Breaking the Rules: NASA's New Propellantless Drive Challenges Physics

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
  • Dive into the future of space travel with NASA's groundbreaking H71M Hall-effect thruster! Developed at NASA Glenn Research Center, this technology is setting new standards for how small spacecraft explore the cosmos. From extending satellite lifespans to enabling ambitious planetary missions, find out how the H71M is revolutionizing space exploration. Don't miss out on the details of this incredible innovation. Subscribe and like for more space technology updates!
    Chapters:
    00:00 Introduction
    00:52 Breaking New Ground with NASA-H71M
    03:05 Commercial Impact and Collaborations
    04:56 Comparative Technologies and Future Missions
    07:49 Outro
    08:11 Enjoy
    Best Telescopes for beginners:
    Celestron 70mm Travel Scope
    amzn.to/3jBi3yY
    Celestron 114LCM Computerized Newtonian Telescope
    amzn.to/3VzNUgU
    Celestron - StarSense Explorer LT 80AZ
    amzn.to/3jBRmds
    Visit our website for up-to-the-minute updates:
    www.nasaspacenews.com
    Follow us
    Facebook: / nasaspacenews
    Twitter: / spacenewsnasa
    Join this channel to get access to these perks:
    / @nasaspacenewsagency
    #NSN #NASA #Astronomy#NASA #space #technology #H71M #HallEffectThruster #spacecraft #spaceexploration #futuretech #innovation #NASAglenn #planetarymissions #spacemissions #spacescience #cosmos #interplanetary #satellites #spaceindustry #commercialspace #spaceventures #spaceengineering #science #astronomy #astrophysics #rocketscience #outerspace #deepspacetravel #spacevideo #spacetech #newtechnology #spaceage
  • Наука та технологія

КОМЕНТАРІ • 105

  • @j.a.velarde5901
    @j.a.velarde5901 17 днів тому +62

    #NASASpaceNews - Call it what it is: ITS AN ION DRIVE.

  • @trelligan42
    @trelligan42 17 днів тому +30

    Somewhere between "propellantless" and maximize the total amount of propellant it can use" seems to have a disconnect somewhere.
    **It's an ion thruster, and it does have propellant! **

  • @patrickmchargue7122
    @patrickmchargue7122 17 днів тому +78

    The H71M is not a propellantless thruster.

    • @IMTHEBIGGESTCUNT
      @IMTHEBIGGESTCUNT 17 днів тому +1

      Propellantless thruster and gated shifter in the same sentence. Ahhhhhhh

    • @Garrett0329
      @Garrett0329 17 днів тому +2

      Elaborate

    • @stevedolesch9241
      @stevedolesch9241 17 днів тому

      Yes, elaborate. If you know something elaborate.

    • @skellig5867
      @skellig5867 17 днів тому

      @patrickmchargue It is, in the sense that it is not using a chemical fuel like conventional rockets and thrusters.

    • @patrickmchargue7122
      @patrickmchargue7122 16 днів тому +10

      @@stevedolesch9241 Ions exiting the back of a rocket ARE the propellant.

  • @jerrypolverino6025
    @jerrypolverino6025 17 днів тому +25

    Nothing ever breaks the laws of physics. We may not understand them, but that’s our problem.

    • @bomat761
      @bomat761 17 днів тому +5

      Laws of Physics are a human concept, and therefore not static. It will always evolve as our knowledge expands.

    • @htopherollem649
      @htopherollem649 16 днів тому +1

      ​@bomat761 The human species has been wrong about almost everything it's ever thought for it's entire existence ; a trend we show ,so far, to be continuing (Doug Stanhope)

    • @Siderite
      @Siderite 16 днів тому +1

      what about physics criminals?!

    • @grumpystiltskin
      @grumpystiltskin 15 днів тому

      As the US Congress determines very carefully which Physics research can be done, we can say Congress makes the law of Physics. They are a body of about 99.7% lawyers except for only one guy who was on the Top Quark team at Fermilabs (Thank you Bill Foster!).

    • @WESMITH91
      @WESMITH91 9 днів тому

      Put another way, the laws of physics continue to evolve.

  • @Andy-df5fj
    @Andy-df5fj 17 днів тому +11

    "Unlike traditional propulsion systems that often grapple with the limitations...". While they show a shuttle launching from Earth, something that this ion thruster can NEVER even come close to doing. Grapple with that limitation.

