A new propulsion system needs to be studied getting to Mars . Nuclear propulsion rocket I read could get you to Mars in 45 days. Why isn't this being studed more to make it so.
Too dangerous honestly, you would need a nuclear reactor on a small rocket that needs to be managed by experts 24/7 with expensive and heavy and dangerous cargo which can easily kill everybody on board. not to mention if anything goes wrong theres almost a 100% chance people onboard wil die
@@gulfy09 Your delusions are real. The firmament is not. These are facts that are beyond debate. Yes, I know what you're about to say. "The Bible tells us ..." Don't care. No real adult does.
@@Mens_RightsWow you’re a sensitive person aren’t you? Calm down. We just do not know what the firmament is. Could be around the solar system or galaxy or something else.
If thats you on your profile picture, odds are you will. Best estimates is that we will have people on mars from 2030-2036 and massive civilizations from 2040-2050
@@lu-uf8zj If it doesn't facilitate money-laundering or capture votes, Congress is never going to approve it. The U.S. annual budget dwarfs the total LIFETIME resources of the top 10 wealthiest private individuals on earth.
The Artemis programme reads a lot like NASA’s 90-day report, which costs a ton of money to build, launch and deliver a bunch of infrastructure which doesn’t get humans to anywhere new. Robert Zubrin’s Mars Semi-Direct plan has much to commend it: less expensive, a shorter time frame and more science gets done.
Hey, I just want to share the love. I really enjoyed this documentary. Very detailed, ringing, realistic and unrealistic expectation into full come I get it
Fat chance anything will grow on Mars. Too cold, too dry, surface bombarded with ionizing radiation, Cosmic rays, UV rays, and soil is too toxic with perchlorate's. Matt Damon's poop potatoes would not grow in Martian soil. Better idea: stop destroying our own soil here on Earth, and stop the huge wild animal life decline on Earth that now stands at just 39% of what it was in 1970. Life on Earth is dying! What use is Mars if Earth can barely support humans, and for how much longer for our huge population of 8+ billion.
they probably will but they might not because we dont actually have humaniod robots that are actually good at producing food and not to mention the energy consumption
Any way I look at it, it seems that the most important thing is to have an amazingly strong and safe, reliable engine that can work anywhere and anytime. What is built around this engine seems almost incidental, but of course it is not.
Look no matter how many people want to go to Mars, we can terraform it all we like, but we will never be able to give it a magnetic field and deadly radiation will always be an issue. That's the biggest issue that needs to be overcome before literally anything else.
Ok the trip to Mars first humans would be sick in various ways. With out gravity, space brakes, radiation shielding, a way to land without crashing,then . Maybe in about 200 years from now when we invent artificial gravity another only work on the ship not on the planet.
We just barely can get folks to Earth's orbit and back. And they kinda crash in the ocean.mars has no ocean. Etc. now sending AI robots are feasible, it'll be decades before humans will be staying on the moon for a couple weeks and they might not be healthy enough to do much.
The Earth's magnetic field is created by its iron core. Considering you have an asteroid field Between Mars and Jupiter would it not be possible to create an external magnetic field using a number of iron asteroids placed in orbit around Mars. Obviously you would Need to place a nuclear reactor on more to create electricity. Am I correct that electricity plus iron = magnetic field
The first problem is developing a magnetic field shield which is going to need a combination of new magnetic materials and a huge amount of electrical power to work, this could protect the spacecraft as it makes the journey to Mars from solar radiation. Secondly you need another on Mars to make a base, and possibly a third massive one at a station at the Lagrange point to possibly shield Mars in the future. Alot of power and physics and technology we don't have yet.
The cosmic radiation problem alone means a trip to Mars is a death sentence without a Van Allen Belt type of shield along with a deflector to keep heavy, fast moving particles thrown off by CMEs from destroying any ship that might be sent on a Mars mission. The logical baby step would be a moon base.
He also said humans will travel to Mars 2026 a couple of years ago. He talks the talk but can't walk the walk. Let's be honest. Humans will never go to Mars.
@@ThaiSteffe tell me why you would ever think something like that. Sure Elon musk is a bit enthusiastic but as it was said in the video, we already HAVE the technology to get to mars. It’s surviving that’s the problem. Considering we know how to get oxygen and food, it’s mostly a problem of long term survival and how to get there before our bones decay from not being used. Fuel is also a problem but that can be solved by having rockets that wait along the path to mars. Then there’s the starship passing tests and inspections which it probably will by 2026. Once we solve those issues we go to mars
@@Adeynan not necessarily. Back in the Space Race competition was what motivated the USA and the Soviet Union to achieve such great feats in space exploration.
