It is the white noise and hand drawn animation. The tone of the speech is also soothing. Newer shows are too clean, camera work not as dynamic and the speed of speech is either too fast as if excited or slow as if depressed.
@@reddot_22 nasa also had a huge budget back then, converted it was about 50 billion, compared to todays 22 billion. They have so much less money to incentivize innovation
If space-x explained how their rockets worked in a video exactly like this one, I think I’d understand it a lot better than the modern Infographic stuff
My dad worked on the NERVA project as a technician from 1963 to 1970. He worked for Chrysler/Lockheed and Pan American. About 1968 our family went out to the Nevada Test Site for a tour. We climbed the test stand (scared the hell out of me. Now I'm afraid of heights). Went inside the disassembly building, looked through the leaded glass and played with the robotic arms. What I remember everything was very high tech. The stories my dad told me about the space program amazed me. My dad started in the space program in 1955 working on the V2 rocket and worked to 1970 when the NERVA project ended. He passed 5 years ago at age 83.
@@theexcaliburone5933 He is an associate Dean of Clinical Research, if I am correct. The paragraph follows recollection of memories little to be seen as ominous unless perceived as such.
My father was head engineer for NERVA in the late 60's and early 70's at AeroJet. Those who were there know who he was. These guys didn't start using calculators until the mid 1970's, it was mostly done with slid rules. I can remember the noise from various rocket tests and we lived in Roseville/Loomis. My brother has the photo from that motor on the test site.
What is your Dad's name. I worked for/with AGC ; ANSC ; WANL ; LASL ; EG&G ; Pan AM ; at R-MAD ; E-MAD ; CR-A ; CR-C ; TC-A : TC-C and ETS-1 and successfully avoided the A&E building. I do not recall any one guy being called "head engineer". We had "cog engineers" (cognizant engineers).
@@sillymesilly I personally find Ve (effective exhaust velocity) to be a much better metric for this thing. Isp = Ve/9.8 and Ve = Isp*9.8. So 500 s of Isp is the same as 4.9 km/s of Ve. It's much easier to visualize effective exhaust velocity, so a higher number is better (more efficient). I can't understand why Isp in seconds is used other than stupid tradition. Also, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation uses Ve directly so once again there's just no point in using Isp if you have to convert it anyway.
@@DrZygote214 it tells us nothing about efficiency of the fuel being expelled. For the same velocity you can have very rapidly decreasing fuel or slowly decreasing fuel. This is why impulse is used.
Yeah, a very simple and elegant solution. Too bad the whole NERVA project was scrapped, but OTOH it was a necessary sacrifice to avoid any risk of nuclear orbiting weapons disguised as pacific/scientific ships.
@@chpsilva I'm not sure if orbiting nukes was the issue. We have so many missile silos, missile boats, nuclear subs, Bombers in the sky at all times, and truck mounted nukes already on earth that orbit wouldn't make a difference. Explosions on the pad or mid flight would have been disastrous. But building them on and around the moon, in the future would improve our capacity to travel around the sol system.
It is elegant, but dangerous. If even one rod fails to rotate, you could go into a meltdown scenario. I'm sure there is some kind of failsafe installed, but I wouldn't want to be the one to manually rotate in an emergency. That and the fact that you still need tons of liquid hydrogen makes the small gain in performance impractical.
@@lillyanneserrelio2187 the core subject events covered spanned from the mid 50s to the late 60s as shown in the video. The end production could well be early 70s judging by video style and narration
@@TheGoodCrusader I know film making has always been an entertainment thing but even so I feel like videos made during these eras were more honest and genuine then today's films. And I'm 26 and I really enjoy HD but yea, these videos have an honest feel in them compared to today's documentaries.
@Lilly Anne Serrelio < Judging from the narration style and film quality, I'd put it in the late 60's and early 70's. There's also a mention of an experiment in 1968 at 13:00 And here we are some 50 years later and still dreaming about a Mars mission, oh and also no flying cars as they were touting it in the 50's. ;D
Because all the teachers have no husband, shit pay and have let themselves get fat. You can't expect someone who hates life to teach your kids efficiently or effectively
There is one where they are working on a reactor that had a partial meltdown. Those arms are crazy. I believe they are hydraulically driven. The motions are too precise and smooth for electronic servos, and they were responding "perfectly" to the user's input. IMHO
Yes, a lot of things have been tried and discarded due what they found. Perhaps new materials and technology development can revive ideas that did not work years ago.
What's behind the "curtain?" Why it's the Great Reset bankers and their New Green Deal meant to shut down scientific and technological progress. Don't let this happen.
behind the curtain is mostly corruption, its the curtain behind that curtain where the good stuff is so you got to grind the corruption down to get to the real advances don't expect its just gonna arrive without sacrifice and struggle
This technology was developed in 1954 and I currently live in a country where there is no nuclear plant technology at all. The technology gap is so monumental it is scary 😃
Which has a lot to dow with many years of campaining that nuclear power (any form of it) is "EVIL" and will destroy everything. Ah well lets not get started on some of the nonsens the more radical "greens" spout.
3yrs late to the convo, but I feel your pain. My country was supposed to have a nuclear plant to avoid an energy crisis but revenge and politics was prioritized. Decades later, energy crisis getting worse.
@@thedon1570 As far as I know, every nuclear power plant has a very strict level of safety systems in place. Meltdowns are statistically fewer than you'd believe but they are highly publicized and used for scaremongering. Finally, nuclear waste is sifted by levels of radioactivity. 3 out 4 levels have a half-life of less than 100 days. All 4 levels of waste are cemented and stored far from people and things that could carry it to the environment such as water. The highest level wastes are buried deep underground far from any geological activity. Where did they get this disposal system? Nature. I know this is hard to believe but nuclear elements are naturally found...underground. The first naturally occurring nuclear plant happened underground and nobody felt it. Are there dangers? Yes! Is it worth the risk? Yes. Nuclear energy has more power than coal & gas and needs less material. It has miniscule carbon footprints and get this, benefits from combining with OTHER clean energy sources such as wind and solar.
There is one where they are working on a reactor that had a partial meltdown. Those arms are crazy. I believe they are hydraulically driven. The motions are too precise and smooth for electronic servos, and they were responding "perfectly" to the user's input. IMHO
My father worked at Mcdonnell Douglass and was a drafting engineer during the Gemini Program. This was brought up more than once. And the biggest downside was what would happen if the rocket did not successfully launch. From the launch pad up to the upper atmosphere, an exploding nuclear rocket was something that scientists of the day didn't want to risk. Whether that what the actual concern was or not I'm not sure. But it is what I grew up believing.
That was part of it. But if I'm not mistaken, there was an international treaty signed forbidding nuclear propulsion and other activities . From occurring in space. Had to do with military actions. But killed the space exploration possibilities in the process as well. If I remember correctly, ( these days a challenge 😆) Even Carl Sagan made mention of this, and what a setback it was for space exploration. Was saddened by it.
@@bcallahan3806 I don't doubt it. Space exploration was originally driven by strategic moves and operations to keep ourselves ahead of other countries.
