NASA's NEW Nuclear Mars Rocket Engine is somehow better & faster than SpaceX Starship...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- NASA's NEW Nuclear Mars Rocket Engine is somehow better & faster than SpaceX Starship...
===
#alphatech
#techalpha
#spacex
#elonmusk
#starship
#spacexstarship
===
Subcribe Alpha Tech: www.youtube.com/@alphatech496...
===
NASA's NEW Nuclear Mars Rocket Engine is somehow better & faster than SpaceX Starship…
www.space.com/nasa-darpa-nucl...
gizmodo.com/nasa-darpa-lockhe...
Sources of Images and Videos:
Randolph Visuals: / cosmicalchief
TijnM: / @tijn_m
C-bass Productions: / @cbassproductions
TheSpaceEngineer: / @thespaceengineer
Ryan Hansen Space: / ryanhansenspace
Christian Debney: / @christiandebney1989
LabPadre Space: / labpadre
Cosmic Perspective: / @cosmicperspective
Everyday Astronaut: / everydayastronaut
SpacePadre : / spacepadreisle
BWX Technologies, Inc. / @bwxtechnologies
David Willis: / theprimaldino
USLaunchReport: / uslaunchreport
U.S. Department of Energy: / @energy
iamVisual: / @iamvisualvfx
StarshipGazer: / starshipgazer
Groundtruth: / @groundtruth4442
===
NASA's NEW Nuclear Mars Rocket Engine is somehow better & faster than SpaceX Starship...
Six months. This is the period that Elon Musk has estimated for the journey to Mars with Starship, the vehicle is currently operated by a total of 39 Raptor engines.
But you know, six months is very long for anyone, including you and me. And of course, NASA also doesn’t like that.
Therefore, NASA revealed a new engine that will use a new energy source. They claim that it will be more powerful, safer, and can get humans to Mars faster than the Starship and Raptor engines.
So what is that engine? How it’s better than the SpaceX Raptor engine? Why NASA is so confident with its engines?
Stay tuned as we dive and more in today's episode of Alpha Tech! 
Наука
It will take NASA 70 years to build it and it will be way way over budget.
might see a demo in 2040 and 50 billion later
NASA doesn't have a new Nuclear Rocket engine. they have a study on paper saying "yeah, this could be cool if somebody made one." there is a company in england that is actually building and testing such an engine, and has discussed a partnership with SpaceX. For comparison the Raptor was in use in 2019 and has been scaling up production since.
NASA HAD a working, fully tested and flight ready Nuclear Engine ready to go, in 1974! President Nixon cancelled that along with ending the Apollo missions.
@@paulmoffat9306 Even Nixon, who was a crook, saw it was way too expensive and nixed it.
If i got a buck for a every super cool plan the NASA came up with and then failed to deliver after we ended the Moon missions, i would be a billionaire
NASA couldn't put together a toy from a kinder egg.
😂 So true
That is why darpa will do the work
Ummm, ok.
@@heels-villeshoerepairs8613 Ummm, thanks.😂👍
@TheRetroManRandySavage it is amazing that NASA seem to have all this expertise and yet they can't even find the technology that they "lost" to get back to the moon.
This rocket engine would not replace the Merlin or Raptor engines. It would only be used while already in space.
Correct. Nuclear engines have an excellent isp but a very poor thrust to weight ratio. Victor Von Braun was considering it for the Saturn V second stage where TTWR was not so essential. Now there is an even better way to get much higher isp, read “Thermo-Electric Rocket Thruster” if you want to know more (down to 18 days). ☺️
The huge problem besides COST is complicated, as hydrogen is almost impossible to seal being the smallest molecule, as small as its atom. Dreaming
The Space Shuttle used hydrogen as fuel. You know you can liquify it, right?
@@zagreus5773 its very hard tho
It already been done for the last 50 years
@@The1QwertySky not really.
@@jessicatymczak5852 it also takes a LOT of energy to get hydrogen, which would be way more efficent to just use the electricity directly to power a motor. Also it takes a LOT of space to store hydrogen, hydrogen cars have way less range than EVs like teslas and in q crash you will end up in low earth orbit in pieces. Just look at atleast 1 hydrogen car review and you will know what I mean
I love all these stories about NASA inventing stuff, meanwhile they use 40 year old tech, and techniques
6:40 - “Send a crew to Mars in 2030”…. Maybe 2130….
