I’m starting a PhD at MIT in the fall studying nuclear fusion, my career goal is to start a company that builds fusion rocket engines. Love your videos!
"Alright folks. That's it, we're done" I practically heard that in Cave Johnson's voice. Imagine a channel like this but everything is narrated/explained by him.
I... am so excited! Amazing writing and gorgeous animations. I am a high school student looking into aerospace engineering and astronomy for University in a couple of years, and man, the recent influx of interesting material in these fields has me excited.
A really cool type of fusion research that's going on is called Focus Fusion, and it needs to get more attention imo. It's aneutronic and only requires hydrogen and boron for the fusion process
Dr Bussard was a champion of aneuteonic fusion with his electrostatic fusion systems; boron...11 if I recall. There was funding for this for several years and then it somewhat disappeared. Lockheed's high Beta approach has fallen off the screens but seemed to deal with fusion reaction problems... the reality may be combining these technologies. A direct conversion MHD loop would yield a more compact design. Again, the focus has to have sustained research.
@@francisdavis1271 yeah it's boron 11 for focus fusion too, Dr Learner over in Lawrenceville, NJ is still putting in research for it, but it really doesn't get enough attention
Your channel is the most underrated channel of youtube. Your content is of really really great quality and you deserve more views. Just keep in mind that you have a smaller(its all relative my friend) but a super dedicated fan base. Love from a subscriber(from India) of yours and an appreciator of your good work.
I have said this before, but I love your work, the effort you put in from initial research to final product is exceptional. And it clearly shows in the final resaults. I will always look forward to the next installment, all this effort is very much appreciated. Thank you.
I'm in high school, and I want to go into Nuclear Engineering and Physics and I would like to go into space to get Nuclear fuels, the future is exciting!
Second generation nuclear fusion reactors will focus on using ordinary, normal, light hydrogen. No need to go into space to get nuclear fuels any more. If you're interested in nuclear fusion research, check out the Fusion Industry Association's UA-cam channel: Fusion Industry Association - UA-cam ua-cam.com/channels/QSc-BFbCpFJjhZldM3BOcQ.htmlvideos
Hey, Quick suggestion: I never saw your post about the second channel in my feed, i only found out about it when i scrolled back through your community posts. I suggest you leave links for it on your description so more people find it, as it's a great resource that deserves more subs :)
And one more suggestion to keep posting videos on other channel. Like what you do every day with your video projects, your table setup etc. It makes your viewers to connect directly.
@@SubjectZeroScience This is about the only useful thing for fusion because it is strictly a battery plain and simple it takes more energy put in than it puts out... This is why fusion will never be a valid energy source it's just a glorified battery...
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler fusion does not do that sir, our current experiments put in more energy due to other reasons, continuous fusion reactors are fully expected to produce far far more energy than we put into them.
I like how he doesnt dedicate any mass to the mars lander, I just imagine a astronaut inside a Falcon heavy payload faring entering the mars athmosphere at interplanetary speeds. Also $65m per flight to mars is way to cheap (SLS cries in overbudget).
Also mass of spacecraft itself (with all life support, power generation, etc). And funny thing to consider is fact that someone will need to design washing machine system that works in space. (because right now old clothes are treated in same way as crap)
@@NeelamSingh-ij5td the tesla, that spaceX put in space has a aphelion of 1.66 AU, while mars has an average distance of 1.53 au. For that demonstration they recovered the lower stage boosters. So as long as your mars mission weighs less than 1.3t it should be possible to reuse falcon heavy.
I´d honestly rather go with nuclear salt water rockets. Even better ISP and all the comfort of continuous thrust, plus it should be a lot cheaper to manufacture.
@@cosmic_cupcakeI've been wondering lately... has anyone ever tried to work out a sort of "2-stage" THERMONUCLEAR salt water rocket wherein a "normal" self-igniting pure fission NSWR at the smallest scale possible is used as a "first stage" for a surrounding and much larger fusion-based stage?
I feel like I was watching a demonstration of the Epstein Drive in action. That lithium casing around the plasma makes me think of a fuel pellet for the drive in The Expanse.
Great video as always and not only that, I love the way you take a complicated project/idea/concept and make it easy for any to understand, plus the great animation work. Looking forward to the next video👍
It’s actually very possible to creat fusion reactions almost as efficient as DT fuel that are aneutronic, aka almost no neutrons. Also the fuel cell in the plasmids would likely be deuterized erbium. Recently nasa published a paper on this process I highly recommend anybody interested in nuclear physics should read.
@@PetrGladkikh hmmm Well Iter is only a research machine. Perhaps it will take 5-10 years to tune up the technologies needed for the EUROfusion demo reactor which perhaps will take another 15 years to build. Finally an actual commercial reactor, hopefully will be ready for 2060 if all goes well. And usually things get delayed a lot in this multi national and complex projects. And don't forget we're going to run out of helium in the meantime and if we can't get suoerconducting magnets working with another liguid gas we're kind of screwed. And the we must figure out how to build a space fusion reactor
I remember 12 years ago that Fusion was 12 years away seems to always be about 12 years away and now it's 23 a theme with this technology is developing
And one more suggestion to keep posting videos on other channel. Like what you do every day with your video projects, your table setup etc. It makes your viewers to connect directly.
you DO have to put in energy for every fusion to take place, so the whole payload can't explode uncontrollably. You could, of course, fuse more fuel at once than intended, but I believe this isn't an easy mistake to make due to the large input energy that each atom requires to fuse. You'd need to simultaneously send more fuel into the chamber, input a dramatic amount of extra energy than in spec, and still maintain tight magnetic control over the larger mass.
9:20 - Hey Captain, somebody has placed an atomic bomb in the back of the spaceship. - hahaha you Joe, joking again with that... we all know the risks of riding a fusion rocket, but it is a very well proven and safe technology. - No sir... I am serious this time, look thru the window, someone has put a WWII nuke over there!