@@BadHandDesigns also forgot to mention the" starfish prime "high altitude nuclear bomb test. Conducted by U.S. in 1962. Approximately 400 kilometers high. Over an atoll in the Pacific. Knocked out power and destroyed electrical devices over 800 miles away. (Via a massive EMP). Took out a third of all satellites in operation at the time. Caused an artificial aura borealis effect that was visible from Hawaii to New Zealand. Plus a whole bunch of other not so good things. However a lot was learned. Which , although intentional , scared the heck out of a lot of people. Thus also played a part in the blanket policy.
JeanLafitte This was made in the 60s so remotecontroll was quite fancy and new then. Kinda like claiming today that you got an AI that can pass the turing test operating your tec.
Teleflex cables to turn the rods, perhaps coupled with a differential so there'd be no hole in the shielding conveying gamma and neutron radiation to the operator would have been an option around then, as they were used in aircraft, but that or something like a waldo would have added parasitic mass to that hypothetical nuclear fission-powered spacecraft
Years ago I got sent out to the Nevada Test Site to inspect and evaluate a bunch of surplus military equipment for a iron mining operation (stuff was sold for pennies on the dollar vs. New equipment), the man guiding me was the project manager for the Yucca Mtn Nuclear Waste Repository. Got to go to the GIANT entrance that leads to the hundreds of miles of underground tunnels and learned a lot about the area. The neatest thing I got to see? Tons very old and very rusty buildings/installations (they're everywhere out there) that were used at one point for building and testing all sorts of classified things but the coolest was the few buildings that had these huge nuclear jet engines just left hanging outside on test stands, left there exposed to the elements for decades at Jackass Flats.
Yes i have painting and booklet from graphic artist showing this craft and saw craft in the sky in 70's as well. I grew up in Livermore. The painting and booklet were of craft at nevada test site. It is the alien type craft and propulsion that eveyone is speculating about recently and refers to as alien technology. Look up tesla and livermore area and the lab. Tesla rd runs along one side of the lab since the 50's i believe. And d teslas coal mines are on mines rd in livermore and he used to live in a little town there at the mines that is no longer in existence the name started with a c i believe and should be easy to verify. We used to go into one of the mines when we were in hs. On weekends and yikes have bon fires inside near the trestle. They recently in 2008 i believe gated the entrances. We called it a cave never knew back then that it was a coal mine. I have lots of experiences and evidence from family days at the lab family members and friends who were employees local newspaper articles lab newspaper articles craft seen in the sky. Bob lazars testimony is true. Even though things arent made public necessarily there were unclassified projects and research milestones in research that add up to developments that i see a lot of questions about. Its amazong technology. And regardless of what designs are put out if they dont work it doesnt matter. I know they have it and were testing it with craft very very similar to pic online if you look up livermore lab triangular craft. Laser propulsion craft images and images. Of laser propulsion conferences that show the different types of laser propulsion are what come up. Even a photo that looks like 😂 the tic tac (rediculous psyop) video when the craft darts to the left. Its right there unclassified yet the world is busy psy opp-ing lol. Not a funny joke really though.but the answers are available to those who search..
"...the coolest was the few buildings that had these huge nuclear jet engines just left hanging outside on test stands, left there exposed to the elements for decades at Jackass Flats." I think you might have your "areas" mixed up. What is a "nuclear jet engine"???? Methinks ya got some "data" kinda mixed up.
@Squiggummer Figgammus === You have it all mixed up! There was a NERVA program.... (NERVA = Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application). Reactors from various labs, e.g. LANL (Los Alamos National Lab); WANL (Westinghouse Astro Nuclear Lab); and a zillion other alphabet organizations. In a similar manner, the "Rocket vehicle part included such name brands as Rocketdyne, Aero-Jet General; Aero-Jet Nuclear Systems and a zillion other "alphabet organizations"'). There was no intent to put any of those engines in an aircraft. There were a zillion name brand contractors involved in this program.... each brought their "piece of the pie" to the table. with a WANL reactor and an ANSC (Aerojet Nuclear Systems Co.) engine components, e.g. nozzle, turbo-pump, etc. Other "lessor" outfits also contributed their products / services to the program. The NERVA stuff was never intended to be "airborne". It was to be "attached" to or "associated" with "parts and pieces from other U.S. aero-space suppliers. I suspect you're confusing NERAA with some (of many) other nuke programs from back in that era. Try looking deeper, because your "attachment" of NERVA to an airplane is incorrect. I worked on that program (NERVA) at the test site as an engineer from start to finish.
Most of the tech we use on a daily basis is just a fraction of the tech available to us. There are government & corporate forces that restrict what is available to the general public.
The public was scared by the media decades ago into believing anything with the word “nuclear” is bad. Kind of like the “orange man bad” conditioning of recent years. Thanks media, you do far more harm than good, and all for ratings and greed.
@@dewfall56 That's why it's MRI and not NMRI, since tec hnically MRI works on nuclear magnetic resonance (although it has nothing to do with nuclear fission), the same principle of NMR used by chemists to determine chemical structures
Sand Shadow in many respects America still is the best country on earth. The problem is that if you make a statement saying you want to "Make America Great Again", you're called a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, and a nazi. Usually by people who live sheltered lives that could only have been made possible by that greatness.
My uncle worked at Los Alamos labs in the 60s. His wife and children had no idea what he worked on as he was forbidden to tell them. He was a scientist who He died in the early 70s of an "unknown" disease. I remember him taking me through the museums at the labs. He obviously knew a lot about the nuclear research that was being done there.
About 26 space missions have used nuclear power already, such as the Mars Rovers. They were powered by Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG), which kept the batteries charged. Solar would work, not enough daylight. Quite a few space missions like Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Galileo, Ulysses, Cassini, New Horizons (Pluto flyby), Viking 1, Viking 2, Rover-Curiosity, used RTG power (Rover-Opportunity and Rover-Spirit used solar cells and eventually died from dust storms). There are military satellites, weather satellites, military radar stations in Alaska, and lots of things that are nuclear powered, but in a different design than most people think about. Very different than electric generating stations or submarine or carrier nuclear power. Some people think of nuclear and immediately think of a bomb, and ALL of these are different designs, as most of you reading this already know. In our area, we've made nuclear fuel for most all of these types of systems, since 1955. Below is an article from July 2019 about a manned Mars mission, possibly nuclear powered, using a spin-off of the RTG idea. As for Yucca Mountain (and also the MOX fuel project), Obama killed those projects. While its interesting to go into space, to the moon, to Mars, and even outside our solar system, sometimes I wonder if the money would be better spent here on earth. I know we have all benefited from thousands of things in our personal lives as a result of space exploration. And how could we survive without satellites (weather, communications, defense, etc)? All the electronics and communications advances are amazing. Not so excited about spending money to send a manned mission to Mars. I am sure we can. And just think, our solar system, which we can barely get to the edge of unmanned, is only a tiny little piece of only one of the galaxies. And we have no idea how many galaxies there are out there. Infinity in space and time. Its real. www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/inl-part-of-effort-to-develop-propulsion-system-for-mars/article_b3453f58-aff1-5d60-b7dc-c9d0ac354c17.html These might be of interest too: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/ www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html A recent MARS mission, which is solar-powered: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/insight/main/index.html www.bwxt.com/what-we-do
I always appreciated films about interesting things like this. Growing up in the 80’s and 90’s everything was about digital technology and software which aged so poorly. It’s 2020 and this is still interesting and pretty technically impressive. But try watching a film about the “Future of Networking” where they are using dos and predicting that one day we will see super advanced 24k modems by the far off year of 2000.