  • @JustAnotherSeeker
    @JustAnotherSeeker 15 днів тому +9

    CLICK BAIT. This is not even remotely close to being new. It doesn’t break the laws of physics. And it still uses propellant. 🤦‍♂️

    • @falconvisionuavloworbit
      @falconvisionuavloworbit 15 днів тому

      Exactly! Old technology...but for some reason the media is running wild with it. It's only taken 30 years and although it's old tech. It will be a new standard for transportation and it's commercial implications for vendors within the borders of the United States. Hopefully we won't start going backwards by giving away our technology to foreign companies...or countries

  • @Amradar123
    @Amradar123 16 днів тому +9

    It is not without propellant.

  • @paulwallis7586
    @paulwallis7586 17 днів тому +3

    Can these things be evolved to vehicles to clean up space junk? Looks like ongoing maintenance roles are becoming unavoidable.

  • @NaturalFuture
    @NaturalFuture 15 днів тому +1

    Physics is a hard science, but describing it seems even harder for many. NASA's so-called "propellant less" space drive is being described as something that "defies the laws of physics." But, does it actually "defy" physics? No technology--that at least a Kardashev 0 species like humanity can design--is able to literally defy the laws of physics. (Perhaps a K4 and above can.) So, what these otherwise brilliant scientists and engineers really should be saying is that the new NASA engine is far better at MANIPULATING the laws of physics than has any spacecraft propulsion device prior to it. Using the right language makes for a strong presentation.

  • @geekhillbilly2636
    @geekhillbilly2636 17 днів тому +17

    Ion thruster, first predicted in the 3rd season of Star Trek TOS in 1968.

    • @Marc_Gagne
      @Marc_Gagne 17 днів тому

      Wasn't it called an "Ion Drive".

    • @stefanjakubowski8222
      @stefanjakubowski8222 17 днів тому +2

      The ion drive was proposed in 1911 and a working one was built In or around 1958

    • @nixl3518
      @nixl3518 15 днів тому

      @@stefanjakubowski8222 I would suggest that the more apt word for something like this in being “proposed” in 1911, is “imagined“!

  • @Ch1ckeNug01
    @Ch1ckeNug01 2 дні тому

    The electrostatic propulsion system hasn’t been implemented yet, that’s just a regular ion thruster that probably uses Xenon

  • @alphadrift82
    @alphadrift82 13 днів тому

    Former NASA scientist Dr. Charles Buhler has been developing & talking about this. It has propellant. It doesn't burn fuel or have hazardous emissions.

  • @peterlang777
    @peterlang777 17 днів тому +1

    glenn research had the Vladimir pines patents of 2017. cold fusion using erbium and deuterium

  • @narayankulkarni5378
    @narayankulkarni5378 17 днів тому +6

    Sir my question is does NASA have any plan for clean the space junks

  • @grumpystiltskin
    @grumpystiltskin 15 днів тому +1

    I suppose they don't have a combustable propellent, but they do have a reaction mass, the ions.

  • @baconbriefs
    @baconbriefs 7 днів тому

    ...well, we will be seeing venator-class star destroyers next year...SWEET!

  • @4emcarthur
    @4emcarthur 16 днів тому

    Star Wars Ion Thrusters in real life. Awesome.

  • @nixl3518
    @nixl3518 15 днів тому

    I get the distinct feeling that you’re avoiding telling us exactly how this works! Why?

  • @susanwilson6505
    @susanwilson6505 17 днів тому

    This is good. Not bad, it’s good!! lol. I can’t remember what movie that was hahaha

  • @TimeSurfer206
    @TimeSurfer206 17 днів тому

    What I like the most about these is that the amount of reaction mass needed is so much less than the combustion mass needed for the same amount of Delta Vee, that it's almost zero.
    Certainly not p[ropellant free, but very certainly LESS PROPELLANT.
    And we can lift FAR more spacecraft now that we don't need to lift 10 times their weight in fuel.
    Or more.

    • @Freja_Solstheim
      @Freja_Solstheim 16 днів тому +1

      These drives cannot put out enough force to take off from our planet. Their use is for interplanetary/stellar travel.

