10 times as big as Starship! 8 THOUSAND times as fast!! Enzmann's Pulse Nuclear Starship!

We can do this today!!! Look up to the sky like we sit on the beach and gaze at the ocean. It is beautiful. Some want to sit and watch, some want to dip their toes in, a few will swim!

This is never going to get built. Bro, they can't even put a rover on the moon anymore. It's over. They're not going to build a 1,000-foot sci-fi spaceship
Maybe China in a few decades/a century

This could cost less than the entire funding for the now scrapped lunar Rover by NASA.

I guess the moon gets more difficult as technology progress. 60s 70s no problems

Thanks!

Once again you have nailed it. This could have been done 70 years ago. Thank you for your continued interest in the Enzmann universe - there is no other like it.

This may not be typical science fiction but come on....

Another great vid! Thank you Mr Angry 😊 (and NASA, ffs get on and send a nuclear test engine up!)

Why are you angry with starship?

This is an example of talk is cheap!

An Orion can't achieve 10% the speed of light. You'd need an Isp in the hundreds of thousands to do so with a sane mass fraction, and the best that Orion could do - assuming whopping great improvements in tech - was about 12,000. Actual Orion designs topped out at about 4,000 seconds Isp.

how about the organic age of the passengers

Thank you for mentioning the British Interplanetary Society's Daedalus project. This study goes into engine design and fuel acquisition in exhaustive detail. It is clear from a detailed study that we are nowhere near being able to build a starship yet and will not be ready for some centuries in the future. The first step will be to restore global security against invasions of countries by dictatorships.

That last design shown in the video, the Chiron…that would be the better model based on the larger Entzmen (sp?) concept. The reason is that the fuel and engines are stored at both ends of the ship…therefore protection from space rays coming to the crew while in transit would be covered from both the acceleration and deceleration phases. The best part? 1g for the entire trip. Thanks to AA here we have a great idea about how we may travel to our nearest (or “nearer”) habitable star systems. I think however that other much faster methods may be available if the accounts which David Grusch provided under oath to Congress are in fact true. Which I suspect they are. Or this distinguished intelligence officer will be going to jail for the rest of his life. And I don’t think he was either fooled by others or lying under oath. Let’s hope for the best, for all of our children and grandchildren’s sakes.

.

So we would need only about $100,000T to build this stuff since launching something like this on Earth rather than like somewhere around the moon would be disastrous due to the radiation and nuclear blast EMPs, and we don't yet actually have rocket technology to make the construction of these things near the moon viable. I think that is worth considering.

Check out Malcolm Bendal’s Direct Matter To Energy Warp Drive for the possible future of propellant less space thrusters. The Vajra Implosive Turbine uses Plamoid technology to power a spacecraft to Mars in less than two weeks.

I am pretty sure that it was Dyson who came up with the idea for Project Orion!

It's really weird quirk of the English language that you just can say things like "It can achieve speeds as high as 10% at the speed of light" although it's not real at all.

The biggest problem with any nuclear detonation engine is that you can't use it in earth orbit. We tried detonation a nuke in space, once, it fried half of the satellites in orbit and effectively created an artificial Van Allen Belt in low earth orbit that lingered for a long time. To use this style of ship, you'd need to first clear earth's magnetic field to prevent destroying modern society. Imagine trying to get that much mass that far out: not even Elon is that ambitious.

No, i do not want the human fleet to look like dicks. Dont care how fast. We can do better than a penis shape. Cmon people! 😅

He got away in a rocket that looks like a huge—….

Thanks AA, I never heard of this, wow. Off topic, may I say? Maybe too early, so maybe I just get blocked, hehe. I think next year it will be obvious. Starship needs a half-sized version. And a 3 stage not 2 stage design. Single stage to orbit goes against all we know. Starship is 2 stage to orbit, about the same. I don't think Musk thinks more than 5 minutes deep on ideas - sorry. It's a Shuttle on top of the Saturn 5. Back to 1969, 1974. Apollo was 5 stage by some counts, or 6 to get to the moon and back. Each stage used then it's weight removed. The Shuttle used about 4 stages (2 boosters, 1 tank). The SLS about 5 or 6 stages. Once Starship gets up there, it needs refueling. So it is in effect a 4 stage ship. Or 24 stage. Does it need about 20 refuelings? It is built to carry SOooo much weight it's not practical for what we need now, today, this year, this decade. For the moon, we need less, so we can get there before the Chinese. (My wife's Chinese, I'm not being negative). Not 20 refuelings to take massive huge ship to the moon. Better 4 people fast than slow, for 20 people and all their luggage. .. Also, honestly, stainless steel is not what you want for reusable craft. Musk doesn't seem to think .. ahead. - Think about it. Stainless is cheap so great while we learn and they crash and blow up. But once successful, you want carbon fiber because it is SOoooo light weight. Carbon is more expensive, but hey, they won't be blowing up so it's okay. They'll be re-usable. You don't use the cheap stainless, that is heavy, for the permanent thing that can be expensive and you need to be light to carry more. No legs, too heavy. So "catching it." Every kg/lb counts. So he'll have to re-learn everything when he switches to carbon.

Jordan. Check out the latest from the UK space agency. They have given Rolls Royce £4.8m to develope a space craft micro reactor.

Think much bigger. Alien ships dwarf an Enzmann both in power, acceleration/final speed. Thus fusion bomb drive is the wrong answer.

Talks into the wind until we keep to burn resources (ie ISS) in the atmosphere without considering recycling and orbital manifacturing, we complain about the gravitational pull ignoring the alternatives. Also international regulations should be discussed opening space mining for private operators... I feel we're acting like the fly that crashes on the glass insisting that as light pass through it should too

Are the bombs blown up in the engines, instead of behind the ship as in elder concepts?

