One at a time, BFR first, then we talk about the possibility of Nuclear thermal rockets. It is a very exciting piece of technology no doubt, would love to know your idea on that. What do you think of a nuclear space tug complementing BFR?
Wouldn't the nuclear space tug be reusable? It wouldn't be used for landing, just to cut down travel times to reach Mars and the Asteroid Belt. Once you reach your destination you enter orbit and disengage from the nuclear tug and use chemical rockets to land in the surface.
Yep thats what i was about to say. The BFR is no walk in the park. It will have to work reliably 100% of the time every time. Just one full crew disaster and it could end the project overnight. SpaceX really need a viable contingency plan, especially when it comes to crew safety on this ship. Lets just get the BFR 100% right, someone else can concentrate on the nuclear propulsion side of things for now. 🚀
I think a nuclear powered space tug for BFR would be amazing for deep space missioms, but i think R&D cost are just too high to develop it by SpaceX itself. It would be grat if NASA would continue their work on nuclear propulsion
After BFR spacex will probably just build a even bigger BFR specifically for mars travel. And then probably a even bigger one. After that we can talk about fancy new tech being used. But the scale of the rockets will just get bigger.
A few points: until the reactor starts up there is no nuclear waste. As the reactor only operates for minutes the quantity of waste generated is very low. The reactor exhaust is not radioactive as the coolant does not spend much time in the reactor and irradiated hydrogen is deuterium which is pretty common in the environment. Finally use of a nuclear reactor in space is not prohibited by any treaty. Nuclear pulse propulsion is against the nuclear test ban treaty.
Once the industry in space is set up I could certainly see the BFR eventually becoming the shuttle from space and the surface, transporting resources and people, accompanying a much larger ship that is built only to operate in space being powered by nuclear propulsion. That's why I personally believe we should industrialize the moon first. I feel it would make the effort of colonizing mars (and other planetary bodies) more sustainable.
We can have a Mars and Moon operation. There will be periods of years in which we can't send spacecraft to and from Mars. While we wait to do that we can focus efforts on other projects such as a Lunar, and exotic destinations such as Venus. There's no sense in having another LEO space station be the replacement for ISS.
You're both misinterpreting what I meant. Industrializing the one first would mean we aren't limited to what we can get into space as everything we need is on the moon. Splitting time/resources between two massive projects would be inefficient when completing A (the moon) first will make B (Mars) and all the way to Z (everything else) much easier.
Alucian Lucida you’re right establishing a base on the moon would make things easier and once we establish a base on mars we can send humans anywhere in the solar system
From what I read, the moon is not an alternative but rather a complement to go with. Rationale would be to have heavy ships built on the moon rather than Earth. From what i understand raw materials on the moon are not that much needed on earth because same type and heavy transportation costs. This nevertheless becomes an advantage when you want to build a space industry on the moon. That means designs can be made on earth but produced on the moon. This won't even require people but only robots which could be monitored from Earth thanks to small time lag in transmission. Moon would be ideal at building, maintenance and refueling of space ships. General comment is more about economic viability of space ? Apart from satellites in orbit and tourism (very much overrated i believe), what can be made in space and sold to Earth ? This is the key item and once it is solved we will send mission in space everywhere. In order to go to Mars and elsewhere we need to have a financial motivation which I fail to see today. Science is another topic already well covered by NASA and other agencies.
As Dr.Zubrin has stated repeatedly, better engines shouldn't be used to go to mars faster, but instead to bring more payload. The radiation astronauts would be exposed to on a 6 month trip to mars is almost the same as the radiation nasa has exposed their astronauts to onboard the ISS for long periods. However, mars itself provides little shielding. You're best off using the extra power to lug more supplies and utilities, which can double as shielding by placing the tanks or machines around the crewed compartment to soak up some rads that would otherwise reach the crew. This would also help solve the radiation problem after landing on mars, which will not go away.
Check permanent dot com - and read that orbital colonies are better than colonizing planets with lacking gravity/athmosphere, and sandstorms that last weeks and can cover half of planet. Exploiting Mars resources is a good thing, but that would be done mostly automated or controlled from orbital colony. Mars will have scientist outposts and work outposts, but most people will live in orbit. BTW We are not talking about 5 month mission or smth but about Colony, where generations will live.
@@karakarotoli2626 This may make brutal sense at first but entirely lacks the adventure, romanticism & human need for ground & sky, day & night, weather, open space etc.. Inwardly rugged folk will embrace the challenge & danger & consequences. It's in our DNA, in our ancestry & very much in our future too. No to this sterile dehumanizing nonsense.
I am going to have to disagree with the statement that N.T.R would not align with SpaceX's reusability focused mindset. The concept of an N.T.R rocket to shuttlecraft from Earth and Mars (among other destinations). NASA came up with that concept in part because it *IS* reusable. The idea of putting one on an orbital launch rocket doesn't make as much sense. But imagine a shuttle that could carry 4 or more BFR stage 2 rockets from Earth orbit to Mars orbit only to come back to Earth and do it all over again. NASA proved that those rockets are extremely reliable. The tests they did in the 60s had an engine run continuously longer than any other rocket engine in history. An NTR shuttle could probably be used for 10+ missions. And since each mission would be 25 months apart that could mean 20+ years of continuous use without maintenance. Not to mention that, because of the more fuel efficiency and the ability to carry multiple craft at once, the refueling process would involve a lot fewer launches. Currently, the plan is to have BFR refueled in orbit above Earth which could take between 3 and 5 launches for just the fuel. That means between 5 and 7 total launches for just one BFR to Mars. With NTR shuttle that system that could be reduced significantly. Which regardless of how cheap each launch will hopefully get, less luanches will mean even cheaper and put less wear and tare on the launch vehicle. In summary: I would be surprised if SpaceX doesn't in the next decade or two make a Nuclear Thermal Rocket for inter-planet shuttling.
OK.... First; the Apollo program was very popular with much of the public but Nixon hated Kennedy for defeating him a decade before and other things. Being an ass hole Nixon bullied Congress into cutting all funding for the Apollo program in spite of the fact that each launch was costing less while carrying more payload to the surface of the moon as advances were being made. Nixon's rage was so great that he cut the last 4 missions even though the rockets and equipment were already paid for. The rockets you see displayed on the ground at Huston and other Nasa sights where one step from going to the moon and could have except for Nixon. .The Space station of the 1970's was an attempt to use the hardware instead of scraping the rockets. Shame that no one had had time to figure out and build experiments for the Space Station or what to do with it yet. So it was a failure.... Fact is if the Apollo program had continued at the same funding level that the Space Shuttle had continued with over the last 48 years, with the Saturn launches a fraction of the cost of the Space Shuttle that could carry a small fraction of the cargo the Saturn could lift. Thousands of people would be working and living on the moon , hundreds would be living on a space station and we would be on Mars by now.
Being born in the mid '70's I was not privy to the politics of this decade or previous until I did my own research and when I came to find out just how much Nixon was involved with dismantling the space program, I became furious. And I usually vote republican...Having said that, hopefully the public is a lot smarter today, thanks to the internet, i know its a double-edged sword, but at least the info is available if the public seeks the truth...and we do not allow politicians to keep us from moving forward and progressing as a nation and ultimately one space faring/multi-planet species...
