Mars Direct in a Nutshell 

Idk why ima explain to u bc it’s four years later, and you probably won’t see it, but we’ve had the tech to send unmanned, lightweight non return missions to Mars with a 50% success rate. Getting to Mars is easy, doing it safely is a challenge, and getting back is currently impossible. This will probably change in the near future with the sample return that NASA is working on and the new Starship vehicle that spacex is devoloping, but just going to Mars with our current tech is a good way to waste billions of dollars by killing a bunch of astronauts

@@sebdapleb1523Eventually we will get astronauts on Mars by the end of the 2030s at least. As for colonisation, then lets hope they like living like moles for the next few decades as being underground is really the only way for the time being

There is nothing here to suggest that this video documents actual events. This video clip is a computer animation that offers ideas on how people might one day explore Mars -- and I will plainly say that you are viewing a _proposed_ spaceflight, _not_ an actual spaceflight.

Ken, you took the b8.

Unfortunately, at this point, I would guess Elon Musk or some other egocentric billionaire buying his way to the front of the line.

@@encellon yeah, elon is not egocentric he just doesn't use dinosaur technology

looks like you are not a human...

Oreo 2417 😂😂😂 oreo

Zubrin's ERV is the thinnest shoestring in his system. It has the huge advantage of making its own fuel on Mars, and vastly simplifies the return process, but it also provides little human habitability on the way home. There are ways around this, but none that do not greatly amplify the complexity of the system.

Maybe they could use the same design for the Hab and the ERV, and use different configurations for the lower level. The ERV can have the fuel generation system, larger fuel tanks and so on. The Hab can have the "garage" with the rover, science experiments, etc. Future Habs/ERVs could be further customized with different lower levels, as needed. The crew quarters on the top level can stay the same. There would still be problems, though. For example, with no booster upper stage to use as counterweight, there would be no artificial gravity on the way back to Earth. It's not as important as it is on the way to Mars, but still. The overall Mars Direct concept is good, but there are things that could be improved. I don't like the nuclear reactor thing, either. It feels like it's just asking for trouble. I would find the way to do it with solar power.

A major hurdle is the cost of the Ares/SLS rocket. Using the Mars injection booster as a counter weight for tethered spin is a waste of payload capability. It would be better to punt the hab payload with most of the impetus needed to get to Mars and then have the booster return on high elliptical orbit back to Earth (Bob Zubrin’s idea) ready to boost another payload. The Hab should be designed to separate into two and then engage in a tethered spin. Another commenter made the excellent point that there should be no distinction between Earth Return Vehicle and hab. My feeling is the Hab should be like an inverted lunar lander. The lower section, sitting on the heat shield, being the main crew quarters and fuel generation equipment etc and the upper section being engines and fuel tanks with limited accommodation. The upper section would provide shielding from radiation which would improve as the fuel tanks were filled. If a return to Earth were necessary the upper section would take off leaving the lower section behind and a very rapid return to Earth could be achieved compensating for the limited accommodation.

would no one car

Diego C. happy welcome

I expect they would use solar panels for electricity, and if you watch the full-length movie, they have a plan to make fuel on Mars. Once on their way back to Earth, they would travel in a solar orbit that intersects the Earth, and they would need very little rocket fuel in flight -- mainly for minor course corrections and attitude control. Still, a rough 8 months for the return trip (8 months out and 8 months home). Food is actually not a major problem. A crew of four eating 1 kilo of food for 500 days consumes about two metric tons -- a small fraction of the weight of the entire mission. Water is also a problem, but there is plenty on Mars, and they'll need about 1,000 gallons while flying between planets -- a lot, but not unworkable. Don't ask me to go. But it seems workable for the young, brave, and crazy.

Carl was always deeply interested in this question of 'why' we should explore -- far more than 'how' we should do it. Indeed, this is how humanity has come to dominate the Earth -- for better or for worse. And because the Earth is our home planet, a place where we are fully adapted, our occupation has been a relative easy process. Mars and other potential planetary destinations will not be so forgiving, and it is likely that humans will populate these places much like the hottest inner reaches of the Sahara, or the coldest inner regions of Antarctica -- both places thoroughly explored, yet for reasons of poor habitability, they have never been occupied beyond small outposts.

+Aures Thomas Thanks for the comment. Perhaps SpaceX uses the same call-outs. Actually that audio clip is from the Curiosity landing [I released this video edit a year ago -- prior to the more recent Falcon 9 landings].

