Despite all the naysaying here, it actually could have worked. The worst problems, however, would be those of cosmic radiation and prolonged weightlessness. We've learned much about that since on Mir and ISS. They knew little about that then. Assuming a two man crew, they might have made it and back. They would have been plagued with health problems ever after, though. In essence, they'd have been human guinea pigs for the experience of longer duration missions to Mars, Mercury and beyond. They'd have all known that beforehand. I can guarantee you that there would be no lack of volunteers for the mission.
@@makssachs8914 hes not wrong, venus is relatively a faster travel because as you get closer to the sun, you go faster. looking about the range of 120-150 days
cough cough right on..i bought in to KSM many years ago as Beta while they were just getting it ready. No mods, not a thing other than the few options available(mostly fins and connectors).. KSP turned into a awesome simulator and more, and the MODS have been a special part of that, especially the Mercury program and Apollo additions...ORION and SPACEX will be wicked once complete. Not sure how much they charge for the Program now..but I got my $20.00 lifetime membership beta development value over and over 10 fold. The fun and educational value of this sim is priceless
I have like...80 mods for KSP...realism overhaul, Practically every rocket that was ever used by man(including all the aerobee sounding rockets,V2s, Early satellites, and probes) the SLS, and Orion, and of couse the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and soon BFR...and all kinds of other misc shit
Wow, I am very impressed! Just getting RO to install and work properly is a project itself. Getting it to look this beautiful is a feat. Oh and then there's this mission with just a few little details to figure out. Good job man!
But Skylab contained enough food to start for more than six months for three astronauts. And there was still tons of room to spare in the Orbital Workshop. It was launched with all the required provisions for the intended three missions, with some extra to spare. They could've stocked it even more if needed. And that was all largely _frozen_ food. They could've carried even more freeze dried or otherwise shelf-stable. (Even then they had MRE-style foods, though we were still a decade away from retort pouches.)
@@robertsanchez8132 Shuttles were the absolute worst way to send stuff to space and a decent way to send humans to space, there is a reason NASA stopped using them.
While it's frustrating to look at what the US space program might have been with more support, we have learnt a whole lot about space travel and long term space habitation over the last few decades. Had we launched astronauts to Mars (or even a Venus flyby) in the early 80s as some plans called for, we would have killed them.
There's one BIG problem with this....and it's probably good this project never happened.The Apollo CSM and related hardware was good for a few dozen days. A mission to Venus, as shown, would last about 400 days, with no possibility of resupply or escape if something critical broke down.There is also the question of how much radiation exposure they'd get. Earth's magnetosphere offers some protection to astronauts in Low Earth Orbit, and half the time they're in Earth's shadow. But a mission beyond LEO spends almost all its time without any of that protection, and when going to Venus the exposure increases because Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth.
They found out very quickly with the planetary probe missions that the radiation was MUCH worse beyond Earth. Pioneer 10 almost had its electronics fried by the radiation at Jupiter and they redesigned the systems for Voyager to avoid that situation. The Moon is doable since it's the Earth's shadow but we can forget about going to the other planets anytime until they get better radiation shielding for space vehicles. That's on top of better engines because chemical rockets won't cut it. The missions will be too long and the tanks for liquid fuel would be too heavy I think. We'll go back to the Moon -- eventually but I don't even think we'll go to Mars in my lifetime. This 2020s manned Mars business by private industry (FUNDED by the US government!!!) is pie in the sky speculation and unrealistic.
@@SussyFortskinNiteFreakbob Depends on the orbits of the planets, where they're at when they launch. 97 days is THE BEST window when they planets are at their closest. When they launched the Voyagers in the 1970s, they launched them at an optimal time for outer planetary reconnaisance. Voyager 2, in particular, had the best launch schedule for visiting 4 planets. Had it been launched at any other time, they would NEVER have been to visit 4 planets in 12 years with either spacecraft. As it was, Voyager 2 was launched ahead of V-1 to optimize its flight path and to get the most from gravitational assist. They'd be looking at the same thing for missions to Mars or Venus. I frankly don't see the point of sending people to Venus. We can't live there... It's absolutely toxic for human life and we still can't material durable enough. Every probe ever sent to the planet's surface fails because of the heat and pressure after a few hours. Mars is a better destination but they still haven't cracked HOW to shield people so that they wouldn't die of radiation sickness by the time they reached Mars...
@@AvengerII Jupiter's radiation belt, which nearly destroyed Pioneer 10's electronics, is a special case. You don't find that level of radiation almost anywhere else in the solar system, save for a solar flare or very near the sun. Albeit 10 months in deep space is a long time even with low background radiation, hopefully they can get it down to 6 for a Mars landing and return.
The early crewed missions to the planets will have VERY little option in case of a critical failure during the cruise, and it can't be helped, it's the price of exploration. Delta-V is expensive on an interplanetary cruise, you can afford to take a small contingency but that contingency will NOT be able to turn you around after a trans-planetary injection burn. If the propulsion system or life support suffers a critical failure during cruise or orbit insertion at the destination planet, the crew are dead. The best solution is to develop faster and more efficient propulsion systems that can cut down the cruise duration.
From my recollection, this was actually the first plan for Skylab. They would launch a modified “wet-workshop” second stage in a Saturn 1B assembly, and would have the astronauts reconfigure it in orbit after dumping the fuel. It was later changed to just being a dry, repurposed upper stage to be launched on a Saturn V, as it was likely less risky
...and with the cancellations of Apollos 18 and 19, there were 2 spare Saturn Vs available. The initial plan for launching the "wet workshops" would have used Saturn IBs. The complete-before-launch Skylab, and integrated solar telescope, were so heavy, they required the Saturn V.
Or to be precise, NASA took advantage of the extra capacity the Saturn V could offer to launch a fully-completed Skylab, with integrated solar telescope, in one fell swoop.
Dood XV I think space agency is _okay,_ I might be saying that just because it costs money and I have quite a bit of progress on it but, just my thoughts.
I remain skeptical, lot's of world shit happened between then and now that may have thrown space exploration planning off course. But, yes, it would have been grand to have two planets "under our belt" by now!
@@Werrf1 and not just the tech of Apollo, the surface of venus is 92 Bar, on earths surface its only 1 Bar. they whould have probably died of the surface pressure.
