I'm glad there are still plans for fission. Two meltdowns in extreme circumstances over the past few decades hardly seems like reason to abandon the technology.
He failed to mention that the Greens have a violent objection to launching any radioactive material for fear of an accident. They almost got Cassini cancelled. That was for a tiny amount compared with the kilo power reactor. Only way to get it into space is if Russia or China do it, they don't give hoot about the environment or Greens. Or we could mine it in space once we find any.
Richard 1 - India too. Unregistered User - a number of others. True. People don't find out about some of them for decades, because of cover-ups and obfuscation. The Russians and U/S are not alone with that. Britain had a 'nuclear emergency' in the 1950's, for instance. Quite a few details finally emerged 50 years later.
Assuming that you manage to capture at least *two* of the famously elusive giant space lemons I think that launching the properly sized copper and zinc electrodes would be prohibitively expensive.
That's not the craziest idea. Similar batteries are made by pounding rods into the ground. It would be an interesting experiment to conduct on a planet like mars.
_"No, this sucker's electrical - but I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity I need!"_ About bloody time they took a second look at atomic power for spacecraft. If you're going to build a base on the Moon, where the nights last for two whole weeks, it's practically a necessity.
On the Moon they're probably way to expensive compared with high efficiency solar cells and power distribution via satellites and plain old cables. There are places on the Moon that have pretty much perpetual sunlight plus these places incidentally are the closest to the craters that contain water ice... Basically the first Moon base would probably be located there and thus not require costly nuclear reactors. Mars and beyond is a different story, though. A nuclear powered base on Phobos would be amazing.
That reminds me of a funny story: At my previous job (web designer), I held a presentation for a pixel-perfect client. At some point he said "Why is there a dot there? You better fix this asap", and I was like "I'm so sorry", put saliva on my finger and rubbed it off the monitor. That guy took the best "wtf" expression I've seen and almost remained silent for the rest of the presentation hahaha
It should probably be noted that U235, while a little more radioactive than U238 is still fairly harmless to a person, so even if we have a few failed launches with these reactors on board, there won't be any harm to people as long as they have not yet been activated. If active reactors start falling out of the sky though, then we may be in for some trouble, as most trans-uranics are quite poisonous and many of the short and medium lived fission products are troublesome as well, so active reactors should preferably be kept out of earths orbit, or kept to high earth orbit at the very least.
I think it's an impressively innovative design - allowing highly enriched uranium to decay as a subcritical mass and capturing the energy - no active control system required. Now we just need to start the breeder program up again so we don't run out of Uranium... China is so desperate for it they mine it from shale, where coal is also found, and send tons of Uranium up the stacks of their coal powerplants each year.
Bracy Harvey I know that Plutonium is not a naturally occurring element; I do not recall clearly, but I believe there's a breeder cycle that turns Plutonium back into U-235 through a roundabout process.
Just use a few Nokia 3310s to power them.. Im pretty sure there is still one in my junk draw which has only lost 1 bar and been going for over 10 years
Betavoltaics is an option but no space craft I know of has used it. Tritium could be used for it but the relatively short half life (12 years I think) can be a downside. Americium-241 has been talked about for use in RTG:s, with a half life of over 400 years it could power a space craft for centuries.
zapfanzapfan I have to agree, the only disadvantage it has is of its energy density which is a quarter (0.25) of Pu238 isotope (The best fuel for RTGs so far)
But you need four times the weight of Americium as Plutonium to get the same power. And the extra added bonus of lots and lots of gamma rays. Not really friendly to electronics.
Larry Beckham exactly but the penetration power of Gamma rays emitted by Am is not as much as you think it is compared to the Pu emitted gamma rays, I would say,since Am's density is about a quarter of Pu, Take it 25 mm of extra lead, I might be wrong don't take my word for it.
Unless I'm mistaken, fusion provides more energy than fission, but does not have the problem of radioactivity. That said, making fusion practical should be a high priority.
I've heard that we already have fusion technology, but it's not practical because it currently requires more energy to initiate the fusion then what we get out. But we're working on increasing the efficiency.
Barnard Rabenold - yes, it could be you are right, but I do not think it is possible to produce reliable energy over long time, also, most probably, the fusion reactor are insanly heavy, nothing to bring up in space, now at least
Fuel mass per unit of energy generated could put fusion ahead of fission, assuming the huge amount of parasitic heat loss issues can be overcome, but they both have the potentially to be incredibly dense sources of energy. However, when it comes to fuel volume, and reactor size and complexity issues, fission is and likely will remain a more manageable option for the foreseeable future.
Gunnar Winchell We've already got a crude method for reflecting gamma rays, or at least the energy they contain. It's sort of a similar concept to a the fission sail. The idea is that you absorb the gamma rays with a big chunk of lead, which heats the lead up. The lead will then re-emit the energy as thermal energy via blackbody radiation. If you shape the lead into a large dish, then coat one side with a thermal reflector(aka tin foil), the vast majority of the thermal radiation will be emitted from only one side. With this method you can reflect about 90% of the total energy from the gamma rays. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well. The biggest problem is that it's heavy. Though since the thickness of lead required to stop a given percentage of the gamma rays is constant, as you scale the design up it becomes more weight efficient.
YES! It's friday...I have red wine, grilled food, and above all, a new Fraser video. ! @3:22 "The rover will be lost for good...." Sun setting on Opportunity... Geez Fraser do you have to be as depressing as possible on a friday? Great video! My only need...longer videos!
Fraser Cain There is a public teleconference at 10:30 PST tomorrow (6/13) about the state of MER if you’re interested! I wrote my last comment because you had impeccable timing to release a video discussing solar power - coincidentally during the worst dust storm MER has ever seen.
Debbie Scard There’s no evidence whatsoever for current life on Mars. There is plenty of evidence that suggests it may have once been able to support life, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there actually was life. As far as other planets, I think statistically there’s a good chance, but again no evidence :)
For those interested, RTGs function by wrapping the heat source with, a bunch of what are essentially thermocouples. They produce voltage roughly proportional to the temperature, although the voltage is in the millivolt range, so a large number are required to generate enough voltage and power.
Helium 3 is on the surface of the moon and I believe that makes a good fuel but before we could process that in-situe we would need a lot of infrastructure in place.
As long as you don't start up the reactor until it is safely out of range of falling back down, then it should be fine. Uranium on its own isn't really all that toxic. It is the stuff it turns into that is troublesome.
I think there are some possibilities that have been tried on small scale but haven't been fully developed. 1) A rotating mass around a center can be used to drive a turbine, yes moving parts a prone to failure, but this may produce a large amount of energy for the time it works. 2) capturing solar winds, by creating large coils, as energetic particles pass through the coils it will generally a current through the coil. This works just like a magnet passing through a coil. Though Fusion would be the best, I hope that someone soon will figure it out. Thanks for all your hard work
The launch hazard of U235 contamination is one thing. After years of operation these reactors will be full of transuranics. Thats the much bigger hazard. If fission equipped space craft fly away its ok, but you don't want them coming back.