  • @Robert-mls
    @Robert-mls 11 днів тому

    It says right in the first couple minutes that it is a high propellant engine!! D’oh

  • @halweilbrenner9926
    @halweilbrenner9926 16 днів тому +2

    You need to research plasma physics. Talk to rocket engineers /scientists. It's not "defying physics" it is new technology. Think of an acetylene cutting torch compared to a plasma cutting torch process. No flame required.

    • @htopherollem649
      @htopherollem649 16 днів тому

      this video is all the evidence I need to decide that any benefit I may receive (in terms of scientific knowledge) is not worth the cost of listening to such a length of circuitus, partly mystical, quasi scientific psycobabble.

  • @thesnare100
    @thesnare100 5 днів тому

    Could this make flying cars possible/more feasible, by increasing the amount of weight you could levitate/fly at, especially if it was IN earth's atmosphere and could pick up the ions/make them as it travels?

  • @hawklord100
    @hawklord100 15 днів тому

    If we set about to map all the plasma discharges that are emitted by the sun and connect to each planet - google "nasa magnetic ropes" these could then possibly be used as plasma highways for probes to draw their power from, and if we could do this we could perhaps map the Plasma conduits (birkeland currents) that connect the stars that have been hypothesised and send probes along these intersteller birkeland currents drawing the power for these electric/ion engines

  • @achimrecktenwald9671
    @achimrecktenwald9671 16 днів тому +1

    Didn't ESA test such an engine at least 2 to 3 decades ago? I remember that Germany was involved and that the engine ionized mercury atoms for propulsion.

  • @larryd6143
    @larryd6143 16 днів тому +1

    "cuts travel time to Mars" by how much?

    • @mejohnb65
      @mejohnb65 16 днів тому

      0.0000000000001 whole seconds. 😁

  • @bozhijak
    @bozhijak 17 днів тому +1

    But it's still limited to space applications only. No way it can climb out of Earth's gravity well. And it's a different flavor of a ion drive.

  • @stewartjones2173
    @stewartjones2173 16 днів тому

    Shouldn't that be Cozemose?

  • @masteryoda2918
    @masteryoda2918 16 днів тому +1

    IT DOES HAVE Propellant!
    ION DRIVE
    It has an Exhaust then its a rocket engine!!!!

  • @RGF19651
    @RGF19651 16 днів тому

    My understanding is that an electric field produced by a fairly strong voltage between a cathode and anode needs to be generated to accelerate electrons from the cathode towards the anode so that they can collide with Argon atoms to absorb enough energy to remove an electron and then have the Ar+ ion be pushed out by the electric field at a high velocity. Ok, where does the energy come from to produce the electric field voltage?

    • @grumpystiltskin
      @grumpystiltskin 15 днів тому +1

      Space is full of energy! Usually you have too much if you are anywhere near the sun. And you can carry along those "Nasa's Shortcut to Fusion" lattice confined fusion devices to donate neutrons to throium and natural uranium. Or if you have too much money and too much time you can get DOE to maybe sell you some Pu but then the neighbors at the Cape will get (needlessly) nervous.

  • @WESMITH91
    @WESMITH91 9 днів тому

    Is the technology #QuantizedInertia by Dr Mike McCullouch (compatible in some way)

    • @WESMITH91
      @WESMITH91 9 днів тому

      Mike? Clarification appreciated.

  • @willyphilly4739
    @willyphilly4739 17 днів тому +1

    Scale up n see ?

  • @tomholroyd7519
    @tomholroyd7519 16 днів тому

    The EM drive doesn't work so they had to post this

  • @titanmaximum239
    @titanmaximum239 17 днів тому +3

    "Propellantless"

    • @TimeSurfer206
      @TimeSurfer206 17 днів тому

      Less propellant. By about 100 to one or something equally stupid.

    • @victorsago
      @victorsago 16 днів тому

      @@TimeSurfer206 Less propellant is still not propellantless.

    • @TimeSurfer206
      @TimeSurfer206 16 днів тому

      @@victorsago "Propellent less" is not the same as "Propellent free."
      Welcome to the mother fuqking "Engalish" ""Lanaguage."

  • @semorgh2854
    @semorgh2854 16 днів тому

    When you are in Rome do what the Romans do, and while you are in space do what the Magnetic field do.

  • @scottfranson4215
    @scottfranson4215 16 днів тому +1

    CLick Bait , NOT FROM NASA *It's an ion thruster, and it does have propellant! *

    • @SilverMe2004
      @SilverMe2004 15 днів тому

      Is that why they keep repeating themselves without telling us anything?

