Good job on mentioning VASIMR. It has not gotten the attention it deserves. SInce the U.S. government is funding research on nuclear thermal rockets and several companies are working on portable nuclear reactors, we should have the 200+ MW needed for VASIMR soon. Nuclear subs and ships are already generating that kind of power, but they have the advantage of using ocean water for cooling.
Well vasimir can use "space" to cool down, provided they can find the material that can resist the wear and tear of going to high temperatures to near absolute zero.
@@netferno1 while space IS cold, the problem is figuring out a material that can radiate heat better than current-gen radiators as without an atmosphere, radiation is pretty much the only cooling method and unfortunately, it's also the weakest
@@netferno1 Actually, the problem with using "space" for cooling is exactly the opposite - as Space acts like your "vacuum bottle" thermos and actually INSULATES - or TRAPS the heat IN rather than allowing the heat to escape via conduction, as would a water-based cooling system. SOME have proposed ablative cooling- where a sacrificial material is "melted away" carrying the heat with it, but then you have to carry the mass of the cooling material with you negating the whole advantage. The reason conventional Liquid fueled Rocket engines (with nozzles "tuned" for the vacuum of space - but THAT has no bearing on THIS discussion...) is that the mass carrying the heat is ejected as part of the combustion process. So- The HEAT factor _remains_ a huge problem to overcome .
#6: hydrogen ICEs have been in development for 40 years now (BMW and Mercedes started work on these in the 1980s), BMW has/had the Hydrogen 7 for sale for years now. The main problem is that it's far less efficient than a fuel cell: you get 1/2 to 1/5 the range of a fuel cell on the same amount of H2. The only advantage is that an ICE is cheaper to build than a fuel cell.
The real question is how "green" is Hydrogen? The production of Grey Hydrogen produces shocking amounts of CO2 (9 parts CO2 to 1 part Hydrogen). Blue Hydrogen means storing that CO2 somewhere and Green Hydrogen mean using electrolysis which is only Green if the energy source is taken from renewal energy.
That low of efficiency presents an even bigger impediment when you consider the cost of the Hydrogen to fuel it. It's actually quite ridiculous to even consider burning it in an ICE vehicle.
It's also not emission-free, as NOx formed in combustion is also a greenhouse gas, so it needs to be trapped somehow. Toyota have been all in on FCEVs and the Mirai is a beautiful car, so this move might seem contrary. I believe that the H2 ICE engine is another piece in the sustainable puzzle. It's about getting the most out of the old infrastructure before we junk it all, a transitional technology on the road to fuel cells. Same with the source of hydrogen itself, which must transition from black and gray generation scenarios to fully green.
not really... a typical rocket engine is a detonation engine. just much less efficient. but the point here is sound. gaining decibels at lower volumes is easy. but once you hit the levels of a rocket engine. it's pretty much topped out. example- let's say you have a rocket that hits 180 db's. to go up just s single db or 2. you'd have to basically double the entire system. want another db or 2. then you'd have to double that again to 4 rockets. but the other limitation is how much vibration a given system can withstand. not to mention the vibrations the crew could withstand as well. and current rockets already push this barrier as it is.
@@governmentcheese7726 Typical rocket engines are Deflagration engines, not Detonation engines. Deflagration and Detonation both are combustion of the fuel-air mixture, but the former is subsonic and the latter, supersonic. Detonations propagate supersonically through shock waves with flame speeds in the range of 1km/s whereas deflagrations have flame speeds in the range of 1m/s.
@@governmentcheese7726 Yeah I admit I got kinda overexcited, lol. because rarely are there any videos so specific on things that I am learning about haha
A minor correction. Gravity is not a force. It's a consequence of mass which warps space-time. So the real question, . . When space-time is warped, what's warping?
Ok, nice video, agree 100% that once we truly know what gravity is and how it works a truly revolutionary way to travel will be found, the only thing missing is the iodine engine a vasmir engine that dosen't need compressed gas only solid iodine
Gravity is the superposition of elementary particles. Newton's models are still pretty accurate in that regard. The ionic or plasma thrusters are the secret to "utilizing" gravity because higher EM field flux densities increase the relative interactive forces of particles. Maybe someday we'll have a propulsion system that magnetically compresses and expands the interstellar medium to move but that'd only work outside of the solar system. So for now we're gonne use electrically accelerated rocket engines or "plasma thrusters".
Physicist here. It’s unlikely that a better understanding of gravity will unlock new propulsion technologies that are practical in our lifetimes, if ever. The energies required to noticeably bend spacetime are so ridiculously high that, even if and when we have a concept for a gravity-based propulsion system, conventional propulsion will probably be all-around more practical for centuries to come.
Pretty much all space engines can reach the same velocity given time. The difference with the last engine is probably that it accelerates far faster, getting you to maximum velocity faster, not that it has a higher velocity.
That engine is also a LOT more efficient than the other engines, which means it could carry more fuel.
3 года назад+2
And theres where the problem lies, because no engine can be running for enough time before they run out of fuel. The last engine can run for years given it has enough electricity but it has the impulse power of a mosquito, if you could make 10'000 mosquitos constantly push your ship in space where nothing can slow you down, then over the weeks you'll achieve a superb speed, and in less than a decade you'll be reaching a percentage of light speed. The biggest problem is electricity, and lucky for us, mini nuclear reactors do exist, so we almost have everything we need.
Continuous thrust ion engines seem to avoid most potential mechanical problems. Yes, I get that current versions don't produce quite enough thrust to power human spaceflight, but is there some reason to think performance of ion engines won't improve significantly with research? Perhaps an initial chemical "boost", even a brief such boost, followed by powering up the ion engine, would seem to cut flight time greatly. I'm assuming the craft would be launched from space, not from Earth.
Yes we can come up with new discoveries to change the electrons in ion thrusters to output more thrust with less weight. We have a long way to go. the only limit is newtons third law. We get as much energy out as we put in. We cannot make more energy output than we put in.
Loved the content! My ear heard the word 'NOW', starting a sentence, at least 12 times. Perhaps you could change a few words up. Great subject! Thanks.
Your explanation about hydrogen cars is inaccurate. Toyota cars convert hydrogen into electricity which powers a main electric motor drive using magnetic power. Its converted instantly via battery cells. However the hydrogen combustion engine burns the hydrogen as fuel. Two different concepts in two different cars. The car in the video shown driving with noise was burning the hydrogen fuel instead of converting it into electricity like Toyota.
Another mistake made is hybrid vehicles only charge batteries , actually the series hybrid has an engine that mechanically drives the wheels or drives an alternator that powers the wheel motors .
@@martinfarfsing5995 Your describing hybrid electric cars. Hydrogen powered cars are different. They use liquid hydrogen as fuel which automatically converts to electricity when run through a battery cell.
I can not find any information about the Sabre engine operation below mach 2 and subsonic. I do not see additional inlet area since the frontal area for the supersonic engine is small compared to the air needed for thrust.