3:07 ''but surprisingly, ''DUST DEVILS'' have cleaned off the panels and allowed it to keep going..'' Yeah, right. Come on Fraser, we know it's the deeds of those pesky Martian elfs! Those Kilopower reactors will hopefully be a disruptor technology for space!
Could high energy lasers not be used? This has been proposed as a power method for a space elevator : beam the power to a target craft use high power lasers. Distance doesn't particularly matter in space (in our solar system) just the angles. Local power powering long distance craft.
phooogle, I may be wrong, but wouldn't a laser beam spread out like a flashlight given enough distance? I don't know how great the distance would have to be, but if it's too far, the beam could be spread out over a foot. At that point you should just use solar energy.
In theory you can keep the divergence low enough that it remains a better option than solar energy at any given distance. It still get's worse with distance, but not by as much as solar.
Sigh, the loss of power wouldn't be worth it. Lasers are horrible conduits for power transfers. You'd loose at least 60% and then you'd still have to store that power unless you're thinking we'd keep a continuous line of sight which nothing could get between, silly
Once you get beyond the orbit of Earth, you'll really need to go with a nuclear option. That's why I think this kilopower reactor development is so exciting.
@@frasercain Yep, I agree. I just hope we have the courage and the science to see the endeavor safely through. We've been down this road before...Plumbrook. However, in the end the cost and risk involved killed the program. I am hopeful though that advances in rocketry, and our nuclear reactor technology might win the day...and make those long journeys a bit shorter.
A question for your Q&A, one that I've been thinking about for a while, especially in light of the new discovery from NASA. When, if ever, do you think it will be ethical/appropriate to start terraforming Mars? Risking the destruction of any extraterrestrial fossils or extinction of any life there - but allowing the possibility of resurrecting any dormant/isolated native life or allowing room for earth originating organisms.
Hi Jonny, I think that it is likely that there is life on Mars, deep underground. Living off chemicals in cracks in the water, they almost certainly exist like Earth Bacteria that lives in cracks in Earth's crust. Terriforming Mars won't kill them, they will never notice. Unless some bio-traces start to filter down after a few centuries, which will give them more food. Finally, unsterilized Mars rocks drop on Earth all the time, and big impacts (like the K-T impact that killed the Dinosaurs), sent mud and gravel to Mars which would carry microbes and spores. So the two planets have been 'swapping spit' for billions of years. It is very likely that Mars bacterial will look a lot like Earth bacteria. Warm regards, Rick.
If that were possible, there would be far more interest in a way to dispersively deflect galactic cosmic rays *away* from spacecraft, than to concentrate them onto a specific part of it...
They did an experiment where they took a wire and let it out from the orbiting space shuttle.. Since you can get a current from having a conductor move through an electric field they thought this might provide power. Sure enough they measured enough power to run the shuttle many times over. Sadly, Before they stretched out the amount of cable they intended they broke the cable but I think this might warrant more studys.
Fusion reactors is quite a while away, this tech is really complicated in terms of long term self maintaining fuel supply and getting rid of the products. It also needs a huge amount of power. Also we're talking more about a station somewhere on the ground than a spacecraft in terms of size. But the real issue would be shielding other equipment from the neutron radiation as well as the very strong magnetic fields for the containment 🤪
MiT's SPARC reactor is showing more promise than the ITER, thanks to a new supermagnetoconductor material. SPARC uses a liquid shielding system that sheets the tokamak wall, and is easy to reclaim and store. It's a fairly exotic substance, but it could hypothetically be combined with water to produce even more deuterium and tritium, thus manufacturing its own fuel. Fusion power is light enough to rocket into space, and powerful enough to supply steady power for decades without refurbishment - and no high-level radioactive waste. In space the main problem is heat dissipation. The amount of waste heat generally scales with the power generated, so keeping a fusion reactor regulated without an atmosphere would be the toughest challenge. The first fusion power generator may ( *_finally!_* ) be less than a decade away - if it overcomes political and market obstacles, it could end the energy crisis and hold the door wide open to explore and colonize the entire solar system. th-cam.com/video/8Pmgr6FtYcY/w-d-xo.html
+Ruben Kelevra Look up the Tokamak bottle, there's no external magnetic field Yes, it needs a large power source to start up. NASA's Kilopower nuclear generator (because it's really a thermal power generator, not a true reactor) plus fuel cells may provide the solution to that. The SPARC is significantly smaller and lighter than the ITER - it might even fit into the proposed BFR. All we need is one or two power facilities in HEO or on the Moon and -well, please pardon the pun - it's off to the races.
thughes218, you would probably lose some efficiency tho. Maybe in the future there will be 1-2 large power stations on each planet that beam power to spacecraft. We need gas stations in space!
Well, catching power in the orbit of Mercury and then beaming it to Jupiter with a (l/m)aser may make the laserbeam at Jupiter maybe much wider than the planet itself, but it could still have a much higher enerrgy density than the direct solar light, don't you think?
Apollorion - what about an array of satellite's placed out in space to transmit the energy from the laser, receiving it, transform it and transmit it futher to the next satellite until they reach the spaceship or whatever needing the energy, those spaceships could even drop of small receive/transmit satellite's while swiching through space for them to supply them with energy
Such an array would indeed be nice and I think they should relay the beam with (almost flat) parabole mirrors, but those mirrors need to rotate due to the orbital difference of the satellites they need to connect.
I agree with Gnocchi, they are very important and the base of many missions including the lunar landings. You could use methane cells (hydrogen is difficult to keep for long times) and pending that you have enough fuel it can last a long time. Not like, solar or nuclear, but solar also last far more than nuclear.
You got me thinking of Lofstorm launch loops sending solid methane and ice in Dewers to the Moon. Fuel for space and exporting carbon from this biosphere. For the long term, we can get volatiles from the Belt and beyond (comets and ice asteroids).
You mention that the crafts require electricity to keep warm but wouldn't they be quite toasty if they're in sunlight? I guess they're not always being lit. Would be interesting to hear the different temperature systems spacecrafts use, especially ones with people in them. What would happen to excess heat for example?
rubikfan1 there are some small ion engines that could use this like on the dawn mission but, The VASIMR needs at least 400 Kw, but as with anything more is batter
Hi Fraser, hadn´t the idea of stirling engines been around for a while now? I think the biggest concern was, that a stirling engine uses moving parts, which is a big flaw when entering space or has there been some upgrade on the traditional design, where there are no moving parts anymore?
Moving parts in Stirling engines was my first though, no way they'll get 40 years out of them like the TEGs on on the Voyagers. 1kW is a lot of movement.
If you assume 4 pistons you are under constant power and thus does not to be moving fast. It is just a matter of designing for the life you want. if the voyagers had used Stirling engines they would be putting out a lot more energy than the TEGs are because the thermal-couples are being degraded by the radiation and are losing efficiency at a rate about equal to the lose of energy from nuclear decay.
