NASA's Nuclear Rocket Will Bring Us To Mars!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- NASA's nuclear rocket will bring us to Mars! We're covering everything nuclear on Mars including including why we should go nuclear and the future of space travel in this weeks video!
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: derek@ellify.com
#Spacex #Space #mars
0:00 Start
1:43 Nuclear power on Mars
7:20 Why go nuclear?
12:51 The future of space travel - Наука та технологія
I would love a dive into all nuclear propulsion ideas! Thank you!
Ditto!
Yes sirrrrrrrrr
I think a Fusion powered rocket would be quite a lot safer than a Fission powered rocket though.
Always interested in alternative propulsion mechanisms. Would love to see a comparison!
NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) is funding two high potential concepts. New ion drives could have ten times better in terms of ISP and power levels ten thousand times higher. Antimatter propulsion and multi-megawatt ion drives are being developed.
Interesting. Would be cool to see some info/speculation on this in a video.
@@slimsackett6199 k. Ki
I really hope so because I need 8 ION thrusters to get my version of zero point into effect. My challenge is for the use of the same fuels used as Rockets but give a greater distance and displacement while simultaneously sipping fuel. It's a Spaceplane hybrid and those ion thrusters is for steering and much more . You should read what I wrote in this same area of replies. I have something better but no tools or funds to bring it to the table . Fuel efficient, fast , reliable, safe and totally reusable. Think David versus Goliath and I learned.
@@wikkid1show569 what? Your “version” of zero point ?
@@igotufoinformation9636 zero point. Think positioning by angular means to focus on one area coming from 8 angles. It's a shape btw .
Great stuff! Would be very interested in a separate video on speculative nuclear propulsion tech.
Yes. Especially a Fusion powered rocket.
Firing a nuclear thermal engine inside Earth's atmosphere wouldn't contaminate it, because the only thing that escapes from the nozzle is hot hydrogens. The neutrons that make stuffs radioactive is trapped within the engine, which, given enough operational time, will transmute some of the engine parts into radioactive isotopes, but the exhaust itself will never be radioactive as long as the nuclear fuel rods themselves are properly engineered to withstand thermal stress.
Now if you're talking about nuclear salt-water rocket, which uses fission to vaporize water into steam that carries everything away, including the still-fissioning uranium salts from the engine, that is different story....
Totally agree with you buddy! Chemical rocket properly as old the steam engine now! we need to stat shift up a gear! Start bringing in some tech!
Yeah NSWR is strictly a deep space engine. A future ship that uses both technologies would be a pretty great ship. It can fill the science exploration gap till VASMR or something similar is ready. We just need one large very capable ship that uses NTR type engine for planetary space and NSWR for the space between and deep space. With a ship like that we can have human missions to anywhere in the solar system.
Please do a deep dive into the various nuclear technologies for propulsion, that would be very interesting. Thanks for your vid’s, they are great!!
Please, at least 1 more video (or a few more!) on nuclear engines
hell yeah I would be interested in those videos I'd love to see one on each topic
Definitely go with upcoming projects please! Thanks dude
Fascinating! 😊👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 I subbed and yes, lets hear more about further nuclear propulsion, including fusion too! 😊👍👍
Well done, and we're very interested in alternative propulsion mechanisms, thank you!
Awesome content, more vids on nuclear would be great, thanks!!
Yes, please on new video’s on the more speculative nuclear technologies mentioned at the end of this video. 👍🏽
Thank for info and yes
I'd love more videos on nuclear propulsion!
Its cool that NASA is hard at work in making nuclear propulsion rocket. Although nuclear fission is very dangerous to make, it is very useful for a fast thrust and fast mission.
I, too, would love a dive into all nuclear propulsion ideas! Thank you!
I would be interested in further videos' on this topic
To infinity and beyond
Good stuff
Yes! Please make episodes about alternative nuclear rocket technologies!
Please cover Nuclear Electric! Great video!
Totally do more speculative stuff, i watch everything you put out over this and the tesla channel
a video on other propulsion systems would be great!
Could you provide some resources for Artemis missions past five i’ve been trying to find anything past five for a while now so I’d be interested in knowing where you got your information from
YES, I'm interested in a more speculative video on how water or salt water could be used in nuclear propulsion. Thanks !!!