I want to nitpick and be pedantic but with the way you present the subject and how clear and concise you do it, I'm just going to say: good job, the video was great
One item is missing in your equation. What energy is going to start the fusion reaction, the necessary magnetic field etc? Or better, where are you going to get the energy from?
I was thinking the same thing, you still need to apply a large amount of energy to the magnetic rings to compress the fusion products inside the lithium shell, so another source of energy is required to power the magnetic part of the drive, maybe a modular nuclear reactor or something, but now you're adding more weight to the ship.
The one working on this is Dr. Slough, for those interested. Been following his work for about a decade. His design, if/when it works, can also produce electrical power. Small correction for 0:34-1:01: solar panels produce power, not energy. It would take about 1.7 hours for stated 0.7 km2 of solar to produce stated 845 GJ, assuming a standard 200 W/m2 panel. Or, with average USA weather (CF=24.7%), you would need 0.00054 km2 to produce that energy within a year. Math: 845e9 J /(.7e6 m2 * 200 W/m2 * 3600 s/hr) = 1.68 hr, 845e9 J /(365 dy/yr * 24 hr/dy * 3600 s/hr * 200 W/m2 * 0.247 CF * 1e6 m2/km2)=0.000542 km2
Craft going to Mars also need to have lateral spin for simulated gravity and with a double hull with water , sewage and other liquids held in tanks between the hulls this provides quite a bit of radiation shielding.
Also far better thing to do with Falcon Heavy would be building ship in LEO (because that rocket is great for LEO). No one would want to sit half a year in tiny capsule and they could maybe use Raptors (which have much higher efficiency than Merlins and could be refueled on Mars).
That joke at the end made me giggle. ITER is on it’s way but it will start experiments in 2040’s Makes me think how to put such a giant structure as ITER on the back of a starship? Hopefully in my lifetime I’m only 24
In fairness, much of the initial construction time is due to the lack of manufacturing know-how, and ongoing refinement of the process. I'd expect future projects, once one proves successful, to go substantially quicker (a couple years instead of a decade).
ITER is fairly different in function from this. It's after a sustainable contained fusion reaction with a net positive energy return, so the required components are likely to be pretty different at a guess
But hey. I keep thinking about this thing. So, the best would be, if there was a fusion powered spaceship, and it was SSTO (single stage to orbit). So it would use its fusion drive to take off from Earth, and then go wherever we want. But, since its nuclear (i guess the most powerful fusion is nuclear fusion?), it would be no good for the environment, i mean, it emits radiation right? Im not sure about it tho. So if some1 do, please answer.
You would launch the fusion drive engine conventionally. Then launch the capsule with its own engine, eg, spaceX. The two would be interconnect the fusion drive to the capsule to fusion power it to Mars. On Mars the fusion drive would be left in orbit. And the capsule would land on Mars. The return trip, you would reverse this.
a kugelblitz black hole would actually be the most efficient drive system, but you basically require gamma ray mirror, which I don't think are possible, but like if you can make them then you can make a kugelblitz black hole. Also you need a stupid amount of energy, but like the sun puts out a bunch of energy and you "only" need like 10% if the suns output to make a kugelblitz black hole, and if you have a gamma ray mirror you can probably make a gamma ray laser, which you also need to convert the suns energy into gamma rays because you need to focus enough energy in a little bit bigger than the plank length, which means you need the highest energy 'light' to stand a chance. bonus if you have a gamma ray mirror is that you can reflect the energy coming off the kugelblitz black hole, rather than the brute force method of blocking the gamma rays and turning them into IR which can be reflected to create thrust, also if you have near perfect gamma ray mirrors you can theoretically maintain a very high power kugelblitz black hole as the lower the mass the higher the output, but also the shorter the lifespan.
Well, you got a lot of the theory right ... except for the fusing to become more massive part. It's the opposite actually ... When the hydrogen reactants fuse to produce a heavier element helium, the overall mass is reduced, which is where energy is supposedly going to come from during the fusion process. e = mc^2 ... resultant helium-4, is lower in mass, by about 0.7%, than the reactants that went into creating it, which is where the energy comes from.
I would LOVE to see this CG idea mated up with a Full starship (Here after SS.)? Kinda like the idea that one SS would bring the drive up and put it into a parking orbit. Then they would send up a number of fuel SS to be in waiting for the Crew SS to arrive. Then the Crew SS launches, meets up with the refueling SS allowing them to return for refilling, then the Crew SS would move and dock with the Fusion drive module before lighting the candle as it were and making the trip to Mars. Once in Mars orbit the Crew SS would detach from the Drive module and use the fuel onboard and it's chem raptors to land the SS and complete their mission. Once they are done they could then launch the Crew SS and meet up with the Drive module before making the return burn back to Earth! This would be a truly epic use of the combined tech and I could easily see the SS being able to make this much more possible. Also just a note that was overlooked in your data is that while with CURRENT operating rockets you are correct you failed to take into account that the SS has a MUCH higher payload to orbit ratio then anything currently out there PLUS will be slated to cost a fraction of the operating cost that even the Falcon Heavy currently dose.
Totally missed that there are new videos out, and I am even a Patreon member, haha, my fault for not checking. So this is a pleasant surprise! Because SZS makes really the BEST infographics and motion graphics of all science channels!!
That's a really cool texh I wonder if once we have a ship yard build on orbit ion thrusters will win out I feel like fusion is just so unessercly needs to have perfect condition kinda reminds me of the nuclear explosion as thurst method awesome stuff can't wait for future space travel im currently 22 and I hope I get to see it
If you use He3 the reaction is easier to start and control and you have less radiation as if I remember correctly that reaction doesn't give off lots of neutrons.