As he said, its been around since the sixties. However each attempt has shown that atomic erosion was massive over the internal structures. On every engine they built the erosion was of such nature as to destroy the engine in a period so short as to make its use lost cause. So far Ive seen only the same theories as tried in the past. I expect, as in the case of the large ion thruster which was abandoned in the recent past and long history of failed attempts to accomplish this very same project, its just so much hot air. I still think abandoning the large ion thruster was a bad move. That one looked very promising... but the money was pissed away and whittled down and we all lost instead.
The nuclear ion engine is 80s tech that uses water for fuel. On 150 gallons of water, it could maintain 1g of accelleration before flipping over and doing it again for the remainder of the journey. Optimal time to Mars 36 hours.
Can I suggest Space X to launch on a Starship then the nuclear is tested in space rather than it blowing up in our atmosphere !
If it is NASA claiming this they should have it ready in about 50 or 60 years and about 10 times the actual budget judging from their track record .
One can attach a Nuclear Thermal Rocket to the back end of Starship to push it forward. This is a win for SpaceX too.
Thank you for your comment!
Nuclear thermal and nuclear electric rocket engines will be the future of exploring/colonizing the solar system. Chemical rockets will still be needed to get off earth, but these new rockets will be used to travel between planets.
Thank you for your comment!
What is rarely discussed about manned Mars missions and their propulsion systems ids the fact that the longer the trip last the larger the radiation dose the crew gets. A 6-months x 2 round trip means almost a Sievert of radiation dose, the NASA limit for the entire career of astronauts. Thus, the faster the mission, the lower the dose, and nuclear propulsion is definitely better than chemical.
One day we will be building nuclear rockets on the moon where helium-3 is abundant and the material needed to build them will be available.
Odds are that if this thing is built it will be launched on Super Heavy. Nobody's going to allow a nuclear rocket to be launched from Earth--too much radiation in the exhaust.
No they with go to orbit with starship and super heavy carrying the nuclear engine
The problem with traveling at 500,000 mph is how are you going to shield the spacecraft from hitting even tiny micrometeorites? The kinetic energy, KE, involved in a spacecraft traveling at a relative velocity, v, with respect to an object of mass, m, is equal to KE = 1/2·m·v^2. Therefore, decreasing the time required to get from Earth to Mars from 6 months, or 180 days, to 45 days is a 180 days/45 days = 4X increase in speed. The spacecraft would therefore be subjected to a possible 16X increase in kinetic energy collisions with any objects, such as micrometeorites. This is a parameter that will have to be accounted for in the spacecraft design.
NASA has being saying this for the last 60years, I'm growing old already 😅🤣😂
Starship has already reached
orbital altitude and velocity
Anybody else notice the Pikachu on the top of the raptor engines at 8:26 when elon is by them.
Though this is likely many years away, it at least doesn't obsolesce the Starship because Nuclear Rockets will likely never be used for orbital launches, but rather as an interplanetary express.
At a certain point on the trip to mars, you have to flip the ship around and fire the engines to slow you down so you don't blow by Mars. Some mission in the future will have a mechanical failure of some kind that will keep them from refiring the engines.
Giving nuclear materials to anyone to sell on the black market is probably a no no no
wow , nasa has made a great progress !
we'll be able to see the commercial version within the next 200 years .
So basically invent nuclear fusion (which is perpetually 25 years in the future). Then when we get to the moon, there’s helium-3 just lying around under every rock to fuel it. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Spacex will colonise Mars 3 times before NASA will launch rocket with that engine
Has it been tested???
Mean acceleration of a proton in the Large Hadron Collider: 190M g
Acceleration necessary to achieve 76% of speed of light in 354 days: 1g
Now, if we only had Kerbal Space Program 2 not being abandoned, we could also try to land on Duna!
The nuclear engine is for space use only it will not reach escape velocity or be used for launches,it would be unable to land and take off from Mars
Can this engine get a rocket off the ground or do passengers need to transfer in orbit.
What happens if an atomic rocket explodes on launch
You have Excellent Point! The Whole Idea is not only BS(!), IS HS!!! 😮😢😢😂😂😅😊❤
And I'm Not Talking about The Technical Ability and Multiple Technologies We Need to Build This SHIP In Orbit....!😊❤
Let Assume that WE Have It!!!😊❤❤
It Will take 20hours at 3G(!) To Accelerate to Full Speed And 20hours at -3G to Decelerate by Mars! GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!!!😢
I'm being Sarcastic..... I don't know Who Will Survive THAT?... Not Me...
