They are still trying to catch Superman and lash him to the front of a Starship. Then they tie a bag of Kryptonite onto the back of the Starship and Bob's your uncle!
Continual acceleration is far less efficient than a short period of acceleration and most of the time spent coasting. Far more fuel needed means far more weight and cost. No one would really do that, there's not much to gain from it.
This does present a slightly off-center thought. At the speeds you are hinting at, how can the ship maneuver quickly enough to avoid a fatal collision with any unknown object? Side thrusters would have to be quite fast at startup and produce massive amounts of thrust.
On the moon the lander can remain upright like Falcon. But for Mars they are considering laying the lander on its side and living in the empty tanks temporarily. This way you can bury it for both shielding and insulation.
Even with the travel time of two months, a round trip minimum of 120 days in space before anything is achieved on Mars. Transporting large amounts of fissionable materials into space and the outcome of power by fission drives at a time when we are only just coming to understand the potential problems associated with space debris from our activities suggests to me that our vain ambition to put humans on Mars are out of proportion with what we can learn by robotic exploration. I agree that the potential journey time reduction is attractive, particularly for use in the robotic exploration of the outer reaches of our solar system but the risks are grave.
It may look good on “paper” or in a CAD program. But it is a very long way off before even a prototype can be made or tested. A lot of considerations: First the space ship would have to be built in orbit or on the moon, otherwise a large powerful fuel rocket will be necessary to achieve escape velocity from the earth; secondly, what propulsion will be used to actually land on Mars? A small shuttle like the Apollo missions to the moon? That will not allow for a very long stay on the surface. If the entire craft is to land, then the problem of a fuel based rocket to leave the surface and escape Mars may still be necessary. It’s great to dream, but it’s better to do.
Why are you thinking so far its not even tested yet. It probably takes much longer time 5-10 years in approval. Until then there will be several massive starship like rockets to send it safely into space
Earth is the most appealing planet in our galaxy . But we are now in progress of a solar extinction event . Maybe the next life forms can figure it out in million years ?
@@SANGEETHA-d4cthat would be like 60% the speed of light. Nearly impossible especially because acceleration would to that speed even with theorized technology would take a very long time. And by then you would have reached mars.
There is a paper on ScienceDirect. The concept is sort of a “next generation” of Project Orion, the one where they were going to throw atomic bombs out the back and detonate them. This starts with a rail gun to accelerate a uranium+water ice projectile up to 1600 m/s. It goes down a uranium barrel where fission vaporizes the projectile and turns it into a plasma. At the end of the barrel is a highly enriched uranium ring that increases the fission rate and the plasma explodes out the magnetic nozzle. It fires once per second. To accelerate for one month and then decelerate for a month would take millions of projectiles. Each projectile weighs 2.2 kg. I doubt this will ever see the light of day.
This will never work. The laws of physics are not taken into account, in particular the conditions for fission of nuclear fuel. As soon as a projectile of water or ice with uranium reaches the reactor core, the water will instantly boil away and the density of uranium in the projectile will not be enough for it to react. Even a novice physicist will tell you this nuclear scientist. As a result, the uranium from the projectile will simply be thrown out in vain. The characteristics will be the same as ordinary NTP. For the same reason, the Zubrin engine will never work. This was known decades ago. These messages are aimed at children or uneducated people.
Thank you for questioning the environmental effects of using nuclear fusion in space. It’s like worrying about the environmental impact of adding a bucket of water to the ocean.
Many energy invention are under hood of NASA as for space traveling the process is so dynamic that our eyes and mind simultaneously waiting for and eager to know about latest technology, Space is not Earth it needs every kind of discoveries to sustain in Infinite vastness.
I got an idea. Let people who own drones (don't have one) let their drones go there. Maybe virtual reality headset so they can see the planet from their full eye spectrum.
as so often, the title is (purposefully) misleading: "Gamechanger" -- suggesting: something has already been achieved to be a game-changer. Then, when you click on it, by the time you get to 4:15, you know it's a con: no 'game changer' just: concept being tested. Why can't they just be honest in their titles...
