This is a new technology to me, thanks for educating us Tom. It's interesting to see the UK space industry looking for its own niche and trying to make something a bit different work out, best of luck to them.
I love the thumbnail using a modified image of GOCE! (also seen at 3:50 ) The design of GOCE fascinates me since it's the only vehicle (so far) that humanity has created with aerodynamics in mind - that wasn't designed for pushing through Earth's lower atmosphere or atmospheric entry. It's the only one (so far) designed for orbital speeds through extremely thin atmosphere.
MHD in so many realms of propulsion seems to get the cold shoulder...when it should be at the forefront. That Yamato 1 you referred to, for instance; they demolished it in 2016! Now...that wasn't very respectful! Decades ago, I'd heard the old tale that an MHD was a more complicated device than a nuclear reactor. So what? That means no Homer SImpsons throwing a spanner into the thing! Isn't that a good thing? This propellant-less means of near-vacuum upper atmospheric propulsion sounds like a great idea. Of course...They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named will have an aneurysm over the nuclear aspects of this laudable effort. I hope they build this, though, or something like it. If we BRING propellant along instead of only scooping it up, I wonder if this sort of craft can rush humans to Mars and back without the tedious, cosmic-ray-filled journey a chemical rocket promises... Mahalo for a great report, Tom. Aloha!
Aloha Jim and Mahalo! Omg I had to cut the part about it's destruction as ultimately it didnt flow well but bloody hell what a stupid move that was! A fine example of a great piece of engineering not followed up on, abandoned and then trashed! I would have loved to do a whole video on MHD alone and you're right, even with Rolls Royce's nuclear engine project and DARPAs work over the years, there's been a reluctance from certain... departments to properly consider it as a means of spacecraft propulsion. I do think if they can solve the oxidisation problem then it would open up the possibilities of multi use and not just in vleo. We could use a chemical first stage, nuclear interstage and ABEP final stage for an orbiting mothership perhaps. Lower orbit around Mars, easier to rendezvous with by a returning craft, say for sample return missions. Why not go further and have reuseable sample return missions with interchangeable pods, one is returned to earth, a falcon 9 delivers another to the mothershil and because it's nuclear powered, off it goes again. Boom, you've just unlocked a possible mining industry. A morning coffee thought? Perhaps, but who knows!
@@tomduneofficial Your morning coffee ideas are better than the daily and night rants from the gloom-and-doomers out there. Enjoy the rest of your day. It's...OMG...this OAP had better put his teeth in the jar and drift off to sleep PDQ. It's close to midnight! 🤣🤣
Interesting video. I've heard of this over the years. Nice to see it's being taken seriously again. ESA's GOCE is pronounced closer to GO CHEE. I followed it from construction to when it was lost. EDIT: No worries about pronunciation, just shows you learned it by reading.
I like the idea of using air breathing electric propulsion, with a beamed energy kick. Instead of putting solar panels on the satellite, adding drag, just put an energy receiver. Then have your solar power satellites further out.
A good idea indeed, but the problem is the added mass which affects the abep drag reduction, given it would depend on how you power the beam energy. And that's the crux of the issues facing the developers/researchers of how to deal with it, as clearly there will be a need for such-like different systems.
I remember reading a proposal for doing this for atmospheric scooping of Venus, but it seemed pretty fiddly and complex to me. The thing about Venus is that it isn't oblate enough for sun-sync orbits to exist. But Mars is oblate enough (as is Earth) for sun-sync orbits to exist.
I have two questions: 1. There are many layers of satellites on various orbits, how many layers can you have in VLEO? 2. Wouldn't this create much more light pollution? The SpaceX Starlink system is already creating a problem for astronomers without using this technology.
Good questions! Theoretically you could have many layers in VLEO as it covers some 250ish km in altitude but the lower portion of atmospheric VLEO would be from 160 to 250km. 2. It would if we end up with constellations of satellites at this height especially given the starlink problem and that will have to be worked out if this tech becomes the norm
If only considering known science data as parametres of atmosphere, without speculations about conwspiracy theories, than we can just compare it with the impact of solar winds on atmosphere. Sometimes more, sometimes less. And the worst thing is if those satellites possess some dangerous chemicals or emulate dangerous waves. Low-orbit satellites may search our planet better those on being far from the Earth.
This is a new technology to me, thanks for educating us Tom.
It's interesting to see the UK space industry looking for its own niche and trying to make something a bit different work out, best of luck to them.
Happy to share, it's pretty amazing and will be great if they can nail it
I love the thumbnail using a modified image of GOCE! (also seen at 3:50 )
The design of GOCE fascinates me since it's the only vehicle (so far) that humanity has created with aerodynamics in mind - that wasn't designed for pushing through Earth's lower atmosphere or atmospheric entry. It's the only one (so far) designed for orbital speeds through extremely thin atmosphere.
You're right, a really fascinating vehicle let alone spacecraft!
