Save Big on the Atmotube PRO air quality monitor! Use Code: RICKY2023 bit.ly/3r298L4

You mentioned MTOW, but you failed to mention MLW. A key component consistently forgotten about is that currently planes increase in efficiency as duration of the flight continues - because fuel burn directly correlates to a decrease in weight of the aircraft. Unlike current planes, you can't dump battery weight - so now the theoretical MTOW is also the MLW as well.

This battery is as real as all the other energy "breakthroughs" of yesteryear . Dont hold your breath.

Very impressive! It sounds like they still have a ways to go though if they want to use this for flight. 0C sounds cold, but at higher elevations it's actually fairly warm. A mid-western winter will easily get down to -17C or lower. When you're talking airplane altitudes you'll easily see -40C.

More than the max takeoff weight is consideration of the max landing weight. In a traditional liquid fuel aircraft, the landing gear and subsequent structure are designed for a landing weight which is quite a bit less than the max takeoff weight. Upon landing, there are significant additional forces that are applied to the structure. In a typical aircraft, the fuel can be dumped to ensure that the max landing weight is not exceeded resulting in structural damage and potential crashes.

FYI, The last A in NASA is 'Administration'

Great video. I think the thing to remember is breakthroughs can take 10-20 years to become commercially viable for mass manufacturing or affordable for consumer use. Look at gps, personal computers, even smartphones with touchscreens. All these breakthroughs will eventually be combined in to a true leap forward step change. Until then companies tweak around the edges.

i've heard this solidstate battery story many times before now, i'd be suprised if this finally makes a big step in the battery capacity increase

I think the move in the automotive sector will be to make the battery half the size rather than trying to go twice (or more) as far. In addition to keeping the price down as the battery is the most expensive part of an EV, keeping the size down you can increase cabin or storage room and keep the weight of the car down which is the biggest culprit to going farther.A Tesla model S with a 1200lb battery downsized to 600lbs could be as much as 60 miles extended.

Solid state lithium batteries have been around for a while. They used to be made of a lithium slug cathode surrounded by a copper iodide/iodine anode. It was a primary battery of very low current. The newer ones use a glass electrolyte and are rechargeable. Same issue, low current per area.

Ricky, temperatures at cruising altitude, FL320 = -40°F or C, so, you are flying to Europe, those NASA batteries have to be inside the pressure hull of the aircraft. Also, planes are regularly left out overnight, in Winnipeg - West, unheated

I always tell people the biggest bummer with not tring super hard to go into space is the technology that comes out tring to get there. It really is amazing what has come out of the race for space. Thanks for another interesting video.

Growing weary of these videos with their clickbaity titles. This is the 17th Gamechanging battery breakthrough in the last 2 years.

Southwest Airlines 192, we’re gonna need you to circle for about an hour while this rain blows over 😳

To clarify.. passenger airlines cruise at altitudes where the air temp is around -50 degrees F. So these batteries will still need Temperature management (as well as the passengers). Where will that energy come from?

As a Retired Airline Captain, it's not just getting from Point A to Point B. You have to have enough energy to go from Point A to Point B, shoot an approach and if you miss...then fly to your Alternate Airport...shoot an approach. And if you miss, then fly for at least 45 minutes before you run out of fuel (or battery). Many times I flew to Los Angeles and our alternate was Las Vegas. I personally liked to carry 2 hours of fuel beyond my Alternate airport. So a 550nm range on a B-737 isn't going to cut it.

NASA didn't invent CAT Scans, it was a joint venture between a British Electrical Engineer and a South African physicist that later moved to the US after inventing the CAT scan in South Africa.

I feel this is one of the more promising high performance battery developments going on, along on with graphene-aluminum. These might make the turboprop side of the airlines much cheaper and popular with the public, being near silent but they arent going to come close to the speed or altitude of a turbofan.

Don't forget airliner range also has to include things like diversion to next suitable airport and a half hour or more of dwell time in case the destination airport gets fogged in or gets closed because of an incident. This changes your back of the envelope calculations dramatically.

I can only imagine what this looks like. My last job before I started down my spine surgery warpath was working for Texas Instruments running 6", 8" and 10" steppers. This was back in the old days when you actually had to handle the wafers by hand, at least for inspection, cleaning and testing purposes. The wafers were fed into the stepper in boats; but, the proper mask had to be loaded into the machine to put the proper pattern on the proper wafer at the right time. As the photo lithography was done, it had to be inspected under a high power microscope, and thus hand handled. I had to carry certain wafers across the fab for other tests as well. In the old days we used vacuum pens to move wafers through some of these steps. I loved looking at each layer as it was built up. Photo was probably the busiest station in the fab. I just wish I'd been able to keep it up as I really enjoyed it.

