NASA’s INSANE Nuclear Rocket Will Get Us To MARS IN DAYS

#nasadiscovery #nasarocket #marsdiscovery NASA’s INSANE Nuclear Rocket Will Get Us To MARS IN DAYS

When NASA's Perseverance rover touched down on the Martian surface last year, humans cheered from the confines of planet Earth. But if the space agency or others hope to leave and send astronauts to Mars, experts say they need to consider a technology that was studied decades ago but never fully developed called the nuclear-powered rockets.
But can these rockets actually get humans to mars faster? Let’s find out!
Welcome to Space World. In today’s video we are going to talk about Nasa’s new plan to cut the journey to mars by half. So, if you want to know more about it then stay with us until the end of the video.

Watch these videos:

Far from Earth, whether in the void or on another world, power is life. A steady, strong flow of electricity is as crucial for operating computers and engines as it is for assuring access to corporeal necessities such as light and heat, breathable air and potable water, and preparation or even growth of food. And one of the most potent and reliable ways to get all those vital kilowatts is via nuclear fission—something aspiring astronauts realized long before anyone ever reached space or developed nuclear weapons, for that matter. Yet more than 60 years into the space age, nuclear fission for spaceflight remains mostly a dream.
Now, however, as NASA pursues its Apollo-esque Artemis program to build a crewed lunar outpost, with an eye toward eventual human landings on Mars, a rare alignment of technology, funding and political will is on the verge of making spaceborne nuclear reactors a routine reality.
Getting humans to Mars and back is rather hard. Insanely difficult, in fact. Many challenges confront NASA and other would-be Mars pioneers when planning missions to the red planet, but chief among them is the amount of propellant needed.
During the Apollo program 50 years ago, humans went to the Moon using chemical propulsion, which is to say rocket engines that burned liquid oxygen and hydrogen in a combustion chamber. This has its advantages, such as giving NASA the ability to start and stop an engine quickly, and the technology was then the most mature one for space travel. Since then, a few new in-space propulsion techniques have been devised. But none are better or faster for humans than chemical propulsion.
That's a problem. NASA has a couple of baseline missions for sending four or more astronauts to Mars but relying on chemical propulsion to venture beyond the Moon probably won't cut it. The main reason is that it takes a whole lot of rocket fuel to send supplies and astronauts to Mars. Even in favorable scenarios where Earth and Mars line up every 26 months, a humans-to-Mars mission still requires 1,000 to 4,000 metric tons of propellant.
If that’s difficult to visualize, consider this. When upgraded to its Block 1B configuration, NASA’s Space Launch System rocket will have a carrying capacity of 105 tons to low-Earth orbit. NASA expects to launch this rocket once a year, and its cost will likely be around $2 billion for flight. So, to get enough fuel into orbit for a Mars mission would require at least 10 launches of the SLS rocket, or about a decade and $20 billion. Just for the fuel.

⚠️ Copyright Disclaimers
• We use images and content in accordance with the YouTube Fair Use copyright guidelines
• Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
• This video could contain certain copyrighted video clips, pictures, or photographs that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for one or more of the reasons noted above.
🔔 Subscribe now with all notifications on for more Space World content.

[buckhorncortez]

Ted Taylor was working on an atomic outer space lifter in the early 1960s. His lifter could have put objects as large as a city block into space. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty completely stopped work on it because the agreement "prohibited nuclear weapons tests or other nuclear explosions underwater, in the atmosphere, or in outer space."

[dalmocalmo]

How do you shield people living inside the capsule from the engine radiations?

[michaelhussey]

love how the title says in days but in the video it says in half

[ScottMana]

Nuclear is a superior source of power.

[AndrewPartakesInActivities]

Wow, nice quality video! Definitely thought this channel had a few hundred thousand subscribers based on the quality before I checked.

[ThePspeir]

Definitely a lot of possibilities here for the channel. Not my cup of tea --music is too intense, key points repeated too often.