Updates on blue origin and relevity space 💙 plz
How about making and uploading a video about a Fusion powered rocket?
Excellent Choice of propulsion system with light speed “engine”
Can someone explain to me way we would get to mars faster this way?
For a direct transfer the Delta V is pretty much fixed right?
So dus this meen they want to like overshoot mars bye putting in alot more prograde delta V en then start braking (retrograde) when they would almost pass the plannet?
Nuclear Fusion propulsion for space travel and replacing fossil fuels on earth ! What a great subject to investigate ! Not to mention plasma power propulsion !
i've been thinking of this engine for a while, so many factors, such as easier cooling with space being so cold, fuel consumption , payloads, a lot can be solved with this sort of drive....not to mention it's COOL to use this tech on anything but mass extinction events.
Spec technologies sound interesting
Yes! I am fascinated by Salt water and nuclear pulse propulsion. Please provide videos.
NASA... On time? Now that's funny!!! 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Plz make a vid telling colonization plans for titan and Callisto and Venus ( Venus will be the easiest vid to do since we have a bigger picture of the plan )
Just want to add that solar thermal/electric can brake to Mars orbit and beam microwaves to the surface. Not having to land power generating equipment to the surface means about three times the mass for equipment that can remain in orbit. There would be constant power anywhere all the time after only a few solar craft carrying cargo and later people are sent. By the way the ISP of solar thermal is higher than nuclear and microwaves are unaffected by dust storms.
Yes polar orbiting satellites could power mining vehicles in the shadow craters also
can use salt water nuclear now and small fusion engine latest at so use both at same time to Mars.17 mins power is enough to Mars too
Several inaccuracies in the video. For example, 11:00 Lower exhaust mass is a drawback, not feature. Momentum is mass x velocity. More momentum is the goal. 👍
NSWR is the closest thing to travel times similar to the Expanse. NTR, while providing double the ISP of chemical, is still too slow to compare to the transits made in that show.
Can you keep doing videos on nuclear rocket types. Can they use magnetic bottles to help contain hydrogen? I'm a fan of the Nuclear Salt Water Rocket (NSWR) not sure if it is possible but if it is then it is a great step forward.
I am surprised that you talked of the effects of reduced gravity! Most talk a great deal of all the issues and how they might be dealt with but they always leave out, or just mention it and move on, minimize, for obvious reasons. It's the only real issue that there is no natural counter for! Even with the artificial gravity of Von Bran's Wheel, there may still be the issue of the Coriolis Effect.
Would definitely love a nuclear propulsion video. Awesome channel 👏🏽
You could launch a cluster of these small tow satalights and in a few years have everything you would need to build
Just adding that the NERVA was intended to replace the J2 in the 3rd stage and was designed to operate in a vacuum... outside the atmosphere.
Look how nuts those first three were during that infamous press conference. They were the best, and still they were nuts sitting at that table. It’s the easiest human script to both write and to act.
“All of us are a little nuts.” Confucius
i hope so
Give us the speculations!!!!
Please more videos on nuclear propulsion.
I don't know if it's possible to address 70-year-old nuclear treaties on the application of nuclear weapons in space, but maybe we should be looking seriously at either a revival of the 1957 Project Orion (the fast propulsion based on atomic explosions) or something vaguely similar. We're going to be developing fast spacecraft for cislunar and interplanetary travel anyway, so we should probably start getting experience under our belts sooner rather than later.
I admit I'm only a layperson, but here's the only way any interplanetary mission to Mars (or other planets or asteroids) makes any sense to me: (1: NASA and allied nations need to get on board with fast propulsion to slash the transit time to interplanetary destinations. Mars is only viable if it is only weeks (or days) away, not months or years. (2: NASA and allies must develop robotics and space station design technologies so that an automated kit system could be sent to orbit the destination, set itself up to automatically erect a Von Braun-style "spinning wheel" space station in orbit to act as a forward base to provide the expedition team with shielded and comfortable crew quarters and workplace in simulated Earth-normal gravity while a few expedition team members are dispatched to land on Mars for limited duration exploration projects. (3: The smaller expedition sub-teams then return to the safety of the orbiting forward base so that other sub-teams can visit Mars in rotation. (4: Once everyone has visited Mars and conducted their experiments on the surface at least once per sub-team, the entire expedition can return to Earth via fast rocket.