Ken Ramsley oh I see! Never mind then. Great video by the way!

👌

Yup -- you noticed a problem. This is a dramatic moment in the original movie, and I kept it in the trailer. But you are right... Dr. Zubrin's Mars Direct plan is directly to Mars ...a straight shot from heliocentric orbit to the martian surface. Unless someone is planning to explore the martian moons, there is no reason to orbit Mars.

You are not the only one asking. The rocket-like ERV (Earth Return Vehicle) that you see landing at the beginning and launching from Mars at the end takes the astronauts all the way back to Earth in one continuous flight -- no in-orbit rendezvous or resupply. In reality, it would be a cramped ride, and clearly a weakness in the Mars Direct plan. On the other hand, a separate Mars-orbiting ERV would need to bring all supplies from Earth, and that would greatly increase complexity and scale. Pick your poison. (FYI - This is a trailer, and the full video: "Mars Underground HD" explains everything greater detail - see in-video link at the end).

Mehul Chauhan I love you so much

As shown at the end of the video, the astronauts launch from Mars inside the 'ERV' (Earth Return Vehicle). The ERV has enough rocket power to reach a solar transfer orbit that intersects the orbit of Earth.

That question won’t be answered on Mars, it’s actually more likely on Venus, but I’m from the future so you don’t know that yet. 😎

Like C3P0.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NpdBSrANbb4.html

That's no man then? Like wtf?😂

All good points. The average human consumes about a pound (400 grams) of food per day, and _astronauts_ consume about a gallon of water per day for various activities. On the International Space Station they recycle something like 90% of the water -- and on Mars, they will land where they can find local water. Even still, that's a lot of food and water to bring. I suspect that a real mission would pre-place supplies in orbit and on the martian surface to avoid carrying everything from Earth to Mars and back. The first missions will also be shorter -- 8 months out and back plus only 30 days on the surface, requiring a ton of food and several hundred gallons of water each way between planets (assuming 90% is recycled). A full-duration mission (500 days on Mars) would double the need for food to two tons, but as long as they are using martian water -- the water budget should stay the same. Tough, but not impossible.

On Mars, where they will find plenty of water, not as much. But flying between planets -- yup.

Clearly, wings are under consideration - a wing that starts out as a heat shield (something like the Space Shuttle). Your entry vehicle arrives at ~13,000 MPH, and a heat shield is the only sensible way to get rid of this velocity. Unfortunately martian air density at ground level is equal to ~100,000 feet on Earth (worse higher up), and at Mars, even after your heat shield slows you down, you are still traveling at ~2,000 MPH. All previous martian missions deploy a supersonic parachute at this point, dropping the descent velocity to ~200 MPH, then rockets for landing. Unfortunately, parachutes can't be scaled up in size much beyond what we are using right now (too much stress). So stay tuned. The 'parachute' stage in larger vehicles could become a giant deployable wing, and once we have landing strips on Mars, we might skip the landing rockets altogether.

Ken Ramsley yea thats what i was thinking as well, deployable wings so they wouldn't be damaged upon entry. I would love to see us send a few excavation/land moving machines/tunnel boring machines to set up runways/electromagnetic launch systems and underground habitats.

they would for sure risk landing a plane on a rock filled uneven plain

Keep in mind how this is just a basic concept video. In reality, the astronauts will initially launch to low Earth orbit aboard a smaller vehicle (complete with escape system) and dock with much larger deep space habitat for the trip to Mars. In fact, the unused escape system may wind as part of landing system at Mars.

Ken Ramsley ok

Yes - a titanic supersonic parachute, which is impractical, and a real problem. Launching is not a technical problem, since we can launch as many rockets as we want, and bolt things together later. Though the cost is still a big deal.

You arrive at the most import point. Why send people to colonize Mars when people are unable to live in peace on Earth? Nothing about Mars is going to improve human nature. Harsh condition will bring out the worst, not the best.

You are right - outer space has no atmosphere. But Mars has a thin atmosphere - about a hundred times thinner than Earth. After heat-shield entry, a parachute will slow a lander to around 300 kph. After this, rockets are needed for landing. Starting in 1976, several landers and rovers have landed this way.

