Interstellar human travel is not feasible with any type of propulsion. If you accelerate a human at their highest possible rate that can be constantly withstood for half way to Proxima Centauri, then accelerate again to slow for orbit around one of the planets, if there are any that can be orbited, the trip still takes well beyond a normal lifetime. So…something besides propulsion, or some method to counteract the g forces of prolonged high propulsion, is needed to get a human from our solar system to anywhere else.
All inferior to the true nuclear rocket: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion! Just chuck a chain of H bombs behind your ship and let it blow! >1g acceleration and >10,000s Isp
A NASA project with three groups of performers has the status "not active" and the scheme that you do not critically copy is inoperative. This is shown on the example of the NERVA projects and the Soviet project. It was nice to know that someone else is interested
You did a mistake all scientists make. Isp is calculated on basis of fuel, to compare it with non-oxidizer engines such as Nerva or Orion, requires to calculate relativistic isp, which is gonna be 2x of the written isp.
Good day Marcus as usual this video was very informational just like all your videos are and I really do enjoy you know watching your videos and sitting on my hands so I don't fidget waiting for the next video anyway I am a young senior citizen I'm 63 and my one concern that I have about nuclear propulsion is what happens if that rocket happens to RUD for rapid unscheduled dismantlement also known as blowing up that would be a lot of nuclear material released into the atmosphere and depending on hi the vehicle was that could become very very problematic at least in my mind so what are your thoughts on this now some of those isps you talked about are just like oh come on that's a pipe dream 10,000 seconds and I not really sure about that I don't think something like that can definitely not happen in my lifetime or my kids lifetimes or even my grandkids lifetime and maybe even decades after that so anyway thank you and you have yourself a wonderful day sir
Great video Marcus! One note: uranium is a finite resource. One source (Sabine Hossenfelder) suggests that uranium ore deposits might be exhausted in as little as 20 year's time. So nuclear propulsion might be a good short-term solution as the other technologies develop.
Brilliant video, even felt obligated to listen to the advertisement. ONE point we tend to forget creating a continuous orbit with transiting or shuttling to and from the spaceship would create the same speeds described in your video.
Eventually usefull spacecraft in space will most likely use ion drive likely powered by small nuclear reactor. However other power plants could be used to make the electricity for prolonged periods of time to help power the spacecraft.
So if crowdfunding is a thing and volume = budget = = dreams realised, how long/much would it take to generate the € $ £ ¥ necessary to finance (design and build) a viable 0.5-1.0G rotating mass space port equidistant between earth and the moon hurled up by Space X? (seems to be the only game in town able to get it done based on a signed contract from anyone willing and able to finance). Just a pipe dream or could regular citizens actually make a difference ?
Great video as always! Did you look at Project Orion during the 1950s? They were looking at using controlled nuclear explosions to propel spacecraft. I think their estimated isp was around 5000-10000. They would basically explode a nuclear bomb behind the ship, hurtling it forward. They canned it when they signed a treaty to not set of nuclear reactions in space.
Marcus House. First of all, good video, good reporting, your mention of water worried me because you may have it upon my idea. Water is the most valuable thing you can take into space. As you said, radiation shielding, drinking water, showering water, washing for hands, clothes, dishes and so on, as a coolant and heat exchange, for breathing electrolyzed oxygen and for long term storage of potential rocket fuel. The means of utilizing this as fuel was touched upon but must be incorporated with nuclear power. Once you have megawatts of energy the door opens up about how to accellorate water plasma to 40 kilometers per second or more. My math on the subject cannot be trusted but we need 10 to 40 thousand seconds of impulse and perhaps it will be possible with a small nuclear powerplant in the range of 25 megawatts. With unlimited power, Ion plasma engines could be advanced and then adapted to a large surface area for better thrust to weight ratios. I don't think we will ever warp space but just "say" we did.
okay hear me out, lets take a pluto (you will know why, just give me a second) and put massive hadron colider on its quator. and start smashing extremely condensated matter and creating artifical blackhole. if hawking radiation exists, and what i heard it does otherwise shrinking and vaporisation of blackhole is impossible, lets catch an antiparticles close to event of horizion and then use antimatter reactors or thrusters.
yes, EXACTLY ! WE NEEED TO MAKE A BLACKHOLE FROM PLUTO! so all the guys talking about neptunes weird orbital characteristics that would be explained by 9th planet, or maybe by otherthings, had their own source of gravity to play with if we cant find another planet.
or lets just use that black hole for gravitational gun. maybe i dont like to look on venus, so lets shoot it out of solar system!