Interestingly, DJI's Agricultural drones have batteries that are 33C, pretty insane, charging to full in only 9 minutes while pulling 9KW at the wall. It is a 600WH battery(30 000 mAH)

Well done. One thing I never see in a discussion of how batteries operate is the electric fields and how they drive the electrons and ions back and forth and how they keep them sequestered when you aren't charging or discharging. Could you please work out an explanation of how batteries work that includes electric fields? Thank you.

In order for electric pickup trucks to really take off, we need batteries to be at these kinds of energy-density levels-- double the energy density we see today. (Not to mention half the price haha)

Billions have been spent on Solid State Batteries with tons of promises and no one in the private sector has been able to crack it.

They did creater a solid state battery about 15 years ago. Not sure why it has taken that long to essentially re-release the same idea, but good to see it being revisited. It would change the game in terms of safety and battery life.

Another groundbreaking innovation that will change everything? Is that two this week? 😂

I wonder if some of the power for takeoff could be stored in capacitors, and how much of a weight penalty that would end up being

For aircraft, I suspect a hybrid system might be good. Jet fuel for take off, battery for cruising, or cruising assist.

If I had a buck for every Solid State breakthrough announcement, I'd have enough money to actually invent a solid state battery. Let that sink in

Great analysis - especially in looking behind the paper. Yes, I agree that short-haul would be the most practical use for electric planes in commercial aviation BUT, you also need quick turn-around time and a 1C charge is not going to get you there. Another issue I was just thinking about is where you need to put the batteries - in the wings. This would make them very difficult to access could prevent you from doing a battery swap.

I feel like this combined with some advancements of capacitor technology might be the right blend. You don't need a ton of rapid discharge from your battery, you can do that with a capacitor that the battery recharges. This would be great for things like takeoff power. This, however, might not be great in the case of a plane being made to go-around they would need to wait until they have enough capacitor availability to do another go-around if required.

Fun fact, nasa has helped battery tech in the past aswell: Black & Decker, which really did invent cordless power tools, worked with NASA to develop tools that would work not only on batteries, but without working against the astronaut - like trying to spin the astronaut in the opposite direction in which the astronaut was trying to turn a bolt.

I worked for a major aerospace company that developed a capacitor based "battery". Had all of the abilities of standard batteries at the time and could charge up in mere seconds, but I heard (different division so only heard scraps of info) that the major problem was damage tolerance. If the damage was extreme it could discharge all at once, which could be quite hazardous to the occupants.

I think we really need to revisit lighter than air airships as a means of intercontinental cargo and passenger transport. These could be solar powered and fully electric, using hot air (like hair dryers, electric space heaters, and other electrical air heating systems) contained in lightweight polymer spaceframe bulkhead compartments (preferably transparent/translucent to maximize solar heat gain) with electric motors for turbine or propeller propulsion.

Really exciting stuff, Ricky! I can't wait to see what the next 3 to 4 years brings in EVs and Aviation because you didn't even mention what these batteries can do in smaller airplanes and also drone taxis. Solid State batteries will definitely make the latter half of the 2020s very exciting to see.

>The battery is non-flammable! >The anode is pure lithium metal! Well, which is it, genius???

Few years ago when I was walking to my highschool in the winter time, my phone would not turn back on because it was so cold out, when I mean cold, we talking about even in the low 10⁰F-20⁰F, sometimes it would go low as -19⁰F. So this could be very practical in the colder regions for sure. This is coming from a north Eastern perspective near Philly & NYC.

Love your channel, keep up the good work ! For decades we have heard of these new energy storage technologies, but few ever seem to make it into production. I would love to see you make a video of why this industry continues to fail to meet our needs and develop true breakthroughs. Why do these technologies keep failing to make it to the market? Electric motors are so efficient and powerful, but energy storage is always holding them back. It's so frustrating !