The first spaceship lands on Mars before the astronauts leave the Earth. The second lander -- the one that looks like a soup can -- brings the astronauts to Mars from Earth. When the astronauts complete their mission, they leave Mars using the first spaceship, and return to Earth. سفينة الفضاء الأولى الأراضي على سطح المريخ قبل رواد الفضاء مغادرة الأرض. أما المركبة الثانية - التي تبدو وكأنها حساء - فيمكنها أن تجلب رواد الفضاء إلى المريخ من الأرض. عندما يكمل رواد الفضاء مهمتهم، يغادرون المريخ باستخدام سفينة الفضاء الأولى، والعودة إلى الأرض.

This video is a trailer for a movie. You will find a link to the movie video at the end of this clip (Mars Underground HD"). To answer your question... The trailer and movie propose a way to explore Mars - an educated guess - an imagined future - a common starting point to discuss this subject. If humans one day explore Mars, it will be something like this, but not exactly.

c

'Ether' and 'shells' are ancient assertions designed to explain problems that do not exist. The ancients could not imagine the idea of a vacuum and invented the idea of ether to compensate. The ancients also invented overlapping layers of inconceivably huge glass spheres -- or 'shells' -- to explain the motions of the planets (particularly, the apparently odd motions of Mars). In fact, controlled by inertia and gravity, all planets and spacecraft travel through a near-perfect vacuum, and there is no need to imagine shells guiding planetary motions or ether standing in the way.

Yup. But keep in mind that the old Constellation booster (still on the table when this Mars Direct movie was made) was designed to launch from a shuttle pad -- and needed to be physicality compatible with offset engines. More likely, Mars Direct would be launched on an SLS or Falcon Heavy (or not all -- and Mars will be explored by SpaceX).

It's the Constellation Ares 5 (never built). Originally, it was going to share Launch Pad 39 A and B with the Space Shuttles -- and needed to have the engines placed in the same off-enter location as the Shuttle main engines.

+Ken Ramsley Really? I've never heard the off-center mounted version of Ares V! Ares family was suggested after the retirement of Space Shuttle, isn't it?

It's an Ares 5 rocket

Penaka Sandeep

Yup... a MER model built to last, it could easily install an entire array of radio transponders...

I agree. And I believe that inspirational videos like this one are about showing that visits to Mars are possible -- rather than showing exactly how it will be done.

Hi Andrew. There is an on-screen link to the entire movie during last ~15 seconds of this video. Or you can search for "Mars Underground HD" on RU-vid. FYI, I edited this trailer for a class I was teaching, and the movie is not my production.

There is _some_ air at Mars -- not enough to land softly, but enough to slow down with a parachute from 1,000 to 100 meters per second. At that point, rockets are used to finish the job. If there were _no_ air at Mars, we would never see global dust storms every half-dozen years ... something observed in Earth-based telescopes for over a century.

بل انت الغبي تتبع كل ناعق ولا تستخدم عقلك الجامد

The video was made when the shuttle was still flying from Pads 39A and 39B. In this concept, the launch vehicle is basically a space shuttle system without the shuttle. The rocket / launch pad / flame trench would require few modifications - and this may have been a fast way to build a super heavy lift vehicle without starting over. In reality, NASA would never have traveled this road. But in the recent past, if you were in a hurry to reach Mars, it seemed like a good idea.

Google Translation... "Our dreams are to build on Mars. And we explored everything together ... we are trained to build unknown red planet."

hi edhi negamamena two thousand low dynamic vundha

sri devi Ratheesh sri devi.Ratheesh TX NZ KP NL p

V VC no

Humans pollute wherever we go, and you are raising a valid point. I doubt a nuclear reactor will ever wind up there. McMurdo Station in Antarctica operated a nuclear power reactor from 1964 to 1972. After 438 malfunctions during its lifetime, they finally decommissioned it. Human Martians will need to make power from resources they find on Mars (solar, perchlorate decomposition).

Yes, there is a lot of water on Mars. All of this water in the form of ice. In polar regions of Mars, ice is located a few centimeters below a layer of dust -- or right on the surface. Closer to the equator of Mars, ice can be found deeper underground. But some of the equatorial ice is located very close to the surface.

???Tabassum Kapadiya

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NpdBSrANbb4.html

God's Child süper video thanks....

Exploring Mars creates jobs on Earth, and that is a good thing. Hoping that people living on Mars will make life better for people on Earth is a dream. People living on Mars will never help people living on Earth.