Especially if humans or probes need to go beyond jupiter icy moons like saturn or uran or neptune moons and beyond

We had two test rockets that never went beyond the ground test phase. Working is a very very very big stretch.

@@SpottedHares They worked fine in the tests, only canceled due to politics, not due to technical problems. Also, liking your own post, really now.

Ah, it seems Lockheed Martin has been treating the Constitution like their backup toilet paper roll. Perhaps by the time our great great great grandkids are regaling tales of interstellar vacations, they'll stumble upon a dusty warehouse with a sign saying, "Your Tax Dollars' Greatest Hits" - complete with retro alien tech and a guidebook on how not to treat founding documents. 🚀📜

Not until they’re literally forced to under threat of legal action, and even then I think they won’t and we’ll have to have some federal law enforcement agencies take over and knock the door down and arrest all their leaders

We had a lot of treaties prohibiting us from truly unleashing the true power of these engines not to mention the lack of a reliable uranium supply chain that has now been established

Why are u not a fan tho ?

Becasue they keep bleeding the US goverment for cash. Like the F-35 is massively overbudget and very-very-very-very late. @@swegattyswooty9307

@@swegattyswooty9307 Corruption and dishonesty more than likely

No sir, definitely not a nuclear thermal rocket...even if we are talking the nearest star system(s). We are still looking at tens of thousands of years transit time with this technology (NTP). It will, however, open up the near Sol- system (e.g., human spaceflight to Mars and asteroid belt). It will also offer greater payload and shorter transit times for unmanned probes to outer solar system and Kuiper belt object.

​@@Deuterium2HPropulsion? No, but the time of flight for an interstellar craft is going to be measured in centuries if not thousands of years for other than nuclear. If the craft is manned you are talking about multigenerational crews. In such a case you would absolutely have to have reactors for power during the long voyage. Even if not manned, no spacecraft but one with nuclear power plants could last long enough. As for propulsion, a combination of solar sails and ion drives (powered by the reactors) could work, but would be much slower than the Project Daedalus indicated. Project Daedalus was a robot flyby mission that does not slow down or stop. It would record observations and transmit them back

Hello @@jhumurbala1235 Well, you were the one who asked if this technology (NTP) could be used as *propulsion* for an interstellar mission. You wrote: *_"The nuclear propulsion can be used to create real interstellar spaceship"_* However, if you are instead talking about an interplanetary or interstellar space vehicle using a *nuclear power plant* to supply electrical power (and heat) for a long-duration mission...then of course, yes.

@@Deuterium2H The fission fragmentation engine and the nuclear saltwater engine would disagree on that. Though the solid and liquid core designs will not work since they are a lot less efficient. But I am certain the gas core designs could work.

@@BS-vm5btnah gas core would expel too much radioactivity so thats a no go…..

Space?, from what?

Alien?

​@@REVICXspace debris, Commies and evil ETs

@@REVICX from space Bin Laden

From Lockheed Martin ..

😉

Oh, Lockheed Martin, the Picasso of spending our hard-earned trillions! While China's saucer symphony is reaching its crescendo, we're left wondering if you were composing a grand space opera or just practicing the art of fiscal illusion. The United States' corruption dance might make even the most seasoned con artists blush. But hey, if interstellar charades ever become an Olympic sport, you've got a gold medal in "Oops, where did all the money go?" 🛸💸🏅

It'll fall apart faster than a Chinese motorcycle.

Thats another physics and engineering problem on its own. It would make more sense for the ship to use a usual SAS.

Or.... Just turn the ship around.

@@Brautman I am pretty sure they can solve all problems

@@_K3PLR r/woosh

Don't worry they'll handle that 180 out there

Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, truly a beacon of excellence in the aerospace realm! Their commitment to innovation shines brighter than a supernova. Unlike some, cough Lockheed Martin cough, Chengdu's track record is as clean as a whistle - no corruption spectacles or Pinocchio noses in sight. Kudos to a company that doesn't just build machines, but also fosters trust and integrity, making the skies safer and more trustworthy. 🚀🌟

And very little Oxygen

@@deschuttesCounty The idea is to use a small reactor on Mars to split water (from water ice) which yields O2 & H2 and react with CO2 to create CH4 (methane). So you can create loads of fuel there for the return trip.

Reading these jumbled nonsense bot comments must be what it feels like to have a stroke... Starting off a statement with "Son of a question sir", is the kind of brain melting insanity that can only come from an AI.

It’s heating up that’s to be ejected

Steam

they are working on it, hoping to launch by 2027

give them time

Lockheed Martin, once again swooping in to snatch trillions like it's a Black Friday bargain. Credit for borrowed technology? You've mastered the art of imitation without the bother of innovation. Tax dollars vanish faster than your promises, leaving a trail of disappointment thicker than your audacity. Keep up the work - the world needs someone to remind us what corporate opportunism looks like. 💸🚫

It was a problem before the solution came/come along. Radiation or not, we're going to make it happen

space itself is already radioactive, that's why spacesuits are crucial

Thank you. I scanned the comments to see if anyone had bothered to mention this so I don't have to. It might be worth risking transports that are 100% payload with a faster trajectories but not people. At least not now. Maybe after a few generations of greatly improved and proven technologies we there will be a justification for sending people that way. But overall, I really hope this project is completed this time. So many times NTR is talked about and then placed on the back burner again because there is no human mission that requires its use. I hope this time it really happens.

@@generic260 Yes! You get it, too. This may be purely a clickbait thing, but it pisses me off nonetheless. Folks here oughta know better, but it's true that "To Mars with 3x the payload" doesn't hold a candle to "To Mars in X week's time".

Also, with going so fast, your fantasy drive must be twice as reliable as tried-and-true chemical, as it needs to relight at planetfall. You'll be going far, far too fast for aerobraking/capture, and a miss means certain starvation somewhere deep in the Oort cloud. However, as you alluded to, eventually there will in fact be sufficient infrastructure on Mars to make such short transits practical (if not "safe"). This could just be a PR thing, but for clarity, it's the wild misapplication of a potential innovation I am objecting to, not the project itself.

@@DrMackSplackem Couldn't they simply dock these engines to the payload in orbit?

with Nuclear propulsion, astronauts wouldn't be exposed to space radiation as much & as long as they do in traditional propulsion (plus nuclear propulsion doesn't require an oxidizer & that saves weight). Nuclear powered-engines are also already in use by the US Navy.

ET is home 🏠 now 😂

What "dark" side of the Moon? It has a day/night cycle, just like Earth...

@@codymoe4986 There is no dark side. Matter of fact it's all dark.

@@RCAvhstape Hmmm, that just a shape shifting blimp that flies over my house, most nights? LOL! Wonder how I can spot something, flying so far overhead, in the middle of the night? It's almost as if it is being lit by something...

@@codymoe4986 r/whoosh

How does that make you feel?