Can you please cover the latest fusion test that was done using lasers? And how much the latest test has improved since previous tests. How close are we to a stable self sustaining fusion reaction? Thanks and Cheers!
Excellent video, this propulsion system would not be good for interstellar travel however because it consumes lithium. Whats needed for interstellar travel is a fission rocket that consumes only uranium or plutonium. A ship that travels at a constant 1g acceleration rate can get to Alpha Centauri in 3.6 ship/7.3 Earth years (and that includes turning the ship around half way and decelerating) or span the entire diameter of our galaxy in 12 ship/113,000 Earth years. The ship would achieve about .95% light speed after about 1 year. A 10 ton ship would need a mere 10 tons of continuous thrust. If you want to see a new fission rocket concept watch my video "liquid plutonium rocket" it also has info on the constant 1g acceleration method.
So much clean energy... I wonder why this technology doesnt receive the deserved attention from people. The progress on building a functioning and cost-effective fusion reactor is so slow, yet this tech could revolutionize our world.
Not sure about fussion but nuclear thermal engine is worse than chemical in atmosphere, which means that you still need chemical rocket. Which is most of energy needed (if you don't use fussion for lander, which is pretty unlikely).
Thing is that you still need a lot of fuel to get there. But refueling stations on Moon (and maybe even Phobos) would help, at the same time I'm not sure about fuel for fusion.
@@ImieNazwiskoOK Watch the movie MOON. The one thing the movie got right is that the surface of the Moon is rich in Helium 3 and this is the best fusion reactor fuel.
@@pauleveritt3388 The railgun would need to be HUGE and have massive solar farm. I think that at the size of such railgun even curvature of Moon would need to be concidered. Also making refueling station on Phobos (or Moon) would also greatly help. Even though Moon is "rich" in Helium 3 you need 1000 tons for 2.8 grams of Helium 3. I'm just guessing but if Moon has helium 3 from solar wind, Phobos also might have some.
Beamed power propulsion is currently possible and not only beats fusion, but also antimatter Combined with proposed magnetic reconnection electric propulsion, extremely fast trips to Mars could be made. The orbiting solar powered laser stations required could perhaps be developed in a fairly short time frame.
I believe Falcon Heavy was chosen because it is the most powerful and has the highest payload capacity of the current operational rockets (Saturn V overcomes it, but it was retired in 1973 after the Apollo program ended). Since Starship is still in its prototype phase and we do not know its full capabilities, it does not make sense to use it (yet).
This is the first time I've ever felt the need to correct you, but your comparisons are a bit off... Falcon Heavy is never intended to launch humans to Mars, it is a heavy lift to orbit system only. The true comparison should of been against Starship which has been designed from the ground up as a Mars return vehicle. The vehicle will be the pinnacle of chemical rocket technology. Using the new Raptor engines which are full-flow staged combustion meaning great efficiency and power. 31 of these will power the main booster (Completely reusable) producing 65 Million Newtons of thrust, compared to Falcon Heavies 22.8 MN of thrust. The Merlin engine that you reference has a specific impulse of around 282s at Sea Level, where as the Raptor is around 360s, with the Vacuum version around 378 Isp. Both the first stage (Booster) and Second stage (Starship) are completely reusable with the Cargo variant taking around 150 Tons to Mars (with orbital refueling), because they are completely reusable with far simpler design than Falcon (Fuels can all be made on site) the cost of launching tumbles to very reasonable numbers the more launches it does. And one more thing to put into comparison, the crewed version of Starship has a pressurised payload of around 1000 Cubic Metres, that is the equivalent of a 747 going to Mars... I don't disagree that Fusion would be a huge leap, but I would of included this as the true comparison (Apples to Apples) as both are for Mars and both are pinnacles of technology. One other point I'd make that even with a Fusion drive, you need a Vacuum variant because of the way these engines are currently designed (paper designs), which means it will need to be lifted into Orbit first most likely using chemical engines. Other than this, great video!
Probably space only. While these engines seem like they reduce the amount of radiation produced, they don't, they just direct less of it toward the crew. The immediate area around the landing site is going to be bathed in intense neutron and gamma radiation so if you're one of the crew you can forget about going outside for a few days after landing just to let the radiation calm down. Powered landings and that will have to be left up to smaller conventionally powered shuttle craft..
I wonder if one day, instead of using standard propulsion based on thrust from reaction between particles, maybe we will discover a way to interact with space itself to move around. I know, I know it sounds like sci-fi, but I do still wonder if such thing could be possible :) EDIT: Oh lol, someone actually wrote a paper about such concept :D
@@thefoundingtitanerenyeager2345 Nope, warp drive warps space via gravity to shorten distance, thus move "faster" between point A and point B. I am talking about different type of interaction, where space is treated as e.g. fluid. We already know that gravitational effect can cause space to behave sort of like fluid, where the effect of this interaction is formation of gravitational waves. Now the question is whether space can have different interactions, and as far I can see there are already people who are working on this theory which is good to hear :)
Another technology to consider might be Interstellar Research Groups "23 -- Andrew Higgins - Dynamic Soaring as a Means to Exceed the Solar Wind Speed" and "10 Missions Enabled by Plasma Magnet Sails".
I give a lot of hope in the development of the process, but I would have to say it would need to be tested thoroughly before any lives are risked in a journey like that. Engines are marvelous things when they work, but often the more complex that you make something, the more chances there are for it to malfunction at some point. Perhaps, as crazy as it sounds, when the scientists think they have it right, a small version of the ship could be sent by remote, crewed with a few A.I. bots, and plenty of sensors to monitor everything on board, and have the ship make the trip and return to orbit a few times, as proof of concept. You can simulate something, and make short runs to see operation, but only when you put them through the constant stresses of real operation will you truly know how well your design will perform. I truly hope to see the start of that before my lifetime is over, and wish our best and brightest the best of luck in this goal!🙂
Prinston Satellite Systems already has a Fusion engine prototype it measures 1 m wide and 10 m long it produces between 10 and 20 N of thrust you should all check it out
Electromagnetic fusion drives may give way to Gravitational wave fusion drives. If gravity wave manipulation is how UAP's are able to fly it seems that gravity waves could replace EM fields as a means to achieve fusion in these engines. Plasma could be contained using those gravity waves.
