explodes on launch

@voytek3999

2 ай бұрын

You have Excellent Point! The Whole Idea is not only BS(!), IS HS!!! 😮😢😢😂😂😅😊❤ And I'm Not Talking about The Technical Ability and Multiple Technologies We Need to Build This SHIP In Orbit....!😊❤ Let Assume that WE Have It!!!😊❤❤ It Will take 20hours at 3G(!) To Accelerate to Full Speed And 20hours at -3G to Decelerate by Mars! GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!!!😢 I'm being Sarcastic..... I don't know Who Will Survive THAT?... Not Me...

Spacex will colonise Mars 3 times before NASA will launch rocket with that engine

Starship has already reached orbital altitude and velocity

wow , nasa has made a great progress ! we'll be able to see the commercial version within the next 200 years .

One can attach a Nuclear Thermal Rocket to the back end of Starship to push it forward. This is a win for SpaceX too.

@alphatech4966

2 ай бұрын

Thank you for your comment!

Anybody else notice the Pikachu on the top of the raptor engines at 8:26 when elon is by them.

Nuclear thermal and nuclear electric rocket engines will be the future of exploring/colonizing the solar system. Chemical rockets will still be needed to get off earth, but these new rockets will be used to travel between planets.

@alphatech4966

2 ай бұрын

Thank you for your comment!

At a certain point on the trip to mars, you have to flip the ship around and fire the engines to slow you down so you don't blow by Mars. Some mission in the future will have a mechanical failure of some kind that will keep them from refiring the engines.

NASA has being saying this for the last 60years, I'm growing old already 😅🤣😂

Odds are that if this thing is built it will be launched on Super Heavy. Nobody's going to allow a nuclear rocket to be launched from Earth--too much radiation in the exhaust.

@stanleydavidson6543

Ай бұрын

No they with go to orbit with starship and super heavy carrying the nuclear engine

Though this is likely many years away, it at least doesn't obsolesce the Starship because Nuclear Rockets will likely never be used for orbital launches, but rather as an interplanetary express.

The problem with traveling at 500,000 mph is how are you going to shield the spacecraft from hitting even tiny micrometeorites? The kinetic energy, KE, involved in a spacecraft traveling at a relative velocity, v, with respect to an object of mass, m, is equal to KE = 1/2·m·v^2. Therefore, decreasing the time required to get from Earth to Mars from 6 months, or 180 days, to 45 days is a 180 days/45 days = 4X increase in speed. The spacecraft would therefore be subjected to a possible 16X increase in kinetic energy collisions with any objects, such as micrometeorites. This is a parameter that will have to be accounted for in the spacecraft design.

NASA doesn't even build rockets!

Nasal will never get out of the atmosphere simple

This should be developed fairly quickly as they already did all the research back in the 50s with project Orion I believe they even made test models

They have had better for over 50 years. This is just what they want to show the public

@alphatech4966

Ай бұрын

Yeah!

Now, if we only had Kerbal Space Program 2 not being abandoned, we could also try to land on Duna!

NASA cannot even send people to the Moon…

NASA can’t put anything in space and they’ve got something new on the growing board. It’s funny.

Mean acceleration of a proton in the Large Hadron Collider: 190M g Acceleration necessary to achieve 76% of speed of light in 354 days: 1g

You still need to use current rocket propellant to get into orbit. After that, a nuclear rocket can get to the solar system.

The world doesn’t even have a working fusion reactor yet

@thega.bo.n3423

Ай бұрын

Fission and fusion are two entirely different things. They are talking about fission, look it up :)

The nuclear engine is for space use only it will not reach escape velocity or be used for launches,it would be unable to land and take off from Mars

if this works, Starships can be used as cargo ships. so still plenty usefulness there

I would sure like to know more detail about the science of exactly what makes this engine feasible. For example, How big would an engine have to be. ETC. I am very detail orientated. Great Episode my Friend. I want to say, Happy Easter to You and Your Team. Happy Easter to All that follow Your Channel. Happy Easter to Elon Musk and his team. Great Episode. Thanks for The All the Work You and Your Team put in this channel. Making each Episode Possible.

Somehow? Laws of physics and basic knowledge of rocket engines and ISPs when testing? Clickbait tittle

As it was back in the beginning of NASA, No one wants to Launch Nuclear Materials over our heads in a Roman Candle that can go boom after launching. So, if you were to use Nuclear Rockets, you'll have to build it on the Moon.

By the time NASA gets off of it's fat bottom and actually builds a atomic rocket, Elon Musk will have five star hotels on Mars.

@All - Going to end like all nuclear disasters, and the challenger. #Boom

So basically invent nuclear fusion (which is perpetually 25 years in the future). Then when we get to the moon, there’s helium-3 just lying around under every rock to fuel it. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

So its an engine project. Nothing yet built or tested. Just guesswork huh? How NASA.

