The Nuclear Rockets That Could Get Us To Mars And Beyond | Answers With Joe

We need to work on radiation shielding, so we can have nuclear earth to orbit launching starships.. that'd be cool

"The reactor could be designed in such a way that it could survive re-entry and only contaminate a small area." I would have so many reservations believing that. Thank you HBO, I feel like an expert in the Chernobyl disaster and the Soviet nuclear program now. The best scientists that the Soviet Union had believed that RBMK reactors couldn't explode and were considered the safest reactors.

Surely a vacuum is energy,,,if everything in the the universe is speeding up then why can’t we use this energy

❤

Have you lost all sense of proportion? Here on Earth, the best attempt at fusion required years of expensive equipment and $3 billion investment in giant lasers, all to generate a millisecond of fusion. Many many powers of ten away from continuous, commercial, space-capable fusion. So many deal-killer roadblocks. Have you lost your mind? Thirty seconds of investor-generated CGI of things that are millions of times away from practicality and you're convinced? Drink or smoke much? I'm slightly sorry to be so blunt but this video is really totally bonkers.

God I love the sheer impact a clip of a nuke has

this is my every day. Im a mechanical engineer. My son is an Aeronautical engineer. We are constantly talking about this. then we have to get my wife off the ledge as she would rather jump than listen to us anymore.

John R R Searl's Inverse Gravity Vehicle (IGV) could get to Mars a lot faster without the radiation. Just have to wait to get it built and tested again. JFK had it tested at Edwards Air Force Base in California but they could not use it because it would make some weapons inert.

It seems like we should get serious about clean nuclear energy here on earth. I think you know if we ever have to abandon earth that you and I aren’t going to be the people on those ships.

nuclear fission and fusion will work together they have their pros and cons

NASA and DARPA are now developing one.

Thorium reactors are perfect candidate for this problem statement

Hey man I love your videos, love how they combine humor and learning!!! Have you ever heard of the center of the universe in Tulsa Oklahoma? I think it might make a good video for you

I heard for many years there was a deal preventing Nuclear in Space. Maybe it was a deal with Communist Russia or something, but I've not heard of it again for the last few years.

Soccer is not difficult. Parakeets and puppies can do it. I don't see them evolving the dexterity for neurosurgery, nor the intellect for rocket science.

consider eugenics and breeding people who can travel across spaces

There was a proposal to make a hydrogen/fluorine rocket; higher ISP. I’m glad you mentioned the Orion project.

we really need these rockets, if we can figure out nuclear submarines, why not rockets

NERVA plays big part in For All Mankind's season 2 and onward

A lot of what you have said explains exactly why going to the moon was next to impossible. Leaving earths orbit then coasting to the moon is one thing stopping that momentum and landing then reconnecting with the command module that was traveling at over 4000 mph flying back to earth and stopping with 1960’s technology is impossible

How does a rocket propelled by nuclear fission explosions not shake itself to pieces at any point? I feel like the vibration would knacker every last screw to pieces compared to current methods

You're easier to listen to then that "Angry Astronaut" guy ; just too loud and angry. :)

DAMN YOU NIXON!

Nixon cancelled Saturn 5 too, right? Jackass. flats was where they did the testing of nerva, right? All from memory, so...

Just invested in BWX Technologies and am listening to this video.

Here after NASA basically demanded nuclear rockets in 2021

Please, and I cannot stress that part enough, PLEASE make a video about the Wild West of Nuclear Projects in the '50s & '60s, we ALL need that video

nucear power is only good for 5 years how would you get back.

Honestly, I'd be happy with just a small reactor that can generate electricity for spacecraft. Imagine what Curiosity could have accomplished with tens of megawatts of power instead of the pitiful couple of hundred watts it could get from its radioisotope power plant. I'm not even getting into the other probes that are running on solar power.

Imagine Ingenuity had unlimited power onboard. It could fly around the mars and get high-resolution photos of everything nonstop for years instead of flying for a few seconds once a week.

"Orion the Boom Boom Machine" -- I am SO stealing that...😊

Why not use safe propulsion just to get out of the atmosphere, then switch to nuclear?

Because we could seriously get to Sirius, seriously fast............there is no way I am the first person that had this thought......Maybe......O Well...

Fizzile fo shizzile.

1 nuclear space ship crashing back down to earth is like one nuclear space ship going down to earth. I dont think Chemobyl is an accurate comparison. Chemobyl would be more like 10,000 nuclear space ships crashing back down to earth.

Had we done the Orion mission in the 1960s we would now have a 4,000 ton solid steel space station in orbit today. We'd never do it today as the launch would thrash hundreds of satellites and other electronics within hundreds of miles.

*football

It was my understanding that nuclear rockets would built in orbit not launched from Earth.

Nuclear power is boiling water to turn turbines. It's not sustainable.

Always enjoy and learn from your videos. Would love to see a follow-up video to this that references how realistic the "Pathfinder" shuttle using a Nerva engine from the show "For All Mankind" is.

virgin

The Nuclear Salt Water Rocket is an interesting concept, even more crazy but currently the only 'torch ship' design that would enable The Expanse like travel that doesnt break the laws of physics or make use of super futuristic technology

For All Mankind brought me here, Thanks for the explanation Joe!

Fuck off with the 20 years away joke it’s not helpful

fusion in 20 yrs or so LOL

I think I'd rather have a contained nuclear reactor hit the ground behind my house than a tank of hydrazine.

Wouldn't it be better to fire each particle in exactly the direction needed, instead of a "clump" of particles in random-ish directions which are kinda (but poorly) directed by the cone?

Expensive, sure....but get the maximum value out of each mg of mass 'lost' to space.

That is: a bunch of rifles instead of a blunderbuss.

When insterstellar astronauts will watch this video they will realise how wrong we got this.

Hey just got a idea, we should use chemical rockets that do not over head but in the cold space temperature we can use nuclear rockets, the space temp can cool the components easily...

As soon as i hear "time dilation", i stop taking anything seriously