+Alexandre Fyne well proposed is still not yet realized. Even while one of the most critical parts, the Saturn 5 booster was ready and available, it does not guarantee success. Skylab almost failed miserably at its start and I doubt the funding would be there for more than one Venus flyby mission. Does anyone know how well Skylabs environmental systems worked? While its missions was in the range 50 ~ 60 days, I do not know if it needed any serious repair and / or replenishment. I don't think the Apollo-Skylab missions brought that many supplies with them, at-least not the extend of Progress / ATV / SST / Dragon would/could do. Furthermore, was it the intention to convert the spend into a crew habit (e.g. Wet workshop) in orbit? If so, than I would expect them to have ample of room. I am always amazed by how roomy Skylabs Dry workshop was compared to ISS or Mir. The advantage of having a Mun capable booster!
right, and all you Dem. space nuts (I was one in the Kennedy/ Johnson days) write to Nancy and tell her to fund NASA big time, no matter who gets the WH!! Good luck with that! LOL ;D
I have gone through the original document used to propose the mission. What they had in mind was mind blowing. This is a close representation of that mission. What source(s) did you use?
Several, including the proposed plan and other feasibility studies. The only thing that may not be super accurate are the probes. Took some liberties there.
@@kevincgustafson From the main diagram I have of that mission proposal, the probes were more torpedo like so yeah on that. What I found fascinating was the proposal to use the solar panels around the S-IVB stage as a micro meteoroid shield instead of the skylab style that you displayed in your animation.
It would be interesting to speculate on who would crew such a mission. Likely veteran commanders of the Apollo moon missions, but which three would you choose? I have my favorites but they are not the "obvious ones". All but Shepard (Apollo 14) were pretty "young" when they went to the moon, mid to late thirties, and would be only in early 40's for this mission.
@@Gallade082 yup, they were all cool cats but he was one of the coolest not to abort when lightning struck, and he saved the mission, as did "Beano" with his memory of Alt something to get back the computer right!! That's "Right Stuff" eh!! :D
I'm absolutely in love with your channel. You deliver joy a lot like SpaceX: SpaceX gives us dreams of amazing things to come, and you give us dreams of amazing things that might have been. Thank you so much for everything you do, Kevin!
Could you do Apollo's rival known as the Lunex Project? The United States Air Force's idea to land a Spaceplane on the moon (which is likely to have led to a moon base plus more military presence in space)
This "Space plane" would have to be a "tail sitter" unless some Space CBs bulldozed a landing strip in some dusty lunar surface? Then there's that pesky cosmic radiation, micro/macro meteors, and the vast difference between the "sweltering" Lunar day vs. the "deep freeze" Lunar night. It's not impossible, of course, but it will require long term logistical support from Earth, which means, "declare a victory and leave" Vietnam toot suite.
@@Otokichi786 "This space plane would have to be a tail-sitter unless some Space CBs bulldozed a landing strip..." How would THAT help a space plane to land on the Moon (which has no atmosphere)?
Gravity assist from Venus sends you back into a higher orbit. A small course correction midway and you’re home. Imagine the science points we’d have gotten from that! ;)
Actually sorry but block II is more capable than Saturn V. Saturn V payload includes injected mass which is the payload plus the massive upper stage. In reality it can haul around 122 tons and not 153. SLS is measured with pure payload which does not include the upper stage can put about 143 tons which is definitely an improvement.
This is superlative, educational, and expanding. Yeah, some bugs in the timeline/capabilities vis-a`vis human limitations, power/technology limitations . . . It's taking a real giant leap. I'm more curious what the technology would look like if it were mission oriented towards Venus earlier. With a legitimate target and time-frame I'm certain a more "probable" vehicle design would be generated consisting of some sort of space for conditioning and foodstuffs. And perhaps generating the 1st of a series of interplanetary satellite deliveries. Hmmmm? Eye's 'n Ear's, kids. I like this timeline.
Nice work! Really cool stuff. Though I'm skeptical if this would have worked in real life, since the astronauts would be stuck in such a small space for such a long time, even if you repurpose the 3rd stage fuel tank for living space. It's not too hard to imagine them going insane or at least having psychological issues.
Yes, but the ISS had fresh foods and resupply while this mission would not. Also on the ISS, crews come and go while in this mission three (presumed) astronauts would be stuck together for the whole duration. They probably wouldn't have training equipment as well since effects of long term exposure to micro gravity wasn't known at the time. I'm sure with current understanding and tech, we can do much more than this!
Kevin Gustafson No, they haven’t, you missed his point and were condescending about it. Living in the cramped Apollo capsule for a year didn’t happen, because it would be impossible.
Interesting....when I was a kid they thought Venus was earth's twin until they sent unmanned probes there...The 3rd stage became the long lasting Skylab missions.
@@mautun3830 due to high atmospheric acidity and just regular high temperatures. While Venus surface temperatures can melt lead, rock is much harder to melt, and satellite altimetry proves there is a solid ground somewhere down there
Jeff Vader, or what our guys in the military eat nowadays (MREs). However with the larger space, they could have more choices as opposed to the "Soup-in-a-Bag" menu used on the lunar missions.
That wet workshop was essentially skylab...Skylab had the best food of any space station ever...They had better food on skylab in the early 70s, then they do now on the International space station
This mission wasn't an option for NASA, since it was incredibly risky. But there was somebody who could do it - the Soviets. They desperately needed some PR points after the success of Apollo, and their own Moon landing programme wasn't anywhere near a landing by Apollo 11. However, a mission like this would be doable for them, and score them tons of PR, even if it didn't have much of a scientific value. They were fine with the risk on the Voskhods, this would likely also be acceptable for them. It could follow this profile: A single N-1 lifts a L3 Blok G translunar stage, a power/comms/coolant/maneuvering service module, some scientific instruments that fit in and a transit habitat for 2. Then, a Soyuz launched on R-7 joins that in orbit. Once that is done, the Blok G would push the craft toward Venus. The split profile allows for launching the N-1 without man-rating it, and for a slightly bigger payload to Venus. This would prompt the US to better fund NASA, maybe even get them the two-stage fully-reusable winged flyback Space Shuttle they wanted.
Awesome video! I know you did this a while ago but I'm actually trying to replicate this mission myself but its a little challenging to find the trajectory with Principia haha.
Although I wish we had a strong follow up on Apollo like in TV series "For all mankind", I do believe that what we ultimately had was necessary for the future. Space race, moon landing were only hip stuff for the majority of the people in the 60's. Young generations were impacted though, it is possible, and we could go further if we decide to do it. Space went from Pulp scifi to a known territory in 3 decades. The last two decades we saw a growing interest in space once again and I'm happy to see it unfold in my lifetime. It's not about going fast but steadily. Apollo venus would have been an impressive feat for 70's technology but we didn't know about long trip in microgravity and radiation shelting. A lot of unknowns that would have had a strong public backlash if failures occurred.
Interesting to think of the weight limits applied to entertainment, would be/are irrelevant in today's age of digital entertainment. By that I mean, that 2kg of movies, 1.5kg of music, 1kg of games (that's a lot of Monopoly...dunno how rage quitting that would work in space), and 9kg of reading material, would all be replaced...plus even more added, with a single 3kg laptop, or a laptop per crew member with their preferred media choices. As for the radiation issue, that's one of the larger concerns of a manned Mars mission and certainly a priority today, same goes for any long term manned station on another world in our solar system.