This should be developed fairly quickly as they already did all the research back in the 50s with project Orion I believe they even made test models
They have had better for over 50 years. This is just what they want to show the public
Yeah!
if this works, Starships can be used as cargo ships. so still plenty usefulness there
Starship could focus on sending supplies and this rocket could focus on transporting people. That would make the most sense
The world doesn’t even have a working fusion reactor yet
Fission and fusion are two entirely different things. They are talking about fission, look it up :)
You still need to use current rocket propellant to get into orbit. After that, a nuclear rocket can get to the solar system.
NASA doesn't even build rockets!
NASA cannot even send people to the Moon…
NASA couldn’t put a Lego together
Good luck not getting a leak in Hydrogen storage for months...Ah we don't have any fuel to stop us hitting mars or whizzing past it?
By the time NASA gets off of it's fat bottom and actually builds a atomic rocket, Elon Musk will have five star hotels on Mars.
Fission: maybe if the materials needed can be found and the weight can be practical.
Fusion: We can't produce it anywhere except in bombs. The one time it was produced in a lab the lasers used used orders of magnitude more power than the one produced in the reaction. To hope for a rocket using fusion will remain a hope for many more decades.
Starship would still be required. There needs to be something to get people into space and then you need something to land people on Mars. The nuclear rockets should just stay in space. Essentially SpaceX should have a fleet of starships orbiting Mars and Earth to ferry people to and from the surface. The designs of the Mars and Earth starships would be substantially different.
NT doesn't have the raw power to blast a heavy payload into orbit.
It's kinda like the ion propulsion. It's great for efficiency, meaning long fuel life, but its output is too slow to get anything to orbit. You have to already be in orbit.
This is a theory which is too good to be feasible for NASA to produce faster and more economical than SpaceX any kind of faster rockets.
SpaceX would not hesitate to include new better engines. Why not.
But they are not available yet. Let them first learn to fly a reusable big rocket. It's a word first. No one has done this before.
Then when better engines are on the horizon, they can develop them further and use them in their spacecraft.
But don't wait 50 years until these new engines become available. Use what we have.
And by the way, what do you expect on Mars? It's the same as in open space. No air to breath outside. You have gravity, congratulations! But nothing more. You don't win anything when you arrive faster on Mars. You also have very tight crew spaces on Mars. It's not a big relieve once you are on Mars.
Oh I see, I wrote "It's a word first" ;-)
Maybe a word first, but it's a world first ;-)
The title alone for this video does not make sense. It takes a lot more than 5,000 miles an hour to even stay in orbit.
NASA can’t put anything in space and they’ve got something new on the growing board. It’s funny.
Lol, liquid hydrogen is the lightest gas discovered "to date". Lol
Lol nasa better than space x, thats halarious. Also this new ship is just a concept, not real
I hope they get it to work. Gotta go faster...
@All - Going to end like all nuclear disasters, and the challenger. #Boom
Fusion energy would be superb! As an old guy, I will soon be waiting for it for seventy years. As long as it does not work on the Earth we need not think about shooting it into space.
Nuclear rockets I can only imagine in the upper stages of spacecraft as they do not spoil the earth in case of failures.
So nuclear-driven rockets are superb. We only need to get them operating.
you dont know what a nuclear rocket engine is, do you
Nuclear rockets might be good for a trip between 2 Planets (first around home planet and next around distination planet), but not for starting from a surface or landing on a planet.
@@The1QwertySky As you know everything ...
Spacex should jump on this. Don't wait for NASA or it will never get done.
NASA can't even get a rocket off the ground. They delay delay delay. Space x runs circles around NASA
SpaceX planned to land on Mars two years ago... Artemis 2 is delayed because of SpaceX a well.
@@zagreus5773 spacex planned and still plans to land on mars around 2030 wdym?.
@@The1QwertySky The original plan was to land 2 cargo Starships on Mars in 2022, then 2 cargo and 2 crewed ships in 2024. Look it up.
Nasal will never get out of the atmosphere simple
Somehow? Laws of physics and basic knowledge of rocket engines and ISPs when testing? Clickbait tittle
Having starships take people to and from orbit where a space base and space ferry wait is a much better idea than using starship all the way to and from Mars. Especially given that the ferry can be nuclear powered.
The big issues with that include development costs and having something that can safely land from martian orbit to the surface and from lunar orbit to the surface, both roles which starship can handle just fine.
