Earth to Mars in 90 MINUTES!! NASA'S Ultimate Nuclear Rocket!



There is a project in the 2023 NIAC program that could completely revolutionize interplanetary spaceflight! 5% of the speed of light with existing technology! Earth to Mars in 90 minutes!!
#space #nasa #interstellar

If you’d like to attend my tour, or support my move to Europe, please visit my gofundme page! A $10 donation is good for a free digital copy of my book, plus a ticket to the tour event nearest you! Denver is next up at the Westminster Recreation Center at 10455 Sheridan Boulevard, Westminster, CO 80020
https://gofund.me/e25e5632
[email protected]

Please support my channel! EARLY VIDEO RELEASES, DISCORD MEMBERSHIP AND EXCLUSIVE CONTENT PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
https://www.patreon.com/AngryAstronaut
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/AngryAstro
Follow me on twitter:
https://twitter.com/Astro_Angry

Please support:
https://www.youtube.com/@DrRhysy
https://www.youtube.com/@fragomatik

Concept Assessment of a Fission Fragment Rocket Engine (FFRE … https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/718391main_Werka_2011_PhI_FFRE.pdf

source

34 thoughts on “Earth to Mars in 90 MINUTES!! NASA'S Ultimate Nuclear Rocket!”

  1. Presuming the average closest approach to Mars (about 78.3 million km), a 90-mnute flight time, and a rendezvous course (accelerate to halfway, decelerate the rest of the way) a ship would need close to 1100 G's of acceleration to make that trip. That sounds to me like it would break the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation — the ship simply could not carry enough fuel for such performance even if the exhaust speed was equal to c ; i.e. the mass fraction of the craft's fuel would be above 100%. Perhaps someone who knows the equation better could show me that this could work.

    Reply
  2. Reaching Mars in 90 minutes would require an average velocity of 14% the speed of light. Acceleration for 45 minutes and deceleration for 45 minutes. Starting from 0% C and reaching 28% C by the half-way point, then reversing the rocket and reaching 0% C at the desired orbit altitude around Mars. I believe that is beyond the capability of any nuclear powered rocket.

    Reply
  3. The issue is always the same. What do we do with nuclear waste? The stuff is highly toxic, not only to life on earth but probably also to life outside our ecosystem.
    Do we just dump the stuff in space? A capitalist's dream alright!
    What happens if said waste comes back to earth and falls in the atmosphere? What if that waste happens to fall on … Europa or Titan?
    What happens if all that nuclear fuel explodes while going to space? We're not talking RTGs here. We're talking some direct-to-fission fuel.
    The only reasonable way of using fusion for space exploration is mining U235 or PU238 in space and using it there. And even then, you have to condemn asteroids or parts of the moon where the mining is happening. You can't use radioactive material the same way you use petroleum and we still have no way of properly managing nuclear waste, short of burying it.
    Imagine in a few years earth being surrounded by a deep cloud of radioactive debris, making it problematic to send anything in low earth orbit. Imagine astronauts refusing to do space walks because of the risk of cancer or leukemia.
    Listen. I love the idea of going to Mars in 90 minutes. Let's find a better way of doing it.

    Reply
  4. This is so exciting, a manned mission to Mars in a couple of days, I never expected to dee the technology to make this possible in my lifetime. I truly hope this technology is what finally opens up the solar system to humanity.

    Reply
  5. Dennis Bushnell of Langley has often talked about using LENR , low energy nuclear reactions to propel space craft. This used to be called cold fusion. NASA has had success with this twice, most recently at Glenn in Cleveland. They are one of over 100 labs around the world to have done so successfully… proving Pons and Fleischmann were correct in 1989 .

    Reply
  6. It is amazing and dream cum true invention by NASA team! I heard about 8 days trip to Mars in last couple of years. With the use of Nuclear fusion/Neutron fusion/ Laser beam propulsion module to reach Mars or lunar surface faster is really amazing invention by humanity in future space missions. So it is possible to reach faster at nearby galaxies and its habitable planets or moons in couple of decades.
    …@dvparab

    Reply
  7. @TheAngryAstronaut ​​ My understanding is it releases fission fragments in almost but less percentage-wise in afterburner mode, so this is really not suitable for a mass transportation because of the pollution however it may be a useful tool to redirect an extinction threatening asteroid. And perhaps there are some other acceptable use cases. But perhaps it is possible to develop this into a clean exhaust technology.
    Just like CFC's, SST's, lead and unregulated CO2, some technologies are a net negative with suctions for some use cases.

    Reply
  8. The Angry Astronaut tells us about a Nuclear-Powered Engine that can fly at 4.2% the speed of light and get us to Mars in less than 2 hours if we could survive. He asks if life could survive the G forces of moving that fast, or would we be flattened out? I would say that we would be in micro-gravity, ‘Flying at 4% the speed of light?’, so would the G forces feel, micro?

    Then he tells us about using nuclear detonations to push us to Mars so that we could survive the trip being smushed by just 2Gs, or is that micro-Gs? Angry shows us a dusty plasma bed reactor to keep the heat at just thousands of degrees so that the reactions are easier to control.

    Angry talks about using afterburners to save on fuel or using less fuel so that we can take more mining drills, or is that Boring Machines to Mars. NASA is funding Fission Fabrication Rocket Engines using Aerogels. NASA is funding the Impossible Light Speed Engine that breaks the laws of physics, so I don’t know that being foundered by NASA says more than how our Taxes are being wasted.

    @Hyperspeed reports on how NASA has Ion Thrusters and is working on Nuclear Thermal Thrusters for space exploration.

    Reply
  9. What happens to the crew after the ship does its spin to slow down, wouldn't the crew than be traveling through the nuclear waste from the engine during the de acceleration burn.

    Reply
  10. Terrible understanding of the gravitational lense (gl).
    The circular image is highly distorted. It takes the extremely wide light originating from behind a dense object like a quasar or a galaxy and pulls it tighter as it passes around said object. This concentrates the light, making dim objects behind the object brighter, but squished down.

    Reply
  11. When the solar lens telescope, whatever you might call it probe, is deployed… I propose a chain of additional satellites which are nearly memory banks for the probe. The probe orbit the sun this will take forever but as it does, it can take the information it picks up from the solar lensing probe then put it into the hard drives of these additional satellites and then it's up to the additionals satellites to send the information back to Earth that way the solar probe itself isn't occupied with the transmission of information taking away energy from its main mission so it observes transmits to the next new capable satellite, which then transmits the information back to Earth at its leisure. Have fun with that, you're welcome.
    Thanks for the videos …I didn't know about the niac, or whatever the heck that NASA Innovation arm was. Thanks again for the videos. Bye.

    Reply
  12. rather than obnoxiously large conventional radiators, they'd probably use more advanced designs like ferromagnetic dust radiators or liquid metal radiators to save on non-payload volume and mass that need to be pushed into orbit and hauled around the solar system

    Reply

Leave a Comment