They tryna run that check back up 😂

SpaceX would not hesitate to include new better engines. Why not. But they are not available yet. Let them first learn to fly a reusable big rocket. It's a word first. No one has done this before. Then when better engines are on the horizon, they can develop them further and use them in their spacecraft. But don't wait 50 years until these new engines become available. Use what we have. And by the way, what do you expect on Mars? It's the same as in open space. No air to breath outside. You have gravity, congratulations! But nothing more. You don't win anything when you arrive faster on Mars. You also have very tight crew spaces on Mars. It's not a big relieve once you are on Mars.

@richard--s

2 ай бұрын

Oh I see, I wrote "It's a word first" ;-) Maybe a word first, but it's a world first ;-)

Lol nasa better than space x, thats halarious. Also this new ship is just a concept, not real

Brings the vastness of space travel into prospective. 🌎

Good luck not getting a leak in Hydrogen storage for months...Ah we don't have any fuel to stop us hitting mars or whizzing past it?

Starship could focus on sending supplies and this rocket could focus on transporting people. That would make the most sense

Having starships take people to and from orbit where a space base and space ferry wait is a much better idea than using starship all the way to and from Mars. Especially given that the ferry can be nuclear powered. The big issues with that include development costs and having something that can safely land from martian orbit to the surface and from lunar orbit to the surface, both roles which starship can handle just fine.

dON'T WORRY, EVERYONE! tHE nasa/lockheed martin COMBINATION IS ENOUGH TO IDEA NEVER GETS OFF THE DRAWING BOARD! wHOSETHE PENSIONER? iS IT pRESIDENT bIDET? Loved the'slower than **** through a Xmas goose' !

This is a theory which is too good to be feasible for NASA to produce faster and more economical than SpaceX any kind of faster rockets.

It would be a death sentence for everyone that goes to mars

Building engines are an art. and we got a few ideas thank u ms

Spacex should jump on this. Don't wait for NASA or it will never get done.

They will finally release a functional one in 25 years

Isn't Draco Russian?? Nevermind I'm thinking drago from Rocky 😂

What happens if there is a launch miss hap ? 😳🤔😔

NASA post Apollo can't even find it's own arse without GPS.

This is amazing

By the 2026, both Starhip and DRACO will be ready or almost ready. Why not combine both? I bet its on SpaceX and NASA minds. You don't even need to build a new Starship variant. Launch the current Starship with methalox design to orbit, then launch a DRACO engine in orbit, attach them together in orbit like the hot stage ring does in the booster or like tugs. Go to mars really fast, detach the engine in orbit then just land Starship with the methalox engines. It's brilliant. It's kind how they do in interestellar also.

Fission: maybe if the materials needed can be found and the weight can be practical. Fusion: We can't produce it anywhere except in bombs. The one time it was produced in a lab the lasers used used orders of magnitude more power than the one produced in the reaction. To hope for a rocket using fusion will remain a hope for many more decades.

Realy I like this video so so much its interestyng

@alphatech4966

Ай бұрын

Thank you so much!

Is the engine in development?

Lol, liquid hydrogen is the lightest gas discovered "to date". Lol

I think that even if they had a working prototype "better" is a concept that should be left for after FAA launch approval. Boom, woops... More like a space only concept until all the bugs are worked out, and even then, good luck finding someone at the FAA willing to be in the same room with your environmental assessment.

Does human body can endure that much acceleration and speed?

What happens if it explodes on the LaunchPad

Nuclear rocket technology was pioneered in the 60s by NASA The special metallic materials required for building a serviceable Nuclear powered rocket were developed at that time. It is a more desirable system of propulsion compared to the design tested by Dyson. The Orion project.

5000 mph will not get you to mrs in 12 days

@jessicatymczak5852

2 ай бұрын

Nope, way off, that will not even get you to orbit. More like 1200 days.

Starship would still be required. There needs to be something to get people into space and then you need something to land people on Mars. The nuclear rockets should just stay in space. Essentially SpaceX should have a fleet of starships orbiting Mars and Earth to ferry people to and from the surface. The designs of the Mars and Earth starships would be substantially different.

@protorhinocerator142

2 ай бұрын

NT doesn't have the raw power to blast a heavy payload into orbit. It's kinda like the ion propulsion. It's great for efficiency, meaning long fuel life, but its output is too slow to get anything to orbit. You have to already be in orbit.

You don't use a device puts out loads of radiation to take off or land on a planet that you intend to live on. If it is a rocket you don't make it carry tons of shielding. Both fission and fusion are best as propulsion between planets and unless we have huge breakthroughs in managing radiation, we can use Starship to take off and land. It may even be possible to use the fission or nuclear rocket to push something like Starship to Mars orbit, and push it back. You don't want to drag it. Place its fuel tank and Starships propellant tanks between the reactor and the people.

@jessicatymczak5852

2 ай бұрын

The fuel is the shielding, it is not the issue. And you would still use chemical engines to land or take off from planets. The actual radiation issue is space radiation, cosmic rays and solar flares. This is why this would be better, all that hydrogen is an excellent radiation shield

It doesn’t make sense to go so fast because you just add the challenge of slowing down to land safely. can’t use Mars’ atmosphere to air brake. If they could figure it out, that would me cool, even if its just used for taking robots and supplies.

