Can Nuclear Propulsion Take Us to Mars? 

cant wait!!

Doesn't matter. This channel has extremely high quality! Keep it up!

Ye hath subscribed

We hast subscribed

Hey subject zero uploaded a similar video 2 hours ago, was this a random thing or a collab

2 caveats here. Nuclear propulsion only gets a bunch of doomed dudes there. There is no remotely feasible return ticket to ever get anything back from Mars surface. There is nothing to be done a robo lander hasn't already done in confirming Mars to be a boring piece of barren red rock flying through a vast nothing of space. Short of interstellar antigrav drive and antigrav shield there is nothing left worth doing in space. Chances are high that 6th mass exnstinction induced by climate crisis gives us no chance to ever sttle anywhere habitable in space. This is called the Fermi Paradoxon. Pls. stick with what we have learned from exploring space. Consider that any rocket launch blows 166 megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. For what gain to make humanity survive and improve our lives? There Is No Planet B. We are stuck here for 150+ years until we can crack our heads for real about antigravity tech. We got to fix a gross mess in our atmosphere and if we fail we are doomed to stay and go extinct. People need to be educated about that urgently. Anything that stoops being scientific is just a cargo cult. Google it where the landing strip is levelled here and the tower raised for someone praying cargo to be delivered by some magic.

Fingers crossed for you sir, I hope you’re doing good.

youll see it for sure

I hope you stick around as long as you like, and while it's clear there are massive unresolved problems with Mars as a colony world, my attitude is pretty much that we have to do such things eventually, and given the incalculable benefits which the moon landings produced (not just tech, but most of all INSPIRING thousands of young people into becoming various types of scientist/engineer/etc --- if we could quantify the benefits of inspiring those generations I reckon it would be beyond our wildest dreams. This sort of thing costs peanuts right now (few % for the USA, which spends trillions on stupid wars at the same time as claiming it can't afford giving people health care and education) compared to the potential.

@@teejayaich4306 Yeah, we learned about climate crisis from SpaceEx Satellite tech. When learned Moon is a dusty barren rock, where the dust is so aggressive you can't do anything on it. We send a rover to Mars and learned it is a barren rock as well. Unless someone understands gravity and builds an interstellar faster than light antigrav drive we are on Earth as Planet A. If you ask to waste 16 Megatons for a liftoff, you have to explain the true benefit of a manned mission to Mars over the downsides. Fact is, you can not get back. No lander can get back into orbit w/o fuel production n Mars. A place where you have neither fossile fuel or water. Nothing Mars would be ever sustainable. Nuclear terraforming is a very remote option. It would still ask to live under substantially different gravity. Sorry, but if you claim "science" you are not supposed to wander off into some delusionary dreamlands. People in the US always dream about a "New Frontier". That's culture mumbo-jumbo not science. The is insurmountable physics in the way where we need at least 150 years to come up with solutions. Solutions that need another league of understanding space and physics of gravity. Means if grvity is particles or rays and how fast "instantaneous" is. If gravity is a push or pull force in it's "field". What a quantum of gravity is? If you can answer any of these you can shield a Mars Mission modules and colony ship from microparticle impact accelerating a vehicle to light speed. There is amazing talks about the challenges of Mars missions. Maybe entertain yourself with some good science and put thought and creativity in a productive direction for humanity.

When a literal rocket engineer tells you that you did a good job, you know you are doing a good job.

@@PresidentialWinner Well, the reference to the "dark side of the Moon" made it decidedly Un-perfect---especially when it shows that side lit up by the Sun.

@@jelink22 stop nitpicking

Hey question as a sudden thought on storage. Couldn't we use water to make Hydrogen space stable and split the fuel in transit using electrolysis to split the water into its Hydrogen and Oxygen forms giving us 66.6% Hydrogen fuel and 33.3% Oxygen? Using oxygen for air or a hybrid fuel source for extra thrust, while spliting off the hydrogen to another container to be used short-term. Or something along those lines.

