Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Orion drive-like propulsion module that can be mounted radially in the hundreds on a really big spaceship, and through careful timing, provide quasi-continuous thrust. Rudimentary howitzer-style suspension systems are still needed to reduce local material stresses.

14,858 views • 11 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🚨 ELON MUSK AND NASA’S JARED ISAACMAN JUST SAID THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD: ANTIMATTER PROPULSION COULD BE THE KEY TO INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL. In a recent exchange, Musk predicted that trillions of dollars will eventually be spent developing antimatter propulsion systems to reach other star systems. NASA’s Jared Isaacman publicly backed the vision. When matter and antimatter meet, they annihilate completely, converting 100% of their mass into energy roughly 10 billion times more energy per unit mass than chemical rockets. Why this matters: • Chemical rockets are fundamentally limited by how much energy you can extract from fuel • Antimatter offers orders-of-magnitude higher energy density, which could enable dramatically faster travel and much heavier payloads • It would theoretically make interstellar missions far more feasible than current propulsion concepts The deeper reality: While the physics is sound, turning antimatter into practical propulsion is an enormous engineering challenge. We can produce tiny amounts of antimatter at places like CERN, but scaling it up by the many orders of magnitude needed for a spacecraft is currently beyond our capabilities. Storage is also extremely difficult antimatter annihilates on contact with normal matter. Right now, this remains a long-term theoretical possibility rather than a near-term engineering project. However, the fact that serious figures in both the commercial space sector and NASA are openly discussing it shows how the conversation about deep-space propulsion is evolving. Do you think antimatter propulsion will remain science fiction for the next century, or could we see meaningful progress within our lifetimes? Follow for more frontier space propulsion and interstellar travel concepts.

TheNewPhysics

176,408 views • 2 months ago

I want to believe, but there's too much evidence that not only tells me but shows me that they lied. I feel like low Earth orbit is as far as we can go... 1. The van Allen radiation belt. 2. The disgusted, unexciting, ashamed post moon landing conference with the three astronauts. Their body language, mannerisms, and answers scream that they're lying. 3. The lack of noise of the jet engines in the "videos." 4. How did they get the lunar rover on the spaceship? 5. No craters or dust underneath the spaceship. 6. How did the film the spaceship take off perfectly if nobody was left on the moon to operate the camera, and how was it so perfect if there was a delay? 7. The rockets and the spaceship look like a model. 8. The video of them saying that they are 130,000 miles away from Earth when all they really did was cover up the windows when they are in low earth orbit and film a small portion of Earth from low Earth orbit to simulate that they were far away, but then you find out that they're only in low Earth orbit when they uncover the windows. (Shown in the video below) 9. How we have to redesign the space suits to be able to handle the atmosphere on the moon. 10. The lack of talk and missions to the moon ever since. 11. The numerous blacked out photos from NASA. 12. How an older smartphone has way more technology than the entire spaceship back in 1969, and how we were able to even communicate with them in the spaceship as the one astronaut who passed away before the moon launch specified that they had trouble communicating between buildings and the shuttle on the ground. 13. Not one single astronaut would put their hand on the Bible and say they went to the moon. Why? 14. All the CGI and bubbles caught on NASA videos. 15. All the green screen captures and astronauts on wires in the "shuttle" and on the "ISS." There are so many bloopers and outtakes of astronauts and shuttle hatches malfunctioning, people appearing in the background of videos of the shuttle, people fading in and out, I could go on forever... How would you convince me against the evidence or prove me wrong from the arguments that I have provided?

The SCIF

32,347 views • 1 year ago