That was amazing. The power from such a motor wielded and employed outside of our atmosphere is a game-changer. A major political and legal challenges and the sourcing of the nuclear component. No small task. But when you absolutely need a very strong propulsive solution, this will be re-evaluated. If the skill sets are still assembled and in the positions to construct such a nuclear core. Wow, that would be most unexpected.
I think that a slide rule is a useful teaching tool because it helps one to visualize mathematical concepts. It was apparently used in designing the Saturn V rocket.
@@llo7816 What the fuck... That's so cool! I'm only 13 but I'm trying to figure out how to make a better faster rocket for a Toshiba science fair project and I figured nuclear rockets would be a good option. Still trying to choose nuculer thermal or nuculer propulsion... I hope it works! But I barely understand any of this XD
+RosaLina May. Nuclear thermal rockets are really simple. Liquid hydrogen is passed over a normal fission reactor core which heats it up from about -252 degrees (celsius) to about 2000 degrees. the hot hydrogen gas then rushes out of a traditional rocket nozzle producing thrust. The upsides are that you get much higher specific impulse (basically fuel efficiency), and you don't need an oxidizer which lowers the chance of an enormous explosion. The downsides are that the exhaust is (possibly) radioactive which means it can only be used in space, except for very short tests, and the reactor itself has quite a lot of mass which means the engine's Thrust-to-Mass ratio will be lower than traditional chemical rockets.
Published 2018...taped 1950's lol...but I do miss watching these videos and to see how far we have come when I was young 50 years after I cam only imagine what an additional 50 years will hold since from what slow technology they had from what much faster and Superior tech we had in the late 90's to 2000
Even if it was one person narrating every single last old video like this.. they still did a better job at communicating and explaining in-depth of operations compared to today's narrator's.
It burns the fuel at super high temps to induce the explosive reaction. But the reaction becomes sustained with the multiple nozzles going through the core. Initial pressure is controlled with the flow slowly released after the reator has been preheated for firing. Then pre stage ignition happening before full throttle run up. Once the reactor rods are in the off position the fuel is finally cut. As to prevent a nuclear meltdown of the engines reactor chamber. Hot enough for a reaction but not hot enough for a runaway meltdown.
@@Another-Address The Nuclear propulsion part is meant for spaceflight. Chemical rockets were to be used to get several stages of nuclear thrusters into orbit. Then those are assembled and the mission to mars begins. It's kinda still part of the plan. Even if ion thrusters are used, most likely a nuclear reactor would still power it.
"Westinghouse Astro-Nuclear Laboratory"..... abbreviated to be "WANL"..... pronounced as (are ya ready for this?) "Wanel".... with the "a" pronounced as "ahh" so the organization was pronounced as "waaanel".
I knew an old Westinghouse chemical engineer who worked on this. Still VASMIR could produce specific impulse of 5000 seconds or higher, much higher than nuclear thermal rockets.
I highly recommend you check out the nuclear salt-water rocket, The main problem with high efficiency drives is their low thrust, but this drive is a viable candidate for a torchship.
Wim M In today's dollars BILLIONS, howe ver, they were more competent and smarter back then. We do not have all that talent, drive and experience nowadays, unfortunately.
I always wondered just how a nuclear reactor would propel an aircraft or rocket. I didn't know it would still need a consumable for propulsion. Interesting.
"After deceleration through the atmosphere, the astronauts are jettisoned as they are no longer needed to guide the vehicle. At an altitude of 20,000 feet, the re-entry vehicle is jettisoned to further reduce weight. Finally, the parachute module makes the landing at a pre-determined location and is recovered safely by the ground crew, successfully concluding the space mission."
on a side note..... I am playing Half LIfe/Portal 2, and the presenters voice some how reminds me of Cave Johnson from Apature Science..... I too love these old How It Works Documentaries
It’s interesting how this was the theorized method of propulsion for a trip to mars and here we are in 2021 with Elon Musk finally announcing that instead of classical propulsion systems in space they will be using one of two types of nuclear options
@@jejcnsjdndjskdjrn8329 True. However, the easier we make certain things THUS we become MORE incompetent. Our own Robert Heinlein wrote a novel about this Paradox.
Idk I think it's more likely that it's just too expensive and potentially dangerous. Hydrogen fuel is so darn cheap it really doesn't make sense to double fuel efficiency, but have to pay for the nuclear reactor. Also the track record for blowing up regular rockets isn't great. I just don't see how this could get approved to actually be used with public fear of a nuclear accident.
And then a few months after that movie came out, Three Mile Island had a real-life meltdown and that makes a lot more sense than your silly comment about a movie.
This was luck as well as technology. Saved ultimately only by the geology of the site, something that can't be said of several of the operating nuclear power plants today if they were to melt down. We were told by the industry before 3M.I. that the chances of the kind of accident that occurred there had a 1 in a million chance of happening. Yes, nukes are built to exacting standards and are far safer even in terms of radioactive output that burning coal, but the nuclear propagandists of the era of this video told us nukes were safer than they actually are and argued for far less restrictive safety measures.
@@meteorblades8044 Lets take a look at Fukushima for example. As we know, the China Syndrome is an exaggeration of the fear that a melting nuclear reactor could melt through the earth. The end result in Fucushima was that the nuclear material melted through the core and into the basement where it pooled up until finally cooling to a solid state. The critical mistake in Japan was placing the reactor in a high risk earthquake and tsunami area without sufficient safety measures for these cataclysmic events. The technology pertaining to nuclear reactors and the safety measures needed has taken significant steps forward in the last 50 years. We need to take a serious look at how nuclear power can be a beneficial resource to compliment green energy technologies as a viable resource in the modern age. Unfortunately, the downside to wind and solar energy prevents them from being the stand alone sources of our energy needs.
@@ADAMJWAITE I’m very late, but there’s also a need to point out that Fukushima was struck by one of the largest Earthquakes and one of the largest Tsunamis ever recorded but still survived enough that you can live right next to the reactor and not have an increase of getting cancer.
Showing an 18 year old kid I hired this video after hearing him say "if we could develop nuclear power to use in spacecraft, we'd be able to get to Mars no problem" was priceless. I told him that we'd developed nuclear rockets in the 50's, at which point he called BS so I said "let's go to the video tape"
@@Ratbiker sheep in the 60's had no clue there was tech like that and what we see today is not what they are using behind closed doors. It scares me to think what's really going on.
Yeah, that caught my attention as well. And imo looked like something that truly didn't belong in the 60's but is from the future. GO BRONCOS!! SB50 CHAMPS!!
very very interesting. wish mankind can use this technology efficiently to travel and transport goods across distances in the space. this video documents how hard for us to make such trips easy.
Love the design principle: Add energy to the exhaust gas by forcing the exhaust through a nuclear chain reaction! It's fucking genius and elegant. The mechanism of forcing a fluid upon a chain reaction by turbo-pump seems rather un-refined and I feel like with a novel configuration this type of rocket could deliver performance well beyond 900 Isp.