Technically, the AAP never considered a Venus landing, only a flyby. A landing would be certain death even with today’s tech. (Although the upper atmosphere is the closest thing to earthlike conditions you can get) Not to mention it would take several rocket launches to get a Venus orbital rocket to space.
That's very nice! I love it when people recreate these proposed Apollo missions, just imagine if instead of the shuttle, we continued Apollo as the soviets continued their Soyuz.
hey can you maybe do a video about MAVR-TMK? It was supposed to be a manned soviet mission to flyby Mars and Venus so i think it would be preety cool if you did it :)
I can try something like that, there aren't any models of that as far as I know, so it may take some doing, but I'll do the necessary research and see what I can devise. Stay tuned.
I have a missions proposals: -Constellation Moon mission -Exploration Mission 11(NASA proposal for manned orbital Mars mission -Mars Base Camp -SpaceX Mars mission -SpaceX Moon mission.
@@kevincgustafson Yes, this was quite possible, due to availability of hardware; Russia had none of that ready to go then (1973)! So it would be Fantasy Land, in Disneyland!
Ok so if we had managed to do this, they might not have decided to scrap the NERVA. This would in turn make interplanetary travel easier, leading to more research done, likely leading to better nuclear engines. Also the S4B or SIVB or however they wrote it on paper, could have been lined with the radiation shielding for the mission, making it not just an extension of habitable space in the craft, but a necessity that when they aren't directly piloting the ship, they need to be in there.
Absolutely stunning mate! So some questions about the mission. Was the CSM using 2 AJ10s and why? Also what was the modified S IV B up to? Was it just for extra resources like O2 and electricity or was there extra crew space for the nearly 1 year long trip? Again thank you!
Very Impressive Flight and Put together very Professional Most dont realize how difficult editing this much Computer Generated Original Material is and you pulled it off without a hitch. Excellent GO FEVER
Hey man! Great video! How did you get the free return trajectory back to earth? I would love to do this mission in my RP0 install but I can't get the trajectory right
It took me forever to set the mid-course correction to give me the right angle. All I can say it trial and error, trial and error. When at first you don't succeed...try, try again.
No, 1) they didn't get into orbit around Venus, just a fly-by. 2) They used the SVI-B as a wet workshop, giving them the space equivalent to what Skylab had, and 3) they didn't get into Earth orbit on the way back but rather a straight re-entry. There is no orbit, beside sun orbit, that they could have left it in, I'm afraid.
Great work in many ways, but the issue of 400 days in 0-gravity isn't dealt with in this. Nor is the solar and cosmic radiation. Those would have precluded sending people to Venus.
A well done presentation I must say, but highly improbable on several levels. The idea of using an Apollo CSM on an interplanetary mission would hardly be suitable, even with a mission mission module attached, which looks like a modified CM. Astronaut Ken Mattingly flew on Apollo 16 as the CMP, and spent 12 days in the CM.During the latter part of theflight, he commented that the Apollo CM was fine for a lunar mission, but for anything longer, they would have to develop something better, as in larger. I cannot imagine a crew that would want to spend 5 plus months in what would be basically two Apollo command modules docked nose to nose. The SIV-B is multi purpose, but how would it be possible for it to be both a booster stage and a mission module? The service module is obviously upgraded and would be larger as well as much heavier. Could the Saturn V handle such a heavy load? Much to consider. Also, why would transition and docking take place prior to the injection burn? Why subject the crew to the retrograde forces unnecessarily?
As soon as they finished the transfer burn, they would have vented the S-IVB hydrogen tank and used it for living space. They'd have used the smaller oxygen tank to store waste, garbage, and possibly spare parts. The mission module you see up front is mostly just temporary storage for all the hardware, amenities, exercise equipment, and consumables they would be moving into the much larger fuel tank on the first two days of the mission. Skylab was originally going to be built the same way, but it turned out to be unnecessary because Skylab wasn't going to Venus and the S-II second stage was powerful enough to lift the whole assembly into an acceptable Earth orbit. The upgraded service module uses a pair of LM descent engines, which were considered the most reliable of Apollo legacy engines by engineers. The entire LM, including the ascent module, had weighed less than the Apollo command module - so the new service module is probably lighter than the one flown on lunar missions. The engines are angled to push directly though the spacecraft's center of mass; that way you have redundancy because there is no torque to steer the craft off course if only one engine is working. As for doing the transposition and docking first, that's so that they could do any necessary checks or fixes on the wet workshop _BEFORE_ they committed to the interplanetary transfer. Even the old CSM with its oversized Service Propulsion System could only abort the S-IVB's trans-lunar injection burn within the first couple of days, and it would really, really suck to find out the habitat wasn't going to keep you alive when you were already past the point of no return. The S-IVB doesn't have a 1:1 TWR anyway, so being gently pulled out of your seat by negative g-forces is probably a small price to pay.
It's a nice "what if". How could they carry enough supplies to make the mission work? Let's ignore the radiation issue, how about just being able to live and breathe?
How many in the crew? I don't see them sending any more than 2, a solo mission would be better IF you could be sure the astronaut wouldn't go nuts due to psychological problems caused by prolonged isolation.
They would probably use Werner von Brauns Ferry Rocket (basicly a plane ontop of a big ass rocket) because Venus Atmosphere is so thick you could just use a plane with a shifted wing attack angle to enter Venus with a micro injection burn. You would need to build the entire plane out of PVC and Graphene coating though. and with that I'm including the Engine Bell and plumbing. So you would basicly be flying a super dense and floppy paperplane through hurricanes of sulfuric acid vapor.
Hmm, 31 October, 1973 to 1 December, 1974. Knowing what we know about the body's breakdown in microgravity conditions, would there be anyone left alive to recover? Unless NASA knew something about the atmospheric conditions on Venus, would that probe land successfully, let alone transmit any data? Also, how long would the signal delay between the NASA and the Apollo module by the time they were ready to "skim by Venus"?
1973/74 would certainly have been to early. But with the knowledge from the Skylab missions, they could have developed the required systems soon. I think, after a 4th Syklab mission of about 6 months for testing it all, the Venus mission could have been around 1978/79.
Nice video, but I’m not sure on the real life feasibility. The astronauts would be stuck in a space just a little bigger that Skylab, but for years. Instead, it would be more worth it to pack giant probes and other science equipment, instead of the expensive weight penalties of housing humans.
The corollary to the old phrase "No bucks, no Buck Rogers"... is "No Buck Rogers, no bucks!" Which is another way of saying, we can get funding for a manned mission, can we get any funding for any unmanned missions? In 1970, they did NOT think they could.Llater they found out they could get some , and found a way to get the planets explored on the cheap.