The problem with hudrogen has never been the combustion, it is how to store the fuel safe and that is basically why no one has put any big effort in it. Already an electric car burn as vesuvius, and a hydrogen car would be ten times worse and is a big fire risk, as well as hydrogen is difficult to contain as with helium as a lot of materials allow passage of the gas such as rubber hoses of many sorts.
I think the Rolls-Royce Ultrafan has been developed with one thing in mind: a potential application on the Boeing 777-8 and777-9. And Rolls-Royce may be willing to pay to do this.
It's important to learn from nature: The blackhole's gigantic mass distorts space and time around it, twisting magneticfield lines into a coil that propels material outward.
Correct me if I'm wrong but since there is nothing in space, any propulsion unit would not have to be driving a craft full time, all you have to do is reach the top speed and turn off the power, since there's no gravity or air to slow you down, once you reach terminal velocity your ship should run at terminal velocity until you apply some type of boost in the opposite direction or unless the gravitational pull from an object pulls you in it's direction to slow you down. Any reply is welcome.
There is still cloud dust and other small particles in space. It would be longer but the space craft will still slow down eventually. Turning would be a big issue to stay on course to destination. Since we cannot use standard wing movement controls to turn the space craft like on airplanes. We need to use more energy on turns than on earth so it equals out.
The only reason people in the spacecraft float is because they fall towards earth at a constant speed removing gravities effect. But you would fall just as fast if not faster towards something with mass. Probably faster because less material in the way to slow you down due to drag.
They haven’t even found the fundamental particle for gravity yet, until that happens and they find a way to use it ,they won’t suddenly come up with antigravity.
@@olnbgy4444 antigravity craft have been sighted all over the earth the last century there is no doubt that they have been building such craft in military black projects. aliens will account for some also especially from bases on this planet. they have likely been here for tens of thousands of years. advanced technology has been on this earth from hundreds of thousands of years interrupted by planetary cataclysm every 10K to 15K years. conventional subatomic physics has a long history of monumental fraud. any subatomic model is just a postulate. there are no tools to prove it. gravity waves are fiction. we don't live in a gravity based universe but electromagnetic.
I was thinking of a rocket-engine that worked by compressing air through an intake (much like a jet), and gets liquid oxygen in space from internal tanks. Sabre seems to be similar, so there might be hope we'll see a spaceplane take-off and landing at airports, but with destinations into Earth orbits.
I'm perplexed how anything is moved by any type of combustion/detonation energy in zero gravity, without physical propulsion.....I agree that once we've found out the secrete of gravity- we may even be able to it's source and use it against itself almost like - and + poles on a magnet rather than engines. Maybe I'll have to do some more research and catch up on some facts.
Gravity is a wave. (Discovered in 2015 when 2 black holes colided) Waves exert pressure. Its the reason we can destroy cells or create new elements. The reason loud noises cause avalanches and our bones to vibrate from bass. Everything is oscillating frequencies, and to move through space freely we need those magic numbers. I theorize the golden ratio and toroidal spheres might be used to make power levels reasonable. In space, there are sonic waves just like sonic booms from aircraft. Perhaps even artifical gravity can be made with sonic frequencies in space without ridiculous power.
@@extremechris9145 - Sound is not gravity, and gravity is not sound. While gravity may express as a wave, its NOT why sound can destroy cells or why things vibrate from bass . THOSE are _effects_ of "pressure differential" across a medium, and explain how we can hear something (the "medium" being our atmosphere), for instance, NOT how we stay fixed, say- to the surface of a planet.
Since a sound wave consists of a repeating pattern of high-pressure and low-pressure regions moving through a medium, it is sometimes referred to as a pressure wave. Pressure differentials are byproducts of an atmospheres gravitational waves. Relative resonance keeps differentials minimal, just like when steel bridges fall due to resonance of the steel and not the gravel. Or another example is a black hole bending stars light, and all the particles within it
the electron is an energy storage device like a spinning wheel but tiny and with multiple wheels spinning multiple directions you get all wheels spinning at the speed of light and you have multiples of the the speed of light potential energy then you see how many of them you can stuff in a ball like a steam ball ...
So why is the Toyota hydrogen engine on the list? This is not a new idea, BMW did it back in 2005 with a set of 7 series sedans to be used as a taxi. They used a V12 though. They produced 100 of these vehicles. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
The difference between earths atmosphere and space is fluid dynamics vs a gasless environment, I am surprised the NAVY isn't working with NASA for space travel they have a perspective of traveling through intense fluid resistance against the buoyancy of saltwater.
Solar panels for the VASIMR engine. 50x of the new ISS solar panels makes 1MW and costs about $800,000,000 (likely less due to economies of scale) Scale as you like, there is no resistance in space and this is a Lot cheaper than a non-existent fusion reactor... probably lighter too. The EU Tokamak experimental reactor costs about $25 - 45 Billion and won't even be self sustaining at any kind of productive level LMAO
Solar panels LARGELY _INEFFECTIVE_ much beyond the radius of inner-planetary orbit - say roughly Mars or the asteroid belt , for instance, with effectiveness falling off dramatically beyond that distance, and even there its largely only good for the TINY amounts of power needed to power on-board systems. "Scaling" - Remember- ANY propulsive benefit must FIRST overcome the _mass_ of the very "scaling" you mention in your idea, _BEFORE_ it can be used to accelerate the overall mass by any usable degree . No, this is why so many are experimenting with so many ideas right now, HOPING to overcome this barrier, and discovering in the process that the old reaction mass equations _always_ seem inviolate, no matter HOW much "research" is poured into their next best "perpetual motion" like idea - "... if I do _THIS_ new mysterious thing, MAYBE _I_ can get more power _OUT_ than I put _IN_ for longer than I put it in ... " . Kyane above, covers it pretty well in his comment. There just aren't enough mosquitoes to overcome that many mosquito's own mass, and leave anything left over to do anything meaningful with. Developing a sustainable Fusion Reaction for the - potentially _massive_ - ELECTRICAL POWER it would provide, seems the ONLY reasonable option to conventional combustion-reaction for the foreseeable future, and THAT _ITSELF_ rests on a HUGE _IF_ .
@@OniMetsuki ITER may be one of the most expensive science projects around but we will still learn a lot of shit from it. Just because a bunch of startups have said "we plan for first fusion in 2023" does not mean that any one of them will be fruitful. They are all utilising new and untested methods - tokamaks are a proven tech, albeit an expensive tech. We will still learn a helluva lot about fluid dynamics at extremely high temperatures when it powers up. Before the LHC was built in the 90's both Americans and Russians scoffed at it and said the chances of it finding something that Moscow and Chicago could not were infinitesimal, the LHC went on to find four particles including the Higgs Boson that proved millions of scientists right.