Over the last few years, there has been so many announcements concerning battery efficiency. Every single one has been quietly relegated to a single category. Most of the companies I believe had the same intention as well, generate investor funding then sell the company. All the above have been competing with the few companies surrounding Tesla. Just about every announcement has stated that their product will trounce anything that Tesla will ever produce, and, it will be on the market in 3-5 years. Inevitably, they all fall into one category: VAPORWARE. If Tesla switches to the same battery as Toyota, follow that.

two problems with your math on 500 miles for short range flights. 1) Most airplanes carry extra fuel that allows them to circle the airport for quite a while in case of emergency or air traffic delays. So they for safety most planes would want to have around 100 miles of 'buffer' so BEST case scenario an electric plane would only be able to travel 400 NM. 2) Max take off weight INCLUDES passengers and cargo. the main source of income on passenger flights is not the passengers it is the additional cargo that they can squeeze in above the weight of the passengers and their luggage. If you replace the engines with something that weighs a lot more they will lose cargo capacity and not make as much if any profit.

Where it might make sense is in large airships. These aircraft would suffer no extra stresses from LW = TOW, there would be no need to pump fuel or ballast to trim; CoG would be fixed. Gas, or water ballast, could be released if necessary. The battery could even be an auxiliary/emergency power source as solar cells could be built into the fabric.

Takeoff weight is usually significantly more than landing weight. Since the aircraft will not get any lighter during the flight, the battery will have to be sized for weight at landing and not takeoff weight. Range therefore will be even lower considering this smaller battery size.

I think there is a possibility that when Level 5 or 4 automation for cars becomes a reality you might see more people just drive to their location despite the extra road time, just to avoid having to be there so early prior to take off, or other difficulties you can have going through the airports.

Hey Ricky . Game changer word is a proprietary word that belongs to The Electric Viking 😂😂😂

The not so slow steady beat of progress. It is amazing what can happen when an industry gets fiscally focused.

Batteries are one of, if not THE single most important things that make or break future technology, but also the most overlooked by the general public. I strongly believe that if we can get a homerun with battery technology that makes the leap similar to when Lithium Ion batteries were discovered, that will be the pushing point that shoots us into the next stage of the technological era.

How many African children with spoons, will we need to scrape the ingredients off the walls of an iffy mineshaft to make all of this?

I’m not sure if someone has already brought this up, but I question your average airline flight ranges. In aviation, for safety they build into each flight time (and therefore; fuel) the allowance for a flight to reach its destination, fly an approach, conduct a missed approach procedure, fly to an alternate, plus 45 minutes of additional flying time. The distance that an alternate airport is from the original destination varies, and can be in the hundreds of miles. Also, the choice of an alternate varies based on the suitability of the weather conditions at the alternate airports. In other words, if the average flight is 500nm or 1500nm to go from point a to point B, those numbers need to be increased to include the above mentioned additional requirements to also include going to point C, plus 45 minutes. Were they incorporated into your calculations? They are developing electric commercial aircraft, but they are nowhere near capable enough for practical use, yet. Air Canada signed a contract to purchase 30 ES-30 electric 30 passenger airplanes advertised to have a range of 200-400 kilometres (100-200nm-ish). Based on the alternate fuel/range requirements, the effective point A to point B distance would be 50-150nm if you’re lucky. That is a failure of concept right from the beginning. What electric aviation also needs to figure out is how they’re going to power anti-ice/de-ice systems which is currently provided by ducted hot air fed from the turbine engines. With no turbines, there will have to be a MASSIVE amount of heat created from another source. Also another issue is coming up with a non-gasoline auxiliary power unit (APU) which is an absolute necessity for redundancy and not to mention it is a power source used on every flight. Lastly, they need to figure out how to charge an electric airliner’s batteries within 30 minutes or else airlines operating electric planes will have major ground delays and will need to seriously adjust their scheduling. Don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% in support of a move to electric, but I feel as though they’re not asking enough people on the front lines (pilots) for input. I definitely understand that technology is rapidly improving, but we are still incredibly far away from

Realistically electric passenger airliners need at least 2 things: #1. Superconducting electrical motors. The power density of SCEM just blows everything else away - it's why the Navy is using it to electrify their destroyers. #2. Probably some kind of molten electrolyte metal air chemistry battery. MEMA type batteries are bleeding edge in the battery field and far surpass even the wildest expectaions of lithium air cells.

It is not just about range. It is about turn around time. To recharge the plane becomes an issue.

I think solid state batteries would have a more promising application in locomotive engines than in aircraft. Better batteries might lead the better EVs in a few years. But, locomotive engines could almost use solid state batteries now. They already have electric drivetrains and battery packs could be in swappable railcars that would need fast charging. So, it could save a huge amount of diesel fuel.