I'm older, so remember Nixon well. To his defense, it was a turbulent time when he won election. Viet Nam became his war, and was his top priority. In his first year in office came the first man on the moon. Kennedy's vision had been realized. He faced several choices during the Apollo missions on our direction in space. Manned Mars landing by mid 1980's, a shuttle to build a space station, or the space shuttle as a reusable space launcher, minus the station. He... and ourselves... were told it would "pay for itself" and make access to space affordable. Given those choices and not knowing the outcome, it seemed a better deal. Mars and a station could be decided once the cost came down. This was all decided in his first year, before all the political mess he caused. Ford wasn't in office long enough to make future decisions, but I believe it was Carter that mandated scrapping all expendable rockets, making the STS the only launch system for the nation. Plenty of blame to spread around here.
OK---- bilinct860---- Sorry but I was a Space Nut back then and hung on every detail and word anyone uttered on Apollo and Nasa and Nixon's tapes provided the proof. Nixon hated Kennedy and his moon program. the Space shuttle didn't come tell years later. Nixon didn't give a shit about space with the Shuttle not even a concept at that time and shut down the Apollo program with launchers and capsules and lunar landers already or partially built and funded. Badgering Congressmen until he got the Lunar program money cut and then dropped the hammer on all remaining flights even though Nasa had plenty of equipment with plans to establish a permanent outpost on the moon as the Sattern grew in power and lunar transfer orbit capability. Nixon was the one that kept saying the Public had lost interest as just one of the excuses with the Democrats screaming to us the money for welfare programs for the people, though the Nasa budget was a drop in the welfare programs bucket.The only time Nixon and the Democrats saw eye to eye.
Far into the future I could see BFR's assembling interplanetary ships on orbit that are purely built for vacuum, hundreds of meters long with thousands of passengers, while the BFS would serve as launch and reentry vehicles, kinda like the Orion capsule would dock to a NERVA powered interplanetary ship and use the capsule for entry in Constellation and now SLS. Every ship has a a bunch of BFS in hangars or docked and propellant tanks. By then we'd probably have something fancier than NERVA. Maybe torch drives?
221 b agree with you and let me add a few things. For an effective and practical way nerva rockets need some kind of geostationary (mars’o stationary) orbit station. For uplifting things from surface to space chemical rockets 🚀 are superior. The station could be a transit hub. Etc...
There is a company looking to build a big orbital station, something like Gateway Foundation, they basically plan on being the train stations, fuel depots and lounges for BFR and anyone else. You could then extend it to a shipyard and bring in an asteroid for the bulk of building materials and just ship high tech stuff like engines and computers from earth. Etc... :) The possibilities are endless once you have something like BFR in place.
If you have the delta-V you can burn later than the optimal hohmann transfer and aerocapture in the martian atmo. That is a more energetic trajectory and will get you there faster. With electric propulsion you better make sure your burn time is less than your transfer time or you'll never get there on your first pass.
This would allow Starship to save fuel as its towed to Mars for the return flight to Earth or maybe it would only need the fuel to leave Mars orbit and get another nuclear tow back to Earth. With this plan you don't even need to make the fuel on Mars as was originally planned even though that is still a good idea. This gives some more options in case there are any problems producing that fuel on Mars.
Specific impulse is the exit velocity of the exhaust gas divided by the gravity constant, not the length of time it takes to burn a pound of fuel. It was created so that even if you measure velocity in feet/sec or m/sec when it is divided by the gravity constant(9.81m/s/s) it will always be a value in seconds. This allows for efficiency to be compared without doing conversions from imperial to metric.
eoin connolly, absolutely correct. It is hard to make an engine do both high thrust and high impulse. We marvel at the infrequent exceptions that do not break the bank. Very high impulse engines generally seem to take a longer time to achieve their delta V than lower impulse but higher thrust engines. This is not surprising. The two goals are not synergistic but often conflict. The SLS has astonishingly efficient hydrogen engines, but they still have to add on solid boosters. Why not just double down on more hydrogen combustion?
soooo, nuclear rockets burn twice as long; and travel time from here to mars is normally 6 months like you said. So with nuclear propulsion it would be six divided by two yielding a 3 month ETA not two as you stated. Am I missing something?
The probability of a nuclear thermal rocket exploding is, as far as I know, pretty much exactly zero. The design simply does not use weapons grade nuclear material, it's not capable of sustaining an explosive chain reaction. Nuclear reactors don't explode when they go wrong, they melt down. Which is still bad, but not as bad as a nuclear explosion. And I don't even know if nuclear thermal rockets can suffer a meltdown anyway.
Rockets with rocket fuel can blow up how ever. So it's better Nuclear Material doesn't get caught up in any explosions that could happen for other reasons.
I think the explosion he is talking about is the booster rockets sitting underneath it. One could technically build an escape system for it, but there's still plenty chance it could go wrong and spread radioactive materials all around the launch zone.
Since BFRs can dock rear to rear, docking an NTR on the back should not be that much of a leap. If the BFR is built then whoever builds an NTR, (it does not need to be SpaceX), it being compatible with the BFR rear docking should be doable in any case.
Solanumtinkr, the BFR/BFS docking system should certainly be capable of attaching a BFS to a nuclear tug. However, the tug needs Hydrogen for each trip, which must be lifted from Earth, so additional plumbing is needed for supplying that new propellant, probably through the BFS. Sounds doable.
If you look at the BFR and how it intends to refule ships ro reach Mars.... Figuring out how to do that for an NTR also designed to dock with the same system... Just saying it becomes obvious. If the BFR(Ship) to BFR(Tanker) refuelling works, then half the work is already done. You just need a refuel the NTR using the same system, then I'd hope you can just leave the NTR in orbit.
This channel has come so far !! it is AMAZING. The contents are great, Presentation is perfect, and those Animations and drawings put everything nicely together. Keep going
Cutting over a month off the travel time to Mars is the most valuable part of a nuclear tug being attached to the BFR. When you get to Mars you want to hurry into the tunnels built by the Boring Company.
I agree with your assessment, SpaceX should focus on BFR and allow NASA to investigate the viability of NT Rocket Engines, each company giving their total attention to each project. Great video !
I honestly love your new video format where we are actually able to see you !!! To be honest it adds a sense of focus and expression !!! Keep up the super amazing work Lei 🔥🔥🔥
FEARbraveheart, first we need to produce flawless graphene tubes, many centimeters wide, kilometer(s) in length, and nested in a dozen concentric layers, possibly with a Lithium alloy as a composite holding millions of overlapping tubes together. Earth may not get graphene tethers until after Mars or Luna gets one. The reduced gravity makes the technology feasible there much earlier. Graphene has to be lifted from the Martian or Lunar surface up to a geostationary point (Lagrange point in the case of the Moon) before being deployed. Considering the cost of lifting, the graphene for Earth-based tethers will likely also come from Luna factories, lifted by a Lunar tether / elevator. Mars will supply its own graphene tether (from atmospheric CO2).
I would say as a cost-cutting measure it would be great but I would see this as post mars or moon base endeavor. Fule and weight to move things would be such a pain and be dealing with shielding from space you may need a rocket as big as a nuclear rocket to protect those being sent away from the earth to the moon or mars.
It comes down to cost. Nuclear is powerful but it's also very expensive for that cost. It's hard to imagine nuclear being cheaper than SpaceX's reusable chemical rocket goals.