@@EugeneDingleBerryFan And then after the series of Moon landings, Tricky Dick Nixon shut it all down, because he needed the money to spend on chronic wars in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Defense industry billionaires came first, the American people, and progress came last. And every president since embellishes the wealthy with our tax dollars with phony excuse to launch a war, and/or build military bases all over the planet instead of space research.
Collaboration? Really like the worthless Kum-by-ya International 120 Billion Dollar waste of time and money ISS? Get to the Moon and Occupy Mars. Use Zubrin's Case for Mars, modified. Robots first. Build the Base. Send the Humans to finish up ... no 48-hour horseshit missions. Go for 2.1 year missions. Starship and its upgrades will make it happen.
I suspect that Apollo was primarily a military program disguised as a civilian program while today’s programs are civilian programs with military spinoffs.
You might remember that we lost the Apollo 1 crew and almost lost the Apollo 13 crew. There were only 17 Apollo missions, including the unmanned ones. That's not a great safety record. Maybe NASA is trying to clean up its act? Also, moon shots cost money. In the 1960s, the US was in a race for national prestige with the Soviet Union, and it was doing well, economically. In 2024, the American people are wondering how they'll pay for groceries, and who are we in a race with? The government is going to be a lot more shy about spending money, because hungry people can turn into angry people in a hurry.
All this is science fiction !! You show astronauts wearing spacesuits and tending to growing plant's. If a mam cant live in this space without a suit how do you expect fragile green plants to survive ? Nasa is still trying to build a spacesuit and still dont know how to stop radiation
8 starships / octagon base, 50 starlinks deployed, 48 bots, 4 reactors, mfg and earthing equipment with parts. This starts the 26,000sf base for the next 24 ships to arrive in about 2 years.
@@davidhewson8605 Pentagons would be another great option, send 5-10 ships at a time instead of 8. I choose 8 just for the amount of sf once assembled. I think Musk might be too old but his kids can. No worries, if NASA behind it looking at least 25 years for the first human landing.
I like the video, but there are two MASSIVE, BASIC, AND FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS that appear to have been overlooked, and have also not been addressed or even mentioned in this video: - 1) How the LACK of EARTH-LIKE GRAVITY will have SERIOUS DETRIMENTAL effects on the crew! 2) The amount of Radiation protection NEEDED for such a long journey in space and for the time living on Mars. So first, let's tackle the gravity problem:- At best, with the current rocket technology available to us, the shortest length of time it will take to journey to Mars is six months, only achievable when its elliptical orbit around the Sun is at its closest to the Earth. This happens roughly every two years. Otherwise, launching outside these close orbit dates would entail a nine / ten month travel time to the Red Planet. Then, once the crew have landed, they'll have to spend at least 18 months on the Martian surface waiting for the next close Earth orbit to come around again before they can leave. Obviously, the journey home will take another six months, so by the end of this whole endeavour, they'll have spent 12 months in zero gravity (the six months journeys there and back) and 18 months on a planet with a third of the gravity of Earth, in total, experiencing 30 months of no Earth gravity. Even if they exercised four hours every day, after such a prolonged experience of no Earth gravity, they'll still end up suffering with some form of muscle atrophy and deterioration of the skeleton, slowing of their cardiovascular system functions, decreased production of red blood cells, balance disorders, eyesight disorders, changes in their immune systems, loss of body mass, and increased nasal congestion. Again, all because of such prolonged exposure to a lack of Earth gravity. And, assuming they survive the homeward bound journey after being so compromised, they'd probably have to wear an Exoskeleton for at least 18 months, just to help them get around and recover some of what they've lost. The "Hard-Science" 2021Science-Fiction film, Stowaway, shows how such a journey to Mars should be done. That is, utilising a central unit / rocket pushing through space with the crewed ship - I'm assuming here that in reality, they would use the Space X vehicle called Star Ship because it has the necessary space/volume - tethered to one end of a spinning / rotating 250m long truss - spinning at 4x a minute to generate and simulate the necessary earth-like gravity needed - and a counter balance tethered to the other end. If Star Ship copied this idea, then the counter balance and / or the central unit could both carry the extra fuel needed to make a controlled decent onto the Martian surface. The Star Ship would then re-attach back to the tether for the journey home, giving the crew much needed earth-like gravity to reacclimatise their bodies after 18 months of 33% gravity on Mars, so that by the time they come home to Mother Earth, they should be fit enough to re-engage with our gravity again. And now the deep space travel radiation and radiation FROM living on Mars problems. The hull of any spaceships travelling for so long in space, and the hulls of any Mars Habitats and Mars Exploration vehicles, would need to have at least 15 inches of lead lining to stop the Gamma radiation from penetrating the ship/habitat/vehicle and killing the crew!!... no where is this basic fact mentioned in the video.