Gah!! if only every awesome bit of tech wasn't always years away ! What we need is an AI singularity that can run through billions of designs and iterations it can possibly conceive, in fractions of a second, to end up with the ultimate, perfect, finished product design, on the very first attempt 😁
Been thinking the same myself, For some years now. Either a. I. Design....... Or..... Genetically modified brains That use two, three or even four times the ten percent average humans use. Or..... Another manhattan project Where the world's top scientists are invited to work at a state of the art site.... To enable mankind to get off this deathtrap we call earth.
If Vasimr doesn't require a volume storage of its exerted thrust, the way a chem rocket has a canister, it would be sufficient in solar orbit travel, to be amped with a nuculear power and recharge built up by solar or thernal etc. Granting infinite accel without idol, thus gravity cruise in the conservative 0.5 ~ 1G force non stop. as energy form booster thrust.
For Electrical Power generation, Solar panels LARGELY _INEFFECTIVE_ much beyond the radius of inner-planetary orbit - say roughly Mars or the asteroid belt , for instance, with effectiveness falling off dramatically beyond that distance, and even there its largely only good for the TINY amounts of power needed to power on-board systems. "Scaling" - Remember- ANY propulsive benefit must FIRST overcome the _mass_ of the very "scaling" mentioned in some of the comments _BEFORE_ it can be used to accelerate the overall vehicle + fuel + payload mass by any usable degree . No, this is why so many are experimenting with so many ideas right now, HOPING to overcome this barrier, and discovering in the process that the old reaction mass equations _always_ seem inviolate, no matter HOW much "research" is poured into their next best "perpetual motion" like idea - "... if I do _THIS_ new mysterious thing- MAYBE _I_ can get more power _OUT_ than I put _IN_ for longer than I put it in ... " . Kyane above, covers it pretty well in his comment. There just aren't enough mosquitoes to overcome that many mosquito's own mass (and even mosquitoes have to _FEED ... ;=) !_ ), and leave anything left over to do anything meaningful with. Developing a sustainable Fusion Reaction for the - potentially _massive_ - ELECTRICAL POWER it would provide, seems the ONLY reasonable option to conventional combustion-reaction for the foreseeable future, and THAT _ITSELF_ rests on a HUGE _IF_ .
Aquarius Generator. Thats stolen. its called Stelzer Motor. and was invented in the 70s. They let him not go Industrial with it. because they sayd it was too good, and they hope he dont make it ^^ lol
One problem is that one of the main properties of dark matter is that it influences normal matter so little that we can't even detect it, so there's that. Also it is dark matter that makes the periphery of galaxies travel much faster than they should be, given the calculated/observed normal matter available, by INCREASING the total "gravitational force" (it's not a force, really, but just for simplicity) in the system. IIRC that was actually the primary reason for the original supposition, the otherwise inexplicable outer galactic rotational speeds of, well, us, for example. Just a placeholder for something we didn't understand, or so we thought, now there are many other observed phenomena that point at its actual existence, again, phenomena we need something hidden to explain what is observed. All the we references here refer to human knowledge in general, others are actually doing this work, I've had nothing to do with it. Just an interested bystander.
Its not really opposite or even gravity, mostly the magnitic tork which is luring or scattering on angles of what it collects, not a hole, not necessarily dark, its a Pile, where energy illuminating things obliviate on the corona, it is spreading the universe, by thr polar points, as a celestial recycler, it can only die, by starving it, while an anti-mass conducter craft gets swallowed by it. Not a Toad to mess with.
dark matter interacts with other matter through gravity but doesn't interact with the electro-magnetic (and possibly weak atomic due to electro-weak being the unified force of the two) forces hence not being visible. Dark energy is the force that is expanding the universe by the expansion of space time, not through a gravitational interaction
Hydrogen as a fuel for an ICE engine is possibly the stupidest idea in the world. But leave it to Toyota...they've been chasing after one stupid idea after another lately, all in their effort to avoid irrelevancy in the BEV transition and disruption. Smart money says Toyota bankrupts by 2030. EDIT: Tech Planet's inclusion of the Toyota H2 ICE engine earns it a phat thumbsdown.
fusion reactor... dude you don't need fusion, in fact for in solar system use a fission reacotor would be lighter than a fusion reactor, because a fission reactor need shielding, a fusion reactor needs shielding and giant super conducting magnets to contain the plasma away from the reactor walls. The only way you get around that is a helium 3 fusion reactor which is aneutronic. then you can dump most of the radiation shielding theoretically making it much lighter than a fission reactor. The reason for in solar system travel not needing fusion is that your amount of your reactor fuel fission or fusion is negatable something like 25KG of fission fuel or 5KG of fusion fuel at most, that is outweighed by many orders of magnitude by the ship it's self never mind the propellant, but for interstellar travel you are not going to be using a propellant driven by a reactor, you are going to use a direct open cycle fusion or fission engine as the specific impulse is much higher, and there your fuel and propellant is the same thing as fission or fuel fuel it's self, also the fusion fuel is significantly more abundant and therefore cheaper. So you need a LOT of it, so the weight of the reactor is far far far outweighed by the fuel and the fuel should outweigh the ship it's self by ~2x, so fusion with is increase ISP and decreased fuel weight for the same energy comes into it's own even if you can't do Helium 3 fusion which is harder than Deuterium Tritium fusion as you need a higher fuel temperature and remember we are already at 10x hotter than the core of the sun, and we still haven't gotten practice fusion, so reaching a much higher temperature is a massive deal. Also a 1 or 2MW fusion reactor is completely impractical as the weight and size of your reactor doesn't go down much with the output power, that is well and truly in the realms where fission is by far the better option, 500MW is the minimum power you actually want to build a fusion reactor for and 1 - 2GW or greater is optimal. For a very large stellar ship where efficiency is your main concern and speed doesn't really matter like freight shipping, eh yeah maybe fusion makes some sense as the reactor would only be adding a small fraction to the dry mass of the craft and you can go with a 2GW+ reactor, sure that makes sense as you only need a small acceleration because as said speed isn't the focus so compared to the craft the reactor can be tiny. For a truly MASSIVE stellar freighter you could go with like a 200GW reactor because it's not going to be a any where near 100x the mass of a 2GW as the vast majority of the reactor will be almost a vacuum so very light, as the square cubed law is your friend because as you increase the internal volume of a container by 4x you only need to increase the weight of the container by 2x theoretically, it never quite goes that perfectly, but you do get a significant amount of that benefit, and if you are always accelerating slowly in space, pretty much you would get 100% of that benefit, so for 100x the power your reactor only needs to be 6.25x heavier... I think I have my math right there. but where you want to move people around you probably want to avoid the most efficient route a Hohmann transfer and get there more or less as quickly as possible.
Hydrigen Internal Combustion is a really bad idea, as it is low efficiency and using an expensive low density fuel. Result, really high fuel costs and absurdly short driving range - $80 of fuel for a mere 100 miles before refueling needed.