Currently Voyager 1 is about .81 light days from earth (21.1 billion kilometers). Still almost 5 billion kilometers to go for a light day. At the current speed of 60,840 kph, will take around 9 years. Edit: While looking for more current location data I found the JPL mission status page for both Voyager 1 and 2. voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status/ Also edited the original numbers with the data from this page.
Temperature is an issue, but for other reasons than you might think. It's actually fairly easy to generate heat in space. It's a lot more difficult to get rid of it, since you have no atmosphere to dissipite it into. Thermal radiation is the only means of getting rid of waste heat, and the ISS has huge external radiators to manage the heat from all the equipment on board. It's true that space is cold, but it is also a near-vacuum, so the few, very cold particles that float around really aren't going to do any significant cooling.
Good source of long term propulsion. Use Kilopower to super heat water into steam. Superheating 1 litre of water will produce 1244 cubic meters of steam. Yea, the age of steam returns!
Only good for long term propulsion if you have a large supply of water. How much water would you need to launch into space to travel a great distance? The rocket would be too heavy to launch if you need to send one of the great lakes up with it.
I'd like to know more about the technical difficulties that are involved with improving solar panels. The one in this video is supposed to be 30% efficient and that is a Hugh improvement. But, how high is the ceiling on solar efficiency? Will these more efficient panel ever be affordable for the public. What are your thoughts.
For here on Earth, it's all about cost/watt ratio. So there's a perfect sweet spot where you can spend the least amount of money to generate the most amount of power. For spacecraft, the launch costs are so expensive, the only thing that matters is efficiency, which is why they're pushing that technology so hard.
1 week ago I have met cosmonaut Juri Baturin and ask him if he could make flips on a space station. I always imagined training gymnastic in space. He replayed that maximum 1 flip cause of space sickness. Could you make one video about this.
How about harvesting jupiters radiation? Also, during a gravity assist, could some of the momentum be used instead to charge batteries almost like a hybrid car
I have a question. When a space ship returns to earth, it falls at such great velocity that the friction from the atmosphere causes intense heat. Why can't a ship slow it's decent to avoid the high temperatures.
I understand that chemical batteries would not be efficient enough for long missions, but what about spinning a flywheel to very fast speeds and using it as a physical battery?It would be far less efficient than nuclear energy, but would it be possible?
This would be a store of energy, and would probably work really well, especially in space where there's no atmosphere to slow it down. I really like this idea.
Good presentation, but you missed an important point. RTGs lose power over their lifetime but not due to decay of the Pu-238. It has a 26.4 kyr half life. Power loss is due to impurities degrading the semiconductors which convert heat into electricity using the Seebeck Effect. Kilopower looks like it will work, but will no shielding people will need to stay well away and they can never be serviced. Start rigorous extended life tests now.
@@@pillarshipempireemployee0142 No, fission is the breaking up of super heavy elements. Fusion is slamming together light elements like hydrogen. The sun is powered by Fusion. Warm regards, Rick.
(Mars)So what is the affected radius all that radioactive decay on the environment ; and how much of the environment has it covered; in addition what is the half-life of the affected radioactive area? Not too sure if I ask them questions white please correct me if I made any mistakes but I'm just curious..
Not exactly, the stuff is really clingy, and it might not help. But there are strategies that could work, like having a way to discharge the panels so the dust doesn't stick to it.
Wow....just Wow! Great episode. So how do they turn the electricity they get from the space station solar panels into heat inside the station? Is it just like an electric heat register here on earth?
Make tour de France winners astronauts and let them generate electricity and heat by cycling. You can give them their doping substances, too, this is not a race... Just kidding. But an Eppstein drive should do the trick, I suppose.
He was martian, wasn't he? So colonizing Mars is the first step towards that. Yet another reason to go. People with surname "Epstein" or those who agree to adopt it will get preferential treatment.
Lockheed is building a compact fusion reactor that should do 30Mw in a platform the size of a shipping container. At that size and weight you could run a Hall-effect thruster at 1/3G for several years continuously
There is absolutely no doubt that nuclear is the way to go, and not just beyond Mars, either. Regarding a system for long term, very high power output, I think fusion will be the answer, and with the new REBCO superconductors ability to produce confinement field strength at previously unattainable levels, that means smaller units will be possible, and cheaper. So power will not be an issue in that sense, but I think that the TOKAMAC system may also have one more golden gift to give us. The temperature of the fuel mix will be many millions of degrees Celsius, and thus the velocity of those particles extremely high, one could design a new system whereby the plasma is ejected via a magnetic nozzle for propulsion, such a system would have the ability to be operated for sustained periods with extremely high thrust. It would be capable of achieving a few percent of light speed in a relatively short time, unlike other particle engines which emit high velocity particles but need to be operated for long periods of time to accelerate.
I would be interested in knowing the advantages of Kilo-power over previous fission systems. Also, what are the worse case scenarios, e.g., launch accidents? BTW, great video.
Is because it's U-235 low enriched uranium? By itself relatively low radioactivity. The neutrons go up when it is turned on space? (That's what I gather googling around.)
NASA: *Modern problems require modern power-generating solutions* NASA: ...and that's how we managed a profitable exploration mission of the Jupiter system Press: What part of the Jupiter system? NASA: All of it Press: *Weird flex but OK* NASA: *It ain't much but it's honest work*
He wants to rule the galaxy with SDI lasers! pew pew pew bang WALL CHINA COVFEFE *hits ISIS with long telephone pole shaped rod made of Tungsten hurdling towards Earth at mach 10*
Trump should fund a feet of those giant spaceships from the game children of a dead earth. Point defense lasers, missiles, coil guns, drones, and NUKES!
What a great idea for power on Mars! Which is why it will NEVER be used, NASA would NOT have any more excuses to delay human space exploration and stop wasting money.
I haven't been able to get through the entire backlog of videos yet but have you ever covered theoretical engines like project Orion or project Daedalus?
Hi Fraser please explain what are the dimensions of a football field? Do you mean a soccer pitch or American football? Not all of us are on your continent and do not understand measurements like football fields or blocks. You can use either metric or imperial measurements, or better both.
Ok that's "The rectangular field is 160 feet (48.5 m) wide and 360 feet (109.1 m) in length (53.3 yards, 120 yards respectively), including the two 10 yard (9.2 m) end zones". (Google). Do you have those in Canada or regular football (soccer) pitches like in UK?
there are semi conductors which produce current from temperature differential.C change of temp may produce power. These units are used as solid-state refrigerator but when reversed create power from differential in temperature between two surfaces. Maybe bury one in soil of Mars expose other surface to hot cold atmosphere. Excellent show Frasier.