There are some advanced technologies utilising the solid oxide from Martian atmosphere to generate oxygen through electrolysis or ionic liquid extraction in Mars. However there are more important things that cannot allow the first ever human landing on Mars' surface. For example, Mars has harsh environmental conditions such as a very thin atmosphere, insufficient sunshine and gravity, extremely temperature variations. Therefore, sending the people with regardless of every single issue of Mars can cause the adverse effects to the humans psychological and biological states.
Das Problem ist das Antriebsprinzip selbst das nach dem althergebrachten Schema: Aktion gleich Reaktion funktioniert. Dadurch muss es gezwungenermaßen Treibstoff verbrauchen um diesen Effekt hervorzurufen. Dabei spielt es keine Rolle ob es Chemisch , Nucklear oder Elektrisch betrieben wird und welcher von dem bei start oder landung sowie bei Langstreckenflug im All effizienter und sicherer ist. Um ein Antrieb wie beim chemischen bei starts und Landungen sowie bei Langstreckenflüge im All mit Nuklearen oder Elektrischen sowie eine Kombination von beiden ohne Treibstoff zu verwenden würde sehr vieles erleichtern. Damit ist aber kein Anti / Gravitationsantrieb gemeint sondern etwas konventionelles was aus der Luftfahrt bekannt ist, nämlich Profile . Am besten stellt man sich eine Kiste mit den beispielmaßen von 2m × 2m × 10m vor ______________________ | ................................ |------>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In dieser Kiste sind sehr viele Profile angeordnet die bei der umströmung des Gases Luft , Methan oder was auch immer besser geeignet ist einen Vortrieb erzeugt , dieses Gas zirkuliert in einem gleichmäßigen strom vom einem ende der Kiste zur Radialpumpe wieder hinein zum anderen ende der Kiste . Man kann es mit einen Windkanalsystem vergleichen nur mit den unterschied das dort keine Modelle getestet werden sondern schub erzeugt wird. Man kann also sagen es ist ein geschlossenes System weil kein Treibstoff verbraucht wird,das einzige was zugeführt werden muss ist Energie. Der einwand man brauche ein kleines Kraftwerk und würde das Schiff extrem schwer machen sticht nicht da die Pumpe nicht allzuviel energie braucht um Wind zu erzeugen und die Kiste : Sagen wir mal Profilkammerantrieb nur diesen Wind nutzt um schub zu erzeugen mit hilfe der Profile. Das bedeutet es können beliebig viele Profile drin stecken bis zum grad wo sie sich gegenseitig stören und deser Profilkammerantrieb kann in verschiedener Größenordnung gebaut werden. Das ganze klingt zwar so als gebe es schon einen aber dem ist nicht so, es wäre gut wenn man so ein kleines Demonstrationsobjekt bauen und testen würde wie es sich in der Realität bewert , vielleicht ist es zumindest wirkungsvoller als ein ionenantrieb in sachen Schub. Da es sich um einfache Komponenten handelt dürfte es wohl keine millionen kosten wohl eher ein paar hundert Euro und es wäre auch gut diesen test auch durchziehen ohne sich von kaputtnix einreden zu lassen das es nicht funktioniere , solche Clowns gab es zu verschiedenen Zeiten und hatten meist Unrecht. Ich wünsche den Bastlern viel Spaß und wenn es klappt gibt es vielleicht sogar Nobelhobel.🤣😂😅😉😉😉👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
With everything that is going on in space the future is going to be interesting. I have heard of plans to put solar in space and then beam down the power which I don't know would really work that well with todays tech but with microsoft putting a data center in the sea and it working I think that data centers in space might be interesting. Satellite internet is very promising too. I think we could see a huge shift in technology over the next 20 years.
siendo realistas, no menos de 100 años para empezar a tener todo lo necesario para dicha aventura. velocidad, energia y víveres redundantes para hacer el viaje seguro. Se puede empezar mañana si se quiere.