One thing to note here: While fusion rockets would obviously be great for interplanetary travel (and power generation, if we can build something like this as a power plant) it doesn't really solve the hardest problem with space exploration - getting things off earth. You don't want to use an engine like this to take off from earth because you'll be spewing neutron radiation (as well as probably quite a bit of alpha and gamma) absolutely everywhere.
The radiation during ground launch could be solved by launching in a remote area in a silo. Alpha and Gamma radiation doesn't stick around, and Alpha particles will get stopped easily by even the thinnest of barriers. and Gamma radiation while can penetrate decently thick concrete wouldn't go very far in atmosphere so its definitely possible. Open cycle Fission rockets on the other hand would definitely have long term radiation contamination problems.
Great video and animations. I have a question/thought on this proposed engine. Would it not be simpler to use deuterium-deuterium fusion, instead of using tritium-deuterium? I understand less energy is generated by deuterium only fusion, but if I'm not mistaken there would be no neutrons that are ejected from the reaction, which would avoid energy loss and damage to the engine. Additionally, tritium is enormously expensive from my understanding, deuterium, on the other hand, is considerably cheaper which could drastically reduced costs. So am I missing something hear? Why not pursue deuterium-deuterium fusion engines? Edit: But on second look, it seems that deuterium-deuterium fusion still ejects neutrons to generate helium-3, which makes my point moot, this makes me sad
I think the main drawback is the power source for the magnets all the energy going to thrust is a great way to boost efficiency but that means the heat and pressure don’t contribute to the next fusion pulse right? So I the ship would probably need to use NEP to power the magnets and that will increase the overall size but with so little damage from the fusion reaction it can probably be reusable.
Cool idea, SpaceX’s method may be a little less efficient but it could still be very cheap. Starship will be very cheap (5x 2 mil for mars) and could, in theory, hold 100 people.
I’m starting a PhD at MIT in the fall studying nuclear fusion, my career goal is to start a company that builds fusion rocket engines. Love your videos!
So one of you possible future job is at ITER then?
Thank you
Good luck!! :)
Please keep me posted - I would like to make it to the lunar surface before I die
Even if its decades from now, don`t loose that dream, keep it at the back of your head.
I just want to say, stupendous animation.
I'm so hyped now.
Doesn't work. The counciousness has a time limit.
The spacecraft doesn’t have enough radiator fins
@@smallpeople172 7:00 the lithium shell reduces the need for significant cooling fins apparently
@@nic.h the lithium shell would then just melt
Hopefully the first crew will make sure to double check the voice control shutoff. Nobody wants to pull a Solomon Epstien on the first flight
Also make sure to have monolithic shiny robot named TARS
Won't help, as it's extremely hard to talk at high g. Better just put controls into the seat's armrests (as was done in more modern Expance ships).
@@solarissv777 Or just make it mostly automatic.
But emergency controls is good idea.
I was just thinking before the intro sequence: "You know what this is like? This is like The Expanse." (But less stressful. 😌)
That poor guy lost the control just because of chinese Alexa.
"Alright folks. That's it, we're done" I practically heard that in Cave Johnson's voice.
Imagine a channel like this but everything is narrated/explained by him.
I want to hear about JK Simmons' lax safety concerns involving nuclear energy.
I... am so excited! Amazing writing and gorgeous animations. I am a high school student looking into aerospace engineering and astronomy for University in a couple of years, and man, the recent influx of interesting material in these fields has me excited.
Same !
Except im in grade 8 and i have a lot^100 goals but I'll get there
A really cool type of fusion research that's going on is called Focus Fusion, and it needs to get more attention imo. It's aneutronic and only requires hydrogen and boron for the fusion process
Dr Bussard was a champion of aneuteonic fusion with his electrostatic fusion systems; boron...11 if I recall. There was funding for this for several years and then it somewhat disappeared. Lockheed's high Beta approach has fallen off the screens but seemed to deal with fusion reaction problems... the reality may be combining these technologies. A direct conversion MHD loop would yield a more compact design. Again, the focus has to have sustained research.
@@francisdavis1271 yeah it's boron 11 for focus fusion too, Dr Learner over in Lawrenceville, NJ is still putting in research for it, but it really doesn't get enough attention
I live in Karachi Pakistan and I like your comment
@@francisdavis1271 I live in Karachi Pakistan and I like your comment if you don't mind
Afaik that's one of the hardest fusion reactions to achieve
Your channel is the most underrated channel of youtube. Your content is of really really great quality and you deserve more views. Just keep in mind that you have a smaller(its all relative my friend) but a super dedicated fan base.
Love from a subscriber(from India) of yours and an appreciator of your good work.
I have said this before, but I love your work, the effort you put in from initial research to final product is exceptional. And it clearly shows in the final resaults.
I will always look forward to the next installment, all this effort is very much appreciated. Thank you.
One of my favourite channels about science on UA-cam.
I'm in high school, and I want to go into Nuclear Engineering and Physics and I would like to go into space to get Nuclear fuels, the future is exciting!
me too broh
Second generation nuclear fusion reactors will focus on using ordinary, normal, light hydrogen. No need to go into space to get nuclear fuels any more.
If you're interested in nuclear fusion research, check out the Fusion Industry Association's UA-cam channel:
Fusion Industry Association - UA-cam
ua-cam.com/channels/QSc-BFbCpFJjhZldM3BOcQ.htmlvideos
generally speaking the future has lots of variables, the only human constant seems to be violence
Hey, Quick suggestion: I never saw your post about the second channel in my feed, i only found out about it when i scrolled back through your community posts. I suggest you leave links for it on your description so more people find it, as it's a great resource that deserves more subs :)
Thanks, didn't know either.