You should always put science points into nuclear rockets, their ISP makes interplanetary return missions much easier, and they're basically a necessity for building long-range SSTOs. Oh wait this isn't KSP.
I dont see why they couldn't design a NTR drive pod that's designed to dock to the BFR upper stage using the same methods as 2 BFR ships docking for refueling. BFR gets launched, it meets up with a drive pod in orbit and the pod propells the BFR to its destination. the NTR gets left in orbit and refueled to propel future missions, still fits perfectly with SpaceX's rapid reuse-ability goal. Ya it does not make sense to have it built into the BFR itself, you dont really want those things going up and down more than you have to and their TWR is not ideal for launches/landings anyway. As a strap on pod however most of the issues go away aside from the political (aka nukes are scarry) ones.
Nice video. You doing a great job. One technical comment about your video. Seems to me that your sound is not synced to the video when you talk at the end segment. I seem to be VERY sensitive to minor delay and could notice it in professional production when they TV professionals told me that it should not be noticeable. I am sure you can fix this problem. Keep up your great work.
I think Elon still wants to build the ITS, so my bet is that some version of that rocket appears in 10 for so years. In the meantime, I think it will be companies other than Spacex that build the fuel depots, space stations, and possibly even the interplanetary orbit-to-orbit ships and tugs with advanced propulsion. They will all get to space however, on Spacex rockets.
You had the right word (politics) to explain why nuclear rockets never took off but the wrong description. A few decades ago some members of the public realized that radioisotope thermal generators that NASA was using for deep space probes contained (gasp) plutonium. This caused a huge public outcry and led to their eventual "ban". The odds of being allowed to launch anything with the words radioactive or nuclear associated with it are basically nil. Eventually we may be able to mine and refine nuclear fuel on the moon or perhaps asteroids. But until then, forget about it.
Thanks for your video! Something to consider with respect to faster Mars travel is that the 6-month journey is actually the best trajectory: this is the free return trajectory, which allows the explorers to swing around Mars and return directly to the Earth without a major burn. If Mars is covered by global dust storms or landing is made impossible for some other reason, the 6-month trajectory allows them free return to the Earth. Any faster, and the explorers fly out farther out into deep space and won’t find the Earth when they get to 1 a.u. Improved propulsion is eminently desirable, but instead of speed a better safety feature is improved radiation shielding and redundant life support systems. (These ideas come from Dr. Robert Zubrin)
I wouldn't lower the trip time from 6 months to 2 months, instead I'd increase the payload. 6 months to Mars is preferable because if something happens, and you're unable to land on Mars, then on a 6 months trip you'll have a free-return to Earth.
My grandfather worked on NERVA. He's got some cool stories. Part of the current problem is that all the engineers that worked on NERVA and the other projects are very old or dead. My grandfather is 86, so to an extent a lot of the original effort is lost and new nuclear engines would more or less have to start from scratch.
I don't understand why we would use nuclear thermal rockets over a ion engine. Do ion engines only start to have a gain over conventional engines after a year of travel??
If propelled only by ion engines, a craft could take nearly a year just to break out of Earth orbit, spending A LOT of time in the radiation belts. Not good. This is why there is so much interest in the VASIMR engine concept, able to "shift gears" from high-thrust (to break orbit) to high-efficiency (for the cruise to Mars). Or you could build a bimodal nuclear rocket: nuclear thermal to start the trip, then switch over to electrical generation to power an ion drive.
BFR can be used for a long time, it doesnt need to be replaced like the smaller inadequate sized rockets in the past. If we mine water in space and create fuel for spaceships in space then we dont have to worry about changing from a oxygen/hydrogen fuel source.
Lovely. Thank you for your thoughtful take. By the way, thank all of you who have seen this video and have taken the time to comment. on this , each and every one of us who take the time to respond to this content is appreciated.
Another huge problem is hydrogen boil off. No material we have can successfully contain liquid hydrogen for long periods of time. The molecules are just too damn small that they pass through the tank. This is why deep space propulsion systems today don't use cryogenic fuels but instead hypergolic fuels (which are also better for many manuevers and orbit keeping). The BFR uses cryogenic methane, which doesn't have this problem, but has inferior specific impulse compared to hydrolox. If a deep space nuclear propulsion space craft is to be made, we will need some sort of breakthrough in material science
You can put the tanks in a really good freezer :P If you got a nuclear reactor you can run cryogenic heat pumps for as long as you need to reduce the problem.
Specific impulse is ALWAYS important. If you can double your Isp at the same thrust, you only need 60% of the propellant for the same dV. There is no reason you couldn't design a NTR to have a high enough thrust to allow terrestrial liftoff. The problem for use on a reusable rocket is that you will want people on board at some point, so you need shielding for the radiation. That is where the mass penalty comes in that makes NTRs not feasible for launches.
1:44 bad phrasing, the fuel is a nuclear rocket is not the hydrogen, its the nuclear material, which has much higher energy density then any chemical, the propellant is the hydrogen, in a chemical rocket the fuel and the propellant are are the same. 3:07 incorrect, nuclear can only be used in upper stages (currently) because they don't produce enough thrust to be used in lower stages.
Why does the exhaust having less mass mean the engine is more efficient? I'd think that the amount of dV per kg of fuel is dependent on nothing but exhaust velocity?
Just my 2¢... I think SpaceX *should* develop NTRs. SpaceX identifies it's "ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets," which is why it remains a private company instead of making an IPO... so that investors can't pressure Musk out of his true vision. NTRs enable double the payload from Earth, and also can be used on Mars as "hoppers" to rapidly traverse the martian surface using the native atmosphere as propellant, eliminating the need for in situ chemical fuel synthesis. Since nuclear development is usually very slow because of the NRC, SpaceX should start as soon as BFR is operational.
AFAIK, Neuclear Thermal rockets (NTR), although they represent an incremental upgrade over chemical propulsion, still fall well short of the efficiency of the xenon based ion drive that carried us to vesta and ceres, and which is our current best option for interplanetary travel. I picture NTR as being best suited for orbital transitions burns such as from LEO to TLI for high mass payloads, or from LEO into an insertion onto, and off of, the "Interplanetary Highway" orbital network. Once inserted onto the IHON, you could then essentially switch thruster gears to the higher efficiency of ion drive for further speed increases ... then you would reverse the process for deceleration via NTR to inject into orbit around your destination planet. This is outside of wheelhouse, but i am guessing were in a wait and see stage at the moment, as things like vasamir are able to be tested in LEO, and seeing if ion drive can be scaled up for larger payloads, and then of course there is the big questionmark about the "impossible" electodynamic drive. EDIT: Looks like i reinvented the space tug concept covered at 5:00 ... thats what i get for posting before having finished watching the whole vid.
One doesn't need a large team (just a few talented individuals, perhaps part-time) to keep an eye on the future and do rough conceptual design based on best advancing nuclear rocket technology (fission and fusion). 2-way feedback between this team and BFR Enterprise could ensure that the re-design-gap to incorporate a nuclear propulsion system is minimized.
I like these contradictory/"Fight fire with fire" solutions to problems. "There's too much radiation exposure when going to mars" "I know, strap some radioactive material to the engine and we should be fine!"