Fraser Cain Look up "Peltier device".... semi conductors which when reversed generate power from temp differential. I retired from US Dept Energy and very familiar with nuke stuff. Love your show and Dr Grey. Tell her. If you get famous from it just donate $$$ to my rabbi OK? lol
How about mirror-based solar concentrators focusing light on either high performance solar cells, or Stirling generators? That would obviously require accurate sun tracking, which isn't an issue in orbit. Energy conversion would happen at higher efficiency and the weight/cost looks to me like it would be much lower. Blanket mirrors like those designed for solar sails may even be compatible? There have been a number of studies already.
If we want to send a probe beyond Kuiper belt, can we make that type of generator that can generate electricity by consuming that dust which is in kuiper belt(just like petrol here)?
If general fusion are successful at generating break even power with their piston fusion design, then perhaps they could make it miniaturized enough for space based applications.
Ah yes, there's that American scientific unit of measurement again, the "Football field" :)
It's either that or Rhode Islands.
And even here European units differ.
@@frasercain hahahaha
And don't forget 'Smoots'. Seriously, look it up. To convert 'Football fields' to 'Football Pitches' multiply by 0.86.
Rhode island Is so big
I'm glad there are still plans for fission. Two meltdowns in extreme circumstances over the past few decades hardly seems like reason to abandon the technology.
Yeah, and on Mars you'll need a really powerful reactor to supply all that electricity so far from the Sun.
Yes, until we can come up with another technology, space is the perfect place for fission reactors.
@@yggdrasil9039 earth is also a perfect place for fission reactor until we have an alternative, except areas with rampant earthquakes ofc
He failed to mention that the Greens have a violent objection to launching any radioactive material for fear of an accident. They almost got Cassini cancelled. That was for a tiny amount compared with the kilo power reactor. Only way to get it into space is if Russia or China do it, they don't give hoot about the environment or Greens. Or we could mine it in space once we find any.
Richard 1 - India too.
Unregistered User - a number of others. True. People don't find out about some of them for decades, because of cover-ups and obfuscation. The Russians and U/S are not alone with that. Britain had a 'nuclear emergency' in the 1950's, for instance. Quite a few details finally emerged 50 years later.
Giant space lemons with 2 wires in them.
That's just crazy enough to work.
Assuming that you manage to capture at least *two* of the famously elusive giant space lemons I think that launching the properly sized copper and zinc electrodes would be prohibitively expensive.
Orlando Saint-Sebastien for president
That's not the craziest idea. Similar batteries are made by pounding rods into the ground. It would be an interesting experiment to conduct on a planet like mars.
Orlando Saint-Sebastien too bad it won’t work.
_"No, this sucker's electrical - but I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity I need!"_
About bloody time they took a second look at atomic power for spacecraft. If you're going to build a base on the Moon, where the nights last for two whole weeks, it's practically a necessity.
CountArtha true radio thermal generator safe way.
On the Moon they're probably way to expensive compared with high efficiency solar cells and power distribution via satellites and plain old cables. There are places on the Moon that have pretty much perpetual sunlight plus these places incidentally are the closest to the craters that contain water ice...
Basically the first Moon base would probably be located there and thus not require costly nuclear reactors.
Mars and beyond is a different story, though. A nuclear powered base on Phobos would be amazing.
lol i love that movie :-)
georg841984 check our 1970s sci-fi "running silently" tell me if that's not relevant to today's issues.
georg841984 watch "silent running" 1972.
At 1:50 I keep trying to wipe a smudge off my screen - only to realize it was the shadow of the drone. Haha. Thanks for the video Fraser!
Luke Ranieri HAHAHA! I was doing the same thing. lol
Sergio V haha 😂
Just a bad operator 🤷🏻♂️
That reminds me of a funny story: At my previous job (web designer), I held a presentation for a pixel-perfect client. At some point he said "Why is there a dot there? You better fix this asap", and I was like "I'm so sorry", put saliva on my finger and rubbed it off the monitor. That guy took the best "wtf" expression I've seen and almost remained silent for the rest of the presentation hahaha
It should probably be noted that U235, while a little more radioactive than U238 is still fairly harmless to a person, so even if we have a few failed launches with these reactors on board, there won't be any harm to people as long as they have not yet been activated.
If active reactors start falling out of the sky though, then we may be in for some trouble, as most trans-uranics are quite poisonous and many of the short and medium lived fission products are troublesome as well, so active reactors should preferably be kept out of earths orbit, or kept to high earth orbit at the very least.
Just another reason to use very safe rockets to carry these things to space, or maybe just do all the mining and refining up in space.
No ground test and don't pull the control rods until on its way. It never comes back.
+Fraser Cain hey, should't be that hard.
Marie Smith
Did you have a stroke while typing that?
+Marie Smith what is happening here
NASA, you had me at nuclear powered sterling engine in space.
Hah, it's a pretty cool idea. There's an idea of a Sterling engine for Venus, where it slowly let's the heat in.
I think it's an impressively innovative design - allowing highly enriched uranium to decay as a subcritical mass and capturing the energy - no active control system required.
Now we just need to start the breeder program up again so we don't run out of Uranium...
China is so desperate for it they mine it from shale, where coal is also found, and send tons of Uranium up the stacks of their coal powerplants each year.
HuntingTarg Uranium isn't bred, we mine it and enrich it using giant centrifuges. We breed Plutonium.
Bracy Harvey
I know that Plutonium is not a naturally occurring element; I do not recall clearly, but I believe there's a breeder cycle that turns Plutonium back into U-235 through a roundabout process.
U233 is bred from Th232 after absorbing a neutron and left to decay a few times.
Just use a few Nokia 3310s to power them.. Im pretty sure there is still one in my junk draw which has only lost 1 bar and been going for over 10 years
I wish my smartphone had that kind of staying power.
We don't have a rocket big enough to get a 3310 into orbit
would make a good re entry vehicle as well
Good re-entry vehicle to destroy the Earth* FTFY
Well id rail launch these things all day long and fergit bout it lol
Betavoltaics is an option but no space craft I know of has used it. Tritium could be used for it but the relatively short half life (12 years I think) can be a downside.
Americium-241 has been talked about for use in RTG:s, with a half life of over 400 years it could power a space craft for centuries.
zapfanzapfan I have to agree, the only disadvantage it has is of its energy density which is a quarter (0.25) of Pu238 isotope (The best fuel for RTGs so far)
But you need four times the weight of Americium as Plutonium to get the same power. And the extra added bonus of lots and lots of gamma rays. Not really friendly to electronics.
Man, this is a smart conversation.
I'm just gonna sit quietly over in my corner and absorb😊
Mind those gamma rays! The alpha particles will stop at a sheet of paper but gammas penetrate a couple of centimeters of lead or more.
Larry Beckham exactly but the penetration power of Gamma rays emitted by Am is not as much as you think it is compared to the Pu emitted gamma rays, I would say,since Am's density is about a quarter of Pu, Take it 25 mm of extra lead, I might be wrong don't take my word for it.