How would we get a ship 10 times the size and 1000 times the mass of Starship into orbit?
1000 or 2000 launches of Falcon Heavy, Ariane 6 or Proton-M?
Which nations will allow a private, civilian rocket loaded with nuclear bombs to start on or fly over it's area?

We had shaped nuclear charges with a controlled output of >0.5kT in the 50s?
We had the abilities to construct such large structures in orbit?
We we had materials to withstand nuclear explosions and hot plasma?

"To build an interstellar empire" - sure sign of an US american speaking.

Question: How would such a large spacecraft travel through space at a fast speed ( e.g. @1/10th speed of light) and avoid collisions - whether they be with large objects 1cm cube or greater in size, or alternatively very tiny micro meteorites? Surely such a large craft couldn’t possess agility to dodge such objects and would require a powerful “field of protection all around it” to deflect or bump away any obstacles.

Maybe we could compromise on the speed thing , 20 or 25 times faster than what we already have would be a decent jump and improvement , instead of 6 months to go to mars , it would be down to 7 days , and that should be doable .
Imagine how that would improve logistics , the amount of provisions then not needed would save masses of weight and add more cargo space , space vehicles are just like cars in one sense , speed costs money , finding the happy medium is the go imo.

I'm all for Starship, if Musk can do it. But it violates a basic rule at NASA. After that last Shuttle blew, the analysis taught us a critical point. It became a rule at NASA. 1) You never put the people on the side of a fuel tank and even that, never with no emergency escape method. But importantly 2) You never (NEVER) bring up precious human cargo WITH other weight, the weight of dead cargo. The Rocket Equation means that carrying extra weight means you drastically increase the amount of explosive fuel near the precious human cargo. Starship has no emergency abort for the people on board. And it doesn't separate them from the heavy Starship weight. Plus Starship is basically a Shuttle on top of the heavy lift booster. It's okay to have a small starship for human beings alone. Like Dragon. Or Sierra's mini-shuttle. But Starship would never be filled with 100 people from top to bottom. Even with 20 people, much of the weight would be food and fuel. Cargo! I honestly ask, why send even 4 to the moon. 3 or 2 is plenty. These things DO blow up! Sending 2 or 1 makes it so much easier to get there. And lower risk. On Starship, why 2 stage to orbit? It clearly needs to be 3 stages. Not a copy of the Shuttle. We know the Shuttle was a failed, wrong idea. It was a 1974 design. Taken from early X-15 successes of the 1960s. We've learned so much since then. Musk is anti-union so he doesn't intrinsically know it, but human cargo IS precious and needs special care in flying these tall skyscrapers full of explosives.

Great going warp speed, but slowing down nearing your destination would be a challenge.

Wait a couple of decades for AI computers to get smarter than humans and award them the contract to figure all this stuff out.

One particis is the distance from the earth to the sun. Fifteen per second from the sun to the uranus. So you made a huge mistake. Maybe you mean fifteen mega parsec and there is that is o k. Because one mega percent is little more than three light years.

Well. My plan is to use the solar system as my spacecraft and just accelerate it to the speed of light 😂

Why the hell are we talking about using this tech to send thousands of people to another star, and not a simple robotic probe? Like how desperate are we to go f*k up somebodys homeworld lol

silly, no way it would make it. too many micro meterorites ....


haunebu ... vimana... nothing else matters

It takes a critical mass of (enriched) uranium to set off even the smallest fission bomb. There is only so much of this in the world. Would you use a large percentage of it just for one ship, no matter how worthy the objective?

Some one has been watching too much of The Expanse lol .

YOU MENTIONED THE ECHOLANCE
I was talking about that idea from memory and did not remember the name/could not find it to reference. I even described it to multiple AIs and they gave me nothing. Thought I was going insane!

This is so dumb lol

Just a Nerva engine. Nothing new here....

Send one as a robot first, as a scout first, I would hope.

mentioning click bait, yeah that was my first assumption. so i at least knew what i was getting into lol

So ship same passenger ship movie .big question shield and materials last long long time easy maintain.

Get your two astronauts back yet? Number one space nation, or is it time to ask Russians for help...again?

I can't stand the background noise.

I will always favor Project Orion. Build ships the same way you build naval vessels. Robust, large, fast.
Getting to any other solar system, i favor Project Daedalus. Similar to Orion but no humans, just probes. No point making a 1-way trip to unlivable planets ANYWHERE.

If you leave now on a 100 year journey, in 50 years technology will have advanced to the point that they will beat you to your destination and have already established a colony by the time you arrive.✌️😎

More like an hour . . . or probably a few days . . . You do have to slow down . . . And then there is the whole g-force issue . . . Not to mention the accel/decel curve capabilities of the rockets themselves. . .
(And . . . have you ever heard of Herb Caen?) ✌😎

One of the problems here is, artificial gravity is only a short term solution. Gravity caused by centripetal force or rotational mass only accounts for one of the several forces acting on the body that creat bone/muscle density/mass. After time, the distribution of artificial energy will cause uneven density. Other factors include magnetic fields, atmospheric pressure, multi-directional forces, and many more things. Basically, you may be able to stand upright after 30 years of artificial gravity, but you'll easily fall from forces acting in other directions. It's like balancing a spring from the inside of your retractable pen on a table. It'll stand up forever until you blow on it. Even constant exercising wouldn't make up for the difference. You would need to wear resistance suits for half your life that would offer resistance in all directions of your body.

These fantastic machines would be wonderful on old-style Popular Mechanics covers. Thank you Angry for exciting us like kids with such wonders of physics and technology