MHD in so many realms of propulsion seems to get the cold shoulder...when it should be at the forefront.
That Yamato 1 you referred to, for instance; they demolished it in 2016! Now...that wasn't very respectful!
Decades ago, I'd heard the old tale that an MHD was a more complicated device than a nuclear reactor.
So what? That means no Homer SImpsons throwing a spanner into the thing! Isn't that a good thing?
This propellant-less means of near-vacuum upper atmospheric propulsion sounds like a great idea. Of course...They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named will have an aneurysm over the nuclear aspects of this laudable effort.
I hope they build this, though, or something like it. If we BRING propellant along instead of only scooping it up, I wonder if this sort of craft can rush humans to Mars and back without the tedious, cosmic-ray-filled journey a chemical rocket promises...
Mahalo for a great report, Tom. Aloha!
Aloha Jim and Mahalo!
Omg I had to cut the part about it's destruction as ultimately it didnt flow well but bloody hell what a stupid move that was! A fine example of a great piece of engineering not followed up on, abandoned and then trashed!
I would have loved to do a whole video on MHD alone and you're right, even with Rolls Royce's nuclear engine project and DARPAs work over the years, there's been a reluctance from certain... departments to properly consider it as a means of spacecraft propulsion.
I do think if they can solve the oxidisation problem then it would open up the possibilities of multi use and not just in vleo. We could use a chemical first stage, nuclear interstage and ABEP final stage for an orbiting mothership perhaps. Lower orbit around Mars, easier to rendezvous with by a returning craft, say for sample return missions. Why not go further and have reuseable sample return missions with interchangeable pods, one is returned to earth, a falcon 9 delivers another to the mothershil and because it's nuclear powered, off it goes again. Boom, you've just unlocked a possible mining industry. A morning coffee thought? Perhaps, but who knows!
@@tomduneofficial Your morning coffee ideas are better than the daily and night rants from the gloom-and-doomers out there. Enjoy the rest of your day. It's...OMG...this OAP had better put his teeth in the jar and drift off to sleep PDQ. It's close to midnight! 🤣🤣
Us space nerds have to keep dreaming big! Aloha pō 🖖
@@tomduneofficial And aloha kakahiaka to you, Tom!👍
Great video. Great in-depth detail as always. Keep up the great work.
Appreciated as always matey!
Interesting video. I've heard of this over the years. Nice to see it's being taken seriously again.
ESA's GOCE is pronounced closer to GO CHEE. I followed it from construction to when it was lost.
EDIT: No worries about pronunciation, just shows you learned it by reading.
Ah! Thanks for the info! Every day is an education, much appreciated.
@@tomduneofficial No worries. :)
I like the idea of using air breathing electric propulsion, with a beamed energy kick.
Instead of putting solar panels on the satellite, adding drag, just put an energy receiver.
Then have your solar power satellites further out.
A good idea indeed, but the problem is the added mass which affects the abep drag reduction, given it would depend on how you power the beam energy. And that's the crux of the issues facing the developers/researchers of how to deal with it, as clearly there will be a need for such-like different systems.
I remember reading a proposal for doing this for atmospheric scooping of Venus, but it seemed pretty fiddly and complex to me. The thing about Venus is that it isn't oblate enough for sun-sync orbits to exist.
But Mars is oblate enough (as is Earth) for sun-sync orbits to exist.
Great video, Tom! 👍👍
Thanks dude!
photovoltaic collectors and ion thruster wire wound like tennis rackets that are stacked like the skeleton of a blimp
Sounds ideal
I have two questions:
1. There are many layers of satellites on various orbits, how many layers can you have in VLEO?
2. Wouldn't this create much more light pollution? The SpaceX Starlink system is already creating a problem for astronomers without using this technology.
Good questions!
Theoretically you could have many layers in VLEO as it covers some 250ish km in altitude but the lower portion of atmospheric VLEO would be from 160 to 250km.
2. It would if we end up with constellations of satellites at this height especially given the starlink problem and that will have to be worked out if this tech becomes the norm
Ok, I get it. How would thousands of such satellites affect the atmosphere? The ozone layer? The Van Allen belt? Etc.
It depends on what the criteria is. There wont be any harmful emissions but physical presence may be more of an unknown
@@tomduneofficial I guess it’t the vast quantity of highly charged particles produced by large quantities of low orbit satellites that concern me.
If only considering known science data as parametres of atmosphere, without speculations about conwspiracy theories, than we can just compare it with the impact of solar winds on atmosphere. Sometimes more, sometimes less. And the worst thing is if those satellites possess some dangerous chemicals or emulate dangerous waves. Low-orbit satellites may search our planet better those on being far from the Earth.
This would be a good defense against the Kessler syndrome. Very low earth orbit will have a low density of space junk.
Also a potent military technolgy
If you can get them low enough they'll be able to maneuver a bit using the atmosphere
If you can counteract the increase in mass of course.