It saddens me no end that none of this came to fruition. Some time in the 80's, post-modern navel-gazing instead of big dreams became the cultural norm.
@@nuxtheunkrakible9324 Consider the numerous failed launches since these tests were run. Now imagine a reactor being part of what scatters when that happens. In addition, the tests did not need to launch the shielding. Static trust measurements of efficiency do not take into account the weight of lead needed. This is the same reason nuclear airplanes don't exist.
@@BryanFinster Ok. I just thought that you thought the exhaust itself was radioactive. And only one design so far has that flaw. And the increase in thrust with modern reactor materials would make it more thann light enough. Not so much when they were originally tested.
It seems like there was ONE dude that narrated every single one of these old videos.
The only narrator with high enough security clearance at the time I'd bet.
@@locoDEADMAN His key card was a pack of unfiltered Marlboros....
Paul Reeve the Michael buffer of documentaries
He or his family should be banking on royalties
Would a nuclear meltdown power solar sails if the electrical components where covered in graphite or lead, or even a strong mini atmosphere.
@@Deeznizzoz he protecc
He attacc
he smoke cracc
For some reason, I enjoy these old/retro videos whole lot more than newer/modern ones! Specially the narrator and the mono audio.
Charlie_33 they're easier to understand than some of the newer ones, aren't they?
No unnecessary dramatisation
It is the white noise and hand drawn animation. The tone of the speech is also soothing.
Newer shows are too clean, camera work not as dynamic and the speed of speech is either too fast as if excited or slow as if depressed.
@@danialhussin well that's accurate
Same here
Retro scientific documentary is always bolder, more practical, more detailed, and more hopeful than the bland, empty, fanciful ones we see today.
Exactly, today is like scientist have some sort of mental block. In the 60s they had so much imagination and power.
@@reddot_22 nasa also had a huge budget back then, converted it was about 50 billion, compared to todays 22 billion. They have so much less money to incentivize innovation
If space-x explained how their rockets worked in a video exactly like this one, I think I’d understand it a lot better than the modern Infographic stuff
Not necessarily, NatGeo still has some of the same quality
These guys were hardcore "brave new world" guys
My dad worked on the NERVA project as a technician from 1963 to 1970. He worked for Chrysler/Lockheed and Pan American. About 1968 our family went out to the Nevada Test Site for a tour. We climbed the test stand (scared the hell out of me. Now I'm afraid of heights). Went inside the disassembly building, looked through the leaded glass and played with the robotic arms. What I remember everything was very high tech. The stories my dad told me about the space program amazed me. My dad started in the space program in 1955 working on the V2 rocket and worked to 1970 when the NERVA project ended. He passed 5 years ago at age 83.
Such a wonderful life! Rest in peace :)
@@herik63 that’s ominous
@@theexcaliburone5933 He is an associate Dean of Clinical Research, if I am correct. The paragraph follows recollection of memories little to be seen as ominous unless perceived as such.
Sure he did...
I've toured the NNTS too! Such an amazing place.
My father was head engineer for NERVA in the late 60's and early 70's at AeroJet. Those who were there know who he was. These guys didn't start using calculators until the mid 1970's, it was mostly done with slid rules. I can remember the noise from various rocket tests and we lived in Roseville/Loomis. My brother has the photo from that motor on the test site.
When humans finally make it to Mars your dad needs the round of applause he deserves
I worked for Aerojet (and other contractors) and may have known your Dad if he was at the site.
LLO ur dad=US hero
What is your Dad's name. I worked for/with AGC ; ANSC ; WANL ; LASL ; EG&G ; Pan AM ; at R-MAD ; E-MAD ; CR-A ; CR-C ; TC-A : TC-C and ETS-1 and successfully avoided the A&E building. I do not recall any one guy being called "head engineer". We had "cog engineers" (cognizant engineers).
I hope the innovators and architects of our future, people like your father, get the credit for all they have contributed.
"Isp refers to the time in seconds 1lbs of propellent will deliver 1lbs of thrust"
same. This video explained everything perfectly.
I wish Physics I learned in College was explained like in this video.
@@sillymesilly I personally find Ve (effective exhaust velocity) to be a much better metric for this thing. Isp = Ve/9.8 and Ve = Isp*9.8. So 500 s of Isp is the same as 4.9 km/s of Ve.
It's much easier to visualize effective exhaust velocity, so a higher number is better (more efficient). I can't understand why Isp in seconds is used other than stupid tradition. Also, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation uses Ve directly so once again there's just no point in using Isp if you have to convert it anyway.
I feel your pain. In my Jets and Rockets class my Phd professor never explained this concept. He was one of the best professors though.
@@DrZygote214 it tells us nothing about efficiency of the fuel being expelled. For the same velocity you can have very rapidly decreasing fuel or slowly decreasing fuel. This is why impulse is used.
I never realized how many orchestra instruments were needed for interplanetary travel.
Hilarious!
Yup......we might need several terabytes to get us there.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
Id
This doesn't look like Kansas, Toto... or Boston, Chicago, Starship, Creedence, ELO, Eagles, Fleetwood Mac.
Wow. So the rotating beryllium & graphite rods on the outside were essentially the throttle control mechanism. It's surprisingly simple, yet genius.
Yeah, a very simple and elegant solution. Too bad the whole NERVA project was scrapped, but OTOH it was a necessary sacrifice to avoid any risk of nuclear orbiting weapons disguised as pacific/scientific ships.
Oh! One side was coated in Boron! 9:23
@@chpsilva I'm not sure if orbiting nukes was the issue. We have so many missile silos, missile boats, nuclear subs, Bombers in the sky at all times, and truck mounted nukes already on earth that orbit wouldn't make a difference. Explosions on the pad or mid flight would have been disastrous. But building them on and around the moon, in the future would improve our capacity to travel around the sol system.
It is said, and (I don't know if it actually was said, but) I believe, that the genius of an engineering solution is in its simplicity
It is elegant, but dangerous. If even one rod fails to rotate, you could go into a meltdown scenario. I'm sure there is some kind of failsafe installed, but I wouldn't want to be the one to manually rotate in an emergency. That and the fact that you still need tons of liquid hydrogen makes the small gain in performance impractical.
I love these old Vault-Tec videos.
yep still in the bunker and havent left... its too scary outside a bunch of scavengers shot my wife and i dont want to leave
I was thinking the same thing. Obviously Fallout got it from this type of thing. Do we play too many games?
@@alaskanalain i dont think so considering how crap they all are
Look for Electronics World, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American and other magazines of the time.
The ones from Black Mesa and Aperture Science aren't too bad either.
These old videos are priceless
honestly yeah, you can learn a great deal of stuff from these
Anyone know the specific date this vintage video was first made?
@@lillyanneserrelio2187 the core subject events covered spanned from the mid 50s to the late 60s as shown in the video. The end production could well be early 70s judging by video style and narration
@@TheGoodCrusader I know film making has always been an entertainment thing but even so I feel like videos made during these eras were more honest and genuine then today's films. And I'm 26 and I really enjoy HD but yea, these videos have an honest feel in them compared to today's documentaries.