It's not only the mass of the thrust that provides the thrust, it's more so the pressure difference of the engine and the atmosphere. The merlin engines have a higher chamber pressure than previous engines, thus higher thrust to weight. Pressure wants to go from high zone to low zone.
I saw a video about Mars's radiation levels, it said, the radiation level is twice as high as we were expecting. This may lead to withdraw the whole idea of colonizing Mars.
I'm sure that SpaceX thought about this when they designed the BFR, but went wiothy for methane because it can be produced on Mars very easily which is a huge advantage.
my only criticism is that you failed to mention weight related to shielding from the reactor core as one of the main reasons they never kept going with it.
There are ideas on how to use fission thermal engines for take off from Earth. They can be made to not spew out any radioactive material. A fission thermal engine is simple and cheap, there's not much need for reusing them. The engine consists of uranium that gets depleted anyway. When the propellant (hydrogen) runs out, the engine is pushed away since it will overheat and explode if the uranium parts aren't separated to below critical density.
This was not 100 % only 2 of 3 boosters came back, Statistics made on one go are meaningless nevetheless the real point is there is no real Falcon heavy. This is a combination of 3 modified Falcon 9. As such not something new but only an upgrade. BFR is something else with new engines and that will be the real test. Anyhow, new or not Falcon heavy is a fine achievement.
A Warp Drive Starship has been discussed in other UA-cam videos & the topic is very interesting 🧐. Yet these videos are on in theories. There’s talks about how a warp drive can work but no actions to building a warp drive. Perhaps within the next 100 years we will finally fly fast than the speed of light. Flying faster 💨 than the speed of sound has been accomplished by Chuck Yeager back in 1947 at I think 700 mph. I’ll be dead when we invent a warp drive. Lol 😆.
I think transfer vehicles in general could be a possible step. A long as the mars plans are successful. Then the BFS is used as a LEO and LowMarsOrbit Shuttle. Switch to the transfer vehicle which is faster and has more space for comfort reasons and here you go.
yea. it could be the successor to falcon 9 as it would be replaced eventually after bfr comes out. but its going to be hard to land the nuclear engine first/second stages
Hey, where do you get that information about Space Tug from 1969, I`d like to read it more deeply. And thanks for this video, a huge chunk of info for me!
One big misconception in this video is the idea that nuclear rockets would be used to reach mars faster instead of just using them to carry more payload for the same amount of spent fuel. While they are more efficient, they are not *so* efficient that it would be economical to make use of ourtrageously inefficient trajectories just to save time. In space travel, due to the fact that rockets are mostly composed of fuel (even the nuclear ones), payload capacity is the most valuable comodity. In short, time is cheap, payload capacity is expensive. Using the same rocket, it is preferable to use an optimal trajectory and reach mars in 6 months with loads of payload than to use an inefficient trajectory reaching it in 2 months with almost no payload.
Cool video, nice that we have a prace for this conversation. The details I'd live to see the sources for the clips - like the NERVA cuttings; 2nd of all Isp isn't all - when v=0 at surface thrust is king; so yeah go nuclear once in orbit; looking forward for more videos, keep up the good job!
BFR will be used to move people off planets, up and down that way they wont have to worry about planetary entry speeds. Nuclear will be used for in space ships to transport between planets. After BFR lays the ground work for a mars colony. Several trips off planet to put people into the ships, same thing on mars.
I think we are heading towards vacuum based nuclear rockets, but nearly as you’ve described, not allowing them to be used within LEO but outside of this only. I believe more concerns will be raised about nuclear waste and the potential for radioactivity to enter the atmospheric areas of the Earth.
"USA won the space race" - That is not true. The space race didn't have the goal to go to the moon. It was about first doing the next step and achieving the next record. At the end, this step was landing on the moon, which the USA did (first and only). But before, the Soviet Union achieved almost all steps first. (first satellite, first animal, first human, first space walk, first photo of the moon's far side, first space station)
DerKrawallkeks We won the space race. It was an ultimate scramble for the moon from the moment Kennedy gave his famous speech, and the US, though way behind the SU from the start, caught up and did the impossible. No one denies that the United States won except you.
If putting a man on the moon and returning him safely was the prize, then the US won. NASA has also led with interplanetary probes and Mars rovers, landers and orbiters.
Spot on with the use of NTP on cycler spacecraft to Mars/Moon. If NTP remains difficult there's also the option of VASIMR plasma engines if that technology proves itself. Last I heard they had a VASIMR test engine attached to the ISS.
Nuclear propulsion doesn't necessarily mean low thrust for re-usability: one example is the one you did, that is to leave it in orbit, but this could make problems with refueling, increasing the cost of the mission. Another solution is to put one nuclear engine surrounded by some merlin engines, using the nuclear one in the vacuum and the merlin to land
it depends on the mission goals and parameters. since SpaceX does not recover Second stage on her Falcon 9 flights that is an application which can be used for deep space missions not requiring the BFR.
One at a time, BFR first, then we talk about the possibility of Nuclear thermal rockets. It is a very exciting piece of technology no doubt, would love to know your idea on that. What do you think of a nuclear space tug complementing BFR?
Curious Elephant The space tug idea is pretty damn good. But yeah, BFR first.
Two words:
*SEA DRAGON*
Wouldn't the nuclear space tug be reusable? It wouldn't be used for landing, just to cut down travel times to reach Mars and the Asteroid Belt. Once you reach your destination you enter orbit and disengage from the nuclear tug and use chemical rockets to land in the surface.
Yep thats what i was about to say. The BFR is no walk in the park. It will have to work reliably 100% of the time every time. Just one full crew disaster and it could end the project overnight. SpaceX really need a viable contingency plan, especially when it comes to crew safety on this ship. Lets just get the BFR 100% right, someone else can concentrate on the nuclear propulsion side of things for now. 🚀
I think a nuclear powered space tug for BFR would be amazing for deep space missioms, but i think R&D cost are just too high to develop it by SpaceX itself. It would be grat if NASA would continue their work on nuclear propulsion
After BFR spacex will probably just build a even bigger BFR specifically for mars travel. And then probably a even bigger one. After that we can talk about fancy new tech being used. But the scale of the rockets will just get bigger.
A few points: until the reactor starts up there is no nuclear waste. As the reactor only operates for minutes the quantity of waste generated is very low. The reactor exhaust is not radioactive as the coolant does not spend much time in the reactor and irradiated hydrogen is deuterium which is pretty common in the environment. Finally use of a nuclear reactor in space is not prohibited by any treaty. Nuclear pulse propulsion is against the nuclear test ban treaty.
Once the industry in space is set up I could certainly see the BFR eventually becoming the shuttle from space and the surface, transporting resources and people, accompanying a much larger ship that is built only to operate in space being powered by nuclear propulsion. That's why I personally believe we should industrialize the moon first. I feel it would make the effort of colonizing mars (and other planetary bodies) more sustainable.
Go big or go home.
Let's not do either of them first - let's do both simultaneously!
We can have a Mars and Moon operation. There will be periods of years in which we can't send spacecraft to and from Mars. While we wait to do that we can focus efforts on other projects such as a Lunar, and exotic destinations such as Venus.
There's no sense in having another LEO space station be the replacement for ISS.
You're both misinterpreting what I meant. Industrializing the one first would mean we aren't limited to what we can get into space as everything we need is on the moon. Splitting time/resources between two massive projects would be inefficient when completing A (the moon) first will make B (Mars) and all the way to Z (everything else) much easier.