@@michael-dm2bv I am sure your comment will age well. Pit your money where your mouth is and buy a bunch of Exxon and Chevron stock and short tesla. Prove me wrong.
@@dreiak battery power? u think a 747, battery powered, is the future? i am sure u will age well with ur VERY LIMITED understanding of how things work.
The Vasimr plasma engine requiring 20 megawatts of electric power could advantageously use a thin film TeCd photovoltaïc sun wind sail of about 150 acres only (with 25% efficiency) and the space offers plenty of open empty space for it…this would be much lighter, simpler than any thermal nuclear reactor with radiation shields, cooling and the PV sail could be held in position by centrifugal forces, gyroscopic sun direction positioning and rigidified pneumatically to act efficiently both as a wind sail and as the main Vasimr power source to reduce further the 39 days from the Moon to Mars solar system sail cup regatta record which replaced the ocean going American cup in 2033 already….
@@netferno1 yes but if the space craft radars, light sensors etc..and avoidance manoeuvres system is active to avoid detected stones which will be necessary thru « dirty « belts crossing for a starship sized vessel, then any big flat PV surfaces can also be turned side wise for avoidance and the sails can also be fractionated with only one portion moving to avoid the impact ..and maybe an opposite side sail moves in the opposite direction as well for good balance..with a bigger spacecraft size and target…the system is only more active more often but process of the detection and avoidance system remains identical ..with whatever size..problem really starts when more than one stone must be avoided at the same time!!!
I've been tracking Ad Astra since the late 1990's. Back then, through the 2000's, I believed Dr. Franklin Chang Diaz was a visionary, and we were about to see the dawn of a new age in spacecraft... Roll 20 years farther into the future... We're still waiting for the VASIMR test engines to be installed on the ISS (something that isn't probably going to happen before the ISS is decommissioned). They've been testing the same 200kw engine for over a decade now. By 2010, they have done thousands of firings of their rocket, and recently they ran their rocket for 88 hours straight at 80kw of continuous power... Yet...? Still not a single test in space. I was once excited about VASIMR, but nowadays I've stopped holding my breath.
Fantastic demo of engines, #2 can easly be achieved in modern time, as its simply a jet-to-ramjet- to pure rocket exirtion orbital gainer, #1 best for solar orbit travel, if it could amp with mini nuculear and regen solar thermo or panels, the ultimate is pure electric, or harnessing the gryo gravity tork of heavly mass planets magnetic geoscoptic travel time bend.
@@krotchlickmeugh627 there always the initiation of burrowing the head into soil, you might gather more "gibberish," that is easy to know, if its even easier to inhale.
magnetic field propulsion The Most Powerful Gun is the rail gun it shoots a Bullet at mach 7.5 and it shoot with a magnet field How fast do you need to go to enter orbit magnetic field propulsion
Aurora Propulsion Technologies electric sail: So it could reach Alpha Centauri in about 20 years? Could this technology be used to protect planets from solar storms by putting a magnetic field between the planet and it's sun? Could it be scaled up to protect us from the next Carrington event? (-:
Good job on mentioning VASIMR. It has not gotten the attention it deserves. SInce the U.S. government is funding research on nuclear thermal rockets and several companies are working on portable nuclear reactors, we should have the 200+ MW needed for VASIMR soon. Nuclear subs and ships are already generating that kind of power, but they have the advantage of using ocean water for cooling.
Thanks, yes I think it's possible too.
Well vasimir can use "space" to cool down, provided they can find the material that can resist the wear and tear of going to high temperatures to near absolute zero.
@@netferno1 space is awful cooler
@@netferno1 while space IS cold, the problem is figuring out a material that can radiate heat better than current-gen radiators as without an atmosphere, radiation is pretty much the only cooling method and unfortunately, it's also the weakest
@@netferno1 Actually, the problem with using "space" for cooling is exactly the opposite - as Space acts like your "vacuum bottle" thermos and actually INSULATES - or TRAPS the heat IN rather than allowing the heat to escape via conduction, as would a water-based cooling system.
SOME have proposed ablative cooling- where a sacrificial material is "melted away" carrying the heat with it, but then you have to carry the mass of the cooling material with you negating the whole advantage.
The reason conventional Liquid fueled Rocket engines (with nozzles "tuned" for the vacuum of space - but THAT has no bearing on THIS discussion...) is that the mass carrying the heat is ejected as part of the combustion process.
So-
The HEAT factor _remains_ a huge problem to overcome .
POV: When you are watching tech videos 2 years later after their upload
and everything seems like the distant past 🗿
#6: hydrogen ICEs have been in development for 40 years now (BMW and Mercedes started work on these in the 1980s), BMW has/had the Hydrogen 7 for sale for years now. The main problem is that it's far less efficient than a fuel cell: you get 1/2 to 1/5 the range of a fuel cell on the same amount of H2. The only advantage is that an ICE is cheaper to build than a fuel cell.
I agree, if you have to put in a footnote about Toyota hanging on to an inefficient tech it prob shouldn't be in the list lol.
The real question is how "green" is Hydrogen? The production of Grey Hydrogen produces shocking amounts of CO2 (9 parts CO2 to 1 part Hydrogen). Blue Hydrogen means storing that CO2 somewhere and Green Hydrogen mean using electrolysis which is only Green if the energy source is taken from renewal energy.
That low of efficiency presents an even bigger impediment when you consider the cost of the Hydrogen to fuel it. It's actually quite ridiculous to even consider burning it in an ICE vehicle.
the BMW Hydrogen 7 was a 6liter v12. yes it got bad gas mileage
It's also not emission-free, as NOx formed in combustion is also a greenhouse gas, so it needs to be trapped somehow. Toyota have been all in on FCEVs and the Mirai is a beautiful car, so this move might seem contrary. I believe that the H2 ICE engine is another piece in the sustainable puzzle. It's about getting the most out of the old infrastructure before we junk it all, a transitional technology on the road to fuel cells. Same with the source of hydrogen itself, which must transition from black and gray generation scenarios to fully green.
Detonation engines are so interesting! Only thing, if we do consider a regular rocket to be loud, we should buckle up for detonation powered rockets 😂
not really... a typical rocket engine is a detonation engine. just much less efficient. but the point here is sound. gaining decibels at lower volumes is easy. but once you hit the levels of a rocket engine. it's pretty much topped out. example- let's say you have a rocket that hits 180 db's. to go up just s single db or 2. you'd have to basically double the entire system. want another db or 2. then you'd have to double that again to 4 rockets. but the other limitation is how much vibration a given system can withstand. not to mention the vibrations the crew could withstand as well. and current rockets already push this barrier as it is.
@@governmentcheese7726 Typical rocket engines are Deflagration engines, not Detonation engines. Deflagration and Detonation both are combustion of the fuel-air mixture, but the former is subsonic and the latter, supersonic. Detonations propagate supersonically through shock waves with flame speeds in the range of 1km/s whereas deflagrations have flame speeds in the range of 1m/s.
