NTR and VASIMR: The Future of Manned Space Exploration

[evil00701]

Good work. You are right about what kind of rock we need as well as the other points you made, but an other factor is gravity.With out a system to make or copy gravity, you will be kill by the Earth's gravity if you stay in space for about a year and wont to come back.

[STSWB5SG1FAN]

@evil00701 Actually they have already done studies on the long term effects and we've (meaning the collective 'we' not just the USA) had astronauts / cosmonauts manning the both Mir and ISS for prolonged periods. The best method discovered so far for keeping up bone density is vigorous exercise, difficult in a confined space. The ideal solution would probably be a form of centrifugal spin to create the sensation of gravity.

[lukealization]

How old are you? Because from the sound of your age, you know much more than someone your age should. Awesome, Keep it up.

[serpentphoenix]

"Chemical rockets are not feasible"

Bullshit, you CAN go to mars via Chemical rockets using the Mars Direct approach. Nuclear rockets are great, and they DO work, but are not required.

The DRM 5.0 which had NTR propulsion, used at least 7 AresV launches. The Mars Direct approach would have used at least 2.

VASIMR needs nuclear reactors with alpha ratings that are not feasible for at least another 100 years.

[Drensworth]

@serpentphoenix Pretty sure I said you COULD use them to go to Mars, but it wouldn't be optimal and it wouldn't suffice for any exploration beyond Mars.

[Reticuli]

VASIMR is bogus and designed to distract us from real engineering solutions.

[Drensworth]

@Reticuli I do kind of agree, I threw VASIMR in there simply for the sake of mentioning all the options. Personally, I think the way it is going to is: Private Space companies make heavy payload cheap, allowing us to get to orbit much more economically and then we will be able to design the heavy rockets necessary to send us to Mars, either a bulky chemical combusion rocket or an NTR one. Vasimr is definitely doubtful.

[lukahead6]

Hey I see that you are poînting out all the flaws of rockets which I see too, so why not immitate Virgin Galactic by using a ship which takes off like an airplane, using lift. Once it reaches an altitude where the air is too thin to create lift for wings of that geometry, either a scramjet or a rocket is used to push the craft into orbit. It could save quite a bit of weight from fuel and other things.

[Drensworth]

@lukahead6 I've wondered about that as well, it seems like such a simple idea that there must be some reason we haven't done it yet, haha. Maybe because the size restrictions of a plane would be too small, or wasted mass on the wings that would also complicate re entry? Meh, I think it should be done anyway.

[lukahead6]

I am on my way to becoming an aerospace engineer, specializing in propulsion. I intend on doing my masters thesis on a plasma propulsion related topic and I found this video to be well done! When I was younger, I tried to do research on propulsion topics like plasma or Mini Magnetospheric Plasma propulsion and found all the articles I read hard to comprehend. I thought you did a good job with explaining, as you made the difficult easy to understand. Way to go!

[Drensworth]

@lukahead6 Wow, this means a lot to me, thank you! I hope to go in your field some day. Perhaps the simplicity of the explanation stems from my basic understanding, since at the time (and still now) this was new knowledge to me. I'm glad you enjoyed it!

[trinquet76]

Mass Effect FTW! (Sorry, it was stronger than me.)

Now seriously, nice clip, well informed and passionate exposition. The next decade is going to be awesome, no doubt!

[JuggaloOzi]

Maybe that's the DOE? I'm not sure now. Solar Electric might beat out nuclear.

[JuggaloOzi]

SpaceX can't develop nuclear anything and neither can NASA. Only DOD is allowed to use plutonium.

[TheGeorgevt]

I enjoyed this video, very interesting. But the music is a bit too loud and is a little distracting, and any future videos would benefit from you removing\making the audio quieter so we can hear you better.

[Drensworth]

Wow! Thanks so much for all the comments and feedback everyone. Lots of interesting comments. I only made this video for fun after I completed my science fair project on the same subject, I figured I would summarize it in a video and post it to youtube. Never figured it would get so many insightful responses!

[Eagle1Division2]

@Drensworth

Think the Falcon 9 is neat? Look up "SpaceX Reusable Spacecraft " here on youtube.

Elon Musk was saying that capital costs per launch could go down to ~$10k per flight if it's reusable 1,000 times. It probably won't be reusable 1,000 times, but the point is that refurbrishment is incredibly cheap, so unlike the shuttle, the reusable SpaceX fleet will revolutionize spaceflight even FURTHER. And I strongly agree, that is definitely the key to going anywhere.

[DMDS1991]

I can't tell if you are a girl, Or a pre-pubescent twelve year old, Who's voice has not broken yet....