@@Yogosi Electrolysis need a lot of electricity (the same reason why hydrogen powered cars aren't popular in Earth, majority of our electricity is still supplied by fossil fuels, thus negating the supposed green-ness of hydrogen), something that is rare in space

More likely we would use an assembly station in Earth-Moon orbit at L5 or L6 to assemble the spaceship from parts made on the Moon.

@@david2869 I think so, too.... Though it is a long way until then and we would probably start with a facility on the moon as it is easier to build and operate as far as I know

You might as well launch two ships and refuel the first one with the second's tank. That way you don't have to spend extra fuel to launch from the moon. That is unless you find a fuel source on the moon.

If there would be fuel on the moon it would be a great ideea. If not, transfer of fuel in orbit is obviously more efficient. And with nuclear power, it makes more sense to use gases that can be scooped from orbit of a gas giant. A nuclear refuel spacecraft could go into the atmosphere of a gas giant, compress the already freezing dense gases and bring them as liquid to an orbital refinery. Ocean voyage out there, no land if you want to traverse the space in shortest time

Yeah that's the artemis plan unfortunately it will take until like 2040

ayo

HUH? 📸📸🤨🤨🤨

video proof?

I believe you could use the ion drive to accelerate continuously through the first half of any journey and then rotate the exhaust nozzles 180 deg to thrust in the reverse direction through the last half to slow it down.

It is science fiction.

...and will soon make itself extinct...

@@MrSvenovitch humans have no respect for nature ...trying to rule that never gonna happen ....our planet is so complex and special still we keep abusing it .Colonizing Mars after destroying Earth ...running away from facing the destruction we have done .Well we can go to the end of the universe still as humans will fight till the end :(((

@@MrSvenovitch No, no it won't

...and all thanks to Santos-Dumont, the guy was a genius.

Rockets were invented long ago. Fireworks that is. Missile rockets were invented few hundred years back with the Mysore rockets followed by Congreve rocket.

Same here..

Don't go down the RU-vid spiral though, it's pretty easy to waste the day

Oh, I thought it was only a 10 minute video. It was so interesting it didn't seem that long.

😂

The only “real” engineering channel

@@MrGtubedude that unfair to the other guy like practical engineering XD

Do you know about Shri Acharya Prashant? He is a Vedanta teacher!

Honestly one of the only channels in general that have references for science 👏🏽👏🏽

@@USSAnimeNCC- him too lol, but hes the only "practical" engineering channel xD

No matter how finite fossil fuels are energy-dense and traded today cheaper than water, they are not plenty enough to propel humans far in the space. Thank god we still have some of them to let us driving on the ground; "No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all energy systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future".

I live in Karachi Pakistan and I like your comment

@yuitr loing I live in Karachi Pakistan and I like your comment if you don't mind

@@sayyamzahid7312 it's fine friend, go ahead

they have probably learned from skill share

Awesome man!

Chin up Sublick.!! 👌💯👌😜

how is that going? I've considered using Brilliant as well; any comments?

@@canobenitez If you are struggling to understand books or lectures, Brilliant is good to make you understand things on a more intuitive and practical layer. However, I don't use any of them in isolation. I use both Brilliant and formal lectures/books.

are you the type like me that will totally refuse to start pronouncing uranus in order to not make it sound like "your anus"?

At the end of the day nuclear energy is what made this universe and still to this day keeps it moving.

@@arnavsadhu Yep even the stars burn because of nuclear energy.

@@arnavsadhu Actually that's nuclear fusion energy which is different from nuclear fission. Planet are fission reactors because they are too small for fusion and stars are fusion reactors.

Same with Starship, graphene, aerogel

@@KRYMauL the point is, it's nuclear energy. The sun is a nuclear reactor. A fusion reactor. Those of us in the know , know what's what and the differences.

@sokin jon Random fact unrelated to the comment above but, neat.

And so weak

I only knew about them because they came up on one episode of a show on discovery channel when I a child 20 years ago. I could've easily missed that one episode and haave the same realisation that they are real.

I learned about them from ksp(a rocket building simulator)

Wait till they build a REAL ion thruster. At the moment we only have giant particle acellerators on earth. But in space it would be a new chapter.

Both 😉. Brought on Eli who is a legend at planes / shape shots and I learned 3D so we now incorporate more of it in the 2D stuff.