Just found your channel, AWESOME! I dont subscribe often but to you I have. Have you made a vlog on E-vehicles and issues etc with them? I will check your site. Ciao

Toyota are also a part of something I'm finding more interesting. They haven't been "dragging their feet", they've been looking at a potentially much better option. The solid state battery stuff is amazing, but their focus on ammonia powered engines is looking far more promising. Not just with cost and efficiency, but on the whole "green tech" stuff they're all trying to move towards. Well worth looking into.

NASA is great for out of the box ideas, though there are a lot of bugs to iron out yet, it looks promising. There a lot of safety issues to look after too for lithium ion. A lot of catastrophic damage from runaway battery fires will make it harder to insure these great “green” vehicles. (Burning cars are not good for the environment either. And the fact that is sometimes not one, but multiple vehicles and the structures they’re in. EV burns and your house is gone too. )

And gasoline and diesel quietly sit back, fist bumping each other saying “can’t touch this”.

KZfaq interrupting your channel with obnoxious ads so I have to continue reading about this story somewhere else. Thanks for the headline

I suppose EVs would be a good use for this, but I'd be more interested in a house battery.

Solid State Batteries are awesome, but for aviation, hydrogen fuel cells might be the real winner. It costs more to create the fuel, but you don't run into the weight issues you do with batteries. Or at least that is my understanding.

You have to remember that the weight of a 737 is calculated on it being a liquid fuel powered aircraft and the engines, hydraulic systems and structural beams are very heavy. With composite technology replacing structural beams and fly-by-wire replacing much of the hydraulic needs and much of the skeletal structure being weight-reduced by converting the aircrafts structure to integrated battery forming structures, then much of the structural metal which supported fuel-laden wing tanks and engine pods can be removed as well.

Every fucking year someone made "revolutionary" battery. Yet we still use the same shit as 30 years ago.

I always felt like graphene supercapacitors would be a path we took. Even with lower density the charge rate and life cycle are definitely attractive.

One great value of this is the ability to use solid state batteries as part of the armor in military vehicles in the same manner that fuel tanks are used currently, but even more usefully. Toyota's solid state battery tech has been coming along quite well too.

The anode has graphene??? Well there goes commercial availability. You may as well have said "Here's a cool prototype battery that'll never leave the lab".

Ricky left something out of the aviation story: Light commercial commuter planes. Nobody expects more of them than regional flights, so the power to weight ratio is more favorable, I think. They're more amenable to propeller engines, and going slower only adds minutes, not hours. Where it could really pay off is if America bothered to actually look into the science and realize that clean, safe fission power is here right now. That's a double whammy, emissionless power going to emissionless vehicles. Too bad folks are mostly convinced that only imaginary wind farms. Zoning and residential complaints, plus environmental impact studies make it slow and expensive to simply get the authorization to break ground, and even then there's the possibility of lawsuits delaying things even longer, something that could come up at any point. We could build more smaller-scale fission plants not, which would lower environmental impact and risk, and safe, secure storage of any waste is a mature technology. All that stands in the way of this solution to Climate change is irrational fear and groups like Greenpeace. It doesn't have to be this way.

One thing you didn't mention is their environmental impact when the batteries reach end of life. Are they easily recyclable?

Especially for short flights, a significant fraction of the energy, and the highest power demand is taking off and climbing to altitude. Using a catapult, similar to an aircraft carrier, for take off, seems like low-hanging fruit. To this could be added a second stage which drops off and returns to base after the first 50 miles. Similar to the tow plane for a glider.

2Bit, I love your channel. I joined the STEMS when Sputnik went up (yeah, that old), and I have to say that you are the Neil deGrasse Tyson of engineering. You take complex technical engineering and explain it well with passion and excitement.

This guy: I check my air quality Me: *smoking a joint*

Hydrogen + solid state battery = the future of all transportation ! 🧐

Could we PLEASE get all KZfaq tech vloggers to agree to never, ever use the phrase “game changer” again? Linear, incremental improvements in existing tech aren’t “game changing”.