@@one.darkstar i know, but that has nothing to do with the topic. i was trying to keep it simple.
@@governmentcheese7726 Yeah I admit I got kinda overexcited, lol. because rarely are there any videos so specific on things that I am learning about haha
A minor correction. Gravity is not a force. It's a consequence of mass which warps space-time. So the real question, . . When space-time is warped, what's warping?
Omg, you blew my mind. What do you think is warping?
Ok, nice video, agree 100% that once we truly know what gravity is and how it works a truly revolutionary way to travel will be found, the only thing missing is the iodine engine a vasmir engine that dosen't need compressed gas only solid iodine
Gravity is the superposition of elementary particles. Newton's models are still pretty accurate in that regard. The ionic or plasma thrusters are the secret to "utilizing" gravity because higher EM field flux densities increase the relative interactive forces of particles. Maybe someday we'll have a propulsion system that magnetically compresses and expands the interstellar medium to move but that'd only work outside of the solar system. So for now we're gonne use electrically accelerated rocket engines or "plasma thrusters".
Nice to see a new upload from Tech Planet
Thanks, I am little busy moving but I will try to keep making content.
@@Tech_Planet Great, just remember wherever you go there you are 💚
I enjoyed the clarity of the narrative and video. I would suggest that the narrative be less rapid fire. Thanks
Thanks, will do!
Awesome video - thank you!
Physicist here. It’s unlikely that a better understanding of gravity will unlock new propulsion technologies that are practical in our lifetimes, if ever. The energies required to noticeably bend spacetime are so ridiculously high that, even if and when we have a concept for a gravity-based propulsion system, conventional propulsion will probably be all-around more practical for centuries to come.
You're bending space-time right now
Since you're stuck to the Earth
Constantly falling
Thanks mate I enjoyed that.
Good to see the engine development
Very cool! Thank you!
Bonus mention: Positron Dynamics antimatter propulsion
Vids like this make me so happy I wan cry
Great video as always!
Pretty much all space engines can reach the same velocity given time.
The difference with the last engine is probably that it accelerates far faster, getting you to maximum velocity faster, not that it has a higher velocity.
That engine is also a LOT more efficient than the other engines, which means it could carry more fuel.
And theres where the problem lies, because no engine can be running for enough time before they run out of fuel. The last engine can run for years given it has enough electricity but it has the impulse power of a mosquito, if you could make 10'000 mosquitos constantly push your ship in space where nothing can slow you down, then over the weeks you'll achieve a superb speed, and in less than a decade you'll be reaching a percentage of light speed. The biggest problem is electricity, and lucky for us, mini nuclear reactors do exist, so we almost have everything we need.
@ - _NAILED_ it. Well done .
Continuous thrust ion engines seem to avoid most potential mechanical problems. Yes, I get that current versions don't produce quite enough thrust to power human spaceflight, but is there some reason to think performance of ion engines won't improve significantly with research? Perhaps an initial chemical "boost", even a brief such boost, followed by powering up the ion engine, would seem to cut flight time greatly. I'm assuming the craft would be launched from space, not from Earth.
Yes we can come up with new discoveries to change the electrons in ion thrusters to output more thrust with less weight. We have a long way to go. the only limit is newtons third law. We get as much energy out as we put in. We cannot make more energy output than we put in.
At 4:38 you say Celsius but use Kelvin...which is it?
Loved the content! My ear heard the word 'NOW', starting a sentence, at least 12 times. Perhaps you could change a few words up. Great subject! Thanks.
Your explanation about hydrogen cars is inaccurate. Toyota cars convert hydrogen into electricity which powers a main electric motor drive using magnetic power. Its converted instantly via battery cells. However the hydrogen combustion engine burns the hydrogen as fuel. Two different concepts in two different cars. The car in the video shown driving with noise was burning the hydrogen fuel instead of converting it into electricity like Toyota.
Another mistake made is hybrid vehicles only charge batteries , actually the series hybrid has an engine that mechanically drives the wheels or drives an alternator that powers the wheel motors .
@@martinfarfsing5995 Your describing hybrid electric cars. Hydrogen powered cars are different. They use liquid hydrogen as fuel which automatically converts to electricity when run through a battery cell.
The new mini reactors can provide 30MW of power and can easily provide energy for the vasimir ion drive for space travel
I can not find any information about the Sabre engine operation below mach 2 and subsonic. I do not see additional inlet area since the frontal area for the supersonic engine is small compared to the air needed for thrust.
The problem with hudrogen has never been the combustion, it is how to store the fuel safe and that is basically why no one has put any big effort in it. Already an electric car burn as vesuvius, and a hydrogen car would be ten times worse and is a big fire risk, as well as hydrogen is difficult to contain as with helium as a lot of materials allow passage of the gas such as rubber hoses of many sorts.
With the VASIMR we are one step closer to star trek.
🥛
You need to either filter your audio or use a microphone that deals with sibilants better.
Fast is good but stopping is more important!
great ideas engines
The SABRE engine air intake looks like the SR71 engine intake. The SR71 engine was a Scramjet combined with J58 turbojet?
the first 1 reminds me of the
The Bourke Engine
it was designed by Russell Bourke in the 1920s,
I think the Rolls-Royce Ultrafan has been developed with one thing in mind: a potential application on the Boeing 777-8 and777-9. And Rolls-Royce may be willing to pay to do this.
and the AF B~52s
What’s interesting is how they are getting around P&Ws patents.
@@johnheavner7947 unless Rolls-Royce has a cross-license agreement with Pratt & Whitney due to the International Aero Engines consortium.
Interesting that you didnt mention the close in US military application the Sabre is being looked at for missile delivery.
It's important to learn from nature: The blackhole's gigantic mass distorts space and time around it, twisting magneticfield lines into a coil that propels material outward.
The first one dates from the 1980s or earlier. Suppose the patents did run out. Don't remember why it didn't go anywhere.
Correct me if I'm wrong but since there is nothing in space, any propulsion unit would not have to be driving a craft full time, all you have to do is reach the top speed and turn off the power, since there's no gravity or air to slow you down, once you reach terminal velocity your ship should run at terminal velocity until you apply some type of boost in the opposite direction or unless the gravitational pull from an object pulls you in it's direction to slow you down. Any reply is welcome.
There is no top speed but yes you would reach your desired speed then stop thrust. The issue is the initial thrust is still alot
There is still cloud dust and other small particles in space. It would be longer but the space craft will still slow down eventually. Turning would be a big issue to stay on course to destination. Since we cannot use standard wing movement controls to turn the space craft like on airplanes. We need to use more energy on turns than on earth so it equals out.
There is still gravity in space. If you float outside our solar system, the sun will still continue to pull on you.