@Lilly Anne Serrelio < Judging from the narration style and film quality, I'd put it in the late 60's and early 70's. There's also a mention of an experiment in 1968 at 13:00 And here we are some 50 years later and still dreaming about a Mars mission, oh and also no flying cars as they were touting it in the 50's. ;D
These videos are amazing. Their concise and perfectly to the point. Explaining stuff perfectly in my opinion. Why cant our schools be like this.
Our schools have been "unionized".
Because all the teachers have no husband, shit pay and have let themselves get fat. You can't expect someone who hates life to teach your kids efficiently or effectively
They are or they’re
I like these old videos because you can clearly understand what they say and the simple yet impormative visuals are awesome
The older videos (and textbooks too) are so much better at explaining things than newer versions.
Thank you, Mr. Hat.
I wonder why.
Had no idea we were so advanced back then, makes me wonder what is behind the curtains today
There is one where they are working on a reactor that had a partial meltdown. Those arms are crazy. I believe they are hydraulically driven. The motions are too precise and smooth for electronic servos, and they were responding "perfectly" to the user's input. IMHO
Yes, a lot of things have been tried and discarded due what they found. Perhaps new materials and technology development can revive ideas that did not work years ago.
That’s just a fault of your upbringing and your education. You can’t expect excellence in life when your circle of influence is dumb
What's behind the "curtain?" Why it's the Great Reset bankers and their New Green Deal meant to shut down scientific and technological progress. Don't let this happen.
behind the curtain is mostly corruption,
its the curtain behind that curtain where the good stuff is
so you got to grind the corruption down to get to the real advances
don't expect its just gonna arrive without sacrifice and struggle
The fact that this has no ads restores a significant amount of faith in humanity for me. I think we just might make it.
I love these old documentaries. The Narrator, Hank Simms, is my new hero.
This technology was developed in 1954 and I currently live in a country where there is no nuclear plant technology at all. The technology gap is so monumental it is scary 😃
It really is crazy how many technological advancements occurred in just the 10 years after World War 2
Which has a lot to dow with many years of campaining that nuclear power (any form of it) is "EVIL" and will destroy everything. Ah well lets not get started on some of the nonsens the more radical "greens" spout.
3yrs late to the convo, but I feel your pain. My country was supposed to have a nuclear plant to avoid an energy crisis but revenge and politics was prioritized. Decades later, energy crisis getting worse.
@@hexmech1893 do you know the risks associated with nuclear power plants? I mean COME ON….
@@thedon1570 As far as I know, every nuclear power plant has a very strict level of safety systems in place. Meltdowns are statistically fewer than you'd believe but they are highly publicized and used for scaremongering.
Finally, nuclear waste is sifted by levels of radioactivity. 3 out 4 levels have a half-life of less than 100 days. All 4 levels of waste are cemented and stored far from people and things that could carry it to the environment such as water. The highest level wastes are buried deep underground far from any geological activity. Where did they get this disposal system? Nature. I know this is hard to believe but nuclear elements are naturally found...underground. The first naturally occurring nuclear plant happened underground and nobody felt it.
Are there dangers? Yes! Is it worth the risk? Yes. Nuclear energy has more power than coal & gas and needs less material. It has miniscule carbon footprints and get this, benefits from combining with OTHER clean energy sources such as wind and solar.
those semi robotic arms were really cool didn't think that was possible in the 60s incredible
That's a telemanipulator. They have been in use since the late 40s. First developed to handle highly radioactive materials.
I went to the Nevada Test Site when I was about 8 (1968) and was able to see the arms in the action.
There is one where they are working on a reactor that had a partial meltdown. Those arms are crazy. I believe they are hydraulically driven. The motions are too precise and smooth for electronic servos, and they were responding "perfectly" to the user's input. IMHO
My father worked at Mcdonnell Douglass and was a drafting engineer during the Gemini Program. This was brought up more than once. And the biggest downside was what would happen if the rocket did not successfully launch. From the launch pad up to the upper atmosphere, an exploding nuclear rocket was something that scientists of the day didn't want to risk. Whether that what the actual concern was or not I'm not sure. But it is what I grew up believing.
That was part of it. But if I'm not mistaken, there was an international treaty signed forbidding nuclear propulsion and other activities .
From occurring in space.
Had to do with military actions.
But killed the space exploration possibilities in the process as well.
If I remember correctly, ( these days a challenge 😆) Even Carl Sagan made mention of this, and what a setback it was for space exploration.
Was saddened by it.
@@bcallahan3806 I don't doubt it. Space exploration was originally driven by strategic moves and operations to keep ourselves ahead of other countries.
@@BadHandDesigns also forgot to mention the" starfish prime "high altitude nuclear bomb test. Conducted by U.S. in 1962.
Approximately 400 kilometers high.
Over an atoll in the Pacific.
Knocked out power and destroyed electrical devices over 800 miles away. (Via a massive EMP). Took out a third of all satellites in operation at the time.
Caused an artificial aura borealis effect that was visible from Hawaii to New Zealand.
Plus a whole bunch of other not so good things.
However a lot was learned.
Which , although intentional , scared the heck out of a lot of people.
Thus also played a part in the blanket policy.
This video gives me a relaxed feeling. I love documentaries with shots from the past.
10:10: "These rods can be operated by remote control".
Like manually turning the control rods in a nuclear reactor is an option.
I caught that too... wonder if there's any data on how many times they had to operate these rods and manually shut it down...
JeanLafitte
This was made in the 60s so remotecontroll was quite fancy and new then. Kinda like claiming today that you got an AI that can pass the turing test operating your tec.
"remote control" implies: at a distance. You can have manual-mechanical remote control. It doesn't automatically mean wireless.
You could do it. ONCE!
Teleflex cables to turn the rods, perhaps coupled with a differential so there'd be no hole in the shielding conveying gamma and neutron radiation to the operator would have been an option around then, as they were used in aircraft, but that or something like a waldo would have added parasitic mass to that hypothetical nuclear fission-powered spacecraft
Years ago I got sent out to the Nevada Test Site to inspect and evaluate a bunch of surplus military equipment for a iron mining operation (stuff was sold for pennies on the dollar vs. New equipment), the man guiding me was the project manager for the Yucca Mtn Nuclear Waste Repository. Got to go to the GIANT entrance that leads to the hundreds of miles of underground tunnels and learned a lot about the area. The neatest thing I got to see? Tons very old and very rusty buildings/installations (they're everywhere out there) that were used at one point for building and testing all sorts of classified things but the coolest was the few buildings that had these huge nuclear jet engines just left hanging outside on test stands, left there exposed to the elements for decades at Jackass Flats.