@@stevevernon1978 A billion dollars goes a long way for robotic missions, because space probes and their instruments are built by research universities with scores of enthusiastic graduate students who'll basically work for free as long as you pay their tuition, rent, and groceries. The defense contractors building our launch vehicles and manned spacecraft don't have that luxury.
They did this! After the TLI burns for Apollo 8-12 the discarded stages where sent into heliocentric orbits. In fact Apollo 12's S IV B was temporarily recaptured by Earth in 2002 and reentered a heliocentric orbit in 2003. Oh an the accent stage for Apollo 10's LM "Snoopy" is out there around the Sun too.
I wonder if we can laser the atmosphere off of Venus over a few thousand years. Aim the beam at the edge, excite the topmost particles so they have the energy to escape and then spiral in towards the sun.
anony mous I mean, the suns been doing it for a few billion years and so far no dice on that front, I doubt we humans could really make much difference
I'm new to this Channel. I've been binge-watching it all weekend! I dig the Science mixed with the "Thundercats Are Go!", neo-Claymation stop-action kinda styleee. Your anime astronauts are awesome too! One thing about your clips, how come you don't incorporate more cosmological data and history? I get that this is modeling the more technical aspects of these Mission but surely you have some space to mention that our little sister, Venus, is the only Planet in our entire Solar System that spins clockwise on its axis. As a mater of fact, its the only Planet in the Universe that is currently known to us that does so! Also, it does so at a rate so s l o w l y that one day on Venus is equivalent to one month here on Earth! fureelz! Did you also happen to know that many Cosmologists are embracing the hypothesis first put forth in 1950 by Einstein collaborator, Immanuel Velikovsky. He posits that Venus is a now cooling Comet that was captured by our Sun about 4000 years ago! Nope. I swear. Look it up. so anyway, my point is that there's allot more to Outer Space than the weights and measures.
Despite all the naysaying here, it actually could have worked. The worst problems, however, would be those of cosmic radiation and prolonged weightlessness. We've learned much about that since on Mir and ISS. They knew little about that then. Assuming a two man crew, they might have made it and back. They would have been plagued with health problems ever after, though. In essence, they'd have been human guinea pigs for the experience of longer duration missions to Mars, Mercury and beyond. They'd have all known that beforehand. I can guarantee you that there would be no lack of volunteers for the mission.
They would have to work out alot and get vaccinated as soon as the comeback
My only concern is food and water for that time period.
If anything breaks you are probably dead......
Victory cannot happen without sacrifice sometimes
Nah, the Vessel would've melted bcs venus is just way to hot
A year and a half suffering in space, and when they get home the Navy forgets to send a carrier.
lol
That’s fucked up. Lol
It's more like 100 days
@@KSPAtlas lol no
@@makssachs8914 hes not wrong, venus is relatively a faster travel because as you get closer to the sun, you go faster. looking about the range of 120-150 days
Who else remembers 2017 KSP when mods were constantly updated and you could run 100s of them without compatibility issues
That was a thing? Well I missed that because I didn't become a pc gamer till mid 2019
_The sheer amount of mods make it seem like it _*_isn’t even KSP anymore_*
Wait its ksp?
cough cough right on..i bought in to KSM many years ago as Beta while they were just getting it ready. No mods, not a thing other than the few options available(mostly fins and connectors).. KSP turned into a awesome simulator and more, and the MODS have been a special part of that, especially the Mercury program and Apollo additions...ORION and SPACEX will be wicked once complete. Not sure how much they charge for the Program now..but I got my $20.00 lifetime membership beta development value over and over 10 fold. The fun and educational value of this sim is priceless
I have like...80 mods for KSP...realism overhaul, Practically every rocket that was ever used by man(including all the aerobee sounding rockets,V2s, Early satellites, and probes) the SLS, and Orion, and of couse the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and soon BFR...and all kinds of other misc shit
@@granddukeofmecklenburg 96 mods and downloading more. I have a 2014 i5 Laptop.
@@Links_Rechts_Lo oh god...On a normal laptop? Must be an insane load time
Wow, I am very impressed! Just getting RO to install and work properly is a project itself. Getting it to look this beautiful is a feat. Oh and then there's this mission with just a few little details to figure out. Good job man!
Thanks!
@@kevincgustafson Yes, very impressive!!
The longest Apollo Skylab mission lasted 84 days.
But Skylab contained enough food to start for more than six months for three astronauts. And there was still tons of room to spare in the Orbital Workshop. It was launched with all the required provisions for the intended three missions, with some extra to spare. They could've stocked it even more if needed. And that was all largely _frozen_ food. They could've carried even more freeze dried or otherwise shelf-stable. (Even then they had MRE-style foods, though we were still a decade away from retort pouches.)
This would have been worth 50 boring Shuttle missions. A fraction of their cost too...
HailAnts imo the shuttles weren’t bad even tough they failed the promise to make Spaceflight cheaper they still have done alot for humanity
@@robertsanchez8132 Shuttles were the absolute worst way to send stuff to space and a decent way to send humans to space, there is a reason NASA stopped using them.
He didn't say they were he's saying they did a lot for humanity, and frankly i agree with him
While it's frustrating to look at what the US space program might have been with more support, we have learnt a whole lot about space travel and long term space habitation over the last few decades.
Had we launched astronauts to Mars (or even a Venus flyby) in the early 80s as some plans called for, we would have killed them.
Hydrochloric Acid we probably could have done it, but this push wouldn’t have been sustainable, the budget cut would just come a bit lster
There's one BIG problem with this....and it's probably good this project never happened.The Apollo CSM and related hardware was good for a few dozen days. A mission to Venus, as shown, would last about 400 days, with no possibility of resupply or escape if something critical broke down.There is also the question of how much radiation exposure they'd get. Earth's magnetosphere offers some protection to astronauts in Low Earth Orbit, and half the time they're in Earth's shadow. But a mission beyond LEO spends almost all its time without any of that protection, and when going to Venus the exposure increases because Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth.
They found out very quickly with the planetary probe missions that the radiation was MUCH worse beyond Earth.
Pioneer 10 almost had its electronics fried by the radiation at Jupiter and they redesigned the systems for Voyager to avoid that situation. The Moon is doable since it's the Earth's shadow but we can forget about going to the other planets anytime until they get better radiation shielding for space vehicles. That's on top of better engines because chemical rockets won't cut it. The missions will be too long and the tanks for liquid fuel would be too heavy I think.
We'll go back to the Moon -- eventually but I don't even think we'll go to Mars in my lifetime. This 2020s manned Mars business by private industry (FUNDED by the US government!!!) is pie in the sky speculation and unrealistic.