[Drensworth]

@DMDS1991 I had braces at the time this video was made. Listening to it now is kind humiliating, since my voice has changed quite a bit in the last 8 months. Doesn't matter though, the substance of what I am trying to convey hasn't changed, and if you truly obsess over the sound of my voice at the time, sucks to be you. You must be a joy at science lectures, studying the professors mannerisms rather than his presentation.

[DMDS1991]

@Drensworth I do also listen to what the lecturer is saying, And take it in, I just find it weird when pre-pubescent kid's who's voices haven't broken yet, Are trying to give information.

[Drensworth]

@DMDS1991 Because the pitch of our voices invalidate us from having an opinion/idea? I get that the voice can be a bit irritating, but really, it shouldn't stop you from at least focusing on the content of the video, whether you disagree or not (there aren't any absolutes in this subject) instead of being totally distracted by my (admittedly) lispy voice at the time.

[dswynne]

No one is disputing the fact that chemical propelled fuels can't make the trip to Mars and back. The question is how to get to Mars and back in the shortest amount of time possible, for the sake of having a feasible colonization program. Heck, we're barely scratching the surface when it comes to protecting today's astronauts from all kinds of health-related hazards, not to mention the fact that today's space suits are not feasible for long-term space exploration. Good vid, though.

[Drensworth]

@dswynne Radiation is definitely an issue for the trip, and even on mars its magnetic field is too weak to adequately protect a crew. However, water is an excellent shield, so actually having the watter supply surround the crew quarters on the voyage would significantly reduce their exposure, and the water won't become radiated to the point where the benefits are negated. As for actual mars excursion, the exposure won't be sufficient for real long term damage.

[cloakster]

Nice vid, but there's a significant amount of misinformation in it.

I strongly suggest the vid author pick up a copy of The Case for Mars, by Robert Zubrin. Zubrin's a former NASA and Lockheed Martin engineer, and knows his stuff.

A couple of key things you'll find out from his work: 1) chemical propulsion can actually get a manned mission to Mars (though NTR is better), and 2) VASIMR is not feasible at this time, in large part due to the 1000s of tons of nuclear reactors it would require.

[Drensworth]

@cloakster I've read many things about Robert Zubrin and his work - Mars Direct I think his chemical combustion plan is called? And aye, personally I believe NTR to be much more realistic than VASIMR but I wanted to put it in anyways, for variety. I do wanna buy a Case for Mars though, I've been meaning to for a while. Possibly chemical is viable for a Mars trip, but when I say "future of manned exploration" I have the entire solar system in mind, for which chemical combustion isn't viable.

[cloakster]

@Drensworth  Bear in mind that Mars Direct is not a 'combustion plan'... Zubrin will even tell you that it'd work better with NTR. What's groundbreaking about Mars Direct is that you make your return propellant ON MARS, thus GREATLY REDUCING the mass of the ship you need to send there in the first place.

For manned exploration of the solar system beyond Mars, you're quite right, chemical won't cut it (unless perhaps you use planetary swing-by gravity boosts). NTR + ion thrusters FTW there.

[Eagle1Division2]

@Drensworth the "1000s of tons" depends on what figure you use for power output for a nuclear powerplant, in terms of kW/kg.

I remember a Los Alamos reactor managed to do 1MW and weighed about 500 kg. Not counting shielding, though. I would be very interested if I could find more information on it, but so far I haven't been able to.

Otherwise, wiki up "SAFE-400"

The reactor itself weighs 512 kg, puts out 100 kW.

[Eagle1Division2]

@Drensworth In the last 40 years, space nuclear power kg/kW ratio has gone down by more than an order of magnitude, so I wouldn't brush it off so quickly...

@cloakster A los alamos reactor attained ~ .5 kg/kW (without shielding), and the SAFE-400 reached completion at ~12kg/kW or ~5 kg/kW, depending on what figure you use (both aren't quiet accurate. It's somewhere in-between).

[xxxlittlebunny007xxx]

listening to somebody reading too fast and with 0 emotion is annoying

[Drensworth]

@xxxlittlebunny007xxx I didn't script any of this, except on VASIMR where i had to check the names

[zapfanzapfan]

But an NTR with a gaseous core... now we are talking. An engine based on the nuclear lightbulb concept for example. That can get an Isp of 3000s or more and that is good enough improvement over chemical engines to make it worth the effort.

By the way, chemical rockets can get us to Mars so there is no need to wait for NTR. But when we do get gas core NTR:s they will make it easier.

On to Mars!

[zapfanzapfan]

Three things comes to mind:

I love SpaceX, their low cost launches will save the spaceprogram.

VASIMR is a joke, it will not get us anywhere.