If we go by the newest happening we will be on Mars by 2100 and that is just to start putting the first stage of the Mars exploration in to a possible reality.
They go need a starship with a farm to stand a chance there’s no way they go stock 6months of food and make it. After they get to mars they go need. Foods too it’s too risky and not worth the hassle
This "plan' is so absurdly complicated as to guarantee failure and/or cancelation. As the technology advances actual Mars exploration and colonization will be greatly simplified. Of note is that this piece almost totally ignores the Space X current intention to have several uncrewed Starships (presumably carrying supplies for later crewed missions). leaving for Mars in two years with crewed flight intended for 2 or 4 years after that. Nuclear rockets currently under development eventually should greatly reduce transit times.
Its Just of matter of time for the day that humans will set a foot on Mars, WHEN is it going to happen?.. it hard to predict.....we are curious by nature, GOD gifted us with the will to explore the stars, our future.....
Here is How we get to Mars. First 3 Missions will be will be cluster of 10 to 18 StarShips. Be now the Nuclear engine Tug will be in operation. A StarShip Satellite Transport type man ship about 1000 ft across for gravity and 8-10 crew. With 4 Legs and 4 - 8 HABs on each end of 400 - 500ft x 4m tubes and 4 Transport Ships for 25 + 2 crew and 4 Cargo Ships. The total Pax will be 100 and 16 StarShip 4 HAB transport & 4 Supply. HAB/HLS other HABs and Supply will be in the mission 2 and 3. This can be built and cut the Pax to 50 but the crew will be the same. With the Nuclear Tug the SST can return to Earth for upgrades and new mission. As the first SST is on it way to Mars a SST-2 will be built. This craft will transport a full 100 Pax . Clustering ship together is the only way to get people and supplies to MARS.
After a day in outer space, a person begins to experience terrible headaches😐 A person cannot exist without gravity, therefore, the International Space Station is in a certain orbit and this is the main problem of all flights anywhere in space.
I'm 58 yrs old. So, I know where you're coming from. I was 3 yrs old when men landed on the moon. My father asked my mother to get me up out of bed; so I could see it. I didn't understand it. I barely remember looking at a blurry video of a man hopping around on the surface of a plain somewhere. Of course, I had no concept that it was the surface of another planet. I hope to live long enough to see the first humans reach the Red Planet. If I did not have two stints put in my heart, a little over two years ago, it most definitely would not have happened. Maybe I have another 10 to 12 years left. During that time, maybe I can witness a return voyage to the moon; and a mission to Mars.
If you value Earth so much you should set up mining and manufacturing in space well away from Earth. If we would work cooperatively on that. Earth would be lush and green like you wouldn't believe. It's not going to happen. We are too much of a predatory warrior species. We'll squabble over limited resources until we nuke ourselves off of the face of the planet.
Yes! I will believe it when the USA stops wasting our money on the military industrial complex, and foreign aid that benefits mostly Wall Street, and spend it on all the American people.
There's not a hope in hell that there will be humans on Mars by 2039. It will be long past that. Space travel timetables are always way too optimistic and very much dependent on how much money you want to throw at the project.
Agreed , I wouldn’t be surprised if 2050 comes along and they are still working on it. I’m in my 60’s I don’t think I’ll see it happen, at least I got to see man walk on the moon 😂😂😂. Just thinking further about it , maybe the Chinese might surprise us, they are pretty full on doing stuff on the dark side of the moon and seem very motivated. As always , money and motivation are big things if you want to get things done.
Especially when we still can't leave lower earth orbit all that moon landing bullshit was lies and Mars footage is just Devon Island footage here on earth same with the moon It's just footage of somewhere on earth
@@dereks1264 We can't even leave lower earth orbit Nasa put there foot in there mouth back in 2016 just Google it can we leave Lower Earth Orbit it will say no in otherwords we never went to the Moon
If we have a moon base we can build a magnetic launch rail to accelerate unlimited payloads to mars (food, fuel, supplies of all sorts). Send robots ahead to build a city underground. Badabing Mars colony.