Just what if the landing leg crumple zone is magnetic, it works and takes the punch, use the magnetic power as regen power even, never needs to be replaced so no part is the best part. Is it even possible?
Catch starship up to the spaceport in geostationary orbit with a cocktail bar, hop on the nuclear planet liner then shuttle down to xxxx planet on a dedicated starship optimised for that atmosphere, makes more sense than doing the entire trip on starship and not having cocktails.
Molten salt fission reactors are likely much closer to practical application than fusion reactors. These are smaller, lighter, cheaper and easier to manufacture than present pressurized water reactors. These in combination with Vasimir propulsion might be the most affordable and direct route to fast access missions beyond Earth orbit.
Well done. With regard to the question you posed at the conclusion of this segment (will we soon be using nuclear propulsion, or will we continue to depend on chemical rockets for the next few decades): In my view, I think that we're going to be using chemical rockets for most of the work we want to do (including the initial establishment of a human presence on Mars) until mid-Century. There is a lot of understandable concern about using nuclear rockets because of the potential, however slight, of orbital mishaps that result in serious atmospheric contamination (with radionuclides).
I'm more chuffed about the potential for beefed-up ion drives (I acknowledge, of course, the fact that to be effective, these too will require the orbital use of nuclear power). In my defence (for this seeming contradiction), I think that in terms of operations, it would be easy to keep the nuclear fuel separate from the reactor chamber (two separate launches). We might even agree (internationally) to ensure that placing the fuel into the reactor cores could only take place in lunar orbit).
Love your videos Marcus! Hats off to you and everyone that contributes to your channel. I've learned so much from watching. I believe nuclear power either for direct propulsion or to power/kickstart another reaction is the next logical step. The sun's energy drops off the further out you go. Besides a backup power system for life support, electromagnetic shielding, ect is a good thing.
The MET thruster got me thinking (if I may call it that). I wonder if setting off a large chunk of high explosives in a small sack of water would produce superheated steam for propulsion. Personally, I'd use a small nuclear device in a large sack of water: Just drop it behind a blast plate and set it off. Presto, plasma! Pulsed propulsion for a large space freighter.
Nice video, would be interested to know how anti-matter stacks up with the others – I know it's a bit of a pipe dream but not much more so than fusion IMO.
For some reason at 7:05 I said "can't be understated" instead of "shouldn't be understated". Oops. #OnlyHuman.
Great, thanks! Yes, vid on possible cargoes for Starship!!
Interstellar human travel is not feasible with any type of propulsion. If you accelerate a human at their highest possible rate that can be constantly withstood for half way to Proxima Centauri, then accelerate again to slow for orbit around one of the planets, if there are any that can be orbited, the trip still takes well beyond a normal lifetime. So…something besides propulsion, or some method to counteract the g forces of prolonged high propulsion, is needed to get a human from our solar system to anywhere else.
lol.
It's the best option for manned interplanetary missions.
Actually, when I was a kid I read the quip that "fusion is always only 30 years away"
so we're probably converging towards a finite time horizon.
All inferior to the true nuclear rocket: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion! Just chuck a chain of H bombs behind your ship and let it blow! >1g acceleration and >10,000s Isp
A NASA project with three groups of performers has the status "not active" and the scheme that you do not critically copy is inoperative. This is shown on the example of the NERVA projects and the Soviet project.
It was nice to know that someone else is interested
You did a mistake all scientists make.