A mission to Mars (or any other interplanetary mission) does not make sense if the overwhelming majority of the astronaut-hours on the expedition are spent simply staying alive in prolonged transit. That's terribly risky to the health of the astronauts and ridiculously inefficient in terms of effective use of astronaut-hours in space. The actual component of having expedition team members either in Martian orbit or on the surface of Mars must occupy the majority of the mission's timetable to be efficient, safe and worthwhile. Productivity can be measured in actual astronaut-hours on Martian soil getting actual scientific work done. It would also seem that just sending a tiny handful of astronauts on interplanetary missions is not going to be sufficiently productive. If interplanetary expeditions are really going to accomplish enough to be worth their while (and all that risk), we have to be willing to send international expeditionary teams of at least a dozen astronauts (if not dozens) to get more work done.
So if interplanetary exploration is going to make sense we will need larger ships with larger expeditionary teams, much faster propulsion to get the team to their destination quickly, and robotics and experience setting up Von Braun-style "spin gravity" forward bases in orbit of the destination to safely and efficiently utilize the expedition team to get the most out of the mission. Can we do this by the 2030s? I doubt it. That would require much greater experience with spin gravity, robotic remote establishment and activation of kit-space stations, and much more robust (and faster) interplanetary spacecraft. All these things are still on the drawing board. If we're serious about Mars, we had better get cracking!
Yes more nuclear propulsion videos!
With the power of vrchat I doubt they'll go crazy
(chemical rockets are plenty for mars travel)
The bigger problem is the time between transit windows. It can take 5x the fuel and time if you're not planetarily aligned. There's only 3-4 more this decade.
@@thomaswade3072 every rocket of the planet every two years -as in space as highways
So the people are 2.5 years in space instead of 3 years, not a great accomplishment ;-)
There is no protecting atmosphere on Mars which protects the people there from space radiation and low air pressure and no oxygen.
Live on Mars is pretty much like live in open space, but on the Mars surface.
There is no big win in travelling to Mars in half the time ;-) 2.5 years vs 3 years in open space with low gravity ;-)
@@richard--s to surrect planets is how to live in a universe - mars belongs to life
(life as center of the universe)
multiple rockets in formation shield each other and help be secomds away no matter what problem
waterlocks as airlocks make living easy - give everyone 9m diameter luxury apartments, make river-like lakes for indoor walks, seafood and o2 algae
(ice as building materal be self-sealing and gives vast structures in no time)
Clearly one would haul(with the current rocket engines) the neccesary parts for any NC engine up to space, assemble it and test it there. What we need is something of a spacedock. Why not start there?
Cosmic / interstellar / galactic radiation does not make up the bulk of radiation in our solar system. That honor goes to the giant nuclear furnace we call the sun, and just like earth it has a magnetosphere that keeps out a lot of charged particles, gamma emissions etc... from the universe at large
I'm surprised not to see any mention of the proposed solutions to the trip to Mars via Starship. Namely, tethering two ships together to spin them, avoiding most of your gravitational problems, and keeping your crew inside a shell of shielding water for radiation, even if you have to strap tanks all around the outside of the ship. Supplies aren't a real problem, you either send them all as a convoy or meet up with other autonomous Starships waiting in Mars orbit packed with equipment. No reason you couldn't do all this with a nuclear engine and get there twice as fast at the same time.
7:45 the fuel oxygen mix DOES NOT EXPLODE, it deflagrates. if it where to explode then the entire rocket will have a rapid unscheduled disassembly.
Can they produce this fuel on mars is the nuclear power engines enough to return
This video is well done, but it was not what I was expecting from the title. You did a very good job of explaining nuclear thermal propulsion. In this case more efficient because you're using thermal energy from fission to heat and accelerate hydrogen atoms. My first thought was that finally a new solution to the rocket equation could be found by using the nuclear reactor to accelerate particles to near the speed of light. The reactor converts mass to energy and that energy is used to provide thrust. You recycle the reaction mass in a closed loop so you don't need propellant. The metaphor would be a particle accelerator in space. I don't think we've developed the technology to make this possible yet, but it would make interstellar travel possible without the terawatt lasers and 10,000G acceleration envisioned by Breakthrough Starshot.