I can explain quantum physics in a simple analogy. The thing about space travel and the extreme distances between planets is simply because things can't stop. If you were in a spaceship and were able to stop on a dime, everything else that is moving will crash into you obliterating you. Just like if you can travel the speed of light,the smallest particle that collides with your space vehicle will destroy it,even a grain of sand. Matter is always moving and in space all matter has gravity. Even a human. If a human was launched in space and could survive billions of years at first small microscopic dust will begin to collect around you and over millions of years that dust will turn into rocks. Matter in space is always moving and more than likely it's moving away from each other. Our solar system has balance but when you enter the galactic scale things begin to alter physics
NASA post Apollo can't even find it's own arse without GPS.
dON'T WORRY, EVERYONE! tHE nasa/lockheed martin COMBINATION IS ENOUGH TO IDEA NEVER GETS OFF THE DRAWING BOARD! wHOSETHE PENSIONER? iS IT pRESIDENT bIDET? Loved the'slower than **** through a Xmas goose' !
What was the last thing a person said when he was IGNORANT? She'll be Right Mate.
Another huge mistake in this video the nuclear rocket will not be 3 to 4 times more powerful that's untrue the report says it will be 3 to 4 times more efficient
NASA talks a blue streak, but that doesn't build rocket engines.
They never did, they contract it out like all government agencies
Nuclear rocket technology was pioneered in the 60s by NASA The special metallic materials required for building a serviceable Nuclear powered rocket were developed at that time. It is a more desirable system of propulsion compared to the design tested by Dyson. The Orion project.
It would be a death sentence for everyone that goes to mars
You don't use a device puts out loads of radiation to take off or land on a planet that you intend to live on. If it is a rocket you don't make it carry tons of shielding. Both fission and fusion are best as propulsion between planets and unless we have huge breakthroughs in managing radiation, we can use Starship to take off and land. It may even be possible to use the fission or nuclear rocket to push something like Starship to Mars orbit, and push it back. You don't want to drag it. Place its fuel tank and Starships propellant tanks between the reactor and the people.
The fuel is the shielding, it is not the issue. And you would still use chemical engines to land or take off from planets. The actual radiation issue is space radiation, cosmic rays and solar flares. This is why this would be better, all that hydrogen is an excellent radiation shield
They will finally release a functional one in 25 years
Nuclear based engines will only be used in space. To launch the vehicle from Earth, chemical rockets will still be used. But, if they work, it will vastly reduce the time to a planet. I also feel that Elon's Starship is trying to do too much. Just to refuel Starship in space, after launch, it would take multiple launches of other starships to refill the original starship. He needs to start think about nuclear based technology as add ons
Can you imagine the artificial gravity created from the acceleration? You’d have to rotate the craft to slow down halfway to Mars, continuing the artificial gravity. 😅
Like you have any clue what your talking about
@@MisterJ355 I thought this was a safe space for fun ideas… my mistake. 🤪
@@MrCarRamrod Was it a fun idea?
@@danieloneill9093 Was it? Was it, fun?
Let's be clear about this: 45 days to Mars is still a SNAIL'S PACE on an interstellar scale. Consider (we'll use miles here because km would require even larger numbers and because most viewers of this video will likely be from the U.S. or UK) that if Mars is at its CLOSEST 33.9 million miles away and the NEAREST star to our own - Alpha Centauri - is 4.2 light years or about 25 TRILLION miles away, that is over 743,463 TIMES FARTHER from earth than Mars is at its CLOSEST approach.
IF, then, it takes 45 days to reach Mars, it'd take about 33.2 MILLION DAYS or 90,858 YEARS at that speed to just reach Alpha Centauri.
So, while perfectly fine for trips to Mars - which is incredibly close compare to the rest of the galaxy - it's important to understand just how massively we need to improve our speed if we EVER hope to even so much as send out a probe to another star system and relay back data within a human lifetime. At light speed, it'd take over 4.2 years for the DATA to get back to us from a probe sent to our sun's nearest neighbor. That's on TOP of how long it'd take the probe to get there. To reduce it down to a mission that could be accomplished within, say, 50 years (including the data return time), we therefore need to get the probe here in 45.8 years - in OTHER words, we need ship that is literally THOUSANDS OF TIMES FASTER than this theoretical rocket, or one that is approaching 10% the speed of light (about 186,282 miles or 300,000 km per second). 45 days is 1,080 hours, so with a minimal distance to Mars that means the ship must travel about 31,389 miles per hour - or close to 50,000 km/hr - more than ten times the speed of a high-velocity rifle bullet - and in fact FASTER than that because part of the trip needs to be spent SLOWING DOWN otherwise you'd run right into Mars or scream right past it and off into space - there area no hard brakes in space, only gradual deaccelerating. But the POINT is, it's fine for puttering around OUR solar system - but it's unimaginably far removed from even making one trip to the nearest star in any time scale a HUMAN could see it in.