Unless I'm mistaken, fusion provides more energy than fission, but does not have the problem of radioactivity. That said, making fusion practical should be a high priority.
Barnard Rabenold - perhaps also making fusion technology in the first place, we do not have it yet
I've heard that we already have fusion technology, but it's not practical because it currently requires more energy to initiate the fusion then what we get out. But we're working on increasing the efficiency.
Barnard Rabenold - yes, it could be you are right, but I do not think it is possible to produce reliable energy over long time, also, most probably, the fusion reactor are insanly heavy, nothing to bring up in space, now at least
Once we get it to work here on Earth we can try to figure out a space version of it.
Fuel mass per unit of energy generated could put fusion ahead of fission, assuming the huge amount of parasitic heat loss issues can be overcome, but they both have the potentially to be incredibly dense sources of energy. However, when it comes to fuel volume, and reactor size and complexity issues, fission is and likely will remain a more manageable option for the foreseeable future.
There's one more option, antimatter. We can manufacture and store it already. Just need to scale the process up by about 10^256 times.
Mini black hole engine via Hawking radiation?
We can only do a few particles at a time right now. But scaled it would be awesome.
You would have to learn how to reflect gamma rays to use it
There has to be a way to reflect them...
Gunnar Winchell
We've already got a crude method for reflecting gamma rays, or at least the energy they contain. It's sort of a similar concept to a the fission sail.
The idea is that you absorb the gamma rays with a big chunk of lead, which heats the lead up. The lead will then re-emit the energy as thermal energy via blackbody radiation.
If you shape the lead into a large dish, then coat one side with a thermal reflector(aka tin foil), the vast majority of the thermal radiation will be emitted from only one side.
With this method you can reflect about 90% of the total energy from the gamma rays. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well. The biggest problem is that it's heavy.
Though since the thickness of lead required to stop a given percentage of the gamma rays is constant, as you scale the design up it becomes more weight efficient.
YES! It's friday...I have red wine, grilled food, and above all, a new Fraser video. ! @3:22 "The rover will be lost for good...." Sun setting on Opportunity... Geez Fraser do you have to be as depressing as possible on a friday? Great video! My only need...longer videos!
Aww, it's a good little robot.
Hey Fraser, I'm an engineer at JPL that operates MER and MSL. If you'd like to talk sometime (in a few days), let me know!
Very cool, thanks for reaching out. 😀
dennis pickard hahaha oh no you’re onto us!!
Fraser Cain There is a public teleconference at 10:30 PST tomorrow (6/13) about the state of MER if you’re interested! I wrote my last comment because you had impeccable timing to release a video discussing solar power - coincidentally during the worst dust storm MER has ever seen.
Jackson do you think theirs life on mars and other planets.?
Debbie Scard There’s no evidence whatsoever for current life on Mars. There is plenty of evidence that suggests it may have once been able to support life, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there actually was life. As far as other planets, I think statistically there’s a good chance, but again no evidence :)
For those interested, RTGs function by wrapping the heat source with, a bunch of what are essentially thermocouples. They produce voltage roughly proportional to the temperature, although the voltage is in the millivolt range, so a large number are required to generate enough voltage and power.
Yeah, they're not very efficient, but they're simple and they work.
I hope launch reliability has improved enough for this. Nuclear rain sounds like a bad thing. Thanks for the vid.
easy. get the nuclear material from the moon or asteroids.
Sounds like a good solution for the near future.
Have they determined such materials are on the moon?
Helium 3 is on the surface of the moon and I believe that makes a good fuel but before we could process that in-situe we would need a lot of infrastructure in place.
As long as you don't start up the reactor until it is safely out of range of falling back down, then it should be fine. Uranium on its own isn't really all that toxic. It is the stuff it turns into that is troublesome.
I think there are some possibilities that have been tried on small scale but haven't been fully developed.
1) A rotating mass around a center can be used to drive a turbine, yes moving parts a prone to failure, but this may produce a large amount of energy for the time it works.
2) capturing solar winds, by creating large coils, as energetic particles pass through the coils it will generally a current through the coil. This works just like a magnet passing through a coil.
Though Fusion would be the best, I hope that someone soon will figure it out.
Thanks for all your hard work
When you watch this video after opportunity is dead. 😭
RIP Oppy
Bitch Lasagna
Someone is cutting onions in here 😭😭😭😭
At least it lasted 11 years longer then expected.
Jack Stanley ARGEGAHGRHHE
I applaud the amount of effort you put into these videos. Cheers
Thanks for watching!
The launch hazard of U235 contamination is one thing. After years of operation these reactors will be full of transuranics. Thats the much bigger hazard. If fission equipped space craft fly away its ok, but you don't want them coming back.
Yeah, or you want them to spend thousands of years before they return.
Oh sure, don't worry about the aliens...
@@BrilliantDesignOnline 😂
could we use SKR (Saturns Kilometric Radiation) to power a space craft exploring it and its moons?
A Kilometic radio wave has a length of 300 kilometers. This a huge collector to get any power.
that would basicly be a realy long cable.
Yeah.... That ain't happening.
3:07 ''but surprisingly, ''DUST DEVILS'' have cleaned off the panels and allowed it to keep going..''
Yeah, right. Come on Fraser, we know it's the deeds of those pesky Martian elfs!
Those Kilopower reactors will hopefully be a disruptor technology for space!
Very helpful Martians. 😀
Martians are good at housekeeping
Dust storms are now killing this Martian solar-powered rover
The elves will take care of it. I have faith in them!
It's like a sci-fi version of a portable diesel generator.
Could high energy lasers not be used? This has been proposed as a power method for a space elevator : beam the power to a target craft use high power lasers. Distance doesn't particularly matter in space (in our solar system) just the angles. Local power powering long distance craft.
phooogle, I may be wrong, but wouldn't a laser beam spread out like a flashlight given enough distance? I don't know how great the distance would have to be, but if it's too far, the beam could be spread out over a foot. At that point you should just use solar energy.
Beam divergence makes this impossible over any significant distance.
In theory you can keep the divergence low enough that it remains a better option than solar energy at any given distance. It still get's worse with distance, but not by as much as solar.
Sigh, the loss of power wouldn't be worth it. Lasers are horrible conduits for power transfers. You'd loose at least 60% and then you'd still have to store that power unless you're thinking we'd keep a continuous line of sight which nothing could get between, silly
love your videos Fraser !
keep it up ! :)
I'm so in love with these little power buckets. Cant wait to see one fly!
I'll let you know when it happens. :-)
The only option for deep space travel or planet habitation is nuclear. No other known options are currently even remotely possible.
Once you get beyond the orbit of Earth, you'll really need to go with a nuclear option. That's why I think this kilopower reactor development is so exciting.
@@frasercain Yep, I agree. I just hope we have the courage and the science to see the endeavor safely through. We've been down this road before...Plumbrook. However, in the end the cost and risk involved killed the program. I am hopeful though that advances in rocketry, and our nuclear reactor technology might win the day...and make those long journeys a bit shorter.