Alucian Lucida you’re right establishing a base on the moon would make things easier and once we establish a base on mars we can send humans anywhere in the solar system
From what I read, the moon is not an alternative but rather a complement to go with. Rationale would be to have heavy ships built on the moon rather than Earth. From what i understand raw materials on the moon are not that much needed on earth because same type and heavy transportation costs. This nevertheless becomes an advantage when you want to build a space industry on the moon. That means designs can be made on earth but produced on the moon. This won't even require people but only robots which could be monitored from Earth thanks to small time lag in transmission. Moon would be ideal at building, maintenance and refueling of space ships.
General comment is more about economic viability of space ? Apart from satellites in orbit and tourism (very much overrated i believe), what can be made in space and sold to Earth ? This is the key item and once it is solved we will send mission in space everywhere. In order to go to Mars and elsewhere we need to have a financial motivation which I fail to see today. Science is another topic already well covered by NASA and other agencies.
As Dr.Zubrin has stated repeatedly, better engines shouldn't be used to go to mars faster, but instead to bring more payload. The radiation astronauts would be exposed to on a 6 month trip to mars is almost the same as the radiation nasa has exposed their astronauts to onboard the ISS for long periods. However, mars itself provides little shielding. You're best off using the extra power to lug more supplies and utilities, which can double as shielding by placing the tanks or machines around the crewed compartment to soak up some rads that would otherwise reach the crew. This would also help solve the radiation problem after landing on mars, which will not go away.
Powered by a Zubrin nuclear salt water rocket.
Talk about mars colony designs,i'd be thrilled
Check permanent dot com - and read that orbital colonies are better than colonizing planets with lacking gravity/athmosphere, and sandstorms that last weeks and can cover half of planet. Exploiting Mars resources is a good thing, but that would be done mostly automated or controlled from orbital colony. Mars will have scientist outposts and work outposts, but most people will live in orbit. BTW We are not talking about 5 month mission or smth but about Colony, where generations will live.
@@karakarotoli2626 This may make brutal sense at first but entirely lacks the adventure, romanticism & human need for ground & sky, day & night, weather, open space etc..
Inwardly rugged folk will embrace the challenge & danger & consequences. It's in our DNA, in our ancestry & very much in our future too.
No to this sterile dehumanizing nonsense.
Poor Buzz Aldrin gets overlooked again. 🤭
C'mon you are killing me with your sense of humour
You love talking about space rockets don't you? 😜
haha I do, I love them
I am going to have to disagree with the statement that N.T.R would not align with SpaceX's reusability focused mindset. The concept of an N.T.R rocket to shuttlecraft from Earth and Mars (among other destinations). NASA came up with that concept in part because it *IS* reusable. The idea of putting one on an orbital launch rocket doesn't make as much sense. But imagine a shuttle that could carry 4 or more BFR stage 2 rockets from Earth orbit to Mars orbit only to come back to Earth and do it all over again. NASA proved that those rockets are extremely reliable. The tests they did in the 60s had an engine run continuously longer than any other rocket engine in history. An NTR shuttle could probably be used for 10+ missions. And since each mission would be 25 months apart that could mean 20+ years of continuous use without maintenance. Not to mention that, because of the more fuel efficiency and the ability to carry multiple craft at once, the refueling process would involve a lot fewer launches. Currently, the plan is to have BFR refueled in orbit above Earth which could take between 3 and 5 launches for just the fuel. That means between 5 and 7 total launches for just one BFR to Mars. With NTR shuttle that system that could be reduced significantly. Which regardless of how cheap each launch will hopefully get, less luanches will mean even cheaper and put less wear and tare on the launch vehicle.
In summary: I would be surprised if SpaceX doesn't in the next decade or two make a Nuclear Thermal Rocket for inter-planet shuttling.
I love the way you make videos, really enjoyable!
The arrow you have pointed @2:32 is service module not the 3rd stage.
OK.... First; the Apollo program was very popular with much of the public but Nixon hated Kennedy for defeating him a decade before and other things. Being an ass hole Nixon bullied Congress into cutting all funding for the Apollo program in spite of the fact that each launch was costing less while carrying more payload to the surface of the moon as advances were being made. Nixon's rage was so great that he cut the last 4 missions even though the rockets and equipment were already paid for. The rockets you see displayed on the ground at Huston and other Nasa sights where one step from going to the moon and could have except for Nixon. .The Space station of the 1970's was an attempt to use the hardware instead of scraping the rockets. Shame that no one had had time to figure out and build experiments for the Space Station or what to do with it yet. So it was a failure.... Fact is if the Apollo program had continued at the same funding level that the Space Shuttle had continued with over the last 48 years, with the Saturn launches a fraction of the cost of the Space Shuttle that could carry a small fraction of the cargo the Saturn could lift. Thousands of people would be working and living on the moon , hundreds would be living on a space station and we would be on Mars by now.
So true!!!! Hit the nail squarely on the head with this comment.
Totally agree.
Being born in the mid '70's I was not privy to the politics of this decade or previous until I did my own research and when I came to find out just how much Nixon was involved with dismantling the space program, I became furious. And I usually vote republican...Having said that, hopefully the public is a lot smarter today, thanks to the internet, i know its a double-edged sword, but at least the info is available if the public seeks the truth...and we do not allow politicians to keep us from moving forward and progressing as a nation and ultimately one space faring/multi-planet species...
I'm older, so remember Nixon well. To his defense, it was a turbulent time when he won election. Viet Nam became his war, and was his top priority. In his first year in office came the first man on the moon. Kennedy's vision had been realized. He faced several choices during the Apollo missions on our direction in space. Manned Mars landing by mid 1980's, a shuttle to build a space station, or the space shuttle as a reusable space launcher, minus the station. He... and ourselves... were told it would "pay for itself" and make access to space affordable. Given those choices and not knowing the outcome, it seemed a better deal. Mars and a station could be decided once the cost came down. This was all decided in his first year, before all the political mess he caused. Ford wasn't in office long enough to make future decisions, but I believe it was Carter that mandated scrapping all expendable rockets, making the STS the only launch system for the nation. Plenty of blame to spread around here.
OK---- bilinct860---- Sorry but I was a Space Nut back then and hung on every detail and word anyone uttered on Apollo and Nasa and Nixon's tapes provided the proof. Nixon hated Kennedy and his moon program. the Space shuttle didn't come tell years later. Nixon didn't give a shit about space with the Shuttle not even a concept at that time and shut down the Apollo program with launchers and capsules and lunar landers already or partially built and funded. Badgering Congressmen until he got the Lunar program money cut and then dropped the hammer on all remaining flights even though Nasa had plenty of equipment with plans to establish a permanent outpost on the moon as the Sattern grew in power and lunar transfer orbit capability. Nixon was the one that kept saying the Public had lost interest as just one of the excuses with the Democrats screaming to us the money for welfare programs for the people, though the Nasa budget was a drop in the welfare programs bucket.The only time Nixon and the Democrats saw eye to eye.
Far into the future I could see BFR's assembling interplanetary ships on orbit that are purely built for vacuum, hundreds of meters long with thousands of passengers, while the BFS would serve as launch and reentry vehicles, kinda like the Orion capsule would dock to a NERVA powered interplanetary ship and use the capsule for entry in Constellation and now SLS. Every ship has a a bunch of BFS in hangars or docked and propellant tanks. By then we'd probably have something fancier than NERVA. Maybe torch drives?
