Speaker 0:  we always accepted that a human trip to mars takes nearly a year and irradiates the crew, but a new propulsion prototype that just shredded that timeline, if these lab results hold up, we aren't looking at a year long odyssey. we're looking at reaching the red planet in just thirty days. scientists at ross atom have successfully tested a 300 kilowatt plasma engine prototype that uses magnetic fields to accelerate particles to a 100 kilometers per second. unlike traditional rockets that burn fuel instantly, the engine pulses energy to build massive speeds over time. speed equals safety in space. cutting travel time by 90% drastically reduces astronaut exposure to cosmic radiation and microgravity bone loss, making human colonization actually biologically viable. what do you think about this, john?

Speaker 1:  yeah. i love this. i love, technology. i love engine technology. we've covered tons of these. so just to kind of talk to you or let you know how a plasma propulsion engine works. the plasma engine, it doesn't burn fuel like a traditional rocket. instead, it ionizes a propellant, often hydrogen, which i love, and uses magnetic fields to rapidly accelerate those ions. so for example, so and by the way, this is a russian company, russian scientist at rosatom, have claimed they can accelerate particles to a 100 kilometers per second, which is about 62 miles per second, which is far above traditional chemical rocket exhaust velocities. so at that speed, the average transit time to mars could drop to thirty to sixty days if sustained, which is the basis for a lot of these dramatic headlines. however, achieving such thrust in vacuum with realistic spacecraft mass and power systems is a huge challenge. okay? the theoretical speeds are reachable, but the power sources, heat rejection, and long duration reliability of such a system are still unproven in space conditions. so even if, a propulsion tech could constantly accelerate a spacecraft at high velocity, reaching mars in thirty days requires sustaining high thrust for weeks, then decelerating on approach, which is a huge engineering trade off. so the immense delta v, which is the change in velocity required, isn't just about going fast. you also need to stop at the end. and managing that energy efficiently, that requires massive power and innovative system architecture. so you essentially, there there's there's the theory for this, but there's no theory for the braking system for this. so, that's kinda where we're at now. the most promising technology for fast transit right now, it's not a single magic engine, and i put magic in quotes. but it's more of a class of electric and advanced propulsion systems. so we're talking plasma thrusters. we're talking magneto plasma rockets, even fusion concepts. so, although this is great, what are your thoughts on this plasma propulsion, craig?

Speaker 0:  well, we'll have to see. right? we'll have to see it in, like, it's great that we think we can do this. and when i say we think we can do this, i mean, it works. but is it really gonna work on a thirty day trip bursting every few seconds or however long it has to burst the whole way there and then slow down and then the whole way like, i mean, that is different than saying, hey. we can do this. we tested it once. so i is this the technology that's gonna get us there? i don't know. but i think the concept of a constant, burst, either via a nuclear onboard reactor or something else that, continues to allow it to accelerate over time. but you're right. the problem is acceleration and deceleration. humans can only handle so much, and it it might take days to decelerate or weeks depending on you know? and are you at that point in time, are you leaning forward and being held back by your seat belt the whole time kind of situation? because, you know, the inertial dampeners that we see everywhere don't really exist in life. so, the humans have to take it.

Speaker 1:  yeah. like, there's and there's so many, like and it's not like there's there's new challenges because of this, but there's still the same challenges. right? there's, there's the deep space hazards. there's cosmic radiation. there's microgravity effects on health. there's reliable life support, psychological well-being. now the psychological well-being is probably cut down because faster travel reduces some of these risks. but there's still a lot of risks with this. but the biggest one is the deceleration. and so, i didn't even think about that until i read this article. it makes total sense. right now, in order to decelerate because they're not going too fast is i think they're using, like, air thrusters in space to kinda change direction and slow down and things like that. that's as far as we've come, as far as i know. and and obviously using the same rocket when you're landing on the moon and things like that, but that's as far as we've come as far as breaking systems. we're using air to break. and so if we're traveling at what was it? a 100, kilometers per second or 62 miles per second, air is not gonna stop us, or it's gonna take a lot of air.

Speaker 0:  yeah. i like to think of, this is a difference between a top fuel dragster and a maglev train. you know, a chemical rocket like a spacex starship is the dragster. it burns all its fuel in minutes to get off the line fast, but then coast. this plasma engine is like a maglev. it starts slow producing only a tiny amount of push, but it never stops pushing. so it accelerates constantly for weeks, eventually reading speeds that the dragster could only dream of. so the target timeline is twenty thirty for a flight ready model, though this is optimistic. this is strictly a deep space transit, so we'll need to take a look at where where they're testing this and what their plan is when they say deep space. is this, like, just can we try to the moon and back, or is this something that takes a little bit longer? yeah. i'm really excited about this. and, you know, while six newtons sounds pathetic, in the vacuum of space, continuous acceleration adds up. if you accelerate at just a fraction of a g continuously, you can cross the solar system in weeks, not years. this is the premise of a constant acceleration drives. but rossetom isn't alone. the us company ad astra has been developing the vasimir engine, the variable specific impulse magno magneto plasma rocket for decades with similar goals. so we're officially in a plasma race, and the elephant in the room is the power source. to get a 300 kilowatt of constant power in deep space, solar panels are too heavy and inefficient past mars. the engine requires a nuclear fission reactor onboard the spaceship to work. and we've talked about several companies that are building those, nuclear reactors for them, and we've not haven't looked at them in a few months. i'm not sure where they are.

Speaker 1:  yeah. and then there's also, there's also researchers who are exploring laser driven light sales, fusion engines, which we touched on. so there's a lot of different concepts out there, which is good because, obviously, one of them has to work, but we still need a braking system. so, please, someone work on the braking system.

Speaker 0:  yeah. and high energy plasma eats away at the engine's internal. so if the engine degrades after forty days of firing, is the crew, stranded in deep space? also, launching a nuclear reactor into orbit to power this is a huge regulatory nightmare that's gonna be a problem. so the physics is solid, but the engineering challenge of keeping this engine from melting itself is the final boss battle of space travel. would you volunteer for a thirty day fast track to mars if it meant sleeping on top of a nuclear reactor? drop a radiant or a risky in the chat. let us know.

Speaker 1:  wonder if anyone's working on warp drives.