I think the alien in captivity started talking 😂

'BATTERYLESS BATTERIES': To help power equipment in outer space: Potential endless energy source basically anywhere in this universe: a. Small aluminum cones with an electrical wire running through the center of the cones, cones spaced apart (not touching I'm thinking) but end to end. b. Electromagentic radiation energy in the atmosphere interacts with the aluminum cones. c. Jostled atoms and molecules in the cone eventually have some electrons try to get away from other electrons of which those electrons gather at the larger end of the cone, of which also creates an area of positive charge at the smaller end of the cone. d. The electron's in the wire are attracted to the positive end of the cone and the positive 'end' in the wire are attracted to the negatively charged end of the cone. e. Basically a 'battery' has been created inside the electrical wire itself, different areas of electrical potential. Basically a 'wire battery' or a 'batteryless battery', however one wanted to call it. f. Numerous cones placed end to end increases the number of 'batteries' in the wire. (In series to increase voltage, in parallel to increase amperage). * Via QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) whereby electromagnetism interacts with electrons in atoms and molecules, one would have to find the correct 'em' frequency for the correct material being utilized for the cones. The shape of the cones could also come into play. The type and size of the wire as well as the type and thickness of the insulation between the cones and the wire would also be factors. * Of course also, possibly 2D triangles made up of certain materials with a conductor going down through the center of the triangle could possible achieve the same 'batteryless' battery system. * Plus possibly with the 2D concept, layered 2D's that absorb different energy frequencies, thereby increasing the net output.

The biggest problem with solid state batteries other than their high cost is the battery is subject to micro fractures that break it. That issue needs to be over come. About six months was a test vehicle battery life before it would break. People want very expensive batteries last a very long time and not just break. Typically solid state batteries can charge and discharge much faster than a typical liquid electrolyte lithium batteries. 10 minutes for a full charge is discussed. This is greatly helped by solid state batteries being able to run very hot without damage.

@15:20 you've just described an aluminum air battery. Lots of density but like emptying an Olympic sized pool with a drinking straw. Thanks. Great presentation, narration and production.

Another point is the maintenance costs. Electric motors don’t need nearly the same amount of maintenance compared to fuel burning engines. Combustion leaves deposits, magnetism doesn’t effect the object it’s pulling at any macro scale.

I just remenber when NASA invented a Space pen while the russian just use a pencil 😂😂😂😂

You forgot one HUGE aspect of jet engines. The thermal energy of combustion (heat) is necessary for sufficiently high tailpipe discharge velocity. The speed of sound (which increases with temperature) is the limiting factor in tailpipe velocity, hotter = faster. This is generally called stagnation or choke. Driving a ducted fan with a electric motor that produces no heat cannot achieve jet-engine like duct discharge velocity without some massive energy sapping tricks, like electric heaters/plasma/multi stage compression, or burning fuel in the tailpipe (afterburner). This limits the theoretical electric airliner speeds to about 300-or maybe 350 mph. Bucking a 125Kt headwind is going to be a huge battery draining problem. In fact, we are better off driving props with electric motors, than jets.

> Solid lithium > Graphene As soon as I heard this I thought: "Oh well that's gonna be fucking expensive"

1. How rare are the NEW elements in this battery. 2. Would they be conflict-free. 3. How will harvesting these elements affect the environment? 5. How easy would it be to implement this to production and scale. 6. Would we need a new infrastructure, or would we be able to utilize the existing infrastructure to make these new batteries? 7. Assuming that you would implement this into EVs, what would be the cost comparison between existing battery packs and the newer ones. The science and engineering behind this is pretty cool but it would never come to scale unless it makes sense economically. And besides, since NASA is the one creating it'll take decades to show up in consumer products and it definitely won't be cheap.

The best market to target for electric flight is parachuting. There are over 1000 dropzones on earth with multiple planes that simply takeoff, reach the right altitude, throw the passengers out and then land at the same airstrip. Any company that can reduce maintenance costs and reduce the time it takes to get 8-12 people to 14,000ft has a multi billion dollar market begging for disruption.

I did a similar thought experiment based on al-ion batteries (that use aluminium instead of lithium for 3 electrons per atom instead of 1) and using an old Lockheed super constellation aircraft. The constellation from 1960s has a range of around 4000 miles and used 10.5 tons of fuel. That plus tanks, oil, oil tanks and replacing the old Rolls Royce engines (which weigh in at 4 times the 2mw wright electric motor made in Germany) and replacing the efficiency of just 26% (an estimate) with 96% would mean that we could make an electric version of the super constellation with the same weight and a range of around 1500 miles at a cruising speed of 300 mph. This is using tech being developed in Australia (gmg's aluminium ion battery currently in testing) and Wright's electric motors from Germany, combined with an American turboprop airframe. If you sacrifice speed, you get a hell of a lot more range.