A question for your Q&A, one that I've been thinking about for a while, especially in light of the new discovery from NASA. When, if ever, do you think it will be ethical/appropriate to start terraforming Mars? Risking the destruction of any extraterrestrial fossils or extinction of any life there - but allowing the possibility of resurrecting any dormant/isolated native life or allowing room for earth originating organisms.
Hi Jonny,
I think that it is likely that there is life on Mars, deep underground. Living off chemicals in cracks in the water, they almost certainly exist like Earth Bacteria that lives in cracks in Earth's crust.
Terriforming Mars won't kill them, they will never notice. Unless some bio-traces start to filter down after a few centuries, which will give them more food.
Finally, unsterilized Mars rocks drop on Earth all the time, and big impacts (like the K-T impact that killed the Dinosaurs), sent mud and gravel to Mars which would carry microbes and spores. So the two planets have been 'swapping spit' for billions of years. It is very likely that Mars bacterial will look a lot like Earth bacteria.
Warm regards, Rick.
Could there be a way to concentrate cosmic background radiation as a source of energy?
Not that I know of.
If that were possible, there would be far more interest in a way to dispersively deflect galactic cosmic rays *away* from spacecraft, than to concentrate them onto a specific part of it...
Energy is differential. Background radiation is about the lowest state known. Only real use is that its a giant heat sink.
They did an experiment where they took a wire and let it out from the orbiting space shuttle..
Since you can get a current from having a conductor move through an electric field they thought this might provide power.
Sure enough they measured enough power to run the shuttle many times over.
Sadly, Before they stretched out the amount of cable they intended they broke the cable but I think this might warrant more studys.
It's been tested, and should work. The cool thing is that you can put current through the wire and use that to raise your orbit. Or vice versa.
Hey Fraser, Juno doesn't orbit every 2 weeks even though it was supposed to, its a 53-day orbit
Oh thanks
Great video Fraser. Well done!
Thanks a lot!
The fusion company Helion Energy has already worked with NASA on fusion-engines for spacecraft even though we haven't reached breakeven.
Very cool, I hope it works.
Fusion reactors is quite a while away, this tech is really complicated in terms of long term self maintaining fuel supply and getting rid of the products. It also needs a huge amount of power. Also we're talking more about a station somewhere on the ground than a spacecraft in terms of size.
But the real issue would be shielding other equipment from the neutron radiation as well as the very strong magnetic fields for the containment 🤪
MiT's SPARC reactor is showing more promise than the ITER, thanks to a new supermagnetoconductor material. SPARC uses a liquid shielding system that sheets the tokamak wall, and is easy to reclaim and store. It's a fairly exotic substance, but it could hypothetically be combined with water to produce even more deuterium and tritium, thus manufacturing its own fuel.
Fusion power is light enough to rocket into space, and powerful enough to supply steady power for decades without refurbishment - and no high-level radioactive waste.
In space the main problem is heat dissipation. The amount of waste heat generally scales with the power generated, so keeping a fusion reactor regulated without an atmosphere would be the toughest challenge.
The first fusion power generator may ( *_finally!_* ) be less than a decade away - if it overcomes political and market obstacles, it could end the energy crisis and hold the door wide open to explore and colonize the entire solar system.
th-cam.com/video/8Pmgr6FtYcY/w-d-xo.html
+Ruben Kelevra
Look up the Tokamak bottle, there's no external magnetic field
Yes, it needs a large power source to start up. NASA's Kilopower nuclear generator (because it's really a thermal power generator, not a true reactor) plus fuel cells may provide the solution to that.
The SPARC is significantly smaller and lighter than the ITER - it might even fit into the proposed BFR. All we need is one or two power facilities in HEO or on the Moon and -well, please pardon the pun - it's off to the races.
Ruben Kelevra Getting rid of products? Is it difficult to expell the helium through the plasma hole in the back of the rocket?
As always a well made and we'll explained video Fraser Cain. You deserve at least a million subscribers. Keep up the awesome work.
Another option is beaming energy from one place to another using lasers or masers.
thughes218, you would probably lose some efficiency tho. Maybe in the future there will be 1-2 large power stations on each planet that beam power to spacecraft. We need gas stations in space!
Well, catching power in the orbit of Mercury and then beaming it to Jupiter with a (l/m)aser may make the laserbeam at Jupiter maybe much wider than the planet itself, but it could still have a much higher enerrgy density than the direct solar light, don't you think?
Apollorion - what about an array of satellite's placed out in space to transmit the energy from the laser, receiving it, transform it and transmit it futher to the next satellite until they reach the spaceship or whatever needing the energy, those spaceships could even drop of small receive/transmit satellite's while swiching through space for them to supply them with energy
Such an array would indeed be nice and I think they should relay the beam with (almost flat) parabole mirrors, but those mirrors need to rotate due to the orbital difference of the satellites they need to connect.
Side benefit = weapon
I'm really stoned, and not even 20 seconds I'm laughing, I don't know why but I thought the joke "Even worse, no extensions cords" killed me
Whoa, dude...
A long pair of jump leads from that red roadster that's up there.
Massimo O'Kissed too funny
Do Teslas have a cigarette lighter?
Too bad they pulled batteries off the car before launch :-D
Massimo O'Kissed i
How are you going to charge the Roadster?
Your videos are very enjoyable, thank you Mr. Cain.
Thanks a lot!
What about hydrogen fuel cells? Didn't the Apollo missions use them?
Yes, but those really only work for short periods of times. They're essentially batteries.
Just more than 12 and a half days was the longest. Not good to go where past the Moon.
+
Gnoccy
RTGs and fission reactors work for decades while fuel cells only work as long as you have fuel
I agree with Gnocchi, they are very important and the base of many missions including the lunar landings. You could use methane cells (hydrogen is difficult to keep for long times) and pending that you have enough fuel it can last a long time. Not like, solar or nuclear, but solar also last far more than nuclear.
You got me thinking of Lofstorm launch loops sending solid methane and ice in Dewers to the Moon. Fuel for space and exporting carbon from this biosphere. For the long term, we can get volatiles from the Belt and beyond (comets and ice asteroids).
You mention that the crafts require electricity to keep warm but wouldn't they be quite toasty if they're in sunlight? I guess they're not always being lit. Would be interesting to hear the different temperature systems spacecrafts use, especially ones with people in them. What would happen to excess heat for example?
It depends on how far they are from the Sun and if they're in shadow.
Use Duracell battery's they last up to 3 times longer
Id go with the Energizer Bunny, and replace his drum with a generator he can crank.
Do have to say that your videos on your subject matter are top shelf - kudos
Is 1000w enough for ion engines?
rubikfan1 there are some small ion engines that could use this like on the dawn mission but,
The VASIMR needs at least 400 Kw, but as with anything more is batter
Hi Fraser, hadn´t the idea of stirling engines been around for a while now?