2026 is getting close. The only way that could happen is if Mars exploration was vital to human survival in the close future. Plus their is a Short cut window that Mars and Earth are closest and is optimum to lessen the amount of radiation the humans get.
Even if astronauts are able to someday complete the dangerous voyage to Mars, we are hundreds or thousands of years away from colonizing the Red Planet. Frankly, I don’t even really see the point of trying to colonize a planet that is so, so far away and so severely inhospitable to human life. Life on Mars would truly be a hellish experience us earthlings.
If space is truly weightless, then the amount of propulsion (fuel) needed to get from Earth's orbit to Mar's orbit is the same weather it is 1 ship or 1000. Say Space X sends 19 ships into orbit carrying supplies, then they attach to a 20th ship with fuel and engine needed to reach the planet; fire the rocket and send all of them together. This will leave before the manned ship so everything they need so sitting in Mar's orbit waiting for them. Why is the moon in this equation?
My fiirst experience of Mars was thru the paintings of Chesly Bonestel in a book by Von Braun, in the early 1960's. Humanity would be on Mars by the 2000's. Optomistic? That's Okay. I would say lets be pessimistcally real. 2060 is a bit tough. 2080 could do it. IF there is no major war, financial melt-down, plague, societal collapse. IF.
I also think the same but I think everything needs to discovered. There's an idea that if you skip your primary school you can't understand high school. Moreover, I am amazed by thinking that if Mars is too long to reach then how the Space Organisations planning for Wormholes, Blackholes, and other galaxies 😂
How are we going to enable us travelling to Mars? Well, definitely not in one of these tincans, which NASA still proposes with Orion. And also not with chemical rocket propulsion, like Starship is designed with. Its a silly idea, to call Orion a deep space vessel. Imagine four people in an SUV, where no one can even exit for to piss. For several weeks! Or longer; and at any time there can be a solar radiation warning. A spaceship needs completely different design choices from a launch-/landing-pod. Starship is the first spaceship attempt in human history. To become a spaceship, it will need more propulsion than chemical rocket engines can achieve. We can't send people on a 8 month long journey through weightlesness, and expect them to crawl out onto the Mars surface. L👀k at ISS astronauts, as they can not leave the landing pod on their own, after 6 months of weightlessness. We can't send people to Mars without artificial gravity. Considering the involved distences, the best artificial gravity is constant thrust, throughout the entire transfer. That can't be done with chemical thrust; this is only good for launch and for landing. Ion-thrusters could suit our needs, but they are not very strong. - With solar array current. With higher electrical power, we can get much stronger Ion-thrusters. Like 20k Volts and more. Batteries wont do; we'll need a generator on board. Life support is also about the size of ISS. If we use a nuclear reactor, will we need to convert to Ion-thrust? Better direct into nuclear propulsion. Both Ion-thrust and nuke motor can never land on Earth. Nor can they directly launch from Earth. We really need to distinguish the concept of a spaceship from the concept of launch & landing pods. 🚀🏴☠️🎸
why exactly do you need thrust? once something is spinning in space it wont stop. you dont need to be spinning that fast only about 15rpm for earths gravity
So many flaws in the dialogue of this video. I mean we already use nuclear fuel for power on the mars explorers. So saying that the technology would be 'developed' during Artemis 14 through 20 missions is utter bollox
If Musk wants people on Mars, then he should already be sending multiple layers of support material onto Mars, to stay there till the persons sent there can arrive, and KNOW they have years of supplies and equipment available already, in case return flights may not be possible until later, maybe some years later. Drilling equipment to seek ground water sources should also be an imperative part of that, and not just one rig, but several.
We can make the trip and even establish a settlement. But we won’t unless there is a financial incentive. The first person will go, because of the fame. But they will return to Earth to enjoy the fame. After that, it will only be robotic missions. Antarctica is easier to reach and easier to survive on, but people don’t live there permanently either. BUT, if we find something of immense value/profit, then we will go in droves
So the game Mass Effect is probably spot on with space travel even being possible to other planets set in 2183! Because everything in this video just sounds fictional. Sounds awesome but I probably won't be alive to see it cause I'm in my 30's now😔😔😔😔!
The core could be heated back up by a AI Robotic boring machines with a nuclear core that could purposely set to melt down at the correct position and depths. To reheat the core. More than one would be needed at different locations. Don't forget about the isotopes they already found on the surface. so those will always be there anyway.