@@ekimoleksander6068 how you get such photorealistic results is beyond me and absolutely incredible

@@ekimoleksander6068 Dude I was thinking about the fabulous animations too! That was amazing, well done!

@Jorge Diaz 🤦🏻‍♂️

@Jorge Diaz 🤡

All make believe Larry.

Well if you could not imagine in high school that the equations are a language to describe the real world. Physics is not your thing.

@Golden Age Creation um, what does that mean? some of it is familiar to me but why did you but this comment here?

one thing i always said is that they don't teach you useless stuff in school. they just don't often tell you how useful it is.

I agree! If this video had been out when I was in HS, I would've probably pursued a career in science. I've always loved Star Trek, growing up! :)

If you love them, surely you want more science-channel, yeah?

What's not to love?

I was thinking the same thing

Same. Very interesting...

total conspiracy!

@@Feefa99 your mom is a conspiracy

@@Accept_Any_Bribe ur odd

Ah I see. You're a man of culture as well

I'm not disappointed to see The Expanse reference in the comments. I need a new season so badly.

When is the Real Engineering episode on the Epstein drive?

@@kelzuya Epstein drive didn't invent itself.

@@Rathbone_fan_account did u finish season 5?

if you still stay in contact with him, you should try showing him this video.

He was the guy who used to bring you toilet paper. You will never forget him.

If anything, I’d be offering as much TP as he requires.

@@kennarajora6532 why would he care that his name was mentioned in a RU-vid video, no offense to Real Engineering; the guy is like a rockstar in the space business.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WxYH5CXbpYA.html

Do you know about Shri Acharya Prashant? He is a Vedanta teacher! Check out his channel on RU-vid!

@@Hereicome. no

Poda panni

@@earumamaadu aysheri

Hi

you could try to go in the more conventual energy (production) classes and use that as a stepping stone.

oof

How would that work? you need to eject a lot of mass to create thrust. There is no enough uranium to simply explode and shoot out. Also won't it spread radioactive waste?

@@Ghost_of_Gaby Details, Details...

@@Ghost_of_Gaby It was called Project Orion, and it was cancelled in the 1960s for your reasons and every other reason you can think of. It was a fantastically horrible idea, done before the stronium-90 tooth surveys.

they do!

The iss is connected to it so i think its really funny

@@joaquinvillanueva2314 oh noes they stealin iss😥

I believe is based in the Hermes spacecraft from The Martian.

@@GBA811 the hermes is just beautiful and cool

monke

just play KSP, you'd be surprised how much you can learn from it (although fuel storage isn't a real problem in the game)...

Go play some Kerbal Space Program, thatll teach you! :D (also its one of the best games ever made and everyone should give it a try) edi: I legitimately didnt see someone else said the same xD

It really isn’t that complicated, nuclear energy makes spaceship go fast. Get it now?

@@thatbuckmulligan do physics in highschool and algebra in maths,you will understand

Timberwind was supposed to be a lot better than the OG NERVA designs. What a shame we never built it.

Me 2

Modern day rockets use fuel(stuff that makes most tracked or wheeled vehicles go room room), hes explaining how this won't be fast enough for us to colonize Mars. Since it may take more than 35+ years, But if we started to make new types of engines(propulsion) its not only faster but less time making it more possible for us to bring life to the planet mars.

@@sinisterisrandom8537 thanks

@vladimir putin is andrei panin jfk is jimmy carter can't even tell if your joking or your being serious if so your an idiot.

​@vladimir putin is andrei panin jfk is jimmy carter WAT

In this context it is since the alternative could take years instead of months to travel

@JD Russell You mean project Starshot?

@JD Russell Do you have slightest idea how massive Deimos is? Also right now we have 0 space mining tech.

@@ImieNazwiskoOK Ya it'd way more realistic to just try and construct a rotating habitat in Earth orbit and fly it to mars.

@@lurkag2672 But this creates fuel problem (as shown in video)

@JD Russell What?

Orion: Still worth talking about.