Here's the link to the 2'nd channel 'Raf The SubjectZERO' ua-cam.com/channels/OtZHI2phEdHXthC0ati-vw.html
And one more suggestion to keep posting videos on other channel.
Like what you do every day with your video projects, your table setup etc.
It makes your viewers to connect directly.
The fusion rocket looks like a subject zero logo from its back
That's some really good skill to recognise.
You got it.
@@SubjectZeroScience This is about the only useful thing for fusion because it is strictly a battery plain and simple it takes more energy put in than it puts out... This is why fusion will never be a valid energy source it's just a glorified battery...
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler fusion does not do that sir, our current experiments put in more energy due to other reasons, continuous fusion reactors are fully expected to produce far far more energy than we put into them.
@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler You don't know what you're talking about.
I like how he doesnt dedicate any mass to the mars lander, I just imagine a astronaut inside a Falcon heavy payload faring entering the mars athmosphere at interplanetary speeds. Also $65m per flight to mars is way to cheap (SLS cries in overbudget).
Also mass of spacecraft itself (with all life support, power generation, etc).
And funny thing to consider is fact that someone will need to design washing machine system that works in space. (because right now old clothes are treated in same way as crap)
Actually falcon heavy cannot be reusable if there is a mission to Mars
@@NeelamSingh-ij5td It can
@@NeelamSingh-ij5td the tesla, that spaceX put in space has a aphelion of 1.66 AU, while mars has an average distance of 1.53 au. For that demonstration they recovered the lower stage boosters. So as long as your mars mission weighs less than 1.3t it should be possible to reuse falcon heavy.
@@ImieNazwiskoOK well actually no
I liked the dramatic pause before the massive amount of animation work
I think I will use one of this thrusters to make my personal spaceship
Don't make it too efficient, or at least figure out a way to disengage it if you're stuck to your chair because of the acceleration
@@bmallory I got that reference
I too
I´d honestly rather go with nuclear salt water rockets. Even better ISP and all the comfort of continuous thrust, plus it should be a lot cheaper to manufacture.
@@cosmic_cupcakeI've been wondering lately... has anyone ever tried to work out a sort of "2-stage" THERMONUCLEAR salt water rocket wherein a "normal" self-igniting pure fission NSWR at the smallest scale possible is used as a "first stage" for a surrounding and much larger fusion-based stage?
I feel like I was watching a demonstration of the Epstein Drive in action. That lithium casing around the plasma makes me think of a fuel pellet for the drive in The Expanse.
Well, the Epstein drive was magnetic confinement fusion as they talk about magnetic coils being used to boost the drive.
This is the next generation of colonisation by the British. 🇬🇧 I'm proud to be British. 🇬🇧 I'm Malaysian. 🇲🇾
Love the ship design, both cool and realistic looking
Can't wait to see this happening now.
There is absolutely NO requirement that says you must use only one vessel to send people/equipment/supplies to Mars.
That's why we're sending 8 at a time.
anyone else getting "Expanse" vibes here?
Great video as always and not only that, I love the way you take a complicated project/idea/concept and make it easy for any to understand, plus the great animation work.
Looking forward to the next video👍
It’s actually very possible to creat fusion reactions almost as efficient as DT fuel that are aneutronic, aka almost no neutrons. Also the fuel cell in the plasmids would likely be deuterized erbium. Recently nasa published a paper on this process I highly recommend anybody interested in nuclear physics should read.
Sup dude love your videos bro
2094: still waiting for the Terrestrial fusion reactor to be finished
HAHAHA 2094 :) you're such an optimist!
@@JavierAlbinarrate yes, who would think that in 2094 we won't already have stopped trying.
Wish you stay healthy enough that you could come down in 2094 to read back your comment. 🙏👍
WAT... Have been having them for decates already. ITER is planneed to go live on 2025.
@@PetrGladkikh hmmm
Well Iter is only a research machine. Perhaps it will take 5-10 years to tune up the technologies needed for the EUROfusion demo reactor which perhaps will take another 15 years to build. Finally an actual commercial reactor, hopefully will be ready for 2060 if all goes well. And usually things get delayed a lot in this multi national and complex projects.
And don't forget we're going to run out of helium in the meantime and if we can't get suoerconducting magnets working with another liguid gas we're kind of screwed.
And the we must figure out how to build a space fusion reactor
Thank you for all your videos!
This is soo epicc. I love your videos! :D
I NEED you to come back to these videos now that people have made fusion technology
I remember 12 years ago that Fusion was 12 years away seems to always be about 12 years away and now it's 23 a theme with this technology is developing
And one more suggestion to keep posting videos on other channel.
Like what you do every day with your video projects, your table setup etc.
It makes your viewers to connect directly.
Everybody gangsta until the fusion chamber becomes unstable
or the liner mechanism jams
The fusion would just stop
It’s not a bomb like fission reactors
you DO have to put in energy for every fusion to take place, so the whole payload can't explode uncontrollably. You could, of course, fuse more fuel at once than intended, but I believe this isn't an easy mistake to make due to the large input energy that each atom requires to fuse. You'd need to simultaneously send more fuel into the chamber, input a dramatic amount of extra energy than in spec, and still maintain tight magnetic control over the larger mass.
@@tron359 well maybe the fusion chamber might be sabotaged by an...
*impostor*
**amogus drip song earrape plays**
I just looked up your channel again today less than an hour before you dropped this. Thanks for the quality content
9:20
- Hey Captain, somebody has placed an atomic bomb in the back of the spaceship.
- hahaha you Joe, joking again with that... we all know the risks of riding a fusion rocket, but it is a very well proven and safe technology.