That means two things:
1. We need far more exotic kinds of propulsion than simply nuclear thermal rockets to do it -
2. We need to massively step up our research into more theoretical territories. We're talking "warp drives" or antimatter engines, not simple thrusters.
Besides that, ANY MANNED TRIP beyond earth's protective electromagnetic bubble will also require understanding and mitigating hazards like radiation or high-speed particle impacts. The faster YOU go, the easier even something the size of a grain of sand can rip a hole in your ship and kill everyone on board.
There's also the matter of potentially irradiating portions of Mars (or Earth) if the thing malfunctions, and cold-war era agreements not to use nuclear power in space. You have to realize OTHER countries outside of America aren't going to love the idea that the U.S. has a loose nuclear power plant, in essence, being fired into orbit. You pass that threshold, what ELSE is allowed? Nuclear warheads on satellites, able to target rival nations, and aimed at anyone you don't like? THAT's a problem such a project would have to get past. Is it going to turn into an atomic explosion if it goes wrong? Well, NO, actually - nuclear bombs require a very deliberate and controlled process by which the radioactive matter is converted nearly instantly to energy - an uncontrolled explosion on a rocket won't do that - but it COULD rain radioactive material - a "dirty bomb" of sorts - across the planet below if it were to suffer a catastrophic failure during launch, which is obviously not ideal.
The other issue I haven't touched on yet is acceleration. Humans are squishy, sensitive creatures, and there's only so much positive G forces we can cope with. This is a hard limiter on how MUCH faster we can push a trip to somewhere as close as Mars. When going between stars, there's plenty of time to accelerate up to some ridiculous fraction the speed of light if the technology exists to DO that - you have many YEARS to do that - but going to Mars is different. It's like going from 0 to 300 miles per hour very gradually across an area 3,000 miles across (like the US or China) - vs going from 0 to 300 mph by the time you get to the end of your block - in other words, 0 to 300 in like a SECOND vs 0 to 300 over 10 or 20 minutes of accelerating. Your body would be crushed by the forces over a very short distance but not over a more gradual acceleration to the same speed. Slowly move your head back, and then SLOWLY- very slowly - accelerate it forward - now, do that again but this time SNAP your head forward as fast as you can. You get the idea, right? Still, a trip lasting perhaps 2 months each way (plus whatever time you're actually on Mars - if you're waiting for the next closest approach to Earth you are in for a wait) SHOULD be viable if the technology is there.
YES 🙂👍 --- Concerning Inter-Stellar flight - A currently under development NASA Solar Sail - MIGHT - be capable of delivering a toaster oven sized instrument probe to Alpha Centauri after a 20 year flight. But THAT is the current ENGINEERING LIMIT to anything forseeable at this time.
Which is why man's space travels are limited to no farther than Jupiter.
Stop dreaming. Humans aren't even going to the closet stars even with theoretical anti-matter engines. At 10% lightspeed it would still take 30 years one way.
You have failed to highlight the most important difference between chemical and nuclear propulsion. NO WAY (at this time) can nuclear engines lift anything into orbit. But - they can utilize the constant low thrust over days to exceed the performance of any chemical rocket in respect of velocity over an extended period of time when free of gravity's shackles.
A moon landing/takeoff may be practical with nuclear propulsion. Probably not Mars and definitely not Earth. But hey. I live to be wrong and hope I am.
If anything Elon will throw these on his rocket and still beat NASA by 30 yrs.
For sure. Elon will beat them at their own game, as per.
When you build on a budget you get crap.
Easy, use both. NASA for most of the personal. Starship for hauling the hardware and other essentials. 😕 maybe?
So its an engine project. Nothing yet built or tested. Just guesswork huh? How NASA.
The choice of goals and objectives to be solved is more like a pretentious vinaigrette rather than a well-thought-out strategy...