Yes i have painting and booklet from graphic artist showing this craft and saw craft in the sky in 70's as well. I grew up in Livermore. The painting and booklet were of craft at nevada test site. It is the alien type craft and propulsion that eveyone is speculating about recently and refers to as alien technology. Look up tesla and livermore area and the lab. Tesla rd runs along one side of the lab since the 50's i believe. And d teslas coal mines are on mines rd in livermore and he used to live in a little town there at the mines that is no longer in existence the name started with a c i believe and should be easy to verify. We used to go into one of the mines when we were in hs. On weekends and yikes have bon fires inside near the trestle. They recently in 2008 i believe gated the entrances. We called it a cave never knew back then that it was a coal mine. I have lots of experiences and evidence from family days at the lab family members and friends who were employees local newspaper articles lab newspaper articles craft seen in the sky. Bob lazars testimony is true. Even though things arent made public necessarily there were unclassified projects and research milestones in research that add up to developments that i see a lot of questions about. Its amazong technology. And regardless of what designs are put out if they dont work it doesnt matter. I know they have it and were testing it with craft very very similar to pic online if you look up livermore lab triangular craft. Laser propulsion craft images and images. Of laser propulsion conferences that show the different types of laser propulsion are what come up. Even a photo that looks like 😂 the tic tac (rediculous psyop) video when the craft darts to the left. Its right there unclassified yet the world is busy psy opp-ing lol. Not a funny joke really though.but the answers are available to those who search..
I love finding abandoned stuff. That's really cool, thanks for sharing!
"...the coolest was the few buildings that had these huge nuclear jet engines just left hanging outside on test stands, left there exposed to the elements for decades at Jackass Flats." I think you might have your "areas" mixed up. What is a "nuclear jet engine"???? Methinks ya got some "data" kinda mixed up.
@Squiggummer Figgammus === You have it all mixed up! There was a NERVA program.... (NERVA = Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application). Reactors from various labs, e.g. LANL (Los Alamos National Lab); WANL (Westinghouse Astro Nuclear Lab); and a zillion other alphabet organizations. In a similar manner, the "Rocket vehicle part included such name brands as Rocketdyne, Aero-Jet General; Aero-Jet Nuclear Systems and a zillion other "alphabet organizations"'). There was no intent to put any of those engines in an aircraft. There were a zillion name brand contractors involved in this program.... each brought their "piece of the pie" to the table. with a WANL reactor and an ANSC (Aerojet Nuclear Systems Co.) engine components, e.g. nozzle, turbo-pump, etc. Other "lessor" outfits also contributed their products / services to the program. The NERVA stuff was never intended to be "airborne". It was to be "attached" to or "associated" with "parts and pieces from other U.S. aero-space suppliers. I suspect you're confusing NERAA with some (of many) other nuke programs from back in that era. Try looking deeper, because your "attachment" of NERVA to an airplane is incorrect. I worked on that program (NERVA) at the test site as an engineer from start to finish.
@Squiggummer Figgammus "NRX" meant / was used as a short term for "Nuclear Reactor Experiment .... as in .... "NRX A2"
Imagine what these guys could have achieved with modern computers.
yeah they could use those computers to figure out there are only two genders .
@@saint27573 you mean sexes?
@@gerardanderson9665 same difference
@@technus147 Genders could be different, but I think there’s only 3 (Male, Female, Nonbinary). Sexes are only two and always two (Male, Female).
@@robertoroberto9798 genders are the same as sex
4:55 we had that tech in the 60's?!?!
Most of the tech we use on a daily basis is just a fraction of the tech available to us. There are government & corporate forces that restrict what is available to the general public.
Too add to what matrixwolf said, as a standard rule most tech is wildly expensive and only used in experimental work.
The public was scared by the media decades ago into believing anything with the word “nuclear” is bad. Kind of like the “orange man bad” conditioning of recent years. Thanks media, you do far more harm than good, and all for ratings and greed.
Yes. Lots of the stealth planes revealed in the 90s in the Iraq war were developed in yje 70s / early-80s, but kept classified.
@@dewfall56 That's why it's MRI and not NMRI, since tec hnically MRI works on nuclear magnetic resonance (although it has nothing to do with nuclear fission), the same principle of NMR used by chemists to determine chemical structures
That was America, there was nothing that we couldn't achieve. I was 13 when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon
now look at us, dammed shame.
Don't worry, it's just a momentary dip. All great nations suffer the same now and then.
America used to be the best country in the world. They fight for what they believe, the set a goal and work for it.
@@mr.q337 now we're just a bunch of whinos
The walking on the moon part was however not actually the moon being walked on. Why do you think it never "happened" more than once?
Sand Shadow in many respects America still is the best country on earth. The problem is that if you make a statement saying you want to "Make America Great Again", you're called a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, and a nazi. Usually by people who live sheltered lives that could only have been made possible by that greatness.
Why am I such a fan of these old documentaries!!?? I love these!!
They feel more authentic and kinda James Bondish :P
@@rogue_spirit lol. Yup!
65elcamino283 Me too. American Can-Do attitude and NOTHING IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE plus REAL SCIENCE.
My uncle worked at Los Alamos labs in the 60s. His wife and children had no idea what he worked on as he was forbidden to tell them. He was a scientist who He died in the early 70s of an "unknown" disease. I remember him taking me through the museums at the labs. He obviously knew a lot about the nuclear research that was being done there.
im sure there was a similar information black hole in the dark ages and during the aftermath of inquisitions.
I love the videos of the 60s and 70s very much. They are beautiful.
Don’t know why but I love watching these kinds of things because in a way it’s better learning and easy to follow
There's something about this style of narration... Like a trip back in time when we'd imagine how futuristic and hi-tech the 21st century will be.
About 26 space missions have used nuclear power already, such as the Mars Rovers. They were powered by Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG), which kept the batteries charged. Solar would work, not enough daylight. Quite a few space missions like Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Galileo, Ulysses, Cassini, New Horizons (Pluto flyby), Viking 1, Viking 2, Rover-Curiosity, used RTG power (Rover-Opportunity and Rover-Spirit used solar cells and eventually died from dust storms). There are military satellites, weather satellites, military radar stations in Alaska, and lots of things that are nuclear powered, but in a different design than most people think about. Very different than electric generating stations or submarine or carrier nuclear power. Some people think of nuclear and immediately think of a bomb, and ALL of these are different designs, as most of you reading this already know. In our area, we've made nuclear fuel for most all of these types of systems, since 1955.
Below is an article from July 2019 about a manned Mars mission, possibly nuclear powered, using a spin-off of the RTG idea.
As for Yucca Mountain (and also the MOX fuel project), Obama killed those projects.
While its interesting to go into space, to the moon, to Mars, and even outside our solar system, sometimes I wonder if the money would be better spent here on earth. I know we have all benefited from thousands of things in our personal lives as a result of space exploration. And how could we survive without satellites (weather, communications, defense, etc)? All the electronics and communications advances are amazing. Not so excited about spending money to send a manned mission to Mars. I am sure we can. And just think, our solar system, which we can barely get to the edge of unmanned, is only a tiny little piece of only one of the galaxies. And we have no idea how many galaxies there are out there. Infinity in space and time. Its real.
www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/inl-part-of-effort-to-develop-propulsion-system-for-mars/article_b3453f58-aff1-5d60-b7dc-c9d0ac354c17.html
These might be of interest too:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus
mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html
A recent MARS mission, which is solar-powered:
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/insight/main/index.html
www.bwxt.com/what-we-do
Larry Lewis dude we’re is my car
Top secret
Fascinating stuff......I love the "old school tech" breakdown
Good old documentary - thank you for sharing
I always appreciated films about interesting things like this. Growing up in the 80’s and 90’s everything was about digital technology and software which aged so poorly.