- No sir... I am serious this time, look thru the window, someone has put a WWII nuke over there!
Now this is epic!
I want to nitpick and be pedantic but with the way you present the subject and how clear and concise you do it, I'm just going to say: good job, the video was great
This is by far the best science video I’ve seen in months… congratulations, keep up the excellent work!
One item is missing in your equation. What energy is going to start the fusion reaction, the necessary magnetic field etc? Or better, where are you going to get the energy from?
Get a friend to push you then turn the key.
I was thinking the same thing, you still need to apply a large amount of energy to the magnetic rings to compress the fusion products inside the lithium shell, so another source of energy is required to power the magnetic part of the drive, maybe a modular nuclear reactor or something, but now you're adding more weight to the ship.
essential point.
Fusion rockets go brrrr
there is no sound in space so they dont! ;-)
Brrrrrrr ;)
The one working on this is Dr. Slough, for those interested. Been following his work for about a decade. His design, if/when it works, can also produce electrical power.
Small correction for 0:34-1:01: solar panels produce power, not energy. It would take about 1.7 hours for stated 0.7 km2 of solar to produce stated 845 GJ, assuming a standard 200 W/m2 panel. Or, with average USA weather (CF=24.7%), you would need 0.00054 km2 to produce that energy within a year.
Math: 845e9 J /(.7e6 m2 * 200 W/m2 * 3600 s/hr) = 1.68 hr, 845e9 J /(365 dy/yr * 24 hr/dy * 3600 s/hr * 200 W/m2 * 0.247 CF * 1e6 m2/km2)=0.000542 km2
Craft going to Mars also need to have lateral spin for simulated gravity and with a double hull with water , sewage and other liquids held in tanks between the hulls this provides quite a bit of radiation shielding.
Why no mentioning of Starship?
*Antimatter:*
I'm about to end this guys whole career.
nice maths !
However using the falcon heavy instead of the starship for mass colonization of Mars don't seems like a likely scenario
Also far better thing to do with Falcon Heavy would be building ship in LEO (because that rocket is great for LEO).
No one would want to sit half a year in tiny capsule and they could maybe use Raptors (which have much higher efficiency than Merlins and could be refueled on Mars).
Starship for Mars colonization is just a pipedream
@@luigeribeiro please go into more details
That joke at the end made me giggle. ITER is on it’s way but it will start experiments in 2040’s
Makes me think how to put such a giant structure as ITER on the back of a starship? Hopefully in my lifetime
I’m only 24
Bro, don't worry. You will see starships built. (could be in matrix tough xD
You don’t. You use a wendelstein 7x derivative. Much more portable.
In fairness, much of the initial construction time is due to the lack of manufacturing know-how, and ongoing refinement of the process. I'd expect future projects, once one proves successful, to go substantially quicker (a couple years instead of a decade).
ITER is fairly different in function from this. It's after a sustainable contained fusion reaction with a net positive energy return, so the required components are likely to be pretty different at a guess
Antimatter/ matter reactions outstrip fusion by a wide margin and is just as realistic as a fusion power plant or rocket
But hey. I keep thinking about this thing. So, the best would be, if there was a fusion powered spaceship, and it was SSTO (single stage to orbit). So it would use its fusion drive to take off from Earth, and then go wherever we want. But, since its nuclear (i guess the most powerful fusion is nuclear fusion?), it would be no good for the environment, i mean, it emits radiation right? Im not sure about it tho. So if some1 do, please answer.
You would launch the fusion drive engine conventionally. Then launch the capsule with its own engine, eg, spaceX. The two would be interconnect the fusion drive to the capsule to fusion power it to Mars. On Mars the fusion drive would be left in orbit. And the capsule would land on Mars.
The return trip, you would reverse this.
a kugelblitz black hole would actually be the most efficient drive system, but you basically require gamma ray mirror, which I don't think are possible, but like if you can make them then you can make a kugelblitz black hole. Also you need a stupid amount of energy, but like the sun puts out a bunch of energy and you "only" need like 10% if the suns output to make a kugelblitz black hole, and if you have a gamma ray mirror you can probably make a gamma ray laser, which you also need to convert the suns energy into gamma rays because you need to focus enough energy in a little bit bigger than the plank length, which means you need the highest energy 'light' to stand a chance.
bonus if you have a gamma ray mirror is that you can reflect the energy coming off the kugelblitz black hole, rather than the brute force method of blocking the gamma rays and turning them into IR which can be reflected to create thrust, also if you have near perfect gamma ray mirrors you can theoretically maintain a very high power kugelblitz black hole as the lower the mass the higher the output, but also the shorter the lifespan.
Nuclear pulse propulsion is the best way to get humans to Mars in the near future.
I thunk you mean in the distant future!
Channel name acronym: Sub-Zero
Channel content: 100 million degree celsius
Well, you got a lot of the theory right ... except for the fusing to become more massive part. It's the opposite actually ... When the hydrogen reactants fuse to produce a heavier element helium, the overall mass is reduced, which is where energy is supposedly going to come from during the fusion process. e = mc^2 ... resultant helium-4, is lower in mass, by about 0.7%, than the reactants that went into creating it, which is where the energy comes from.
This channel is underrated
I would LOVE to see this CG idea mated up with a Full starship (Here after SS.)? Kinda like the idea that one SS would bring the drive up and put it into a parking orbit. Then they would send up a number of fuel SS to be in waiting for the Crew SS to arrive. Then the Crew SS launches, meets up with the refueling SS allowing them to return for refilling, then the Crew SS would move and dock with the Fusion drive module before lighting the candle as it were and making the trip to Mars. Once in Mars orbit the Crew SS would detach from the Drive module and use the fuel onboard and it's chem raptors to land the SS and complete their mission. Once they are done they could then launch the Crew SS and meet up with the Drive module before making the return burn back to Earth! This would be a truly epic use of the combined tech and I could easily see the SS being able to make this much more possible. Also just a note that was overlooked in your data is that while with CURRENT operating rockets you are correct you failed to take into account that the SS has a MUCH higher payload to orbit ratio then anything currently out there PLUS will be slated to cost a fraction of the operating cost that even the Falcon Heavy currently dose.