221 b agree with you and let me add a few things. For an effective and practical way nerva rockets need some kind of geostationary (mars’o stationary) orbit station. For uplifting things from surface to space chemical rockets 🚀 are superior. The station could be a transit hub. Etc...
There is a company looking to build a big orbital station, something like Gateway Foundation, they basically plan on being the train stations, fuel depots and lounges for BFR and anyone else. You could then extend it to a shipyard and bring in an asteroid for the bulk of building materials and just ship high tech stuff like engines and computers from earth. Etc... :)
The possibilities are endless once you have something like BFR in place.
221 b This is the way I imagine it too. Yes firstly the BFR then anything else.
It wont reach the destination faster, just more efficiently according to my understanding, please do correct me if I am wrong though 1:40
If you have the delta-V you can burn later than the optimal hohmann transfer and aerocapture in the martian atmo. That is a more energetic trajectory and will get you there faster.
With electric propulsion you better make sure your burn time is less than your transfer time or you'll never get there on your first pass.
Thank you for the great content. I always enjoy your videos. SPACE FORCE!
yoda " the force be with you " :)) cheers
It's extra money to develop space infrastructure. Something that is definitely needed.
This would allow Starship to save fuel as its towed to Mars for the return flight to Earth or maybe it would only need the fuel to leave Mars orbit and get another nuclear tow back to Earth. With this plan you don't even need to make the fuel on Mars as was originally planned even though that is still a good idea. This gives some more options in case there are any problems producing that fuel on Mars.
Specific impulse is the exit velocity of the exhaust gas divided by the gravity constant, not the length of time it takes to burn a pound of fuel.
It was created so that even if you measure velocity in feet/sec or m/sec when it is divided by the gravity constant(9.81m/s/s) it will always be a value in seconds. This allows for efficiency to be compared without doing conversions from imperial to metric.
eoin connolly, absolutely correct.
It is hard to make an engine do both high thrust and high impulse. We marvel at the infrequent exceptions that do not break the bank.
Very high impulse engines generally seem to take a longer time to achieve their delta V than lower impulse but higher thrust engines. This is not surprising. The two goals are not synergistic but often conflict. The SLS has astonishingly efficient hydrogen engines, but they still have to add on solid boosters. Why not just double down on more hydrogen combustion?
Clear as glass i get it
soooo, nuclear rockets burn twice as long; and travel time from here to mars is normally 6 months like you said. So with nuclear propulsion it would be six divided by two yielding a 3 month ETA not two as you stated. Am I missing something?
Nuclear Thermal Engines should only be used once outside of earths gravity. If anything goes wrong then it can blow up in space and not in earth.
The probability of a nuclear thermal rocket exploding is, as far as I know, pretty much exactly zero. The design simply does not use weapons grade nuclear material, it's not capable of sustaining an explosive chain reaction.
Nuclear reactors don't explode when they go wrong, they melt down. Which is still bad, but not as bad as a nuclear explosion. And I don't even know if nuclear thermal rockets can suffer a meltdown anyway.
Rockets with rocket fuel can blow up how ever. So it's better Nuclear Material doesn't get caught up in any explosions that could happen for other reasons.
I think the explosion he is talking about is the booster rockets sitting underneath it. One could technically build an escape system for it, but there's still plenty chance it could go wrong and spread radioactive materials all around the launch zone.
Nuclear makes big explosion so there is no pretty much chance to escape but except if there is a warning
@@jamiezyt7644 "makes big explosion"... no. More like meltdown if anything.
Damn dude you're teaching me rocket science, like literally!
Yihao Xie do you feel smart?
yeah me too. better than our high school teacher :))
Not in the least
If this is rocket Science for you, then we have a real problem. This stuff is really basic.
Since BFRs can dock rear to rear, docking an NTR on the back should not be that much of a leap.
If the BFR is built then whoever builds an NTR, (it does not need to be SpaceX), it being compatible with the BFR rear docking should be doable in any case.
Solanumtinkr, the BFR/BFS docking system should certainly be capable of attaching a BFS to a nuclear tug. However, the tug needs Hydrogen for each trip, which must be lifted from Earth, so additional plumbing is needed for supplying that new propellant, probably through the BFS. Sounds doable.
If you look at the BFR and how it intends to refule ships ro reach Mars.... Figuring out how to do that for an NTR also designed to dock with the same system... Just saying it becomes obvious. If the BFR(Ship) to BFR(Tanker) refuelling works, then half the work is already done. You just need a refuel the NTR using the same system, then I'd hope you can just leave the NTR in orbit.
The satellite launcher variant of the BFR could launch a fuel tank with hydrogen which could then dock with the nuclear rocket.
It's not a problem for me in KSP.
This channel has come so far !! it is AMAZING. The contents are great, Presentation is perfect, and those Animations and drawings put everything nicely together. Keep going
Cutting over a month off the travel time to Mars is the most valuable part of a nuclear tug being attached to the BFR. When you get to Mars you want to hurry into the tunnels built by the Boring Company.
I agree with your assessment, SpaceX should focus on BFR and allow NASA to investigate the viability of NT Rocket Engines, each company giving their total attention to each project. Great video !
I honestly love your new video format where we are actually able to see you !!! To be honest it adds a sense of focus and expression !!!
Keep up the super amazing work Lei 🔥🔥🔥
"SpaceX wants to launch rockets again and again"
I wonder how far we are away from space elevators (centuries, I'd assume)? is the technology even remotely plausible?
Space elevators need graphene tethers, which we cannot currently manufacture. Skyhooks are a similar but lower tech solution.
FEARbraveheart, first we need to produce flawless graphene tubes, many centimeters wide, kilometer(s) in length, and nested in a dozen concentric layers, possibly with a Lithium alloy as a composite holding millions of overlapping tubes together.
Earth may not get graphene tethers until after Mars or Luna gets one. The reduced gravity makes the technology feasible there much earlier.
Graphene has to be lifted from the Martian or Lunar surface up to a geostationary point (Lagrange point in the case of the Moon) before being deployed.
Considering the cost of lifting, the graphene for Earth-based tethers will likely also come from Luna factories, lifted by a Lunar tether / elevator.
Mars will supply its own graphene tether (from atmospheric CO2).
I would say as a cost-cutting measure it would be great but I would see this as post mars or moon base endeavor.
Fule and weight to move things would be such a pain and be dealing with shielding from space you may need a rocket as big as a nuclear rocket to protect those being sent away from the earth to the moon or mars.
It comes down to cost. Nuclear is powerful but it's also very expensive for that cost. It's hard to imagine nuclear being cheaper than SpaceX's reusable chemical rocket goals.
You're passionate about space exploration and rockets and it really show Lei. Keep doing what you're doing!
You should always put science points into nuclear rockets, their ISP makes interplanetary return missions much easier, and they're basically a necessity for building long-range SSTOs.
Oh wait this isn't KSP.
I dont see why they couldn't design a NTR drive pod that's designed to dock to the BFR upper stage using the same methods as 2 BFR ships docking for refueling. BFR gets launched, it meets up with a drive pod in orbit and the pod propells the BFR to its destination. the NTR gets left in orbit and refueled to propel future missions, still fits perfectly with SpaceX's rapid reuse-ability goal.