It’s 2020 and this is still interesting and pretty technically impressive. But try watching a film about the “Future of Networking” where they are using dos and predicting that one day we will see super advanced 24k modems by the far off year of 2000.
That was amazing. The power from such a motor wielded and employed outside of our atmosphere is a game-changer. A major political and legal challenges and the sourcing of the nuclear component. No small task. But when you absolutely need a very strong propulsive solution, this will be re-evaluated. If the skill sets are still assembled and in the positions to construct such a nuclear core. Wow, that would be most unexpected.
I think that a slide rule is a useful teaching tool because it helps one to visualize mathematical concepts. It was apparently used in designing the Saturn V rocket.
Well there were no computerized hand held calculators.
The end sounds like a mission worthy recreating in Kerbal Space Program...
exactly what I was thinking.
Looks like I need to find a “Kiwi” mod
@@brandonschow9303 kerbal has nuclear engines in base game
@@projectdelta50 true. Their also called Nerv instead of Nerva.
@@projectdelta50 they even have 800 isp
Just like the old videos they used to show in school when I was growing up - these were the best
Awsome! Thanks for posting this documentary! Amazing!
"And now that we've reach the end of this video, the viewers will be... jettisoned"
HA!!
1950s: How can we push further into space using science and technology?
2020s: Where are my chicken tendies?!?!?!
Nuggs
They had that in the 60s. Now we have a hard time figuring out which bathroom to use.
Priceless Nate T. Sad but true statement.
My father was head engineer for NERVA in the late 60's and early 70's at AeroJet.
@@llo7816 What the fuck... That's so cool! I'm only 13 but I'm trying to figure out how to make a better faster rocket for a Toshiba science fair project and I figured nuclear rockets would be a good option. Still trying to choose nuculer thermal or nuculer propulsion... I hope it works! But I barely understand any of this XD
Sad but true.
Why bother with scientific facts when with the power of rainbows and feelings one can turn in to a trigendered space unicorn.
+RosaLina May. Nuclear thermal rockets are really simple. Liquid hydrogen is passed over a normal fission reactor core which heats it up from about -252 degrees (celsius) to about 2000 degrees. the hot hydrogen gas then rushes out of a traditional rocket nozzle producing thrust.
The upsides are that you get much higher specific impulse (basically fuel efficiency), and you don't need an oxidizer which lowers the chance of an enormous explosion. The downsides are that the exhaust is (possibly) radioactive which means it can only be used in space, except for very short tests, and the reactor itself has quite a lot of mass which means the engine's Thrust-to-Mass ratio will be lower than traditional chemical rockets.
Published 2018...taped 1950's lol...but I do miss watching these videos and to see how far we have come when I was young 50 years after I cam only imagine what an additional 50 years will hold since from what slow technology they had from what much faster and Superior tech we had in the late 90's to 2000
Even if it was one person narrating every single last old video like this.. they still did a better job at communicating and explaining in-depth of operations compared to today's narrator's.
Back in the days when we could work together and actually get something done.
I long for those days.
Oh yes, the Cold war... those were the times
What! Keep drinking the kool aid buddy.
Yeah now it's just a bunch of people whining about working, shouting bullshit about "muh prejudice", and pushing stupid ideas
Sjws ruin everything
@@magicalmagicmagician5223 you mean the very liberal scientists and engineers who just landed an semi-autonomous robotic vehicle on mars
Wow, I wasn't expecting it to have that kind of thrust in the atmosphere - figured it would have small thrust to be sustainable, like the ion drives.
The benefit of nuclear thermal rockets is that you get high thrust with reasonable efficenc
It burns the fuel at super high temps to induce the explosive reaction. But the reaction becomes sustained with the multiple nozzles going through the core. Initial pressure is controlled with the flow slowly released after the reator has been preheated for firing. Then pre stage ignition happening before full throttle run up. Once the reactor rods are in the off position the fuel is finally cut. As to prevent a nuclear meltdown of the engines reactor chamber. Hot enough for a reaction but not hot enough for a runaway meltdown.
Thanks for posting this vid!!!
I'm sold. Let's build it!
@@Another-Address not if it's operated as a ferry in vacuum
@@Another-Address The Nuclear propulsion part is meant for spaceflight.
Chemical rockets were to be used to get several stages of nuclear thrusters into orbit. Then those are assembled and the mission to mars begins.
It's kinda still part of the plan.
Even if ion thrusters are used, most likely a nuclear reactor would still power it.
@@Another-Address I see no proof of that
@@tylerdurden3722wow, finally I understand where the term "impulse engines" comes from in star trek
Thanks TH-cam... definitely needed to watch this.
I have one question and one question only,
💥 * EXPLOSIONS?* 💥
Introducing the all-new
A nuclear powered nuclear missile
@@TheGoodCrusader >>> Nuclear reactors do not explode as nuclear weapons do.
Westinghouse Astro-Nuclear Laboratory. What a cool place that must've been to work at, with an awesome name like that.
Helium Road They new real science without the bull melodrama.
"Westinghouse Astro-Nuclear Laboratory"..... abbreviated to be "WANL"..... pronounced as (are ya ready for this?) "Wanel".... with the "a" pronounced as "ahh" so the organization was pronounced as "waaanel".
I remember seeing some of the test film in elementary school in 68. And that tug engine is now restored and in use in Boulder City NV.
I knew an old Westinghouse chemical engineer who worked on this. Still VASMIR could produce specific impulse of 5000 seconds or higher, much higher than nuclear thermal rockets.
I highly recommend you check out the nuclear salt-water rocket, The main problem with high efficiency drives is their low thrust, but this drive is a viable candidate for a torchship.
I always love watching the latest news in science!
Very amazing!
:D
I love these engines.
sure that these nuclear engines will have a bright future.
:)
Brings me back to school days.
Great video!From great past!Time of creators!😊
These older videos are truly educational!🙂
This is the R&D Stanton Friedman worked on early in his career as a physicist [before he became a full-time UFO researcher].
these old videos are the bomb
60年代就已经如此长远的规划了。叹为观止。awesome
I wonder what was the monetary valve for all this science.
Just amazing people, all my respect to them.
Wim M In today's dollars BILLIONS, howe
ver, they were more competent and smarter back then. We do not have all that talent, drive and experience nowadays, unfortunately.
We really need to develop these again. We need that technology in space.
Truly Educational Documentary!
Even the animation looks so advanced for its time!
Why on poster SPD-100 plasma engine ?
I am not convinced research on these things ever stopped. They're set to "return" to research in the next year or so
It could be a phase of rocket propulsion to be continued, but catastrophic in many areas if just small minor things went wrong.
This was awesome.
hi from Mexico. thanks for that
I always wondered just how a nuclear reactor would propel an aircraft or rocket. I didn't know it would still need a consumable for propulsion. Interesting.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion
"After deceleration through the atmosphere, the astronauts are jettisoned as they are no longer needed to guide the vehicle. At an altitude of 20,000 feet, the re-entry vehicle is jettisoned to further reduce weight. Finally, the parachute module makes the landing at a pre-determined location and is recovered safely by the ground crew, successfully concluding the space mission."
that sounds very Kerbal-esque... incidentally I have almost done just that.