NASA has a lot of talk these days, but not much carrythrough. They can talk nuclear thermal rocket all they want. Where IS it? Just like SLS. They launched one. When is the next scheduled? I see Sept 2025, 18 months away. Then we wait another 12 months.
And how are they going to get clearance from the FAA to launch a NUCLEAR FISSION REACTOR into space? And, while it won't need LOX, what WILL it use for reaction mass?
It was horrible when NASA test fired that engine. I mean who wouldn't want an eighteen foot lobster to eat? That's great but when it's also the primary light source in the room, no thanks. I'm out of there.
Isn't Draco Russian?? Nevermind I'm thinking drago from Rocky 😂
And the moon is made of green cheese 😂😂😂😂.
I think that even if they had a working prototype "better" is a concept that should be left for after FAA launch approval. Boom, woops... More like a space only concept until all the bugs are worked out, and even then, good luck finding someone at the FAA willing to be in the same room with your environmental assessment.
Lmao let Elon play with a nuke I bet we get better engines and power plants to noot
5000 mph will not get you to mrs in 12 days
Nope, way off, that will not even get you to orbit. More like 1200 days.
Aside from all the AI generated nonsense in this video (greenhouse gas methane being environmentally friendly, electrons triggering fission, etc), there's also that hope for nuclear fusion instead of fission. It has significantly higher energy and lower risks. Also recent developments working on quite different designs of fusion generators could eventually produce rocket relevant side products. Nobody will fly stadium sized tokamak. But some compact linear generators or other solutions could actually work as safe and decently efficient impulse generators. Plenty of solar energy up there.
Notice every time they show a picture of earth you don't see space junk 😂
I would assume the current optimum solution would be a Chemical engine to achieve high Earth Orbit then switch to Nuclear Fission engine for interplanetary travel, then back to Chemical engine for planetary landing.
FYI: Nuclear Fusion has been achieved in the Laboratory, but not stable or in a cost effective way, YET!
FYI: Nuclear Fusion is INHERENTLY fail safe. Failure of ANYTHING and the reaction stops! No need to do anything. If the required parameters are not met NO reaction. AND very limited waste material. As to extraction of raw materials, lots of water is all that is required AKA the oceans!
He never explained how they stop the rockets in space
By turning the rocket at middle trip and keep exhausting gaz toward the destination until it stops.
CIA FBI NSA??? NASA..?? NOT ALONE 😢
It doesn’t make sense to go so fast because you just add the challenge of slowing down to land safely. can’t use Mars’ atmosphere to air brake. If they could figure it out, that would me cool, even if its just used for taking robots and supplies.
1:39 who apparently would hang the least productive workers in front of his factory
Ha, imaging the screaming and FAA conniption fits if SpaceX and Elon announced that they had this nucellar engine we want to try. Yep, NASA's ball, on the other hand NASA would probably need something as big as Starship to carry the prototypes into space where they could safely turn them on.
What happens if it explodes on the LaunchPad
Humans should jump technologies to advanced trans warp drive that can travel at Warp 12+! Artificial gravity is needed for deep space travel!
Dr. Harald "Sunny" White established that creating a warp field is not possible by the laws of physics because it requires matter that doesn't exist.
Nasa needs competition. A good thing what's going on now. A modern day space-race. Let's hope that Nasa shares their knowledge freely in future. At the end it should be a victory for humanity not just for the US, right? I am sure Elon Musk enjoys the fact that he is awakening the sleeping giant Nasa. And if the USA would spend a little bit more for creative rockets instead of destructiv rockets then just that would give more hope for humanity too. Peace to the world.
They tryna run that check back up 😂
Hydrogen is very hard to keep in a liquid state. This engine still used high speed atoms to push the rocket.
It’s called cooling. And it’s much easier to keep hydrogen cold in space then on planet earth, the vacuum is an excellent insulator.
@@jessicatymczak5852 I understand it require cooling, but 20.28 K (−252.87 °C; −423.17 °F) is really cold. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen.
@@markmaugle4599 helps that space is 3K, yes, it’s not easy but the benefits are huge. However, for shipping cargo I would use something that a snap to store and readily available, water. You has the same ISP as LH+LOX, and it is a real easy to store.
From the perspective of anyone with the broadest knoledge of the subject, this is truly offensive clickbait. I gave the video 35 seconds where you affirmed the bullshit statement in the click bait title and I click off. Do better...
Glad you said that. All these ALPHA TECH videos are terrible Clickbait. I can believe people fall for it, unless these are fake comments.