Explain, how anything can break, navigate or steer in a Vacuum. Likewise, explain how the air we breath, is not escaping into said Vacuum. Please, don't spit out the 'Theory Of Gravity', clues in the title, never been proven & only exists in Mathemagics, a non Science 'Abstract'. A Language manipulated to suit their ends. Deal with Objective Reality, use your senses. No rotation, no earth curve & no water bending around a rock, you do not live on the exterior of a Space rock. Grow up 'Condemnation without investigation, is the height of ignorance.

@@uppercut2246 “Explain, how anything can break, navigate, or steer in a Vacuum.” Well, breaking is quite easy. A few explosives here and there and boom. However, I assume you actually meant to say braking, as one would brake a car. Now, spacecraft in Earth’s orbit never really stop moving, as orbiting is essentially falling, except you are moving sideways fast enough to miss the ground. However, they can certainly slow down, and they generally do this by turning around so that the fiery end of the thrusters is pointed at the direction they are moving in, and then turning on the thrusters, accelerating propellent backwards and producing an equal and opposite reaction that pushes them forwards, in this case slowing them down. As far as navigation goes, it’s mostly just a lot of math to calculate how much and when you need to accelerate in what direction to catch up with any given object at some given time, and then waiting for that exact moment and accelerating by that exact amount. Steering in space is relatively simple. On Earth, an aircraft would tilt its control surfaces, using the flow of air to push the aircraft. However, there is no air in space, so instead spacecraft typically use small thrusters located in various positions around the craft to turn and stop turning. They’re called reaction control systems, look them up, they’re semi interesting. “Likewise, explain how the air we breath, is not escaping into said Vacuum.” Actually, it is escaping into the vacuum. According to phys.org, along with many, many organizations of all shapes and sizes, “Every day, around 90 tonnes of material escapes from our planet’s upper atmosphere and streams off into space.” Of course, your question would then likely shift to “Why isn’t all of it escaping?” I would then answer that question with gravity. Yes, shock, horror, I have listed a theory as evidence! Evidently, you do not know the meaning of a scientific theory, given your comment following immediately after the air escaping one. I believe the word you are looking for when describing something that is entirely hypothetical is, well, a hypothesis. However, the theory of gravity is a scientific theory, and, according to dictionary.com, a scientific theory is “a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.” As such, I feel it acceptable to bring forth the idea that perhaps an entire planet the size of Earth would have a rather large amount of mass, and therefore a sizable gravity well, strong enough to keep most, but not all, of the various gases surrounding it close to it. However, I am listing all of these explanations with disregard to the fact that you seem disinterested in actual facts and science, as you soon declare that “Mathemagics, a non Science ‘Abstract’” is “A Language manipulated to suit their ends. Deal with Objective Reality, use your senses. No rotation, no earth curve % no water bending around a rock, you do not live on the exterior of a Space rock. Grow up ‘condemnation without investigation, is the height of ignorance.’” Shockingly, the flat Earther who proclaims that all should use objective truths and their senses, condemning all their enemies for “Condemnation without investigation”, believes that math, or as you call it “Mathemagics”, is some part of a conspiracy, hand crafted by some mysteriously powerful yet strangely incompetent They. It is also equally shocking that he believes that our senses contradict the Earth’s curvature, when really they only serve to prove it. For instance, were I to stand on the top of a nearby mountain, and then plant a decent telescope upon it, I would not be able to see the skyline of New York or Los Angeles, and most certainly would not see Beijing or Moscow. However, were I to visit the ports of one of the former and watch the ships by the horizon with said sufficiently powerful telescope, I would see that as they go over the horizon they would disappear bottom up, and vice versa, almost as if we were both on a curved surface, and now the surface of that spheroid was obstructing my view.

@@uppercut2246 I love you people you ask a question and then you say don’t answer with the answer your quite idiotic and ignorant you think that you are so intelligent when people who spent their whole life studying, confirming, and finding new results are wrong. Maybe you should stop being ignorant so legitimate tests yourself understand the mathematics and science behind these things and then you can start acting smart

I prefer nuclear weapons powered spacecraft

I used to feel the same way before I went to university to get an engineering degree. I'm still no rocket scientist, but I can fathom how people are able to develop these technologies. Much is often said about the uselessness of a college degree, but I believe they are still very valuable.