I like NTR but the solid core NTR:s with an Isp of 1000s or so are not much improvement over current day chemical propulsion, yes it is double the Isp but an NTR-engine weighs 10-15 times more than a chemical one and since the reaction mass for the NTR is liquid hydrogen the tanks have to be enormous.

[JFrazer4303]

@JFrazer4303 The high cost was a result of decisions made on launch system architecture, based on decisions over what to do in space. Since there were decisions made to not do anything big in space, the launch system evolved into something as complex and expensive as possible, as the government graft political system made NASA into a jobs program and graft and patronage plum.

Re: 58 seconds in

[invisiblejustin]

you know your shit good job bro great video

[emifalcon3d]

Hey, pleaseee what is a music? i like a lot !!!

[Drensworth]

@emifalcon3d The song that plays through out is Mass Effect- Uncharted Worlds, and the one at the end is Clint Mansell - Welcome to Lunar industries (3 year stretch)

[evinado1]

Nice vid, and I'm extremely picky.

At around 4 mins you were mentioning Spacex has talked about a Nuclear thermal rocket. I'm a huge spacex fan and haven't heard this before.... could you point me to where you learned about this?

Great use of mass effect music. Is the second song from "Moon" ?

[Drensworth]

@evinado1 Glad you enjoyed it! This isn't exactly where I learned about their plans, but here is a relevant article on it : (it won't let me link it, so I will send you a pm) And yeah, it is from moon. I love that track.

[evinado1]

@Drensworth thanks for the link, what I got from it though was not that they are building a nuclear thermal rocket, only that they were pushing the government to go in that direction whenever we go to Mars. That being said... I'm not saying you're wrong... just wanna know where you got the info!

[mercenarieboy]

Couldn't u just use a normal fission reactor to make steam then just shove the steam out the back :/

[Drensworth]

Water is not an efficient substance to use as a vaporous exhaust. It takes too much water for too little steam, and it is not volatile enough.

[JFrazer4303]

@mercenarieboy USe solar thermal. Mirrors concentrate heat. Not efficient, not small, but feasible for moving large masses, if you've got lots of water.

See neofuel.com

and search

the Deimos Water Company

[bbbobbyburkhalter]

I dont think using an ion engine will be helpful though given its effiecency in space i'm more to a nuclear drive myself

[ThatAdelaideGuy]

Now do research into LFTR's

[AstralCars86]

+10 internetz for using music from Mass Effect.

Also, have you seen the concept for the NAUTILUS X? Pretty badass.

[EthanNin0]

LOL, I was just listening to the ME OST.

[Drensworth]

@EthanNin0 Haha, I love that song and I feel it encapsulates very well the feeling one gets when thinking of space exploration and the universe and all that crazy shit, so I felt it would be appropriate :P I listen to the track all the time as well.

[marmaladekamikaze]

What paper were you reading on VASIMR? I read a paper on the analysis of propulsion systems for 40 Light year journeys, it was by robert frisbee,you might like it, I think it was titled 'impact of acceleration on trip times'. Furthermore as a chemist(maybe I'm biased) but chemical technology is not the to be cast aside, If metallic hydrogen proves to be metastable then it would begin to rival Nuclear thermal rockets advantage. In the long run Lightcraft may prove most attractive

[Drensworth]

@marmaladekamikaze I was reading an interview with the designer himself + some schematics and designs I looked up. Thanks, I'll definitely check that out, a 40 light year journey sounds pretty interesting!

[marmaladekamikaze]

@Drensworth

You'll find the paper by searching for it and 'Robert Frisbee' in your favourite search engine, Can you link me to the interview where Dr. mentions that VASIMR was a byproduct of Fusion TOKAMAK research? Has anyone thought of a hybrid of a Nuclear Thermal rocket and a VASIMR engine? And also an indirect heated Nuclear thermal rocket could use Earth air(and not contaminate it) as a reaction mass and then switch over to it's Hydrogen fuel.See 'project NEPA' indirect could work now2011

[LouistheHedgehog]

Even if the nuclear reactor explodes above the earth, there could still be trouble. If too close to the atmosphere, a nuclear explosion can cause a strong EMP (electromagnetic pulse) that will fry all the electronics for hundreds of miles around on the surface.

[Drensworth]

@LouistheHedgehog Possibly, but a nuclear reactor won't cause that strong an EMP as opposed to other nuclear explosive devices (I think). But the idea I was proposing was launching it with chemical combustion boosters until it reaches a safe distance, before even activating it. So it would not be TOO close to the earths atmosphere. My main concern with the nuclear reactor isn't a possible EMP though, it's mostly on the ecological side of things, like pollution/radiation if it broke up.

[Jason987262]

Great video mate. I hope they can make the plasma rocket work so that one day humans are living acrosss the solar system.