Ya it does not make sense to have it built into the BFR itself, you dont really want those things going up and down more than you have to and their TWR is not ideal for launches/landings anyway. As a strap on pod however most of the issues go away aside from the political (aka nukes are scarry) ones.
SpaceX should make an exception for nuclear thermal rockets as far as the reusability factor. If not, someone else will do it.
NTR’s are not at all incompatible with the Spacex reusability concept. They can remain in space and cycle between Earth and Mars orbits.
Nice video. You doing a great job. One technical comment about your video. Seems to me that your sound is not synced to the video when you talk at the end segment. I seem to be VERY sensitive to minor delay and could notice it in professional production when they TV professionals told me that it should not be noticeable. I am sure you can fix this problem. Keep up your great work.
I think Elon still wants to build the ITS, so my bet is that some version of that rocket appears in 10 for so years. In the meantime, I think it will be companies other than Spacex that build the fuel depots, space stations, and possibly even the interplanetary orbit-to-orbit ships and tugs with advanced propulsion. They will all get to space however, on Spacex rockets.
Great segment. As always, thank you for sharing.
Steve
You had the right word (politics) to explain why nuclear rockets never took off but the wrong description. A few decades ago some members of the public realized that radioisotope thermal generators that NASA was using for deep space probes contained (gasp) plutonium. This caused a huge public outcry and led to their eventual "ban". The odds of being allowed to launch anything with the words radioactive or nuclear associated with it are basically nil. Eventually we may be able to mine and refine nuclear fuel on the moon or perhaps asteroids. But until then, forget about it.
+Art Hundiak, Curiosity uses an RTG. If that argument has any weight said "ban" must be very very recent.
The plutonium isotope used in RTGs is in short supply. There is no ban and little public outcry, there just isn't much of the stuff.
Next is starship 2.0 with 18 m Dia
Thanks for your video! Something to consider with respect to faster Mars travel is that the 6-month journey is actually the best trajectory: this is the free return trajectory, which allows the explorers to swing around Mars and return directly to the Earth without a major burn. If Mars is covered by global dust storms or landing is made impossible for some other reason, the 6-month trajectory allows them free return to the Earth. Any faster, and the explorers fly out farther out into deep space and won’t find the Earth when they get to 1 a.u. Improved propulsion is eminently desirable, but instead of speed a better safety feature is improved radiation shielding and redundant life support systems. (These ideas come from Dr. Robert Zubrin)
I wouldn't lower the trip time from 6 months to 2 months, instead I'd increase the payload. 6 months to Mars is preferable because if something happens, and you're unable to land on Mars, then on a 6 months trip you'll have a free-return to Earth.
Great video! Your best in a while!
Awesome video!
My grandfather worked on NERVA. He's got some cool stories. Part of the current problem is that all the engineers that worked on NERVA and the other projects are very old or dead. My grandfather is 86, so to an extent a lot of the original effort is lost and new nuclear engines would more or less have to start from scratch.
0:12 I "think" you are forgetting Ariane 5!?
80+ launches without problems
much better video than expected
I don't understand why we would use nuclear thermal rockets over a ion engine. Do ion engines only start to have a gain over conventional engines after a year of travel??
GrandProtectorDark Zubrin's Nuclear Salt Water Rocket FTW
If propelled only by ion engines, a craft could take nearly a year just to break out of Earth orbit, spending A LOT of time in the radiation belts. Not good. This is why there is so much interest in the VASIMR engine concept, able to "shift gears" from high-thrust (to break orbit) to high-efficiency (for the cruise to Mars). Or you could build a bimodal nuclear rocket: nuclear thermal to start the trip, then switch over to electrical generation to power an ion drive.
Wow good stuff! Barely stumbled on your channel and I can say it’s really nice!
Was it going to be used in the S-IVB or the Spacecraft?
BFR can be used for a long time, it doesnt need to be replaced like the smaller inadequate sized rockets in the past. If we mine water in space and create fuel for spaceships in space then we dont have to worry about changing from a oxygen/hydrogen fuel source.
Lovely. Thank you for your thoughtful take. By the way, thank all of you who have seen this video and have taken the time to comment. on this , each and every one of us who take the time to respond to this content is appreciated.
CEO of blue origin ,“No one is talking about us.”
Love that you started to face the camera. Good job!
Another huge problem is hydrogen boil off. No material we have can successfully contain liquid hydrogen for long periods of time. The molecules are just too damn small that they pass through the tank. This is why deep space propulsion systems today don't use cryogenic fuels but instead hypergolic fuels (which are also better for many manuevers and orbit keeping). The BFR uses cryogenic methane, which doesn't have this problem, but has inferior specific impulse compared to hydrolox. If a deep space nuclear propulsion space craft is to be made, we will need some sort of breakthrough in material science
You can put the tanks in a really good freezer :P
If you got a nuclear reactor you can run cryogenic heat pumps for as long as you need to reduce the problem.
Specific impulse is ALWAYS important. If you can double your Isp at the same thrust, you only need 60% of the propellant for the same dV. There is no reason you couldn't design a NTR to have a high enough thrust to allow terrestrial liftoff. The problem for use on a reusable rocket is that you will want people on board at some point, so you need shielding for the radiation. That is where the mass penalty comes in that makes NTRs not feasible for launches.
Lei is the only Space Force I need!
1:44 bad phrasing, the fuel is a nuclear rocket is not the hydrogen, its the nuclear material, which has much higher energy density then any chemical, the propellant is the hydrogen, in a chemical rocket the fuel and the propellant are are the same.
3:07 incorrect, nuclear can only be used in upper stages (currently) because they don't produce enough thrust to be used in lower stages.
Why does the exhaust having less mass mean the engine is more efficient? I'd think that the amount of dV per kg of fuel is dependent on nothing but exhaust velocity?
What music did you use in the outro? thanks :)
good video. bursting at the seams with info!
I don't get that a lighter ejection gas produces more thrust? Unless you expel it faster. There seems to be a piece missing in your explanation.
Just my 2¢... I think SpaceX *should* develop NTRs. SpaceX identifies it's "ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets," which is why it remains a private company instead of making an IPO... so that investors can't pressure Musk out of his true vision. NTRs enable double the payload from Earth, and also can be used on Mars as "hoppers" to rapidly traverse the martian surface using the native atmosphere as propellant, eliminating the need for in situ chemical fuel synthesis. Since nuclear development is usually very slow because of the NRC, SpaceX should start as soon as BFR is operational.
Well also their other goal is making space cheaper by reusing stages. Idk just adding on.
Dear Elephant, an excellent video, very well spoken. I think nuclear propulsion should be investigated.
Agreed!
Hi bro which software do you use for editing ?
AFAIK, Neuclear Thermal rockets (NTR), although they represent an incremental upgrade over chemical propulsion, still fall well short of the efficiency of the xenon based ion drive that carried us to vesta and ceres, and which is our current best option for interplanetary travel.
I picture NTR as being best suited for orbital transitions burns such as from LEO to TLI for high mass payloads, or from LEO into an insertion onto, and off of, the "Interplanetary Highway" orbital network. Once inserted onto the IHON, you could then essentially switch thruster gears to the higher efficiency of ion drive for further speed increases ... then you would reverse the process for deceleration via NTR to inject into orbit around your destination planet.
This is outside of wheelhouse, but i am guessing were in a wait and see stage at the moment, as things like vasamir are able to be tested in LEO, and seeing if ion drive can be scaled up for larger payloads, and then of course there is the big questionmark about the "impossible" electodynamic drive.
EDIT: Looks like i reinvented the space tug concept covered at 5:00 ... thats what i get for posting before having finished watching the whole vid.
I see ion engines being SpaceX’s focus instead of nuclear
Ion engines will be nuclear or so slow people will die of old age.
@@tsamuel6224 That's what happens if your burn times are longer than your transit times. :P
Where do u find this vids?
One doesn't need a large team (just a few talented individuals, perhaps part-time) to keep an eye on the future and do rough conceptual design based on best advancing nuclear rocket technology (fission and fusion). 2-way feedback between this team and BFR Enterprise could ensure that the re-design-gap to incorporate a nuclear propulsion system is minimized.
China’s testing EM Rocket Engine in Space, on UA-cam now !
Joseph C
Define EM?
I like these contradictory/"Fight fire with fire" solutions to problems.
"There's too much radiation exposure when going to mars"
"I know, strap some radioactive material to the engine and we should be fine!"
It's not only the mass of the thrust that provides the thrust, it's more so the pressure difference of the engine and the atmosphere. The merlin engines have a higher chamber pressure than previous engines, thus higher thrust to weight. Pressure wants to go from high zone to low zone.
I saw a video about Mars's radiation levels, it said, the radiation level is twice as high as we were expecting. This may lead to withdraw the whole idea of colonizing Mars.
I'm sure that SpaceX thought about this when they designed the BFR, but went wiothy for methane because it can be produced on Mars very easily which is a huge advantage.
You said the third stage but pointed at the CSM?
my only criticism is that you failed to mention weight related to shielding from the reactor core as one of the main reasons they never kept going with it.
There are ideas on how to use fission thermal engines for take off from Earth. They can be made to not spew out any radioactive material. A fission thermal engine is simple and cheap, there's not much need for reusing them. The engine consists of uranium that gets depleted anyway. When the propellant (hydrogen) runs out, the engine is pushed away since it will overheat and explode if the uranium parts aren't separated to below critical density.
Whoa!! The Falcon heavy has had one launch. It can't be among the most trusted. Falcon 9 is very trusted.
100% mission success... I don't know statistics too well but sounds safe to me
This was not 100 % only 2 of 3 boosters came back, Statistics made on one go are meaningless nevetheless the real point is there is no real Falcon heavy. This is a combination of 3 modified Falcon 9. As such not something new but only an upgrade. BFR is something else with new engines and that will be the real test.
Anyhow, new or not Falcon heavy is a fine achievement.
hey dude ya know the “Nuclear Electric Engine”? How do ya think of it
waiting on Elon to prefect warp drive
A Warp Drive Starship has been discussed in other UA-cam videos & the topic is very interesting 🧐. Yet these videos are on in theories. There’s talks about how a warp drive can work but no actions to building a warp drive. Perhaps within the next 100 years we will finally fly fast than the speed of light. Flying faster 💨 than the speed of sound has been accomplished by Chuck Yeager back in 1947 at I think 700 mph. I’ll be dead when we invent a warp drive. Lol 😆.
I think transfer vehicles in general could be a possible step. A long as the mars plans are successful. Then the BFS is used as a LEO and LowMarsOrbit Shuttle. Switch to the transfer vehicle which is faster and has more space for comfort reasons and here you go.
04:18 Whats up with that random clicking noise?
Have one question. Can a nuclear propulsion boost the BFR from the surface of Mars to its orbit?.
yea. it could be the successor to falcon 9 as it would be replaced eventually after bfr comes out.
but its going to be hard to land the nuclear engine first/second stages
Hey, where do you get that information about Space Tug from 1969, I`d like to read it more deeply. And thanks for this video, a huge chunk of info for me!
One big misconception in this video is the idea that nuclear rockets would be used to reach mars faster instead of just using them to carry more payload for the same amount of spent fuel. While they are more efficient, they are not *so* efficient that it would be economical to make use of ourtrageously inefficient trajectories just to save time. In space travel, due to the fact that rockets are mostly composed of fuel (even the nuclear ones), payload capacity is the most valuable comodity. In short, time is cheap, payload capacity is expensive. Using the same rocket, it is preferable to use an optimal trajectory and reach mars in 6 months with loads of payload than to use an inefficient trajectory reaching it in 2 months with almost no payload.
Love his presentation, easy to listen to, Thank you
Cool video, nice that we have a prace for this conversation. The details I'd live to see the sources for the clips - like the NERVA cuttings; 2nd of all Isp isn't all - when v=0 at surface thrust is king; so yeah go nuclear once in orbit; looking forward for more videos, keep up the good job!
Odd your video did not show up in my feed, had to manually search the channel up
0:29 I tried to make a bowed move once while dancing, it did not end well.
BFR will be used to move people off planets, up and down that way they wont have to worry about planetary entry speeds. Nuclear will be used for in space ships to transport between planets. After BFR lays the ground work for a mars colony. Several trips off planet to put people into the ships, same thing on mars.
I think we are heading towards vacuum based nuclear rockets, but nearly as you’ve described, not allowing them to be used within LEO but outside of this only.
I believe more concerns will be raised about nuclear waste and the potential for radioactivity to enter the atmospheric areas of the Earth.
Thanks for your videos and also for your extremly understandeble english that make easy to watch it for an spanish european guy!!!
Can you talk about the VASIMIR plasma engine in one video and its possibility?
Great exhaust velocity, terrible everything else.
Love ur video man, keep update about BFR :)
May i ask
If there will be a nuclear fussion engine
Would it need some kind of gas
Or not?
"USA won the space race" - That is not true. The space race didn't have the goal to go to the moon. It was about first doing the next step and achieving the next record.
At the end, this step was landing on the moon, which the USA did (first and only). But before, the Soviet Union achieved almost all steps first. (first satellite, first animal, first human, first space walk, first photo of the moon's far side, first space station)
Actually, the US got a few other firsts too, like first rendezvous and frist man to orbit the moon.
DerKrawallkeks We won the space race. It was an ultimate scramble for the moon from the moment Kennedy gave his famous speech, and the US, though way behind the SU from the start, caught up and did the impossible. No one denies that the United States won except you.
of course US won, it was just a tight race for a while.
If putting a man on the moon and returning him safely was the prize, then the US won. NASA has also led with interplanetary probes and Mars rovers, landers and orbiters.
touche`
Spot on with the use of NTP on cycler spacecraft to Mars/Moon. If NTP remains difficult there's also the option of VASIMR plasma engines if that technology proves itself. Last I heard they had a VASIMR test engine attached to the ISS.
Nuclear propulsion doesn't necessarily mean low thrust for re-usability: one example is the one you did, that is to leave it in orbit, but this could make problems with refueling, increasing the cost of the mission. Another solution is to put one nuclear engine surrounded by some merlin engines, using the nuclear one in the vacuum and the merlin to land
it depends on the mission goals and parameters. since SpaceX does not recover Second stage on her Falcon 9 flights that is an application which can be used for deep space missions not requiring the BFR.
SAUCE!! MUSIC AT THE END? no link in description....