Isp is calculated on basis of fuel, to compare it with non-oxidizer engines such as Nerva or Orion, requires to calculate relativistic isp, which is gonna be 2x of the written isp.
6:01 in fact its efficiency quadruples, not "doubles", you have to take in account that you won't require oxidizer on a Nerva
Good day Marcus as usual this video was very informational just like all your videos are and I really do enjoy you know watching your videos and sitting on my hands so I don't fidget waiting for the next video anyway I am a young senior citizen I'm 63 and my one concern that I have about nuclear propulsion is what happens if that rocket happens to RUD for rapid unscheduled dismantlement also known as blowing up that would be a lot of nuclear material released into the atmosphere and depending on hi the vehicle was that could become very very problematic at least in my mind so what are your thoughts on this now some of those isps you talked about are just like oh come on that's a pipe dream 10,000 seconds and I not really sure about that I don't think something like that can definitely not happen in my lifetime or my kids lifetimes or even my grandkids lifetime and maybe even decades after that so anyway thank you and you have yourself a wonderful day sir
You can use nuclear propulsion all you want. The propulsion isn't the limiting factor in human space travel.
Stupid idea.
Excellent stuff bro
Thanks again Marcus 🙂
Great video Marcus! One note: uranium is a finite resource. One source (Sabine Hossenfelder) suggests that uranium ore deposits might be exhausted in as little as 20 year's time. So nuclear propulsion might be a good short-term solution as the other technologies develop.
Brilliant video, even felt obligated to listen to the advertisement. ONE point we tend to forget creating a continuous orbit with transiting or shuttling to and from the spaceship would create the same speeds described in your video.
or imagine the JWST folded to deployed ratio up-scaled to fill a starship cargobay.
a comment on the parting words
Eventually usefull spacecraft in space will most likely use ion drive likely powered by small nuclear reactor. However other power plants could be used to make the electricity for prolonged periods of time to help power the spacecraft.
Gotta love a mid-week video. Great job Marcus.
Wasting water in space isn't great… If ice is already harvested from space I'd be ok but i wouldn't be ok to take water from earth on a massive scale.
14:20 sorry to be that guy but the vehicle is called HERMES, Ares III is the mission.
So if crowdfunding is a thing and volume = budget = = dreams realised, how long/much would it take to generate the € $ £ ¥ necessary to finance (design and build) a viable 0.5-1.0G rotating mass space port equidistant between earth and the moon hurled up by Space X? (seems to be the only game in town able to get it done based on a signed contract from anyone willing and able to finance). Just a pipe dream or could regular citizens actually make a difference ?
I want nothing short of the nuclear explosives and ablative pusher plates ala' the Orion or keep it chemical. 🤣
NO, It is not.
Great video as always! Did you look at Project Orion during the 1950s? They were looking at using controlled nuclear explosions to propel spacecraft. I think their estimated isp was around 5000-10000. They would basically explode a nuclear bomb behind the ship, hurtling it forward. They canned it when they signed a treaty to not set of nuclear reactions in space.
Nuclear is not an option. The engines are heavier, you need massive ammounts of liquid hydrogen with needs tons of volume and boils off quickly.
Marcus House. First of all, good video, good reporting, your mention of water worried me because you may have it upon my idea. Water is the most valuable thing you can take into space. As you said, radiation shielding, drinking water, showering water, washing for hands, clothes, dishes and so on, as a coolant and heat exchange, for breathing electrolyzed oxygen and for long term storage of potential rocket fuel. The means of utilizing this as fuel was touched upon but must be incorporated with nuclear power. Once you have megawatts of energy the door opens up about how to accellorate water plasma to 40 kilometers per second or more. My math on the subject cannot be trusted but we need 10 to 40 thousand seconds of impulse and perhaps it will be possible with a small nuclear powerplant in the range of 25 megawatts. With unlimited power, Ion plasma engines could be advanced and then adapted to a large surface area for better thrust to weight ratios. I don't think we will ever warp space but just "say" we did.
Hi Marcus
Im visiting Australia, Melbourne, not sure where your at in Australia but if your in Melbourne be great to meet you??
14:00 cant be that waste heat used to preheat the matter before getting into microwave range ? that would make it lil bit more efficient wouldnt it ?
okay hear me out, lets take a pluto (you will know why, just give me a second) and put massive hadron colider on its quator. and start smashing extremely condensated matter and creating artifical blackhole. if hawking radiation exists, and what i heard it does otherwise shrinking and vaporisation of blackhole is impossible, lets catch an antiparticles close to event of horizion and then use antimatter reactors or thrusters.
yes, EXACTLY ! WE NEEED TO MAKE A BLACKHOLE FROM PLUTO! so all the guys talking about neptunes weird orbital characteristics that would be explained by 9th planet, or maybe by otherthings, had their own source of gravity to play with if we cant find another planet.
or lets just use that black hole for gravitational gun. maybe i dont like to look on venus, so lets shoot it out of solar system!
Just what if the landing leg crumple zone is magnetic, it works and takes the punch, use the magnetic power as regen power even, never needs to be replaced so no part is the best part. Is it even possible?
Catch starship up to the spaceport in geostationary orbit with a cocktail bar, hop on the nuclear planet liner then shuttle down to xxxx planet on a dedicated starship optimised for that atmosphere, makes more sense than doing the entire trip on starship and not having cocktails.
0:39 can it be compared to a travel via wormhole ?
No form of propulsion will be able to get us
to Mars and beyond, Marcus House.
We're going to need something new for that.
Or do you want to accept travel times for
a distance to Mars of the duration
of 5 months?
The first ocean crossings from Europe to
America took two weeks and it was unbearable.
Today it takes six hours and it is bearable
because we have developed a new form
of travel – the airplane.
Whatever kind of propulsion we're talking
about, they're getting more energetic, they're
getting more enduring but they can't
shorten the travel time.
Not even the Nuklaer drive.
We're going to need something new for that.
Thanks!
Molten salt fission reactors are likely much closer to practical application than fusion reactors. These are smaller, lighter, cheaper and easier to manufacture than present pressurized water reactors. These in combination with Vasimir propulsion might be the most affordable and direct route to fast access missions beyond Earth orbit.
Well done. With regard to the question you posed at the conclusion of this segment (will we soon be using nuclear propulsion, or will we continue to depend on chemical rockets for the next few decades): In my view, I think that we're going to be using chemical rockets for most of the work we want to do (including the initial establishment of a human presence on Mars) until mid-Century. There is a lot of understandable concern about using nuclear rockets because of the potential, however slight, of orbital mishaps that result in serious atmospheric contamination (with radionuclides).
I'm more chuffed about the potential for beefed-up ion drives (I acknowledge, of course, the fact that to be effective, these too will require the orbital use of nuclear power). In my defence (for this seeming contradiction), I think that in terms of operations, it would be easy to keep the nuclear fuel separate from the reactor chamber (two separate launches). We might even agree (internationally) to ensure that placing the fuel into the reactor cores could only take place in lunar orbit).
Love your videos Marcus!
Hats off to you and everyone that contributes to your channel. I've learned so much from watching.
I believe nuclear power either for direct propulsion or to power/kickstart another reaction is the next logical step.
The sun's energy drops off the further out you go.
Besides a backup power system for life support, electromagnetic shielding, ect is a good thing.
The MET thruster got me thinking (if I may call it that). I wonder if setting off a large chunk of high explosives in a small sack of water would produce superheated steam for propulsion. Personally, I'd use a small nuclear device in a large sack of water: Just drop it behind a blast plate and set it off. Presto, plasma! Pulsed propulsion for a large space freighter.
Big telescopes…big, high ISP rocket engines… let's do it! How about thorium fuel cycle MSRs in space…for engines and electrical power generation?
Nice video, would be interested to know how anti-matter stacks up with the others – I know it's a bit of a pipe dream but not much more so than fusion IMO.