The mission would actually only take 97 day don't know where you got 400 from
@@SussyFortskinNiteFreakbob Depends on the orbits of the planets, where they're at when they launch.
97 days is THE BEST window when they planets are at their closest.
When they launched the Voyagers in the 1970s, they launched them at an optimal time for outer planetary reconnaisance. Voyager 2, in particular, had the best launch schedule for visiting 4 planets. Had it been launched at any other time, they would NEVER have been to visit 4 planets in 12 years with either spacecraft. As it was, Voyager 2 was launched ahead of V-1 to optimize its flight path and to get the most from gravitational assist.
They'd be looking at the same thing for missions to Mars or Venus.
I frankly don't see the point of sending people to Venus. We can't live there... It's absolutely toxic for human life and we still can't material durable enough. Every probe ever sent to the planet's surface fails because of the heat and pressure after a few hours. Mars is a better destination but they still haven't cracked HOW to shield people so that they wouldn't die of radiation sickness by the time they reached Mars...
@@AvengerII Jupiter's radiation belt, which nearly destroyed Pioneer 10's electronics, is a special case. You don't find that level of radiation almost anywhere else in the solar system, save for a solar flare or very near the sun.
Albeit 10 months in deep space is a long time even with low background radiation, hopefully they can get it down to 6 for a Mars landing and return.
The early crewed missions to the planets will have VERY little option in case of a critical failure during the cruise, and it can't be helped, it's the price of exploration. Delta-V is expensive on an interplanetary cruise, you can afford to take a small contingency but that contingency will NOT be able to turn you around after a trans-planetary injection burn. If the propulsion system or life support suffers a critical failure during cruise or orbit insertion at the destination planet, the crew are dead. The best solution is to develop faster and more efficient propulsion systems that can cut down the cruise duration.
Wow this is incredible. Amazing camera work and attention to detail with everything. Such as firing the ullage and the reentry spin.
I am in awe that not only was this was a considered plan, but some of the ideas like using the third stage for habitation came to fruition.
From my recollection, this was actually the first plan for Skylab. They would launch a modified “wet-workshop” second stage in a Saturn 1B assembly, and would have the astronauts reconfigure it in orbit after dumping the fuel. It was later changed to just being a dry, repurposed upper stage to be launched on a Saturn V, as it was likely less risky
...and with the cancellations of Apollos 18 and 19, there were 2 spare Saturn Vs available. The initial plan for launching the "wet workshops" would have used Saturn IBs. The complete-before-launch Skylab, and integrated solar telescope, were so heavy, they required the Saturn V.
Well said
Or to be precise, NASA took advantage of the extra capacity the Saturn V could offer to launch a fully-completed Skylab, with integrated solar telescope, in one fell swoop.
Not convinced having no 'habitation module' would be practical. Spending that long just in CM?
When I saw the probe i went “Wait this is KSP?”
only 700 views man you deserve at least 50,000
your videos are better then mine
Thanks!
Elliot Harrysson pretty much 2d ksp optimized for mobile. it's also very realistic compared to some other games *cough cough* space agency
Dood XV I think space agency is _okay,_ I might be saying that just because it costs money and I have quite a bit of progress on it but, just my thoughts.
46k
Dood XV he got to 50k
The introduction text gives me some serious Top Gun vibes, I love it.
Can You Imagine How Different The World Would Be If This Mission Happened?
Jesus mars would be child's play
I remain skeptical, lot's of world shit happened between then and now that may have thrown space exploration planning off course. But, yes, it would have been grand to have two planets "under our belt" by now!
Not all that much different at all.
A lot more dead astronauts. The Apollo hardware couldn't have done this mission safely.
@@Werrf1 and not just the tech of Apollo, the surface of venus is 92 Bar, on earths surface its only 1 Bar. they whould have probably died of the surface pressure.
Stunning . Well done
Very well made. It's amazing to think this could have actually happened if NASA had the budget.
+Alexandre Fyne
well proposed is still not yet realized. Even while one of the most critical parts, the Saturn 5 booster was ready and available, it does not guarantee success. Skylab almost failed miserably at its start and I doubt the funding would be there for more than one Venus flyby mission.
Does anyone know how well Skylabs environmental systems worked? While its missions was in the range 50 ~ 60 days, I do not know if it needed any serious repair and / or replenishment. I don't think the Apollo-Skylab missions brought that many supplies with them, at-least not the extend of Progress / ATV / SST / Dragon would/could do.
Furthermore, was it the intention to convert the spend into a crew habit (e.g. Wet workshop) in orbit? If so, than I would expect them to have ample of room. I am always amazed by how roomy Skylabs Dry workshop was compared to ISS or Mir. The advantage of having a Mun capable booster!
@@Tuning3434 Yes, we've gone backwards, in manned space, for so long we don't know what forward looks like anymore, but hopefully soon we will again!!
right, and all you Dem. space nuts (I was one in the Kennedy/ Johnson days) write to Nancy and tell her to fund NASA big time, no matter who gets the WH!! Good luck with that! LOL ;D
That was amazingly awesome. Good choice on the music, too!
I have gone through the original document used to propose the mission. What they had in mind was mind blowing. This is a close representation of that mission. What source(s) did you use?
Several, including the proposed plan and other feasibility studies. The only thing that may not be super accurate are the probes. Took some liberties there.
@@kevincgustafson From the main diagram I have of that mission proposal, the probes were more torpedo like so yeah on that. What I found fascinating was the proposal to use the solar panels around the S-IVB stage as a micro meteoroid shield instead of the skylab style that you displayed in your animation.
It would be interesting to speculate on who would crew such a mission. Likely veteran commanders of the Apollo moon missions, but which three would you choose? I have my favorites but they are not the "obvious ones". All but Shepard (Apollo 14) were pretty "young" when they went to the moon, mid to late thirties, and would be only in early 40's for this mission.
I would say Haise, Duke and Conrad if they were around.
@@jacko4932 yes, Pete Conrad would be on my "short" list for sure!
@@ronschlorff7089 Whoopy, that might have been a small one for Neil, rather large one for me!
@@Gallade082 yup, they were all cool cats but he was one of the coolest not to abort when lightning struck, and he saved the mission, as did "Beano" with his memory of Alt something to get back the computer right!! That's "Right Stuff" eh!! :D
@@ronschlorff7089 “Flight, Set SCE to AUX”
Awesome video, thanks for making this!
I'm absolutely in love with your channel. You deliver joy a lot like SpaceX: SpaceX gives us dreams of amazing things to come, and you give us dreams of amazing things that might have been. Thank you so much for everything you do, Kevin!