Any propulsion method that brings its own mass, then expel it to push another mass the other way will still be subject to the rocket equation, no matter what kind of reaction mass that is, from hot water vapors from LH2-LOX rocket to charged pions from antiproton annihilations. The difference will be on the ratio of the propellants-fuels required to push the mass.
Your idea is great, it's called the fission-fragment rocket ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket ) and has been studied in the 80s. It can eject hot fission products up to 5% c, providing extraordinary efficiency. Even better, the huge exhaust velocities of the fission fragments means that they can be very quickly escape the Solar System, leaving no radioactive contaminations. It looks very promising, and it's within our capabilities to build, engineering challenges notwithstanding. I think the biggest hurdle is justifying it in front of your political leaders and neighbors.
Nuclear means cost plus contracts for defense contractors and so it is being pushed. Vast increase in cost and delays likely. Thirty seven years ago I presented a paper on solar thermal/electric propulsion which can beat any nuclear fission propulsion system to Mars at a tiny fraction of the cost. While solar thermal using perigee thrusts in increasingly elliptical orbit takes a week or so to get to escape velocity, it can move concentrated sunlight type PV into the large low mass mirrors focus and generate electrical power at far higher power per unit mass than any fission system because any such system has to turn heat into electricity. This allows the solar powered craft to overtake the nuclear.
#1 we need to come up with an engine system that creates thrust but does not waste its fuel. recycled thrust.
#2 A interplanetary ship should have a gravity assist inside the belly of the ship. think of Star Trek and the dish section. With a gravity system below deck constantly turning it should create enough to allow astronauts to walk normally around the ship.
#1 we can leave the fuel at home and use it to power a laser which will push the ship. It needs to be REALLY high-powered though, especially if the installation is located on Earth's surface with all the atmosphere getting in the way. We also still have to think about ways to slow the ship down when it doesn't carry fuel to do maneuvers.
#2 Spin gravity using centrifuges have been studied and tested (on Earth). The radius will need to be quite large, so it doesn't make astronauts dizzy when turning their head. Challenges to solve includes power connection to the stationary parts of the ship, a way to keep the mass perfectly balanced so astronauts walking around wouldn't cause the entire structure to wobble and oscillate which can damage it, and many others.
@@lazyremnant380 Both really good points. 👍
Please do!
Fusion drive 🙂
Why nuclear? Cant we make a C4 aka "High explosive" rocket? The design of the combustion chamber would be similar and negate all the high energy particles and shielding required. An array of smaller nozzles in sequence to maintain 1 G of almost un noticable acceleration and deceleration. I mean you're using micro nukes, so just get the equivalent amount of C4 or high explosives to whatever the nukes yield is and use that as fuel. Assuming 100 tons of ship, a 100 ton C4 explosion is easier then a 100 ton nuke. A high explosive combustion engine. Just my thoughts.
Unfortunately chemical reactions have nowhere near the energy per unit mass of nuclear reactions, even in the case of high explosives.
@@DGaryGrady Agreed, but C4 has more enegy then oxymethane. That was my point. Using 1/4, or so, the fuel requirements. Its just you lose so much in the mass of the shielding required for full nuclear explosions. KISS principal. Sir you sound smart. Do the math. High explosives create the supersonic exhaust needed without all the turbines oxymethane or other needs. With proper tuning of the port, you might even get hypersonic exhaust flow from an array of small engines and it also gives redundancy. "Every mole of methane (16 g) releases 810 KJ of energy on burning."
"1 pound of C4 releases 3.0 × 10⁶ joules of energy"
Can you see the advantage?
@@apocraphontripp4728 Comparing the energy of a mole of methane (combusted with an unspecified amount of oxygen) with that of a pound of C4 explosive isn't very helpful, and not just because of the mix of units.
In simple terms, to balance the chemical equation you need 2CH4 + 4O2 -> 2CO2 + 4H2O, so for every 2 molecules of methane you need 4 of oxygen. The atomic weights are H=1, C=12, and O=16, so the molecular weights are methane (CH4)=16, oxygen (O2)=32, carbon dioxide (CO2)=44, and water (H2O)=18. For every mole of methane (16 grams) you need two moles of oxygen (64 grams), or 80 grams total mass. (Real-world rocket engines, especially (I think) those designed for use in the lower atmosphere, use a somewhat different mixture, but this is close enough for our purposes.)