I think the biggest concern was, that a stirling engine uses moving parts, which is a big flaw when entering space or has there been some upgrade on the traditional design, where there are no moving parts anymore?
I hadn't heard of Sterling engines matched up with fission reactors yet.
I´ve read it on Wikipedia a while ago.
You have to have moving parts but Teflon rubbing on Teflon lasts a long time.
Moving parts in Stirling engines was my first though, no way they'll get 40 years out of them like the TEGs on on the Voyagers. 1kW is a lot of movement.
If you assume 4 pistons you are under constant power and thus does not to be moving fast. It is just a matter of designing for the life you want. if the voyagers had used Stirling engines they would be putting out a lot more energy than the TEGs are because the thermal-couples are being degraded by the radiation and are losing efficiency at a rate about equal to the lose of energy from nuclear decay.
When will the Voyagers reach the milesone of 1 light-day from earth?
Currently Voyager 1 is about .81 light days from earth (21.1 billion kilometers). Still almost 5 billion kilometers to go for a light day. At the current speed of 60,840 kph, will take around 9 years.
Edit: While looking for more current location data I found the JPL mission status page for both Voyager 1 and 2. voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status/
Also edited the original numbers with the data from this page.
Nice work, @@PhillipChalabi !
You forgot about Fuel Cells that consume fuel to produce electricity. Used on early spacecraft missions but nowadays they have been replaced by solar
11:10 for the kilopower reactor...
Temperature is an issue, but for other reasons than you might think. It's actually fairly easy to generate heat in space. It's a lot more difficult to get rid of it, since you have no atmosphere to dissipite it into. Thermal radiation is the only means of getting rid of waste heat, and the ISS has huge external radiators to manage the heat from all the equipment on board.
It's true that space is cold, but it is also a near-vacuum, so the few, very cold particles that float around really aren't going to do any significant cooling.
Good source of long term propulsion. Use Kilopower to super heat water into steam. Superheating 1 litre of water will produce 1244 cubic meters of steam. Yea, the age of steam returns!
So many futuristic power systems are just fancy steam engines. :-)
Only good for long term propulsion if you have a large supply of water. How much water would you need to launch into space to travel a great distance? The rocket would be too heavy to launch if you need to send one of the great lakes up with it.
I'd like to know more about the technical difficulties that are involved with improving solar panels. The one in this video is supposed to be 30% efficient and that is a Hugh improvement. But, how high is the ceiling on solar efficiency? Will these more efficient panel ever be affordable for the public. What are your thoughts.
For here on Earth, it's all about cost/watt ratio. So there's a perfect sweet spot where you can spend the least amount of money to generate the most amount of power. For spacecraft, the launch costs are so expensive, the only thing that matters is efficiency, which is why they're pushing that technology so hard.
Manure reactor :)
But the smell.
it's there anyway ;)
1 week ago I have met cosmonaut Juri Baturin and ask him if he could make flips on a space station. I always imagined training gymnastic in space. He replayed that maximum 1 flip cause of space sickness. Could you make one video about this.
That's a really crappy idea :D
Don't talk about the POTUS that way.
How about harvesting jupiters radiation? Also, during a gravity assist, could some of the momentum be used instead to charge batteries almost like a hybrid car
There's no easy way to harvest radiation in this kind of environment. :-(
Make a video on the new Mars discovery, when you have time.
I have a question. When a space ship returns to earth, it falls at such great velocity that the friction from the atmosphere causes intense heat. Why can't a ship slow it's decent to avoid the high temperatures.
They could, but that would take extra fuel. Deceleration through the atmosphere is free.
Do you see where NASA is going to make a big announcement about mars
james mays, it already happened. They announced organic molecules and methane. Go to universetoday.com for the story.
Fusion power could work well on objects like the moon. I hope this technology will be used in future space missions.
We just need to figure out how to make fusion work in a sustainable way. Then miniaturize it and send it to space.
there is another power source for objects orbiting in magnetic fields:
tethers!
I understand that chemical batteries would not be efficient enough for long missions, but what about spinning a flywheel to very fast speeds and using it as a physical battery?It would be far less efficient than nuclear energy, but would it be possible?
This would be a store of energy, and would probably work really well, especially in space where there's no atmosphere to slow it down. I really like this idea.
We already use Fusion! There is a giant ball of plasma out there, providing energy
And we have fusion bombs. 😀
Energy of which we struggle to capture barely 20% of with current technology, as described in the video.
Good presentation, but you missed an important point. RTGs lose power over their lifetime but not due to decay of the Pu-238. It has a 26.4 kyr half life. Power loss is due to impurities degrading the semiconductors which convert heat into electricity using the Seebeck Effect.
Kilopower looks like it will work, but will no shielding people will need to stay well away and they can never be serviced. Start rigorous extended life tests now.
Thanks, I didn't realize that. 😀
Solar is also nuclear energy.... from a safe distance.
Yup.
Skin cancer ?
@@bigtom2808 Sun is powered by fusion.
Edit: fission to fusion
@@@pillarshipempireemployee0142
No, fission is the breaking up of super heavy elements. Fusion is slamming together light elements like hydrogen. The sun is powered by Fusion. Warm regards, Rick.
@@RicksPoker Sorry, typo, thanks.
(Mars)So what is the affected radius all that radioactive decay on the environment ; and how much of the environment has it covered; in addition what is the half-life of the affected radioactive area? Not too sure if I ask them questions white please correct me if I made any mistakes but I'm just curious..
As long as it's contained in the reactor, it's not a danger to the environment. And it will decay over time to less harmful elements.
@@frasercain thanks
Sooner or later we'll have the Infinite Improbability Drive
I can't wait. 😀
The probability's pretty low...
Fraser. You are an Absolute Unit.
Metric or imperial?
A windshield wiper on the solar array would have helped
Not exactly, the stuff is really clingy, and it might not help. But there are strategies that could work, like having a way to discharge the panels so the dust doesn't stick to it.
why?? there are Magic Assistants on Mars....
VERY cool video! I like your writing and narration style. Informative and super interesting. I have subscribed and you get a big thumbs-up.
Hamster in a wheel generator.....
That's just crazy enough to work. :-)
Wow....just Wow! Great episode. So how do they turn the electricity they get from the space station solar panels into heat inside the station? Is it just like an electric heat register here on earth?
Yeah, they just have electric heat like a house on Earth.
Rip opportunity
Yeah, I didn't realize it was going to die so soon after I made this video. :-(
Are gravity waves all around us or do they only occur when black holes collide and other massive events?
Any mass that is moving is generating gravity waves, they're just really faint.
Helium 3 fusion reactor, helium 3 all over the moon
We don’t have that technology bruh
The money for that would be tuff
Well presented, interesting, and easy to digest. Thanks for such a great video.
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Rip opportunity :(
😔
Thanks Fraser. I feel appreciated.
Hah, thanks for being a patron!