Could you do Apollo's rival known as the Lunex Project? The United States Air Force's idea to land a Spaceplane on the moon (which is likely to have led to a moon base plus more military presence in space)
LoneStarWolf Entertainment I built one on kerbal x if you’re interested
This "Space plane" would have to be a "tail sitter" unless some Space CBs bulldozed a landing strip in some dusty lunar surface? Then there's that pesky cosmic radiation, micro/macro meteors, and the vast difference between the "sweltering" Lunar day vs. the "deep freeze" Lunar night. It's not impossible, of course, but it will require long term logistical support from Earth, which means, "declare a victory and leave" Vietnam toot suite.
@@Otokichi786'Space CBs?' Call the Starfleet Corps of Engineers!
@@Otokichi786 "This space plane would have to be a tail-sitter unless some Space CBs bulldozed a landing strip..."
How would THAT help a space plane to land on the Moon (which has no atmosphere)?
@@MrJm323 exactly! Plus, the idea was that it was gonna land attached to a landing stage
Gravity assist from Venus sends you back into a higher orbit. A small course correction midway and you’re home. Imagine the science points we’d have gotten from that! ;)
Fun fact: The Saturn V rocket (the rocket we went with to the moon) was designed to go to Mars and not the moon.
It was designed to go to the moon :). It was just overpowered
It was designed for the moon yet is still more powerful than our mars rocket (SLS block I and II)
Actually sorry but block II is more capable than Saturn V. Saturn V payload includes injected mass which is the payload plus the massive upper stage. In reality it can haul around 122 tons and not 153. SLS is measured with pure payload which does not include the upper stage can put about 143 tons which is definitely an improvement.
@@rundownpear2601 the sls has more delta v i believe
Harlem 1312 yes it has a higher isp which gives it that boost over Saturn. I’m not sure if this measurement is using the EUS or the EDS.
This is superlative, educational, and expanding. Yeah, some bugs in the timeline/capabilities vis-a`vis human limitations, power/technology limitations . . . It's taking a real giant leap. I'm more curious what the technology would look like if it were mission oriented towards Venus earlier. With a legitimate target and time-frame I'm certain a more "probable" vehicle design would be generated consisting of some sort of space for conditioning and foodstuffs.
And perhaps generating the 1st of a series of interplanetary satellite deliveries. Hmmmm? Eye's 'n Ear's, kids.
I like this timeline.
Nice work! Really cool stuff.
Though I'm skeptical if this would have worked in real life, since the astronauts would be stuck in such a small space for such a long time, even if you repurpose the 3rd stage fuel tank for living space. It's not too hard to imagine them going insane or at least having psychological issues.
I'm not sure your skepticism is still warranted after yearlong stays in orbit have been tested and achieved. Let's give our fellow humans some credit!
Yes, but the ISS had fresh foods and resupply while this mission would not. Also on the ISS, crews come and go while in this mission three (presumed) astronauts would be stuck together for the whole duration. They probably wouldn't have training equipment as well since effects of long term exposure to micro gravity wasn't known at the time.
I'm sure with current understanding and tech, we can do much more than this!
ebigunso The standing record for an astronaut is over 400 consecutive days in space. Quite a few others have over 300 too.
ebigunso
The IIS crew also has access to huge amounts of music and video entertainment.
Kevin Gustafson No, they haven’t, you missed his point and were condescending about it. Living in the cramped Apollo capsule for a year didn’t happen, because it would be impossible.
Interesting....when I was a kid they thought Venus was earth's twin until they sent unmanned probes there...The 3rd stage became the long lasting Skylab missions.
But we can make it earth twin!
@@mautun3830 94 bar, 740K, and a dry, solid surface is a lot easier....
@@mautun3830 we have landed probes on venus and gathered altimetry data tho, it's solid
@@mautun3830 due to high atmospheric acidity and just regular high temperatures. While Venus surface temperatures can melt lead, rock is much harder to melt, and satellite altimetry proves there is a solid ground somewhere down there
@@bee5440 we even have pictures of it’s surface, which makes it pretty damn clear there’s a surface there
Great stuff!
I wonder how bad the food would've been on that mission?
Grade A NASA food!
Jeff Vader, or what our guys in the military eat nowadays (MREs). However with the larger space, they could have more choices as opposed to the "Soup-in-a-Bag" menu used on the lunar missions.
That wet workshop was essentially skylab...Skylab had the best food of any space station ever...They had better food on skylab in the early 70s, then they do now on the International space station
It would be "adequate" for their energy and nutrition needs. They would not be going into space for the "haute cuisine"!! Jeeeezuuuz!!
Freeze Dried Ice Cream. My favorite! Eat up boys
5:05 What's the name of the song?
This mission wasn't an option for NASA, since it was incredibly risky.
But there was somebody who could do it - the Soviets.
They desperately needed some PR points after the success of Apollo, and their own Moon landing programme wasn't anywhere near a landing by Apollo 11. However, a mission like this would be doable for them, and score them tons of PR, even if it didn't have much of a scientific value. They were fine with the risk on the Voskhods, this would likely also be acceptable for them.
It could follow this profile: A single N-1 lifts a L3 Blok G translunar stage, a power/comms/coolant/maneuvering service module, some scientific instruments that fit in and a transit habitat for 2. Then, a Soyuz launched on R-7 joins that in orbit. Once that is done, the Blok G would push the craft toward Venus. The split profile allows for launching the N-1 without man-rating it, and for a slightly bigger payload to Venus.
This would prompt the US to better fund NASA, maybe even get them the two-stage fully-reusable winged flyback Space Shuttle they wanted.
Nobody could have lasted more than a year is such a tiny spacecraft. The crew would have become mad.
They would’ve had the S-IVB fuel tank set up as a wet workshop habitat once it was drained of fuel.
Awesome video! I know you did this a while ago but I'm actually trying to replicate this mission myself but its a little challenging to find the trajectory with Principia haha.
Although I wish we had a strong follow up on Apollo like in TV series "For all mankind", I do believe that what we ultimately had was necessary for the future. Space race, moon landing were only hip stuff for the majority of the people in the 60's. Young generations were impacted though, it is possible, and we could go further if we decide to do it.
Space went from Pulp scifi to a known territory in 3 decades. The last two decades we saw a growing interest in space once again and I'm happy to see it unfold in my lifetime. It's not about going fast but steadily.
Apollo venus would have been an impressive feat for 70's technology but we didn't know about long trip in microgravity and radiation shelting. A lot of unknowns that would have had a strong public backlash if failures occurred.
Great job
Interesting to think of the weight limits applied to entertainment, would be/are irrelevant in today's age of digital entertainment. By that I mean, that 2kg of movies, 1.5kg of music, 1kg of games (that's a lot of Monopoly...dunno how rage quitting that would work in space), and 9kg of reading material, would all be replaced...plus even more added, with a single 3kg laptop, or a laptop per crew member with their preferred media choices. As for the radiation issue, that's one of the larger concerns of a manned Mars mission and certainly a priority today, same goes for any long term manned station on another world in our solar system.