If a mole of methane combusted with two moles of oxygen releases 810 kilojoules of energy, then (given that a pound is a little under 454 grams), a pound of methane and oxygen releases 454/80 times 810 kilojoules, which works out to nearly 4600 kilojoules per pound of fuel+oxidizer.
If exploding a pound of C4 produces 3000 kilojoules (3 million joules), then methane+oxygen has more energy density than C4. (Please double-check my math above and let me know if I've made a mistake.) I'm pretty sure it's also more controllable, and of course methane and oxygen can be made on Mars from water, CO2, and an energy source such as solar.
Many liquid fueled rocket engines do have turbines, but except for jet engines used in atmospheres, the turbines are not there for propulsion but to power pumps to get fuel and oxidizer from the tanks (and frequently to circulate them around the combustion chamber for cooling).
One final quibble: The nuclear propulsion considered in the video is nuclear thermal, basically heating a reaction mass (such as hydrogen) using a nuclear reactor. A variation would use a giant mirror to concentrate sunlight to heat the reaction mass. (Nuclear or solar power could also generate electricity for an ion drive.) There are no nuclear explosions involved, and shielding requirements (at least with respect to the reactor; cosmic rays are another matter) should not be a major problem.
@@DGaryGrady So sorry yes turbines are the pumps. As soon as i saw a rocket engine the first time I said was, wait a minute is that a turbine? I theorize that you could probably converrt a car turbine into a rocket engine. Its crazy to think that, if youve ever heard a turbo spool up at high rpms, a rocket engine does that but instead of moving air its moving liquid "whatever". Make me wonder if youd get better efficiency with a tesla turine type centrifugal turbo pump on a rocket? Has anyone ever tried? Anyways, the mixture of air and fuel for best combustion is call the stoicmetric mixture of the particular fuel or air fuel ratio. This mixture can be leaned or enriched based on air pressure. With rockets the size of the baffle is what changes based on atmo or space. In theory areo spikes use the atmo pressure as a baffle, but i dont think the design will work well in a real world application. I just visualize it having anomalous vectoring issues in space. I would visualize a better design for engine efficiency in atmo would a circular airfoil around the nozzle. The design goal would be to create a scram jet effect using the rockets kenetic motion upwards. The compressed air would as i can visualize it, would create negative back pressure at the engine nozzle. Helping to draw out more fuel. This would only work in atmo Now if you really wanted to get nuts. If you took 2 rocket engines and linked them via an x pipe the two engine should scavenge each other and create negative pressure in-between each others pulses. As far as the best fuel. Non nuclear. Id go with HHO gas made from water electrolysis. Imagine if your fuel was water. A thorium reactor with a turbine/ generator for powering the water electrolysis. Then a compressor to gather the gas then the rocket engine tuned for HHO. You could jeep the water in baffles around the ship. To protect from radiation and micro meteorites. Should also help with heat transfer of the ship. How do you guys radiate heat out into space? I mean the ceramic panels you use have got to work both ways and keep heat in as well as they keep it out. The gear has to generate a ton of heat. Would cycled water work to maintain temperature? Sorry this is long. My Apologies.
More nuclear propulsion technologies please!?!?!?!?! :D
Does anyone in here watch “For all man kind” on Apple TV? I really like that show! Season 3 just came out
Although hydrogen is quite lightweigt and even more effectiv in monoatomic state, uranium is quite heavy and although nuclear fission gives much more energy than any chemical reaction it's unlikely to get a decent amount of nuclear burn up.
More on nuclear propulsion!
nuclear thermal isn't what you want for deep space mission. what you want is ion engines ... (just because they have a much higher specific impulse)
Yes please more nuclear ideas
They have foundd out how to create a warp bubble js lol
actually one might be tempted to think that the hydrogen is both the propellant and the coolant. However an obvious downside is that you simply can't turn a nuclear reactor off. There is radioactive decay of the fission elements. Of course the reactor could just be cast into space but that's another story.
