Breaking Barriers: NASA’s INSANE Nuclear Rocket to Visit Mars IN DAYS

The future of space travel is here! In this video, we take an in-depth look into NASA's new nuclear propulsion concept, which could cut travel time to Mars from months to just 45 days. From the history of nuclear propulsion to the potential implications of this new technology, this video has it all.

Best Telescopes for beginners:
Celestron 70mm Travel Scope

Celestron 114LCM Computerized Newtonian Telescope

Celestron – StarSense Explorer LT 80AZ

Visit our website for up-to-the-minute updates:

Follow us

Join this channel to get access to these perks:

#NSN #NASA #NASA #NuclearPropulsion #Mars #SpaceExploration #InnovativeAdvancedConcepts #NIAC #NuclearThermalPropulsion #NuclearElectricPropulsion #NTP #NEP #RyanGosse #UniversityofFlorida #45days #TraveltoMars #FutureofSpaceTravel #InterplanetaryTravel #WaveRotorToppingCycle #BimodalNuclearPropulsion #NERVA #ProjectPrometheus #AdAstra #FranklinRChangDiaz #VasimrVX-200SS #plasmarocket #highpowerendurancetest #Artemis #moonmissions #spaceconcept #astronomy #Earthscience #humanspaceexploration #spacetravel #spacemissions #spaceexplorationtechnology #spacetechnology #spaceresearch #spaceinnovation #spaceengineering #spacepropulsion #spacetraveltechnology #spacepropulsionsystem #spaceexplorationinnovation #nuclearpropulsionforcraft #nuclearrockettechnology #spacepropulsioninnovation #spacetravelinnovation #Astronomy

[johnmayer]

Some elucidation on how it works would’ve been interesting

[SixDasher]

Q: "How many stock footage clips can you collect into a single youtube video"
This channel: "Yes"

[physbang]

I have read some comments about radiation doses to astronauts from the reactor. The amount of radiation from a shielded space reactor is extremely small (much less than natural background radiation on earth). The main reason for going with nuclear propulsion is to reduce the high radiation exposure from cosmic radiation. Whithout earth's atmosphere and magnetic field we would be fried on earth by cosmic radiation. If we go by chemical rockets the trip will be so long that the astronauts' radiation dose will be so high it will the exceed maximum allowable radiation dose for workers in the field.
Also, I have been following space reactor programs since the 1960's. A program on space nuclear propulsion seems to get going on about a 10 to 15 year interval. They usually last a couple years then get canceled.

[roberttraister]

Very interesting, thanks fire sharing.

[willadeefriesland]

The name should be Nex/T STEP Nuclear Electrically-ionized Xenon/ Thermal Space Travel Experimental Propulsion... Remember that I came up with this acronym...

[kodiakbear]

Rocket. This is so cool. By the way, I have difficulty communicating because I had a stroke in Broca’s area, the part of the brain that controls speech. 2/8/2021 but I lived again. (My wife helped me compose this.)

[AndrewHillis_]

WHAT WE NEED IS THE HOLTZMANN ENGINE OR HOLTZMANN DRIVE AND THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLD SPACE AND TRAVEL ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE WITHOUT MOVING ! ! !

[protorhinocerator]

3:00 "It received a grant to the tune of $12, 500 to research..."
Translation: It was completely unfunded.
3:46 The rocket goes a billion mph to get to Mars and then instantly synchs up with the Mars orbit.

[aegrotattoo]

I was excited until I heard "$12, 500 to develop...." at which point it seemed not anything beyond concept papers .

[DesertRat]

The biggest limit I see, besides money, is impacts with dust particles in space. If you accelerate at 1g for 80 million miles (half the way to Mars) you could theoretically get up to 2.5 million miles per hour. Which means a grain of sand in space would impact your spacecraft at 2.5 million miles per hour. Just like we have thermal limits for aircraft I am sure we will have to have impact limits for spacecraft.

[ahmedattaelbassouni]

Journey to the space will become more easily.

[miroslavmarkovic]

but they dont have technology to go to the moon

[nerfherder]

I almost forgot you can get to Mars in 45 days but they said you can get to Mars in 45 days which reminded me you can get to Mars in 45 days because the fact is, you can get to Mars in 45 days!

[dannypope]

Why does every nuclear video have to go back to the 1950…?


We all, already know.

[alexalex]

There are literally dozens of problems- close to insolvable - involved in sending people to mars with present technology. But getting them there in less than a week would solve every one one of them. That should be the focus of study.

[onpurpose]

Safire project, fusion in use today. Simple and usable and safe! If your using fission to heat fusion can do it as well.

[greese]

Project Orion was the previous effort that was shelved., for safety concerns The attraction is obcoius, when you realize that the energy density of nuclear reactor fuel about 10, 000 times greater than rocket fuel. Even if the nuclear propulsion was only 1% as efficient as rocket fuel. it is still a clear winner.

[sysomphonemanuthong]

Wave rolters was Mr.Marios inventions off shore on a vestsol. All mit students 🧑‍🎓 thanks it was fun out there!

[johnvemmular]

That second graphic of a nuclear powered space craft with solar panels is absolutely hilarious. Yep, need them solar panels even though you've got nuke power!
So ridiculous!😂🤣😂

[kiwabro]

Why is it that humans are hell-bent on thrust propulsion. Wouldn't cosmic repulsing and attraction be better and faster. I think the secret is to find the cosmic "poles" and the fields similar to the magnetic poles and fields, then travel would be unlimited. Just a thought from an ordinary person.