Damn! you beat me to it.
Simple and best explanation on nuclear engine.
on a side note..... I am playing Half LIfe/Portal 2, and the presenters voice some how reminds me of Cave Johnson from Apature Science..... I too love these old How It Works Documentaries
It’s interesting how this was the theorized method of propulsion for a trip to mars and here we are in 2021 with Elon Musk finally announcing that instead of classical propulsion systems in space they will be using one of two types of nuclear options
Great documentary. And now we can't even navigate without a computer. Those good ol' boys used their SLIDE RULER for quick calculations.
It was a slide rule.
Leonardo Santana calculators made it easier to advance tho
@@jejcnsjdndjskdjrn8329 True. However, the easier we make certain things THUS we become MORE incompetent. Our own Robert Heinlein wrote a novel about this Paradox.
These type of videos make me tingle
So Cool Seeing the TV my parents would have seen.. I rem the last Apollo Launch :)
this was 1959 :O.... I wonder how much informations we are missing today...
Jackass Flats sounds like an old jazz singer.
This is such a cool documentary
Why are the older videos always so more easy to understand?
The CGI on the mission to mars simulation look dank af !
Thats original animation...not CGI
They were hoping for us to have done this at least by the 90's. now its 2019, and we still haven't landed there yet. That is due to politics though.
Idk I think it's more likely that it's just too expensive and potentially dangerous. Hydrogen fuel is so darn cheap it really doesn't make sense to double fuel efficiency, but have to pay for the nuclear reactor. Also the track record for blowing up regular rockets isn't great. I just don't see how this could get approved to actually be used with public fear of a nuclear accident.
Does barrilym and neutron interaction qualify for quantum control systems or is that too costly?
16:55 Damn, that music tho!! Banger!!
Everything is jettisoned! At any moment I was expecting him to say the astronauts are jettisoned too😁
Then came "The China Syndrome", and we decided that Michael Douglas, Jane Fonda, & Jack Lemmon made more sense than the actual scientists.
And then a few months after that movie came out, Three Mile Island had a real-life meltdown and that makes a lot more sense than your silly comment about a movie.
@@jamescarter3196 3 mile island was completely contained, even when it had a catastrophic failure.
This was luck as well as technology. Saved ultimately only by the geology of the site, something that can't be said of several of the operating nuclear power plants today if they were to melt down. We were told by the industry before 3M.I. that the chances of the kind of accident that occurred there had a 1 in a million chance of happening. Yes, nukes are built to exacting standards and are far safer even in terms of radioactive output that burning coal, but the nuclear propagandists of the era of this video told us nukes were safer than they actually are and argued for far less restrictive safety measures.
@@meteorblades8044 Lets take a look at Fukushima for example. As we know, the China Syndrome is an exaggeration of the fear that a melting nuclear reactor could melt through the earth. The end result in Fucushima was that the nuclear material melted through the core and into the basement where it pooled up until finally cooling to a solid state. The critical mistake in Japan was placing the reactor in a high risk earthquake and tsunami area without sufficient safety measures for these cataclysmic events. The technology pertaining to nuclear reactors and the safety measures needed has taken significant steps forward in the last 50 years. We need to take a serious look at how nuclear power can be a beneficial resource to compliment green energy technologies as a viable resource in the modern age. Unfortunately, the downside to wind and solar energy prevents them from being the stand alone sources of our energy needs.
@@ADAMJWAITE I’m very late, but there’s also a need to point out that Fukushima was struck by one of the largest Earthquakes and one of the largest Tsunamis ever recorded but still survived enough that you can live right next to the reactor and not have an increase of getting cancer.
And just like that, now I know how a nuclear propulsion engine works.
Internet education be like:
I like to watch this kind of engine very enteresting topic.technology is very useful to all resources
We had this in 1967, and for some weird reason we are still stuck on this planet? (shake me head, and cry a little)
Yeah, it SUCKS....
@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman Indeed, it does. One might just get the feeling we aren't allowed to become a type 2 civilization.
thank the politicians who don't want their gravy-train taxpayers leaving this rock. as long as we're sheep, they stay rich.
@@roberthunter4884 Glad to know some one else out there is thinking. =)
That's what we get for "depending" on our (mostly Democratic) politicians.
jettison .... the magic word!!!!!
what a great idea!
Showing an 18 year old kid I hired this video after hearing him say "if we could develop nuclear power to use in spacecraft, we'd be able to get to Mars no problem" was priceless. I told him that we'd developed nuclear rockets in the 50's, at which point he called BS so I said "let's go to the video tape"
where did you hire him? seems like you're both into rocket science
Did you see the robotics being used for disassembly of the nuclear engine in 1966. Imagine where we are now.
now we have robots that climb stairs, carry parcels, open doors. will hunt you down if you run from big brother.
@@Ratbiker sheep in the 60's had no clue there was tech like that and what we see today is not what they are using behind closed doors.
It scares me to think what's really going on.
Yeah, that caught my attention as well. And imo looked like something that truly didn't belong in the 60's but is from the future. GO BRONCOS!! SB50 CHAMPS!!
H-What is the name of the narrator? His voice is Iconic.
very very interesting. wish mankind can use this technology efficiently to travel and transport goods across distances in the space. this video documents how hard for us to make such trips easy.
it be the old videos that give u the most information
Love the design principle: Add energy to the exhaust gas by forcing the exhaust through a nuclear chain reaction! It's fucking genius and elegant.
The mechanism of forcing a fluid upon a chain reaction by turbo-pump seems rather un-refined and I feel like with a novel configuration this type of rocket could deliver performance well beyond 900 Isp.
Pushing gas through the reactor active zone will throw radioactive materials into the atmosphere at Chernobyl scale, you fool )))
@forgotaboutbre >>> Modern liquid propellant rocket engines use turbopumps that are 'self-powered' in similar ways.
@@Wingedawe >>> They WOULD NOT be used within the atmosphere, you moron.
@@Wingedawe He never mentioned using this in the atmosphere ,where did you get that from?
It saddens me no end that none of this came to fruition.
Some time in the 80's, post-modern navel-gazing instead of big dreams became the cultural norm.
Saddens you? We already got enough radioactivity in our atmosphere to develop Quicksilvers all around
Thank privatization, not "naval gazing" whatever that is.
@@tenpenny2919
You know this kind of rocket doesnt put out radiation right?
Only project orion would do that. And this is a nuclear thermal rockets.
@@nuxtheunkrakible9324 Consider the numerous failed launches since these tests were run. Now imagine a reactor being part of what scatters when that happens. In addition, the tests did not need to launch the shielding. Static trust measurements of efficiency do not take into account the weight of lead needed.
This is the same reason nuclear airplanes don't exist.
@@BryanFinster
Ok. I just thought that you thought the exhaust itself was radioactive.
And only one design so far has that flaw.
And the increase in thrust with modern reactor materials would make it more thann light enough. Not so much when they were originally tested.
True pioneers !
Oh man I wondered what they did with these old films I had to watch in safety classes at Springfield Nuclear Plant.
@Demo Krusty Burger, mmmmmmm...