What we truly need is multiple high powered highly effective laser communication satellites placed at Lagrange points set in multiple locations in the inner system. With this tech allowing us real-time communication abilities we can send those Tesla bots to the moon and mars so we can use them to build all the habitats greenhouse’s energy systems and everything else long before we even get there!!!
We are almost there to being a multi-planetary species. This is only the start.
Sound great nuclear propulsion system with light speed engine. It will be “winner”
So the best is the ion propultion engine than a pure nuclear engine.
very interesting nuclear propulsion tech. How would salt water work instead of hydrogen?
Salt nuclear propulsion would exhaust nuclear isotopes, new sequestration technology would be required but it might not be viable for (atmospheric) propulsion in the end, but it could make a viable postatmospheric stage regardless.
@@ForBreadAndFish Hey thanks. I've never regarded the idea of isotope exhaustion. I'll need to digest that for about a year and then hopefully remember the rest of your comment. I think all space is atmospheric; just a matter of degree. Still your point is made. My mind also thanks you. It gets to levitate for a while now.
Amazing
Me asking NASA where they got all their Uranium from in 2069:
"Oh, I got all that from Uranus.Now 62 earths can fit in it!"
Be interesting to how we’re going to escape earth atmosphere!!! We Certainly can’t rely for ever chemical rocket engine to escape the atmosphere if this help us progress into a interplanetary species so be go space travel! We need stop frightened of nuclear! Yes we know risks but we can say the Same about for any technology
2 years in space is a long time, they might have the first space baby due to human nature
Has anyone begun any investigation into Quantum propulsion? If so, who and where?
Yes bring in the nukes, for space travel.
If the moon is already loaded with silicon imagine what you could do if you landed a lump of gold near your build site and some raw iron
You wouldn't need so much energy for space travel if the ships where built in soace
Plus a power source on Mars need water let me heat it up and filter it for you. Where do I buy my tickets 🚀🚀🚀
a 1/3 of the video was actually about Nuclear Engines.
Do a podcast on using tritium-3. This is a radioisotope of hydrogen. This is more common than reported. The common form is tritium water. This can be made. Hanford Washington is full of it.
hi
Salt water nuclear engine for sure!!
2:14 "... and eventually send their first CRUDE mission to the red planet." [emphasis mine]. It may not seem very sophisticated to you, since it will be a first attempt, but I wouldn't word it quite that way. These brave men and women risk everything to break ground on a new world which will be basically a backup plan for humanity in case of a civilization-killing catastrophe here on Earth. Otherwise, nice documentary here. All good wishes.
How they gonna do any of this when SLS still hasn't launched and there's no finished space suits? Crewed mars missions aren't happening this decade, the moon *barely* is.
They’re increasingly relying on spacex. So if anything, moon and Mars should happen even sooner
@@Machiavelli2pc You're talking about Elon time. We've been a year away from Starship since 2016. There are only 4 more planetary alignments left til the 2030s, and you need at least one ahead to send supplies/equipment/pre-crew dress rehearsal. And there's no current nor emergent craft-integratable technology that can protect the astronauts physically from the radiation. Water and lead shields are too heavy too launch. The tech doesn't exist, the time tables are too tight, the governments are stuck in the 20th century. It's just not happening within 7.5 years, let alone 10.
@@Machiavelli2pc They also have contracts with SLS that will now stretch out to 2028 for the lunar gateway missions. NASA in no way is getting enough budget to both at the same time.
"Interstellar" means to and from Stars. You mean Interplanetary.
Nothing that NASA will take us anywhere.
Yup yup yup!!! Mord about nuclear propulsions!!! Please!!!! And thank you!
A new rocketengine (atomic) for a new planet (Mars) sounds very logic, but honestly, forget Mars in this century and use the money at the moon. Money dont grow on trees.
Overenthusiastic first sentences and many little errors and imprecissions aside, this is a very good overview for total novices.
Please do make those additional videos you mention near the end (also include nuclear electric, you only mentioned briefly and the beginning), but try to be a bit more rigorous - no more conflating energy and impulse, ill-defined "efficiency" (specific impulse) etc. At least point your viewers to some of other people's videos you use and credit for more technically precise treatment.
Nuclear rocket to Mars, uh yeah don't see that working out.
NERVA...done in the 70s...
knowing NASA we will all be dead by the time they start testing this. 🤔