Make tour de France winners astronauts and let them generate electricity and heat by cycling. You can give them their doping substances, too, this is not a race...
Just kidding. But an Eppstein drive should do the trick, I suppose.
We just need Epstein to invent his drive. 😀
He was martian, wasn't he? So colonizing Mars is the first step towards that. Yet another reason to go. People with surname "Epstein" or those who agree to adopt it will get preferential treatment.
I mean...almost. I bet with really good insulation it can be done.
Lockheed is building a compact fusion reactor that should do 30Mw in a platform the size of a shipping container. At that size and weight you could run a Hall-effect thruster at 1/3G for several years continuously
There is absolutely no doubt that nuclear is the way to go, and not just beyond Mars, either. Regarding a system for long term, very high power output, I think fusion will be the answer, and with the new REBCO superconductors ability to produce confinement field strength at previously unattainable levels, that means smaller units will be possible, and cheaper. So power will not be an issue in that sense, but I think that the TOKAMAC system may also have one more golden gift to give us. The temperature of the fuel mix will be many millions of degrees Celsius, and thus the velocity of those particles extremely high, one could design a new system whereby the plasma is ejected via a magnetic nozzle for propulsion, such a system would have the ability to be operated for sustained periods with extremely high thrust. It would be capable of achieving a few percent of light speed in a relatively short time, unlike other particle engines which emit high velocity particles but need to be operated for long periods of time to accelerate.
psycronizer so where is this information going? Be good if you worked with nasa they need to speed things up and get us to mars.
I would be interested in knowing the advantages of Kilo-power over previous fission systems. Also, what are the worse case scenarios, e.g., launch accidents? BTW, great video.
It looks like safety is one of the big advantages.
Is because it's U-235 low enriched uranium? By itself relatively low radioactivity. The neutrons go up when it is turned on space? (That's what I gather googling around.)
Why not just use a perpetual motion machine?
Of course, if you have one to spare.
Great work Fraser
Thanks for watching, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Can memes power space craft?
Only the dank ones.
Fraser Cain well i only have 1 so far so i better get to work
NASA: *Modern problems require modern power-generating solutions*
NASA: ...and that's how we managed a profitable exploration mission of the Jupiter system
Press: What part of the Jupiter system?
NASA: All of it
Press: *Weird flex but OK*
NASA: *It ain't much but it's honest work*
At 6:25,did i hear you say-the RTG could harm life on one of saturn's moon's? . Do you know something we do not ?.
No, it was the bacteria on board the spacecraft they were worried about.
thank you trump
Recent news has placed this development in the neighbourhood of rather questionable ideas, see "Space Force".
He wants to rule the galaxy with SDI lasers!
pew pew pew
bang
WALL CHINA COVFEFE
*hits ISIS with long telephone pole shaped rod made of Tungsten hurdling towards Earth at mach 10*
Trump should fund a feet of those giant spaceships from the game children of a dead earth. Point defense lasers, missiles, coil guns, drones, and NUKES!
Some of my friends have done work on the kilopower reactor, fun little thing :D
Oh, very cool. I can't wait to see them used on the Moon or Mars.
One of the infinity stones should provide enough power...
Or all of them.
You need a butt chin to know how to use them...
What a great idea for power on Mars!
Which is why it will NEVER be used, NASA would NOT have any more excuses to delay human space exploration and stop wasting money.
I haven't been able to get through the entire backlog of videos yet but have you ever covered theoretical engines like project Orion or project Daedalus?
Not yet, I'm sure Isaac Arthur's covered them, though. I like to focus on more near future stuff.
Hi Fraser please explain what are the dimensions of a football field? Do you mean a soccer pitch or American football? Not all of us are on your continent and do not understand measurements like football fields or blocks. You can use either metric or imperial measurements, or better both.
American football, I'd assume
Ok that's "The rectangular field is 160 feet (48.5 m) wide and 360 feet (109.1 m) in length (53.3 yards, 120 yards respectively), including the two 10 yard (9.2 m) end zones". (Google). Do you have those in Canada or regular football (soccer) pitches like in UK?
We have Canadian football fields, which are slightly different size. And we have soccer fields too.
Thanks and rugby? I always thought that Canada was more like the UK than the USA is.
Would it be possible to create artificial gravity using only the pressure and velocity of air in an enclosed space?
I don't understand how that would work.
Great video, but, did you just forget about fuel cells? the base of Apollo program, the space shuttle, and many more missions and programs?
First Time I've seen one of your videos, and found it extremely interesting! Keep up the great work 👍
Thanks a lot, now you just have 800 or so more to catch up with.
The coolest part of the new reactors is that they use Sterling engines! Clever.
Yeah, I was wondering when someone would incorporate a Sterling engine into a mission. :-)
there are semi conductors which produce current from temperature differential.C change of temp may produce power. These units are used as solid-state refrigerator but when reversed create power from differential in temperature between two surfaces. Maybe bury one in soil of Mars expose other surface to hot cold atmosphere.
Excellent show Frasier.
Thanks! I wonder how much usable power you get out of a system like this?
Fraser Cain they wanted to use on artic sites. I send you data. Shalom
Fraser Cain Look up "Peltier device".... semi conductors which when reversed generate power from temp differential. I retired from US Dept Energy and very familiar with nuke stuff. Love your show and Dr Grey. Tell her. If you get famous from it just donate $$$ to my rabbi OK? lol
You could also use a solar panel vortex designed generator that uses ONE solar panel to energize the fuel coil of the generator
I've never heard of a solar vortex generator.
How about mirror-based solar concentrators focusing light on either high performance solar cells, or Stirling generators? That would obviously require accurate sun tracking, which isn't an issue in orbit. Energy conversion would happen at higher efficiency and the weight/cost looks to me like it would be much lower. Blanket mirrors like those designed for solar sails may even be compatible? There have been a number of studies already.
I talked about this idea here: th-cam.com/video/1qx0WJ1LvIc/w-d-xo.html&list=PLbJ42wpShvml6Eg22WjWAR-6QUufHFh2v&index=5
Will definitely watch!
If we want to send a probe beyond Kuiper belt, can we make that type of generator that can generate electricity by consuming that dust which is in kuiper belt(just like petrol here)?
You could collect up ice, split it up and use that for propellant, but you'd still need a power source to do that.
you said the heat energy is converted to electricity, by what means? is it a stirling engine? where do you see the future of stirling engines?
If general fusion are successful at generating break even power with their piston fusion design, then perhaps they could make it miniaturized enough for space based applications.
That would be amazing. First, make it work here on Earth, then send it to space. :-)
How often do Earth/sun transits happen on Mars? Is there any point to studying them?
They happen every 26, 79 and 100 years. 😀
Great Video! Thank you!
there has to be a way to turn weightlessness into a property that makes or helps a power-plant. and also use orbiting motion to generate electricity.
Excellent video. There is a lot of information that I never knew and wondered. Thank you.