The only reason people in the spacecraft float is because they fall towards earth at a constant speed removing gravities effect. But you would fall just as fast if not faster towards something with mass. Probably faster because less material in the way to slow you down due to drag.
Good job
Are the Rotating Detonation engines the same as Aerospike engines? They sound eerily similar.
Not exponentially higher, just order of magnitude higher.
"Exponentially" doesn't mean "a lot".
that sabre engine looks like something the space force will be using to build its fleet of space fighters.
i'm waiting for them to roll out their old technology antigravity
but i think they will keep it secret
plasma engines would be the next best thing
They haven’t even found the fundamental particle for gravity yet, until that happens and they find a way to use it ,they won’t suddenly come up with antigravity.
@@olnbgy4444 antigravity craft have been sighted all over the earth the last century
there is no doubt that they have been building such craft in military black projects.
aliens will account for some also especially from bases on this planet. they have likely been here for tens of thousands of years.
advanced technology has been on this earth from hundreds of thousands of years interrupted by planetary cataclysm every 10K to 15K years.
conventional subatomic physics has a long history of monumental fraud.
any subatomic model is just a postulate. there are no tools to prove it.
gravity waves are fiction. we don't live in a gravity based universe but electromagnetic.
@@prioris55555 lol, dude, you are hilarious.
Why not mix the rotating detonation engine and Aquarius
Afaik the sabre never works like a jet engine.it is an air breathing rocket.
Unless you are using a definition of jet that encompasses rockets.
I was thinking of a rocket-engine that worked by compressing air through an intake (much like a jet), and gets liquid oxygen in space from internal tanks. Sabre seems to be similar, so there might be hope we'll see a spaceplane take-off and landing at airports, but with destinations into Earth orbits.
the aquarius is basically the same design as the steam locomotive engine.
I really like antimatter based VASIMIR engine concept
The first one you showed is a copy of the Stelzer Engine (1984), the concept was developed in 1969.
The Bourke Engine
it was designed by Russell Bourke in the 1920s,
@@OrenBlau Thanks, yes that must have been where they all got it from.
Does the "39 days" to Mars quote include deceleration?
I'm perplexed how anything is moved by any type of combustion/detonation energy in zero gravity, without physical propulsion.....I agree that once we've found out the secrete of gravity- we may even be able to it's source and use it against itself almost like - and + poles on a magnet rather than engines. Maybe I'll have to do some more research and catch up on some facts.
Gravity is a wave. (Discovered in 2015 when 2 black holes colided) Waves exert pressure. Its the reason we can destroy cells or create new elements. The reason loud noises cause avalanches and our bones to vibrate from bass. Everything is oscillating frequencies, and to move through space freely we need those magic numbers. I theorize the golden ratio and toroidal spheres might be used to make power levels reasonable. In space, there are sonic waves just like sonic booms from aircraft. Perhaps even artifical gravity can be made with sonic frequencies in space without ridiculous power.
@@extremechris9145 - Sound is not gravity, and gravity is not sound. While gravity may express as a wave, its NOT why sound can destroy cells or why things vibrate from bass . THOSE are _effects_ of "pressure differential" across a medium, and explain how we can hear something (the "medium" being our atmosphere), for instance, NOT how we stay fixed, say- to the surface of a planet.
Since a sound wave consists of a repeating pattern of high-pressure and low-pressure regions moving through a medium, it is sometimes referred to as a pressure wave. Pressure differentials are byproducts of an atmospheres gravitational waves. Relative resonance keeps differentials minimal, just like when steel bridges fall due to resonance of the steel and not the gravel. Or another example is a black hole bending stars light, and all the particles within it
You can throw bricks behind you, in Space, for propulsion
Doesn't matter what material, or buncha particles
It's action n reaction
the electron is an energy storage device like a spinning wheel but tiny and with multiple wheels spinning multiple directions you get all wheels spinning at the speed of light and you have multiples of the the speed of light potential energy then you see how many of them you can stuff in a ball like a steam ball ...
Hopefully we'll see a test craft flying with SABRE as early as 2025
To me gravitational engine is the way to go
Just by way of comparison, the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) exhaust velocity was a bit more than 5 km/sec.
Less, not more. RS-25 achieved about 453 Isp, which equates to an exhaust velocity of 4436 m/s.
Rotating Detonation one seems like aa design I imagined in school based on the Tesla Turbine. Gonna have to see if an old classmate is working on it 🤔
Chances are if you thought of it bunches of other people did too .
No the EM drive is superior to number 1 but it's not been used yet
WAXOGEN MAY BECOME THE ROCKET FUEL IN THE FUTURE
ไม่ต้องช้อตแรงอัดไฟฟ้าจุดระเบิดเชื้อเพลิงแบบ เครืองยนต์ลูกสูบอีกต่อไปแล้วนะ
But how do you stop these things when you go near the speed of light?
So why is the Toyota hydrogen engine on the list? This is not a new idea, BMW did it back in 2005 with a set of 7 series sedans to be used as a taxi. They used a V12 though. They produced 100 of these vehicles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
There should be much simple system to fly in space.
The difference between earths atmosphere and space is fluid dynamics vs a gasless environment, I am surprised the NAVY isn't working with NASA for space travel they have a perspective of traveling through intense fluid resistance against the buoyancy of saltwater.
Wish you said where the other companies were from
What do you say about patent ru2772689 c1?
Problem with hydrogen powered ice engine is it needs a alternative added to it. As gas is also a lubricant.
You are the most advanced engine; you make life go! If you are doing it right, you are always in development…
Lol when we find out what gravity is. That was the funniest noge noge wink wink you probably ever did axidently...
Toyota hydrogen engine looks promising
Solar panels for the VASIMR engine. 50x of the new ISS solar panels makes 1MW and costs about $800,000,000 (likely less due to economies of scale)
Scale as you like, there is no resistance in space and this is a Lot cheaper than a non-existent fusion reactor... probably lighter too.
The EU Tokamak experimental reactor costs about $25 - 45 Billion and won't even be self sustaining at any kind of productive level LMAO
Solar panels LARGELY _INEFFECTIVE_ much beyond the radius of inner-planetary orbit - say roughly Mars or the asteroid belt , for instance, with effectiveness falling off dramatically beyond that distance, and even there its largely only good for the TINY amounts of power needed to power on-board systems.
"Scaling" -
Remember- ANY propulsive benefit must FIRST overcome the _mass_ of the very "scaling" you mention in your idea, _BEFORE_ it can be used to accelerate the overall mass by any usable degree .
No, this is why so many are experimenting with so many ideas right now, HOPING to overcome this barrier, and discovering in the process that the old reaction mass equations _always_ seem inviolate, no matter HOW much "research" is poured into their next best "perpetual motion" like idea - "... if I do _THIS_ new mysterious thing, MAYBE _I_ can get more power _OUT_ than I put _IN_ for longer than I put it in ... " .