  • @FloridaTarponWrangler
    @FloridaTarponWrangler 17 днів тому

    NASA has a nack for inventing the most cost ineffective methods of space craft. Why not use steam for small spacecraft? Its much cheaper!

    • @SilverMe2004
      @SilverMe2004 15 днів тому +1

      You should be careful using sarcasm on the internet as there are people out there that are dumb enough to think you are telling the truth.

    • @FloridaTarponWrangler
      @FloridaTarponWrangler 15 днів тому

      @@SilverMe2004 lol

  • @robertbobo48
    @robertbobo48 7 днів тому

    Click bait. Headline is simply not true.

  • @billotto602
    @billotto602 13 днів тому

    Betcha SpaceX could do it better & cheaper !

  • @chrishorne4016
    @chrishorne4016 14 днів тому

    Clickbait, not propellantless

  • @user-go5ih3ji6k
    @user-go5ih3ji6k 17 днів тому

    Àmen solow😂😂😂😂😂🎉

  • @thomasprince4992
    @thomasprince4992 17 днів тому

    missed saying war applications

  • @JAYDELROSARIQ
    @JAYDELROSARIQ 17 днів тому

    JRYLjQÜÑ

  • @MrZajebali
    @MrZajebali 16 днів тому +1

    What about banning burning oil and its direct products on earth? You have the tech.

  • @JerryMlinarevic
    @JerryMlinarevic 17 днів тому

    Thrust is stone age.
    Although gravity moves at the speed of light it cannot change direction as quickly. This can be exploited in many industries to reduce or eliminate fuel: from building to transportation.
    In space the solution for fast travel is somewhat different, although based on same fundamental principles; this is the asymmetric rotating magnetic field. Not only is propulsion achieved at near speed of light, but electrical energy is a free by product --own oxygen supply is essential.
    This is not speculation.

  • @Greenmachine305
    @Greenmachine305 17 днів тому +3

    Let's be honest. We don't NEED to explore space. We simply WANT to.

    • @TheLastStarfighter77
      @TheLastStarfighter77 17 днів тому

      I understand you're thought but eventually, we will need to venture out there to mine asteroids as one day in the not to distant future, our resources will run dry, the secondary reason to explore and colonise is for self preservation of the human race, that's if we can make it past the great filter stage.

    • @Greenmachine305
      @Greenmachine305 17 днів тому

      @@TheLastStarfighter77 We won't physically make it past the filter. That's why space exploration isn't a necessity. The path forward is within.

    • @willowwisp357
      @willowwisp357 17 днів тому +3

      To be honest if it weren’t for space exploration you wouldn’t have GPS, international telephone service, hurricane tracking, etc. Not to mention all the side benefits of developing such technology, like computer chips and led technology. It’s not difficult to understand with even the least amount of interest. However no one can help you if you have no interest.

    • @Greenmachine305
      @Greenmachine305 17 днів тому

      @@willowwisp357 I do have an interest. I follow it closely. I simply see its value differently.

    • @TheLastStarfighter77
      @TheLastStarfighter77 17 днів тому

      @@willowwisp357 Thank you 🙂

  • @JAYDELROSARIQ
    @JAYDELROSARIQ 17 днів тому

    UR UL PUSHED JQÜLÑ PULLED JjLQÜRÑ JRQÜÑ yñürj

  • @nbrown5907
    @nbrown5907 17 днів тому +1

    Lol everything we do based on quantum physics defies real world physics don't they? If we mange to control quantum entanglement for communications that will defy our laws of physics lol. Kinda lame title.

  • @ddegn
    @ddegn 2 дні тому

    What a waste of servers space.
    "Don't recommend channel"

  • @xw8462
    @xw8462 11 днів тому

    China has better stuff. 😅

  • @ValleyProud916
    @ValleyProud916 17 днів тому

    Meanwhile in Africa...

  • @stewartjones2173
    @stewartjones2173 16 днів тому

    666 the mark of The Beast.

  • @Corpsman01
    @Corpsman01 16 днів тому

    It’s not the engine that’s really the problem…it’s the amount of fuel needed to run it. Let’s find a different fuel/power system and maybe we will have a chance to leave the solar system in a few hundred years.