Well, I can love with this exaggeration at least he is not using the "insane" or "crazy" intros. The PPR drive is indeed a game changer if it happens. Important is the concept, the rest is engineering. Overall I missed a but more hard facts, likevtgebtype of fission reactor the concept called for, or how the plasma is created and what is the reaction mass the plasma is made of. He also implies that space ships using this technomigy would have to be much bigger. That is intriguing. Maybe a bit more details would have been great. Also how would a ship like this be built and launched. Would it be a kind of sea dragon monster rocket, or would it be assembled in space, etc. But let's see if there is some more info elsewhere like on Wikipedia.
Interesting. Wishing NASA well. Y' know, there might be a different solution, maybe. F=ma=(m*v^2)/r, as in Huygens' equation for uniform circular motion. As in a rock on an end of a string being twirled? Where the rock is the mass, 'm.' Mass moving in a circular motion. Water being pumped through a circular tube of 3" ID at a rate of 3 gallons per second, by a centrifugal pump like those found in fire engines that can pump 600 gallons per minute --- if you think of this circular pipe having a radius of about 10' and if the circular tube is folded roughly along its diameter to about 20 degrees then the equation then can be expressed as F = 2*cos(10 degrees)*[(25^3)/10] = 1.5 short tons, about (if you assume a path of 25' or so, not a full circumference then, sounds like. And other than keeping the water in its liquid state and having enough power to run the cited pump at 25 pounds per second and the system doesn't spring a leak (maybe self-sealing like fighter plane gas tanks?), I think that it might work. Nothing fancy here, just High School level Physics or Geometry. Best of luck. So if you have a fresh sheet of paper with a circle drawn on it, you can draw little arrow counter clockwise with little squares next to the little arrows, all the way around (that 'right hand rule'). Fold the sheet along the circle's diameter to about 20 degrees and there you go. Then you can get some flexible plastic tubing, a yardstick (that has on it a marked 18" spot), some tape, cardboard to fold into a 20 degree wedge shape, some string to string everything up and 'there you go, again.' Happy tinkering. & y' can talk over any of this to anyone y' want. High School Physics, that sort of thing.
Solar sail can be used as a transport ship around the moon and The Earth using gravity assist at both ends on earth are you up and take your product off and on the moon they take off their supplies and put on the product sample
Yes, I'm thinking that eventually engineers will come to the fact that they will need more than one system of propulsion to reach, maintain orbit, and land on other planets/moons. We think in terms of one system now, but a couple may each have their own benefits.
Just one question why are we talking about something thing that may or may not happen in years to come and may not be successful which hasn't been developed yet? I mean why are we just now being told this ? I'm just asking.. I'm not being disrespectful it's just that yes we've been successful with the ion engine fine and dandy sure but we also have the fusion rocket a few years ago and recently been successful in the stage one development not stage 2 or stage 3 by now or within the next 4 years. By another us agency one that can Power cities and nuclear subs. Under the green energy deal... now this by nasa total completely different engine rocket here a whole new level..no offense but the ILS program hasn't been up to par cause of mishaps.. now this. I just feel concerned about the safety issues lighting one of these on earth.. i mean same chemical make of atoms and so on that earth was made of now fusion elements like a star... I'm concerned I hope for the best and the program but idk
The solution is rotating magnetic fields (RMF) not this 'thing' that you are describing. RMF can propel a craft close to the speed of gravitons (think speed of light magnitudes) because it is the gravity that carries you along like sails in the wind. First you need to understand magnets and gravity. Give me a fraction of your billions and we can build it tomorrow.
The people who don't want to be held responsible for all the world's woes they caused, will be the first to leave. Let them have their own prison planet, and leave us regular Joes alone. It'll be rough, but at least they will be gone.
Presumably, there are some scientific folks watching your channel. Your lack of explaining HOW the PPR actually works was disappointing to those folks (like me).
The only POSIBLE way to travel in space is with ZERO_POINT_ENERGY which means you do not export anything from your spaceship as it is only interacting with Celestial entities with its own ZPE. to make it simple: your spaceship has to act like a little magnet witch interacts with the magnetic field of Celestial entities.
This one sounds like a winner . I believe that Richard Feynman once said something to the effect that were it not for politics , fission reactor engines would be the most practical for space travel .
It's just too bad that we came up with and signed the Artemis accords. We can although develop this for the Chinese. They can fly something like this. NASA cuts their own hand off. Morons.
Even we can travel to Mars as that fast only in 2 months, I still will stay here on our beautiful Home Planet Earth! SpaceX and NASA can go there alone without me. But i'm really impressed wow! 😮😊