Totally missed that there are new videos out, and I am even a Patreon member, haha, my fault for not checking. So this is a pleasant surprise! Because SZS makes really the BEST infographics and motion graphics of all science channels!!
That's a really cool texh I wonder if once we have a ship yard build on orbit ion thrusters will win out I feel like fusion is just so unessercly needs to have perfect condition kinda reminds me of the nuclear explosion as thurst method awesome stuff can't wait for future space travel im currently 22 and I hope I get to see it
I wonder how that will look like when they need to turn around
"We gotta turn around!"
"Yeah just get out and push!"
If you use He3 the reaction is easier to start and control and you have less radiation as if I remember correctly that reaction doesn't give off lots of neutrons.
This channel is incredible!
Can you please cover the latest fusion test that was done using lasers? And how much the latest test has improved since previous tests. How close are we to a stable self sustaining fusion reaction? Thanks and Cheers!
Excellent video, this propulsion system would not be good for interstellar travel however because it consumes lithium. Whats needed for interstellar travel is a fission rocket that consumes only uranium or plutonium. A ship that travels at a constant 1g acceleration rate can get to Alpha Centauri in 3.6 ship/7.3 Earth years (and that includes turning the ship around half way and decelerating) or span the entire diameter of our galaxy in 12 ship/113,000 Earth years. The ship would achieve about .95% light speed after about 1 year. A 10 ton ship would need a mere 10 tons of continuous thrust. If you want to see a new fission rocket concept watch my video "liquid plutonium rocket" it also has info on the constant 1g acceleration method.
Excellent presentation and visualization!
Much appreciated!👍
So much clean energy... I wonder why this technology doesnt receive the deserved attention from people. The progress on building a functioning and cost-effective fusion reactor is so slow, yet this tech could revolutionize our world.
Not sure about fussion but nuclear thermal engine is worse than chemical in atmosphere, which means that you still need chemical rocket.
Which is most of energy needed (if you don't use fussion for lander, which is pretty unlikely).
You didn't mention the possibility of orbital refuel which brings the mars payload efficiency above 50
and a base on the moon probably would help
Thing is that you still need a lot of fuel to get there.
But refueling stations on Moon (and maybe even Phobos) would help, at the same time I'm not sure about fuel for fusion.
@@Franklin_Araujo Launching supplies from a lunar railgun would greatly reduce the cost of supply runs to Mars.
@@ImieNazwiskoOK Watch the movie MOON. The one thing the movie got right is that the surface of the Moon is rich in Helium 3 and this is the best fusion reactor fuel.
@@pauleveritt3388 The railgun would need to be HUGE and have massive solar farm.
I think that at the size of such railgun even curvature of Moon would need to be concidered.
Also making refueling station on Phobos (or Moon) would also greatly help.
Even though Moon is "rich" in Helium 3 you need 1000 tons for 2.8 grams of Helium 3.
I'm just guessing but if Moon has helium 3 from solar wind, Phobos also might have some.
Beamed power propulsion is currently possible and not only beats fusion, but also antimatter Combined with proposed magnetic reconnection electric propulsion, extremely fast trips to Mars could be made. The orbiting solar powered laser stations required could perhaps be developed in a fairly short time frame.
Idk why, but this channel is like a Group of Interest of the The Foundation.
The Foundation?
Would have preferred to see a comparison to Starship and not falcon heavy.
I believe Falcon Heavy was chosen because it is the most powerful and has the highest payload capacity of the current operational rockets (Saturn V overcomes it, but it was retired in 1973 after the Apollo program ended). Since Starship is still in its prototype phase and we do not know its full capabilities, it does not make sense to use it (yet).
How much comparison do you need to see the folly that is Starship to Mars for practical cost and health reasons. He spells it out wonderfully here.
I hope to some day be able to understand this whole video. But it's still informative!
8:42 thats gotta be a NICE! trip :D
Seems a fairly easy problem to solve. Maybe a bigger problem surviving the stay on Mars and the return home. Interesting work. See you on Mars soon?
This is the first time I've ever felt the need to correct you, but your comparisons are a bit off...
Falcon Heavy is never intended to launch humans to Mars, it is a heavy lift to orbit system only.
The true comparison should of been against Starship which has been designed from the ground up as a Mars return vehicle. The vehicle will be the pinnacle of chemical rocket technology. Using the new Raptor engines which are full-flow staged combustion meaning great efficiency and power. 31 of these will power the main booster (Completely reusable) producing 65 Million Newtons of thrust, compared to Falcon Heavies 22.8 MN of thrust.
The Merlin engine that you reference has a specific impulse of around 282s at Sea Level, where as the Raptor is around 360s, with the Vacuum version around 378 Isp.
Both the first stage (Booster) and Second stage (Starship) are completely reusable with the Cargo variant taking around 150 Tons to Mars (with orbital refueling), because they are completely reusable with far simpler design than Falcon (Fuels can all be made on site) the cost of launching tumbles to very reasonable numbers the more launches it does.
And one more thing to put into comparison, the crewed version of Starship has a pressurised payload of around 1000 Cubic Metres, that is the equivalent of a 747 going to Mars...
I don't disagree that Fusion would be a huge leap, but I would of included this as the true comparison (Apples to Apples) as both are for Mars and both are pinnacles of technology.
One other point I'd make that even with a Fusion drive, you need a Vacuum variant because of the way these engines are currently designed (paper designs), which means it will need to be lifted into Orbit first most likely using chemical engines.