NASA always delivers! Honestly I can never understand why people complain about their funding. If anything, we need to throw more money at NASA and the EPA.

The cool thing with electric planes is that they can be of a much different and more efficient design than ICE planes. For example, thin, laminar-flow wings, optimally placed arrays of motors, and battery pods that can fall away and fly back to an airport. The last one gets me most excited. Of course, dropping bombs for a century has given us reliable disconnects, and autonomous flight is child's play, so it's not a technology impediment. Imagine an electric plane with two giant battery pods under the wings. It uses these for takeoff and to climb to cruise. After that, the depleted batteries detach and turn back home, substantially lightening the load. Rocket equation stuff. As for keeping the peeps and the inboard batteries toasty: there are many solutions. Mostly better insulation and counterflow heat exchangers. The passengers and battery/motors produce a lot of heat. Trapping the heat is key, so any air exiting the cabin will be used to heat incoming air. Depending on battery specs, the large thermal mass they are can also be heated on the ground and do double duty as a thermal battery. We'll look back to these aviation times in 20 years like we do WW2 tech today. Exciting!

bros 5 o clock shadow is CRAZY

One of these days it’s going to be called Project Zeus

Another Great Video, Nice Job guys.

At this point NASA is just a gravy train...

It’s not just NASA who is paying for these breakthroughs, but the DOD, NRO, and the Military’s individual research labs. That’s the key thing here, because current L-ion batteries are a fire & health hazard on every single vehicle they use. US Military Hospital ships would be among the largest beneficiaries. Especially when they are responding to extreme weather events and can’t count on the local grid.

It’s funny how they want to keep the aircraft the same and only replace the propulsion system. There are multiple ways to reduce the energy required. Different wing designs to give more lift at a lower speed, fly at slower speeds, reduce weight, etc.

Metallic Lithium is flammable. If i remember my chemistry it catches fire if immersed in water (like Sodium: did you chem teacher demonstrate that at school? Lithium should be more reactive than that) So it won't leak, but if a battery gets punctured in a crash and water gets in, there would still be a fire risk. Don't throw the battery into a bucket of water after you strive that nail through it! But good news for Hollywood: you can still have your flaming car wrecks, you just have to do them involving water as well Assuming i remember my schooldays chemistry correctly...

Good information on current battery technology. Even liked the add for the Atmotube. Subbed for sure! :)

Wow. I think that’s the first time in KZfaq history where someone has said “The answer will surprise you” and had been right. I fully expected this whole video to be touting how great and revolutionary and amazing this new battery will be. I’m glad you’re realistic.

NASA does a lot of composite and polymer research as well. NASA tech always means lightweight and able to function in extreme environments. In low earth orbit, your classic corvette would quickly become floppy sheets of fiberglass with nothing bonding them together. Many of these inventions translate directly into areas such as commercial aviation. The LGPS sounds could be a deal killer for automotive use, though some kind of CVD (chemical vapor deposition) approach could drastically cut the amount of germanium required and simultaneously increase the efficiency of the battery by making the electrolyte thinner.

A battery does not necessarily get safer because it has no flammable components. When the battery fails, the energy has to go somewhere. Current gen Li-Co batteries re-ignite the electrode with the energy discharge. Some solid state batteries get hot enough to severely weaken steel or melt some aluminum alloys, and of course ignite plastics and fabrics nearby. Driving a nail through this battery when fully charged would end no better than running a nail through a Li-Co battery.

….why does the thumbnail ‘battery’ look like it came right out of Subnautica? lmao

I worked for General Atomics from 84 to 93 doing long term testing of a nuclear powered battery. Specifically the Thermionic fuel element verification program, part of the sp100 space power program.

This is still possible for aviation, just not the aviation you're thinking. One of the current pushes is to bring back blimps for various applications. They don't have the high energy requirements of planes, since they're naturally boyant, they just need energy for basic propulsion. So these are actually a godsend for them, especially where ignition would arguably be a bigger problem.

If the majority of the wait for the batteries and the needed motors is for takeoff why not eliminate them? Why not put some kind of catapult system on the runway like on an aircraft carrier?

"This is your captain .... does anybody has a solar charger on board ...." ?

Amazing video ty! Your style and channel is very good don't change.