Music in video please? The link no longer works.
Technically, the AAP never considered a Venus landing, only a flyby. A landing would be certain death even with today’s tech. (Although the upper atmosphere is the closest thing to earthlike conditions you can get) Not to mention it would take several rocket launches to get a Venus orbital rocket to space.
Easy just use 1 untitled space craft
beautifully done
Is that Apollo block III or IV CSM?
It is closest to IV CSM.
That's very nice! I love it when people recreate these proposed Apollo missions, just imagine if instead of the shuttle, we continued Apollo as the soviets continued their Soyuz.
Exactly! What a bad decision. Thanks Congress!
It's quite sad, when NASA started working on shuttle Wernher von Braun quit NASA, now we need him more than ever but its too late.
And Elon Musk is not Van Braun
lol amazing Greetings from Colombia
Mucho gusto!
hey can you maybe do a video about MAVR-TMK? It was supposed to be a manned soviet mission to flyby Mars and Venus so i think it would be preety cool if you did it :)
I can try something like that, there aren't any models of that as far as I know, so it may take some doing, but I'll do the necessary research and see what I can devise. Stay tuned.
nice, i am looking forward to the video. Good luck ;)
I have a missions proposals:
-Constellation Moon mission
-Exploration Mission 11(NASA proposal for manned orbital Mars mission
-Mars Base Camp
-SpaceX Mars mission
-SpaceX Moon mission.
Will look into it
@@kevincgustafson Yes, this was quite possible, due to availability of hardware; Russia had none of that ready to go then (1973)! So it would be Fantasy Land, in Disneyland!
We have already sent probes to Venus. What would be the advantage of sending humans simply to orbit it?
What would happen to the third stage/crew habitation module?
Either re-entry disposal or it would go into a solar orbit
Very good work
Nice work 👍🏼
This is the best rated video I have ever seen, 100% of people who voted on it liked it
It's early, but here's hoping!
1 dislike D:
Simply Amazing
What song is playing @ 5:03 ?
Awesome!
Takes the V in Saturn V to a whole new level
V+
Ok so if we had managed to do this, they might not have decided to scrap the NERVA. This would in turn make interplanetary travel easier, leading to more research done, likely leading to better nuclear engines. Also the S4B or SIVB or however they wrote it on paper, could have been lined with the radiation shielding for the mission, making it not just an extension of habitable space in the craft, but a necessity that when they aren't directly piloting the ship, they need to be in there.
I hope For all Mankind pick this up on their 5th season ^^
a single mission would cost $462,748,358 at the cheapest.
Absolutely stunning mate! So some questions about the mission. Was the CSM using 2 AJ10s and why? Also what was the modified S IV B up to? Was it just for extra resources like O2 and electricity or was there extra crew space for the nearly 1 year long trip? Again thank you!
Upon completion of trans-venusian injection the S-IVB has its fuel removed and is repurposed as a habitation module.
Very Impressive Flight and Put together very Professional Most dont realize how difficult editing this much Computer Generated Original Material is and you pulled it off without a hitch. Excellent GO FEVER
Wow...i'm impressed...that's a lot where i come from.
Me wondering how the same Saturn V that barely made it to the moon suddenly had the delta v to make it to Venus
Hey man! Great video! How did you get the free return trajectory back to earth? I would love to do this mission in my RP0 install but I can't get the trajectory right
It took me forever to set the mid-course correction to give me the right angle. All I can say it trial and error, trial and error. When at first you don't succeed...try, try again.
Kevin Gustafson Haha, got ya. Thanks :)
IIRC it was something around 3200
What in heck should have been the sense in a manned Venus flyby? Unmanned probes can go there, stay in Orbit and gain data at a fraction of the cost.
They would do it to rub it in the soviets' faces.
Started the roll program before clearing the tower
Ha I noticed that too.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't they leave the s-IVb stage in orbit, for the next Apollo-Venus mission?
No, 1) they didn't get into orbit around Venus, just a fly-by. 2) They used the SVI-B as a wet workshop, giving them the space equivalent to what Skylab had, and 3) they didn't get into Earth orbit on the way back but rather a straight re-entry. There is no orbit, beside sun orbit, that they could have left it in, I'm afraid.
You even made the csm double engine
Kind of late but what velocity were you traveling when you entered earths sphere of influence?
I'll have to check that and let you know
А есть видео про восход 2?
Great work in many ways, but the issue of 400 days in 0-gravity isn't dealt with in this. Nor is the solar and cosmic radiation. Those would have precluded sending people to Venus.
Wonderful video! By the way that cloud settings make Venus that color and appearance different?
A well done presentation I must say, but highly improbable on several levels.
The idea of using an Apollo CSM on an interplanetary mission would hardly be suitable, even with a mission mission module attached, which looks like a modified CM.
Astronaut Ken Mattingly flew on Apollo 16 as the CMP, and spent 12 days in the CM.During the latter part of theflight, he commented that the Apollo CM was fine for a lunar mission, but for anything longer, they would have to develop something better, as in larger.
I cannot imagine a crew that would want to spend 5 plus months in what would be basically two Apollo command modules docked nose to nose.
The SIV-B is multi purpose, but how would it be possible for it to be both a booster stage and a mission module?
The service module is obviously upgraded and would be larger as well as much heavier.
Could the Saturn V handle such a heavy load? Much to consider.
Also, why would transition and docking take place prior to the injection burn?
Why subject the crew to the retrograde forces unnecessarily?
The SVIB is a wet workshop as it describes in the text.
As soon as they finished the transfer burn, they would have vented the S-IVB hydrogen tank and used it for living space. They'd have used the smaller oxygen tank to store waste, garbage, and possibly spare parts. The mission module you see up front is mostly just temporary storage for all the hardware, amenities, exercise equipment, and consumables they would be moving into the much larger fuel tank on the first two days of the mission. Skylab was originally going to be built the same way, but it turned out to be unnecessary because Skylab wasn't going to Venus and the S-II second stage was powerful enough to lift the whole assembly into an acceptable Earth orbit.
The upgraded service module uses a pair of LM descent engines, which were considered the most reliable of Apollo legacy engines by engineers. The entire LM, including the ascent module, had weighed less than the Apollo command module - so the new service module is probably lighter than the one flown on lunar missions. The engines are angled to push directly though the spacecraft's center of mass; that way you have redundancy because there is no torque to steer the craft off course if only one engine is working.