Other than this, great video!
I love these aperture science references.
now say " I Used To Be An Adventurer Like You, Then I Took An Arrow In The Knee" lol just busting ya chops mate. great mini doc.
After watching Artemis 1 recently launch going to the moon, I'll be very excited to see fusion accelerate missions to Mars.
One day we will look back and see how far we were from the answer to space travel
Yeeeesss!!! I love when you drop a new vid!!! I always look forward to them.
Would these kinds of ships be space to space only or would they also be capable of takeoff and landing on their own?
Probably space only. While these engines seem like they reduce the amount of radiation produced, they don't, they just direct less of it toward the crew. The immediate area around the landing site is going to be bathed in intense neutron and gamma radiation so if you're one of the crew you can forget about going outside for a few days after landing just to let the radiation calm down.
Powered landings and that will have to be left up to smaller conventionally powered shuttle craft..
Is there possibility of a video using Positron Dymamics of an antimatter drive please loved the video.
Aneutronic fusion fuels like He3 & Deuterium should do the trick
UA-cam: Subject Zero Science Uploaded:
My DNA: [Click]
Me: see video
My brain: [The Expanse theme starts playing]
I wonder if one day, instead of using standard propulsion based on thrust from reaction between particles, maybe we will discover a way to interact with space itself to move around.
I know, I know it sounds like sci-fi, but I do still wonder if such thing could be possible :)
EDIT: Oh lol, someone actually wrote a paper about such concept :D
That’s warp drive your talking about
@@thefoundingtitanerenyeager2345 Nope, warp drive warps space via gravity to shorten distance, thus move "faster" between point A and point B.
I am talking about different type of interaction, where space is treated as e.g. fluid. We already know that gravitational effect can cause space to behave sort of like fluid, where the effect of this interaction is formation of gravitational waves.
Now the question is whether space can have different interactions, and as far I can see there are already people who are working on this theory which is good to hear :)
Great animation and content bro
Another technology to consider might be Interstellar Research Groups "23 -- Andrew Higgins - Dynamic Soaring as a Means to Exceed the Solar Wind Speed" and "10 Missions Enabled by Plasma Magnet Sails".
Can you make a video of electromagnetic hammer, not many people understand how it work and you could inspiring younger generations too.
This channel is all about Quality😍😍😍😍😍❤❤❤❤
Fusion has yet to be achieved.
I give a lot of hope in the development of the process, but I would have to say it would need to be tested thoroughly before any lives are risked in a journey like that. Engines are marvelous things when they work, but often the more complex that you make something, the more chances there are for it to malfunction at some point.
Perhaps, as crazy as it sounds, when the scientists think they have it right, a small version of the ship could be sent by remote, crewed with a few A.I. bots, and plenty of sensors to monitor everything on board, and have the ship make the trip and return to orbit a few times, as proof of concept.
You can simulate something, and make short runs to see operation, but only when you put them through the constant stresses of real operation will you truly know how well your design will perform.
I truly hope to see the start of that before my lifetime is over, and wish our best and brightest the best of luck in this goal!🙂
Prinston Satellite Systems already has a Fusion engine prototype it measures 1 m wide and 10 m long it produces between 10 and 20 N of thrust you should all check it out
Nice! Thanks for uploading
I suggest as design an exo and autonomus structure fitting to a Starship and for space trip only no landing.
Electromagnetic fusion drives may give way to Gravitational wave fusion drives. If gravity wave manipulation is how UAP's are able to fly it seems that gravity waves could replace EM fields as a means to achieve fusion in these engines. Plasma could be contained using those gravity waves.
UAP aren't real.
One thing to note here: While fusion rockets would obviously be great for interplanetary travel (and power generation, if we can build something like this as a power plant) it doesn't really solve the hardest problem with space exploration - getting things off earth. You don't want to use an engine like this to take off from earth because you'll be spewing neutron radiation (as well as probably quite a bit of alpha and gamma) absolutely everywhere.
The radiation during ground launch could be solved by launching in a remote area in a silo. Alpha and Gamma radiation doesn't stick around, and Alpha particles will get stopped easily by even the thinnest of barriers. and Gamma radiation while can penetrate decently thick concrete wouldn't go very far in atmosphere so its definitely possible.
Open cycle Fission rockets on the other hand would definitely have long term radiation contamination problems.
Why is Falcon 9 center engine nozzle larger than the rest?
Because the animator needs to be spanked. The Falcon 9 uses 9 identical Merlin 1-D engines.
Great video and animations.
I have a question/thought on this proposed engine. Would it not be simpler to use deuterium-deuterium fusion, instead of using tritium-deuterium? I understand less energy is generated by deuterium only fusion, but if I'm not mistaken there would be no neutrons that are ejected from the reaction, which would avoid energy loss and damage to the engine. Additionally, tritium is enormously expensive from my understanding, deuterium, on the other hand, is considerably cheaper which could drastically reduced costs. So am I missing something hear? Why not pursue deuterium-deuterium fusion engines?
Edit: But on second look, it seems that deuterium-deuterium fusion still ejects neutrons to generate helium-3, which makes my point moot, this makes me sad
You should change your titles to something more clickbaity or catchy to get more attention. This content is amazing and really deserves more eyes!
Thanks for yet another great video.
I think the main drawback is the power source for the magnets all the energy going to thrust is a great way to boost efficiency but that means the heat and pressure don’t contribute to the next fusion pulse right? So I the ship would probably need to use NEP to power the magnets and that will increase the overall size but with so little damage from the fusion reaction it can probably be reusable.
Cool idea, SpaceX’s method may be a little less efficient but it could still be very cheap. Starship will be very cheap (5x 2 mil for mars) and could, in theory, hold 100 people.
Him: fusion is the fastest propulsion.
Anti-Matter: am I a joke to you?
Who's here after the fusion power breakthrough?