Will the nuclear engine have a static fire? And FAA approval of course !

And the moon is made of green cheese 😂😂😂😂.

Nasa needs competition. A good thing what's going on now. A modern day space-race. Let's hope that Nasa shares their knowledge freely in future. At the end it should be a victory for humanity not just for the US, right? I am sure Elon Musk enjoys the fact that he is awakening the sleeping giant Nasa. And if the USA would spend a little bit more for creative rockets instead of destructiv rockets then just that would give more hope for humanity too. Peace to the world.

NASA couldn’t put a Lego together

So why not use it for energy production on earth

Giving nuclear materials to anyone to sell on the black market is probably a no no no

3:28 " by free electrones?

Wow 45 days is less than my guess of 2 months.

The choice of goals and objectives to be solved is more like a pretentious vinaigrette rather than a well-thought-out strategy...

Nuclear based engines will only be used in space. To launch the vehicle from Earth, chemical rockets will still be used. But, if they work, it will vastly reduce the time to a planet. I also feel that Elon's Starship is trying to do too much. Just to refuel Starship in space, after launch, it would take multiple launches of other starships to refill the original starship. He needs to start think about nuclear based technology as add ons

@00HiGhGuY00

7 күн бұрын

A nuclear rocket, although more powerful, and will allow you to get to Mars faster, will never work for what Musk proposes. He doesn't just want to send a handful of astronauts to Mars and plant a flag, he is ultimately trying to provide the means to establish a SELF SUSTAINING Mars colony. that means that if earth disappears, or all earthlings die, human life on Mars will be able to continue indefinitely without any help or supplies from Earth. This requires the ability to send a LOT of mass to Mars. we're not talking 10's, or 100's, but 1000's of spaceships flying to Mars. This is only possible if the cost comes WAY down. A nuclear rocket, will be much more difficult to build, there will be far fewer of them, and the regulation nightmare will be next level. All this adds up the price of sending stuff to Mars costing more money, exactly the opposite of what's required, it doesn't matter what so ever that you will get there faster.

@leonardovasconcellos2909

Күн бұрын

"He needs to start think about nuclear based technology as add ons" My man, i would bet he is waiting for the this DRACO engine to finish development. It's possible for NASA to sell him the engine or the rights to manufacture it. I'm sure NASA is thinking the same thing, as they don't want to develop another ship. Launch the current Starship with methalox design to orbit, then launch a DRACO engine in orbit, attach them together like the hot stage ring does in the booster. Go to mars really fast, detach the engine in orbit then just land with the methalox engines. It's brilliant.

Another huge mistake in this video the nuclear rocket will not be 3 to 4 times more powerful that's untrue the report says it will be 3 to 4 times more efficient

Fusion energy would be superb! As an old guy, I will soon be waiting for it for seventy years. As long as it does not work on the Earth we need not think about shooting it into space. Nuclear rockets I can only imagine in the upper stages of spacecraft as they do not spoil the earth in case of failures. So nuclear-driven rockets are superb. We only need to get them operating.

@The1QwertySky

2 ай бұрын

you dont know what a nuclear rocket engine is, do you

@vyacheslavromantovsky1238

2 ай бұрын

Nuclear rockets might be good for a trip between 2 Planets (first around home planet and next around distination planet), but not for starting from a surface or landing on a planet.

@gottfriedheumesser1994

2 ай бұрын

@@The1QwertySky As you know everything ...

Wernher von Braun The Farther of all rockets please!

NASA has a lot of talk these days, but not much carrythrough. They can talk nuclear thermal rocket all they want. Where IS it? Just like SLS. They launched one. When is the next scheduled? I see Sept 2025, 18 months away. Then we wait another 12 months.

@warrenjm9

2 ай бұрын

And how are they going to get clearance from the FAA to launch a NUCLEAR FISSION REACTOR into space? And, while it won't need LOX, what WILL it use for reaction mass?

What was the last thing a person said when he was IGNORANT? She'll be Right Mate.

Like the starliner. 😂😂

Notice every time they show a picture of earth you don't see space junk 😂

Aside from all the AI generated nonsense in this video (greenhouse gas methane being environmentally friendly, electrons triggering fission, etc), there's also that hope for nuclear fusion instead of fission. It has significantly higher energy and lower risks. Also recent developments working on quite different designs of fusion generators could eventually produce rocket relevant side products. Nobody will fly stadium sized tokamak. But some compact linear generators or other solutions could actually work as safe and decently efficient impulse generators. Plenty of solar energy up there.

Easy, use both. NASA for most of the personal. Starship for hauling the hardware and other essentials. 😕 maybe?

New energy source, Sam Altman might be interested in that. Head of Space Force said their Fusion engine is better than the Chinese version.

@warrenjm9

2 ай бұрын

Haven't seen evidence of either country actually having a viable working model. The concept might be there, but only a concept.

If anything Elon will throw these on his rocket and still beat NASA by 30 yrs.

@TheRetroManRandySavage

2 ай бұрын

For sure. Elon will beat them at their own game, as per.

Free Electrons trigger Fission ?!?!?