As for doing the transposition and docking first, that's so that they could do any necessary checks or fixes on the wet workshop _BEFORE_ they committed to the interplanetary transfer. Even the old CSM with its oversized Service Propulsion System could only abort the S-IVB's trans-lunar injection burn within the first couple of days, and it would really, really suck to find out the habitat wasn't going to keep you alive when you were already past the point of no return. The S-IVB doesn't have a 1:1 TWR anyway, so being gently pulled out of your seat by negative g-forces is probably a small price to pay.
I wonder if this mission is what inspired the song The Final Countdown.
Super video! Thank you! What version of KSP was used?
1.1.3
It's a nice "what if". How could they carry enough supplies to make the mission work? Let's ignore the radiation issue, how about just being able to live and breathe?
How many in the crew? I don't see them sending any more than 2, a solo mission would be better IF you could be sure the astronaut wouldn't go nuts due to psychological problems caused by prolonged isolation.
@@robertf3479 3 guys I think was the plan.
How do you get those camera angles
Camera tools - spacedock.info/mod/274/Camera%20Tools
Stephen King actually described a very similar mission (American Fly-by around Venus) in his 1971 story "I Am The Doorway".
They would probably use Werner von Brauns Ferry Rocket (basicly a plane ontop of a big ass rocket) because Venus Atmosphere is so thick you could just use a plane with a shifted wing attack angle to enter Venus with a micro injection burn. You would need to build the entire plane out of PVC and Graphene coating though. and with that I'm including the Engine Bell and plumbing. So you would basicly be flying a super dense and floppy paperplane through hurricanes of sulfuric acid vapor.
If you could do one of Von Braun's Mars missions that would be amazing
I think I saw one similar to this that was an Orion vehicle, in the 60's, that was nuclear bomb powered. Very impressive too!
Wasnt there a similar mission proposal that would have the ship flyby Venus, then Mars, then return to earth after about 400 days?
Hmm, 31 October, 1973 to 1 December, 1974. Knowing what we know about the body's breakdown in microgravity conditions, would there be anyone left alive to recover? Unless NASA knew something about the atmospheric conditions on Venus, would that probe land successfully, let alone transmit any data? Also, how long would the signal delay between the NASA and the Apollo module by the time they were ready to "skim by Venus"?
1973/74 would certainly have been to early. But with the knowledge from the Skylab missions, they could have developed the required systems soon. I think, after a 4th Syklab mission of about 6 months for testing it all, the Venus mission could have been around 1978/79.
Nice to think it could have happened. Or the fantasy of more support for manned space flight anyway.
What a cool video ! Hope i will be able to do the same with duna.
Greetings from France
Bonjour et bienvenue mon amis!
If. Only.
Why does the SM have 2 nozzles instead of one?
It uses 2 LEM engines, in case one failed
I assume the habitat module remains in the medium earth orbit for the next mission to dock？Cuz it’d be a waste if we just leave it there as a debris 😂
What version of the game is this?
All the way back to 1.1.3
Just Wow!
Is there a way to get ahold of you outside of YT? Maybe on the KSP/RSS/RO discord?
Not really, you can send me an email. Kevincgustafson@gmail.com
Ooer, and no one to pick them up after they splashed down....
Nice video, but I’m not sure on the real life feasibility. The astronauts would be stuck in a space just a little bigger that Skylab, but for years. Instead, it would be more worth it to pack giant probes and other science equipment, instead of the expensive weight penalties of housing humans.
The corollary to the old phrase "No bucks, no Buck Rogers"... is "No Buck Rogers, no bucks!"
Which is another way of saying, we can get funding for a manned mission, can we get any funding for any unmanned missions? In 1970, they did NOT think they could.Llater they found out they could get some , and found a way to get the planets explored on the cheap.
@@stevevernon1978 A billion dollars goes a long way for robotic missions, because space probes and their instruments are built by research universities with scores of enthusiastic graduate students who'll basically work for free as long as you pay their tuition, rent, and groceries. The defense contractors building our launch vehicles and manned spacecraft don't have that luxury.
what the specs of your pc
i7-3770 3.4 Ghz, 16 gb ram, Radeon RX480
Kevin Gustafson thanks. do you thing 16 gb ram i5 7500 and gtx 1050 ti can run it this @30-60 fps?
May dip below 30 in atmosphere bit generally yeah. What gpu?
Kevin Gustafson 1050 ti low profile
I think it should work
i guess after you discard the S-IVB, it will remain in a solar orbit, orbiting the sun forever i guess.
They did this! After the TLI burns for Apollo 8-12 the discarded stages where sent into heliocentric orbits. In fact Apollo 12's S IV B was temporarily recaptured by Earth in 2002 and reentered a heliocentric orbit in 2003. Oh an the accent stage for Apollo 10's LM "Snoopy" is out there around the Sun too.
You could also hold onto it longer so it burns up in the atmosphere for disposal, but I like the idea of turning it into an artifact.
I wonder if we can laser the atmosphere off of Venus over a few thousand years. Aim the beam at the edge, excite the topmost particles so they have the energy to escape and then spiral in towards the sun.
anony mous I mean, the suns been doing it for a few billion years and so far no dice on that front, I doubt we humans could really make much difference
so fucking good
:)
I doubt if the astronauts could survive over a year of exposure to harsh radiation
13:01 they melted to death THE END.
That was a probe, not a manned capsule.
Oliver Mason oh.
Ha ha
I doubt they would've survived the cosmic radiation exposure
I think there was a very slight error. I thought they preform a controlled reentry, not a ballistic reentry. Still amazing video
I'm new to this Channel. I've been binge-watching it all weekend! I dig the Science mixed with the "Thundercats Are Go!", neo-Claymation stop-action kinda styleee. Your anime astronauts are awesome too! One thing about your clips, how come you don't incorporate more cosmological data and history? I get that this is modeling the more technical aspects of these Mission but surely you have some space to mention that our little sister, Venus, is the only Planet in our entire Solar System that spins clockwise on its axis. As a mater of fact, its the only Planet in the Universe that is currently known to us that does so! Also, it does so at a rate so s l o w l y that one day on Venus is equivalent to one month here on Earth! fureelz! Did you also happen to know that many Cosmologists are embracing the hypothesis first put forth in 1950 by Einstein collaborator, Immanuel Velikovsky. He posits that Venus is a now cooling Comet that was captured by our Sun about 4000 years ago! Nope. I swear. Look it up. so anyway, my point is that there's allot more to Outer Space than the weights and measures.
The film style and anime astronauts are because this is footage from a game called Kerbal Space Program, granted he's running it with a lot of mods.
They would be dead by the time they get there, I mean really where would they store all the food.
Это шедевр!!!
спасибо!
Kevin Gustafson , вы можете дать ссылку на модификацию? Очень хочу попробовать.
In real life the astronauts would have had massive health issues due to lack of gravity and solar radiation, they would have probably died.
good.