@BlackholeTtson452 It would be possible, if such a project was funded. I doubt it will be, though.

@@Cyberspine, I would say it is not a question of if, but of when. It will be funded, perhaps by private corporations, but it will happen, baring a Earth shattering nuclear war.

Misterrickschannel, I’m a retired Engineer, and 81y. Imagine my problem at living long enough to see this through.

Science is cool!

Is RU-vid your engineering teacher?

Ya - you wanna believe everything your Teacher says. You were taught by Teachers - who were taught by Teachers - who were taught by Teachers - who were taught by Teachers - who were taught by Teachers - who were taught by Teachers - who were taught by Teachers - who were all taught what and what not to Teach you.

@@altheeathoone that’s the beauty of language and education baby!

u are the Apix preadator? our would is o fire, that is why they have wars?

It’s more like a month. While the video is in production I’m writing the next one.

Many of the more educational oriented channels have insane video output, kinda making me jealous about their work ethics ^^

@@RealEngineering I read this with your voice in my mind.

You mean only with mods. In vanilla it takes you to Duna

@@ilikeyourname4807 use RSS+RO then

@@ilikeyourname4807 haha you got me there, duna it was

Can't wait until KSP 2 is released

@@martiddy me toooooo. I think about it a lot

Magnets accelerate subatomic Particles

It's a huge feat for us right now, but it is funny to think we'll look at these like the first motorized carriages compared whatever comes in the future (hopefully)

There is Helium on the moon and a lot of it is Helium 3, fusion reactor fuel.

@@MichaelClark-uw7ex How much of He-3 exists on mars?

@Andre Hpunkt The moon is not hollow, it is made if light silicates, aka rock, not much metal. It would be pretty tough to wreck a 2100 mile diameter rock ball.

@@pranavkondapalli9306 Not much, less than the moon, it would be easier to skip Mars and just skim it from the upper atmosphere of Jupiter.

Dosen't the moon have a large amount of helium deposits?

I thought it looked a lot like how the Hermes from The Martian is portrayed in the film. At least the back half does.

@@kerbalaerospacelabs3445 The front is literally the ISS sideways.

@@kerbalaerospacelabs3445 so far I have only read the book. Is the movie good aswell?

@@birbstrike2085 its one of THe best space movie you should definitely watch it...

It's a kit bash with a few real and a few fake ships.

I think what the world lacks is IDEAS Not money People need cheap and original ideas.

Many cover Space. Wnat to know some names of youtubers?

@@nenmaster5218 i would like to know some

@@spinodino9563 Cool.

@@spinodino9563 Sci Show, Sci Man Dan, Veritasium, Professor Dave, Hbomberguy, i know many. Say if you want more and/or something specific.

Even then you could have a nuclear salt water rocket the god of nuclear engines for its high trust and exuast velosities up to 1% the speed of light. More efficient but with less thrust is the dusty plasma fission fragment engine or reactor. This can have exaust velocities of up to 5% the speed of light. For fision fragment reactor www.researchgate.net/publication/228875834_Dusty_Plasma_Based_Fission_Fragment_Nuclear_Reactor For nuclear salt water rocket www.researchgate.net/publication/265934300_NUCLEAR_SALT_WATER_ROCKETS_HIGH_THRUST_AT_10000_SEC_ISP Wikipedia articles may have more information than these articles and have beter diagrams.

@@SpaceMan776 adding to this there’s a lot of interesting work on these concepts being done at NASA’s yearly NIAC conference. If you’re looking for when sci fi propulsion technology becomes reality, I’d place good money it comes from that funding initiative.

@@SpaceMan776 and of course, you can always blow up small nuclear warheads behind your craft for maximum Isp, but I’m not sure if that’s ITAR approved (or even politically feasible).

@@colinwarn4606 I'm pretty sure ITAR would be fine with that seeing as how there's radiation in space anyway.

@@KRYMauL yeah but that’s putting out that much radiation for propulsion plus if we do it often would lead to problems no matter how cool it would be 😔