Kyane above, covers it pretty well in his comment.
There just aren't enough mosquitoes to overcome that many mosquito's own mass, and leave anything left over to do anything meaningful with.
Developing a sustainable Fusion Reaction for the - potentially _massive_ - ELECTRICAL POWER it would provide, seems the ONLY reasonable option to conventional combustion-reaction for the foreseeable future, and
THAT _ITSELF_ rests on a HUGE _IF_ .
If you mean ITER then the I stands for International, not European Union. It would be called EUTER otherwise.
@@krashd I could have been clearer there for sure, I was more referring to it's location.
Thanks for the improvement :)
@@OniMetsuki ITER may be one of the most expensive science projects around but we will still learn a lot of shit from it. Just because a bunch of startups have said "we plan for first fusion in 2023" does not mean that any one of them will be fruitful.
They are all utilising new and untested methods - tokamaks are a proven tech, albeit an expensive tech. We will still learn a helluva lot about fluid dynamics at extremely high temperatures when it powers up.
Before the LHC was built in the 90's both Americans and Russians scoffed at it and said the chances of it finding something that Moscow and Chicago could not were infinitesimal, the LHC went on to find four particles including the Higgs Boson that proved millions of scientists right.
We know that gravity is a time dilation differential. The question is, can we find an effect that induces time dilation gradient by not using mass.
Space-time,... ahem
And not one of these dead end examples will be heard of ever again. Unless someone feels the need to make another "science" video. 😂
Gah!! if only every awesome bit of tech wasn't always years away ! What we need is an AI singularity that can run through billions of designs and iterations it can possibly conceive, in fractions of a second, to end up with the ultimate, perfect, finished product design, on the very first attempt 😁
Quantum AI
Been thinking the same myself,
For some years now.
Either a. I. Design....... Or.....
Genetically modified brains
That use two, three or even four times the ten percent average humans use.
Or..... Another manhattan project
Where the world's top scientists are invited to work at a state of the art site.... To enable mankind to get off this deathtrap we call earth.
skynet
What would be the fun in that!?
But can i straight pipe the hydrogen car? if not i dont want it.
Honda owners be like: " wait till the VTEC kICkS iN gUyZz..."
If Vasimr doesn't require a volume storage of its exerted thrust, the way a chem rocket has a canister, it would be sufficient in solar orbit travel, to be amped with a nuculear power and recharge built up by solar or thernal etc. Granting infinite accel without idol, thus gravity cruise in the conservative 0.5 ~ 1G force non stop. as energy form booster thrust.
hydrogen, because of the atom size. leaks, and being combustible, isn't a good idea. Especially the amount of energy required to make it.
Vasimr engine it's being developed in Costa Rica 🇨🇷
I really want the Sabre engine to work
"Engines In Development" Reviews Hydrogen Combustion engine which has been in some production vehicles for line 20 years
I've seen the magnet, tech humm the nice things in life are like Earth Magnetic thrust & proportion.
Now if we can just manage to not kill ourselves and diddle ourselves of that bright future.
Well ... Not in our lifetime !
For Electrical Power generation, Solar panels LARGELY _INEFFECTIVE_ much beyond the radius of inner-planetary orbit - say roughly Mars or the asteroid belt , for instance, with effectiveness falling off dramatically beyond that distance, and even there its largely only good for the TINY amounts of power needed to power on-board systems.
"Scaling" -
Remember- ANY propulsive benefit must FIRST overcome the _mass_ of the very "scaling" mentioned in some of the comments _BEFORE_ it can be used to accelerate the overall vehicle + fuel + payload mass by any usable degree .
No, this is why so many are experimenting with so many ideas right now, HOPING to overcome this barrier, and discovering in the process that the old reaction mass equations _always_ seem inviolate, no matter HOW much "research" is poured into their next best "perpetual motion" like idea - "... if I do _THIS_ new mysterious thing- MAYBE _I_ can get more power _OUT_ than I put _IN_ for longer than I put it in ... " .
Kyane above, covers it pretty well in his comment.
There just aren't enough mosquitoes to overcome that many mosquito's own mass (and even mosquitoes have to _FEED ... ;=) !_ ), and leave anything left over to do anything meaningful with.
Developing a sustainable Fusion Reaction for the - potentially _massive_ - ELECTRICAL POWER it would provide, seems the ONLY reasonable option to conventional combustion-reaction for the foreseeable future, and
THAT _ITSELF_ rests on a HUGE _IF_ .
Yes thankyou any real term of gravity must be space,a ship,and our survival.
Aquarius Generator. Thats stolen. its called Stelzer Motor. and was invented in the 70s. They let him not go Industrial with it. because they sayd it was too good, and they hope he dont make it ^^ lol
If dark matter is expanding the universe then it is the Opposite of gravity that’s my thought. I need to raise money to test my theory.
One problem is that one of the main properties of dark matter is that it influences normal matter so little that we can't even detect it, so there's that.
Also it is dark matter that makes the periphery of galaxies travel much faster than they should be, given the calculated/observed normal matter available, by INCREASING the total "gravitational force" (it's not a force, really, but just for simplicity) in the system.
IIRC that was actually the primary reason for the original supposition, the otherwise inexplicable outer galactic rotational speeds of, well, us, for example. Just a placeholder for something we didn't understand, or so we thought, now there are many other observed phenomena that point at its actual existence, again, phenomena we need something hidden to explain what is observed. All the we references here refer to human knowledge in general, others are actually doing this work, I've had nothing to do with it. Just an interested bystander.
Its not really opposite or even gravity, mostly the magnitic tork which is luring or scattering on angles of what it collects, not a hole, not necessarily dark, its a Pile, where energy illuminating things obliviate on the corona, it is spreading the universe, by thr polar points, as a celestial recycler, it can only die, by starving it, while an anti-mass conducter craft gets swallowed by it. Not a Toad to mess with.
that's dark energy, not dark matter.
dark matter interacts with other matter through gravity but doesn't interact with the electro-magnetic (and possibly weak atomic due to electro-weak being the unified force of the two) forces hence not being visible. Dark energy is the force that is expanding the universe by the expansion of space time, not through a gravitational interaction
Hydrogen as a fuel for an ICE engine is possibly the stupidest idea in the world. But leave it to Toyota...they've been chasing after one stupid idea after another lately, all in their effort to avoid irrelevancy in the BEV transition and disruption. Smart money says Toyota bankrupts by 2030.
EDIT: Tech Planet's inclusion of the Toyota H2 ICE engine earns it a phat thumbsdown.
fusion reactor... dude you don't need fusion, in fact for in solar system use a fission reacotor would be lighter than a fusion reactor, because a fission reactor need shielding, a fusion reactor needs shielding and giant super conducting magnets to contain the plasma away from the reactor walls. The only way you get around that is a helium 3 fusion reactor which is aneutronic. then you can dump most of the radiation shielding theoretically making it much lighter than a fission reactor.
