What If We Had Nuclear-Powered Rockets?
video description
Date: 2023-11-26
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 23
ShawnS07
Nuclear thermal rockets are not much better than chemical rockets because they use large quantities of hydrogen, if you want to see a fission rocket design that doesn't require hydrogen watch -liquid plutonium rocket-. The best way to explore /colonize our galaxy is with the constant 1g acceleration method, with this a ship can get to Alpha Centauri in 3. 6 ship/7. 3 Earth years and have gravity the whole way (and that includes turning the ship around half way and decelerating. A 10 ton ship would need a mere 10 tons of continuous thrust. Uranium and plutonium contain vast quantities of potential energy you would not need a lot of it for the trip.
reply
Nuclear thermal rockets are not much better than chemical rockets because they use large quantities of hydrogen, if you want to see a fission rocket design that doesn't require hydrogen watch -liquid plutonium rocket-. The best way to explore /colonize our galaxy is with the constant 1g acceleration method, with this a ship can get to Alpha Centauri in 3. 6 ship/7. 3 Earth years and have gravity the whole way (and that includes turning the ship around half way and decelerating. A 10 ton ship would need a mere 10 tons of continuous thrust. Uranium and plutonium contain vast quantities of potential energy you would not need a lot of it for the trip.
reply
ROHIT
hi what if but i wanna correct you nuclear thermal propulsion comes in 2 types nuclear fragment propulsion and nuclear thermal rocket and here both are good but nuclear thermal rocket can be used any where and is 1000 X better than our current chemical ones but its nuclear fragment rocket is which we cant use in earth as its gives out nuclear exhaust but in then nuclear thermal one its just heated coolant ( hydrogen ) going around the reactor getting heated and is given out so we can use it anywhere and also we dont need any oxygen so what if pls do complete research
reply
hi what if but i wanna correct you nuclear thermal propulsion comes in 2 types nuclear fragment propulsion and nuclear thermal rocket and here both are good but nuclear thermal rocket can be used any where and is 1000 X better than our current chemical ones but its nuclear fragment rocket is which we cant use in earth as its gives out nuclear exhaust but in then nuclear thermal one its just heated coolant ( hydrogen ) going around the reactor getting heated and is given out so we can use it anywhere and also we dont need any oxygen so what if pls do complete research
reply
Ck
Fluid/gas form nuculear perpulsion isn't safe in atmosphere planetary realms, even though speeds up human travel, has safety reduntents, However, electric/energy burst engines, being nuculear amped with solar/geotherm support, if could exirt accel velocity of a craft at least 0. 5 to 1G, can infinitely, grant a comfortable cruise travel in solar orbit to any destination, leaving conventionally rocket fuel storage to be used for emergency manuevering/land/liftoff.
reply
Fluid/gas form nuculear perpulsion isn't safe in atmosphere planetary realms, even though speeds up human travel, has safety reduntents, However, electric/energy burst engines, being nuculear amped with solar/geotherm support, if could exirt accel velocity of a craft at least 0. 5 to 1G, can infinitely, grant a comfortable cruise travel in solar orbit to any destination, leaving conventionally rocket fuel storage to be used for emergency manuevering/land/liftoff.
reply
Shreeanshu
It would take 7 months to get to Mars while it would take 3 months to get to Venus. It would take 4 years to get to Mercury. It would take 1 year to get to Ceres. It would take 5 years to get to Jupiter. It would take 7 years to get to Saturn. It would take 10 years to get to Uranus. It would take 12 years to get to Neptune. It would take 16 years to get to Pluto. And it would take 50 years to get to Eris. But that-s with just current technology.
reply
It would take 7 months to get to Mars while it would take 3 months to get to Venus. It would take 4 years to get to Mercury. It would take 1 year to get to Ceres. It would take 5 years to get to Jupiter. It would take 7 years to get to Saturn. It would take 10 years to get to Uranus. It would take 12 years to get to Neptune. It would take 16 years to get to Pluto. And it would take 50 years to get to Eris. But that-s with just current technology.
reply
AVoiceOfOpinion93
We would be well on our way to colonizing Mars and exploring the moons of SATURN had we got those spaceships. Instead, we are still largely stuck here, in this soggy bucket of a dying planet, looking towards the stars that may now be forever beyond our reach.
Our future as an interplanetary civilization - if not our very survival as a species - had been derailed by shortsighted fools in office, and most people may never even know it.
reply
We would be well on our way to colonizing Mars and exploring the moons of SATURN had we got those spaceships. Instead, we are still largely stuck here, in this soggy bucket of a dying planet, looking towards the stars that may now be forever beyond our reach.
Our future as an interplanetary civilization - if not our very survival as a species - had been derailed by shortsighted fools in office, and most people may never even know it.
reply
JD
Nuclear bombs going off in space isn't a big deal. The amount of radiation it would eject would be like throwing a pinch of sand onto a beach. There is already a ton of radiation out there. Take away the radiation issue, and it's no different from any other bomb. People really need to get rid of the irrational level of fear towards nuclear technology. It isn't perfect, but no technology is. Everything can be misused and cause harm in its own way.
reply
Nuclear bombs going off in space isn't a big deal. The amount of radiation it would eject would be like throwing a pinch of sand onto a beach. There is already a ton of radiation out there. Take away the radiation issue, and it's no different from any other bomb. People really need to get rid of the irrational level of fear towards nuclear technology. It isn't perfect, but no technology is. Everything can be misused and cause harm in its own way.
reply
Vannyman1
Maybe if you ship it to the moon. The weight would not be an issue. You could build a Space station that would have it's own power source when landing on Mars. Then Launch it from the moon. Less fuel with more weight. Hope this helps someone. -
reply
Maybe if you ship it to the moon. The weight would not be an issue. You could build a Space station that would have it's own power source when landing on Mars. Then Launch it from the moon. Less fuel with more weight. Hope this helps someone. -
reply
Use
They weren-t bombs, they were nuclear pulse units. Still Deffinetly the technology to go with. Simple, more or less inexpensive, available since 1950. Once we-re in space then we can monkey around with other propolsion systems
reply
They weren-t bombs, they were nuclear pulse units. Still Deffinetly the technology to go with. Simple, more or less inexpensive, available since 1950. Once we-re in space then we can monkey around with other propolsion systems
reply
Caedwyn
can someone pls answer me this?
is there potential for dirty bomb?
meaning, if these rival countries wanted to, could they take a sat or rocket out of orbit and make its trajectory to meet with a target?
reply
can someone pls answer me this?
is there potential for dirty bomb?
meaning, if these rival countries wanted to, could they take a sat or rocket out of orbit and make its trajectory to meet with a target?
reply
Lady
-In the not-too-distant-future. -
Next Sunday A. D?
If NASA is that desperate to bring people to Mars, they should stop playing around with nuclear propulsion and just set the rocket to LUDICROUS SPEED!
reply
-In the not-too-distant-future. -
Next Sunday A. D?
If NASA is that desperate to bring people to Mars, they should stop playing around with nuclear propulsion and just set the rocket to LUDICROUS SPEED!
reply
education
Robert Zubrin argues that you shouldn't try to get to Mars faster because it throws you off a free return trajectory. Instead, you improve safety by using the extra propulsion to increase your payload.
reply
Robert Zubrin argues that you shouldn't try to get to Mars faster because it throws you off a free return trajectory. Instead, you improve safety by using the extra propulsion to increase your payload.
reply
Jaymel
Transporting the nuclear propulsion system to moon then installing it there to the rocket's will be using to voyage towards other planet might help prevent the risk of it affecting life on earth.
reply
Transporting the nuclear propulsion system to moon then installing it there to the rocket's will be using to voyage towards other planet might help prevent the risk of it affecting life on earth.
reply
Marik
if we as a species ever want to really go into space. we have to get over this fear of nuclear energy. it didnt have the best start. but as long as it is used with common sense its safe.
reply
if we as a species ever want to really go into space. we have to get over this fear of nuclear energy. it didnt have the best start. but as long as it is used with common sense its safe.
reply
Wele
in the future, scientists should test the hydrogen fission propulsion engine in outer space (like ISS. regulation to save the earth from the nuclear failure accident.
reply
in the future, scientists should test the hydrogen fission propulsion engine in outer space (like ISS. regulation to save the earth from the nuclear failure accident.
reply
gustavo
It-s a far fetch dream of mine, but how I wish nations of the world could come together to fund and develop our space exploration and attacking climate change.
reply
It-s a far fetch dream of mine, but how I wish nations of the world could come together to fund and develop our space exploration and attacking climate change.
reply
FS
I think NASA is just trying to get some credit, I mean they-re just getting the research to start development. While SpaceX is already testing the rocket.
reply
I think NASA is just trying to get some credit, I mean they-re just getting the research to start development. While SpaceX is already testing the rocket.
reply
Kazuha
So you're saying that if we can fuse those atoms rather than only split them
WE COULD COMBINE BOTH METHODS AND MAKE IT AS AN UNLIMITED FUEL ------
reply
So you're saying that if we can fuse those atoms rather than only split them
WE COULD COMBINE BOTH METHODS AND MAKE IT AS AN UNLIMITED FUEL ------
reply
Jonathan
In the late 50s and 60s there were two projects, kiwi and nerva which were used to develop thermonuclear rocket engines. They were successful.
reply
In the late 50s and 60s there were two projects, kiwi and nerva which were used to develop thermonuclear rocket engines. They were successful.
reply
education
We have nuclear aircraft carriers, icebreaker, subs-so why would you make it sound like such a big deal to have nuclear powered rockets?
reply
We have nuclear aircraft carriers, icebreaker, subs-so why would you make it sound like such a big deal to have nuclear powered rockets?
reply
Rich
I think it will be more like 2050 to get to mars. You think we would go to the moon a few times before committing to the trip to mars?
reply
I think it will be more like 2050 to get to mars. You think we would go to the moon a few times before committing to the trip to mars?
reply
Garlan
What if we build this kind of rocket directly in orbit? That would eliminate the risk of an incident on the launch site
reply
What if we build this kind of rocket directly in orbit? That would eliminate the risk of an incident on the launch site
reply
Easy
I find it very odd we did not develop nuclear powered rockets around the time we were trying to develop nuclear bombs.
reply
I find it very odd we did not develop nuclear powered rockets around the time we were trying to develop nuclear bombs.
reply
Alex
fusion releases 4 times more energy than fission nuclear energy?
a joke no?
it has to be much more no?
reply
fusion releases 4 times more energy than fission nuclear energy?
a joke no?
it has to be much more no?
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