The reason for in solar system travel not needing fusion is that your amount of your reactor fuel fission or fusion is negatable something like 25KG of fission fuel or 5KG of fusion fuel at most, that is outweighed by many orders of magnitude by the ship it's self never mind the propellant, but for interstellar travel you are not going to be using a propellant driven by a reactor, you are going to use a direct open cycle fusion or fission engine as the specific impulse is much higher, and there your fuel and propellant is the same thing as fission or fuel fuel it's self, also the fusion fuel is significantly more abundant and therefore cheaper.
So you need a LOT of it, so the weight of the reactor is far far far outweighed by the fuel and the fuel should outweigh the ship it's self by ~2x, so fusion with is increase ISP and decreased fuel weight for the same energy comes into it's own even if you can't do Helium 3 fusion which is harder than Deuterium Tritium fusion as you need a higher fuel temperature and remember we are already at 10x hotter than the core of the sun, and we still haven't gotten practice fusion, so reaching a much higher temperature is a massive deal.
Also a 1 or 2MW fusion reactor is completely impractical as the weight and size of your reactor doesn't go down much with the output power, that is well and truly in the realms where fission is by far the better option, 500MW is the minimum power you actually want to build a fusion reactor for and 1 - 2GW or greater is optimal.
For a very large stellar ship where efficiency is your main concern and speed doesn't really matter like freight shipping, eh yeah maybe fusion makes some sense as the reactor would only be adding a small fraction to the dry mass of the craft and you can go with a 2GW+ reactor, sure that makes sense as you only need a small acceleration because as said speed isn't the focus so compared to the craft the reactor can be tiny.
For a truly MASSIVE stellar freighter you could go with like a 200GW reactor because it's not going to be a any where near 100x the mass of a 2GW as the vast majority of the reactor will be almost a vacuum so very light, as the square cubed law is your friend because as you increase the internal volume of a container by 4x you only need to increase the weight of the container by 2x theoretically, it never quite goes that perfectly, but you do get a significant amount of that benefit, and if you are always accelerating slowly in space, pretty much you would get 100% of that benefit, so for 100x the power your reactor only needs to be 6.25x heavier... I think I have my math right there.
but where you want to move people around you probably want to avoid the most efficient route a Hohmann transfer and get there more or less as quickly as possible.
Metric! This is science, use SI units!
need ion thrusters
Hydrigen Internal Combustion is a really bad idea, as it is low efficiency and using an expensive low density fuel. Result, really high fuel costs and absurdly short driving range - $80 of fuel for a mere 100 miles before refueling needed.
ของแรกก็จะเป็นน้ำมันเเละก็าชอยู่ต่อไปก็จะเป็นก็าสพิเศษแบบ ฟองไนโตรเจน รึ การสันดาฟ ครอรีนโมโน
Toyota's on a fools errand
TR-3B Astra aircraft uses one of them engines it’s decades old , the elusive black triangle, get researching that
Came here to watch the dying throes of a dead technology. Electric is the future of everything that doesn't go to space.
really? have u ever observed mining equipment? a train? a cargo ship? a 747?
clearly u just think u understand how the world runs.
thats pretty hilarious, how clueless people like u are.
@@michael-dm2bv I am sure your comment will age well. Pit your money where your mouth is and buy a bunch of Exxon and Chevron stock and short tesla. Prove me wrong.
@@dreiak how does musk mine lithium?
@@dreiak battery power? u think a 747, battery powered, is the future?
i am sure u will age well with ur VERY LIMITED understanding of how things work.
The Vasimr plasma engine requiring 20 megawatts of electric power could advantageously use a thin film TeCd photovoltaïc sun wind sail of about 150 acres only (with 25% efficiency) and the space offers plenty of open empty space for it…this would be much lighter, simpler than any thermal nuclear reactor with radiation shields, cooling and the PV sail could be held in position by centrifugal forces, gyroscopic sun direction positioning and rigidified pneumatically to act efficiently both as a wind sail and as the main Vasimr power source to reduce further the 39 days from the Moon to Mars solar system sail cup regatta record which replaced the ocean going American cup in 2033 already….
True but what about the small rocks we have floating around the solar system? Won't they tear through the wind sails?
@@netferno1 yes but if the space craft radars, light sensors etc..and avoidance manoeuvres system is active to avoid detected stones which will be necessary thru « dirty « belts crossing for a starship sized vessel, then any big flat PV surfaces can also be turned side wise for avoidance and the sails can also be fractionated with only one portion moving to avoid the impact ..and maybe an opposite side sail moves in the opposite direction as well for good balance..with a bigger spacecraft size and target…the system is only more active more often but process of the detection and avoidance system remains identical ..with whatever size..problem really starts when more than one stone must be avoided at the same time!!!
I've been tracking Ad Astra since the late 1990's. Back then, through the 2000's, I believed Dr. Franklin Chang Diaz was a visionary, and we were about to see the dawn of a new age in spacecraft...
Roll 20 years farther into the future...
We're still waiting for the VASIMR test engines to be installed on the ISS (something that isn't probably going to happen before the ISS is decommissioned). They've been testing the same 200kw engine for over a decade now. By 2010, they have done thousands of firings of their rocket, and recently they ran their rocket for 88 hours straight at 80kw of continuous power...
Yet...?
Still not a single test in space. I was once excited about VASIMR, but nowadays I've stopped holding my breath.
Fantastic demo of engines, #2 can easly be achieved in modern time, as its simply a jet-to-ramjet- to pure rocket exirtion orbital gainer, #1 best for solar orbit travel, if it could amp with mini nuculear and regen solar thermo or panels, the ultimate is pure electric, or harnessing the gryo gravity tork of heavly mass planets magnetic geoscoptic travel time bend.
The most nonsense. "I just learned a bunch of gibberish"
Shit i have ever heard
@@krotchlickmeugh627 Definitely right up there.
@@krotchlickmeugh627 there always the initiation of burrowing the head into soil, you might gather more "gibberish," that is easy to know, if its even easier to inhale.
aquarius seems like teslas steam thingy
soak it in liquid nitrogen, copper or aluminium, spin centrifugal compression stages only not fan blade
magnetic field propulsion
The Most Powerful Gun is the rail gun it shoots a Bullet at mach 7.5 and it shoot with a magnet field How fast do you need to go to enter orbit
magnetic field propulsion
อื้อชุดลูกสูกกลตัวใหม่นะเป็น โลลริ้งลูกสูบเพล่า แม่เหล็กสปริงไฟฟ้า ในแบบ ครอนตั้ม นะ เครืองเงียบมากๆ
Aurora Propulsion Technologies electric sail: So it could reach Alpha Centauri in about 20 years? Could this technology be used to protect planets from solar storms by putting a magnetic field between the planet and it's sun? Could it be scaled up to protect us from the next Carrington event? (-: