I had forgotten about this channel until recently. I'm glad you all like this video. If you'd like to see more, be sure to check out the channel I run now: Orbital Velocity. :) th-cam.com/users/OrbitalvelocityISS
To 'Wild Boar': Neither stainless steel nor titanium would survive interplanetary reentry without becoming too heavy. Heat shields of that type are usually made to ablate during reentry, carrying away the heat. The PICA and PICA-X heat shields for example are made of carbon fiber impregnated in phenolic resin.
I love the fact that there's an International Outer Space Treaty signed (although, not necessarily ratified) by nearly every country in the World, including it's Superpowers (USA, China, Russia).That being said, no country can claim any planetary or asteroid body for their own, it's all International territory. "To Infinity, and beyond!"
@quto01 This good man is "Conquest of Paradise", the soundtrack of the movie Colombus for the colonisation of the New World. Written by GREEK composer and musical genius Vangelis Papathanasiou, this piece has become a symbol of exploration, voyages into the unknown and great undertakings. Long live the Greek soul!
@aturayd You are correct, being able to land and do useful work is the point of the trip. One thing to consider, if we have a base on Mars, it will be some time before its self sufficient, so regular resupply trips are essential. The colonist may not be able to wait 6 months for supplies and also zero g weakens the body, the less time you spend in it, the better. Do a search for NAUTILUS, it a space ship with a wheel for artificial gravity.
3 Falcon heavies are enough to lift up the ship that was supposed to be used in the Constellation program to go to Mars... + 4 more Falcons for the 2 landers + engine sections.
@nesokretep -- I understand your point about the increasing diffulty of landing with the help of parachutes when payloads get heavy. However, I don't think the chutes will have any difficulty of taking the weight of the lander on mars, so it is just a matter of being able to make them large enough. Hopefully that can be done. Otherwise another breaking method will certainly be found. I do share Corinthian404's frustration that it all takes longer than necessary.
Lithium and Oxygen were the first 2 fusion-products that came to mind after Helium, that's why I used them :P They call it empty because it's virtually empty. Matter is made mostly of empty space. What you refer to is called a Bussard ramjet: A magnetic funnel collects hydrogen as the ship moves along, which then fuels a fusion engine.
I know they weren't building it, it was mostly in the conceptual phase. It was part of the constellation program however. 2 Mars landers, one of them a crewlander/hab, one a mars ascent vehicle, both of them with a nuclear thermal rocket stage, the crew lander would remain in orbit, the MAV would land. 2 years later, the crewed ship, consisting of an NTR module, a fuel tank for the trip to mars that is jettisoned before departing Mars, and a crew module consisting of a inflatable hab + orion.
I have a question: I'm guessing you guys have sophisticated equipment at your disposal, after all you send probes all over our Solar System, but you can only manage 480p video quality??? AMAZING!
I agree, I follow Mars One, and I think that it is a very good plan. I'm applying for the astronaut program when the applications come out this summer.
Do you know what the Copernicus from the Constellation Program looked like? It was 3 segments, one had engines and a fuel tank, one was a truss with a fuel tank and communication dishes, and the other was a Hab with 2 docking ports, solar arrays, an orion capsule and storage compartments. Later a normal Falcon 9 could bring up the crew.
For raw materials, mining asteroids might make more sense, since it takes next to no deltaV to take off from one, and many are easier to reach than the Moon. But I agree: Metallurgy is likely to be(come) Mars' main industry. Along with perhaps extreme sport-tourism.
(cont.) The crew gets to Mars in that ship, called Copernicus, and transfers to the orbitting lander using an orion capsule. And land. Then, when Earth and Mars are in an alignment that allows the transfer from Mars to Earth they return from Mars to the ship with the MAV and fly home. They then land with the Orion capsule that was used to transfer them to the lander.
@cipihevent When I was a kid in the 80´s I used to think that by the year 2010 we will have Colonies on Mars. They always say in the next 20 years we will be on Mars....so sad but I hope that in the next 20 years....
Considering you can have 15 falcon Heavy launches for the cost of one Shuttle launch and perhaps 45+ Falcon Heavy launches for an SLS launch. Quantity of launches is not an issue. Basically, 2 launches is the same weight as SLS.
@SternMann93 I believe space travel is much like the first voyages to america...costs of millions of dollars, taking months of risky travel across a large distance just to find whats there, ok, maybe thats not the reason why... but you can see the similarity?
@Marci124 YES! 3:32 Triumph of science! I hope I live to see it... By the year 2025, we choose to put a solar powered garden light on mars- not because these things are easy, but because they are hard.
For those who don't understand. The lack of oxygen on Mars will make certain processes so much cheaper that it might become profitable to import these products from mars. Superb cast metals like iron and titanium being the most obvious. Next stop Titan. Sending autonomous robotic harvesters from mars for example.Methane is quite handy for further expansion as well.(2)
Parachutes are used to slow down the descent; final landing is done with thrusters. Radiation is a hazard we can deal with - all you need to do is to properly shield the habitable section of the ship. Also, a new tech. is being developed that will use artificial magnetic fields to reduce the amount of charched particles reaching the ship. A mission to Mars is doable with present-day or near-future technology. All we need is money and a political leadership willing to commit itself to this goal.
Nice video. I believe that a single lift, aka SLS, is a very expensive, prolonging, and unpractical way way to go to Mars that may prevent us from ever going. I would also mean we actually would be taking less. I think several low cost launches AKA Falcon Heavy and building a Mars transportation system is the way to go. The system could be much bigger, happen faster, it would be affordable, it would work.
Indirectly. On Earth, we have a magnetic field due to convection in the inner mantle and outter core, the heat for it is provided by pressure and to a much larger part, decay of radioactive materials, mostly uranium and plutonium.
@jplengineer07 I've read up on Mars Direct only a very small amount, but from what I've read, I doesn't look like it includes the VASIMR drives. I think those are vital for decreasing exposure to cosmic rays, and 39 days - artificial gravity may not even be needed. Has the Mars Society made a sort of "updated" version of Mars Direct including VASIMR drives? Sure Mars Direct is possible RIGHT NOW, but IMO, by the time we go to Mars, VASIMR will be ready. It'll be sooner than other tech, anyways
@nesokretep Landing the way as shown in this video has been done before (not sure but I think it was firstly done by the Viking lander). This video is in accordance with the suggestions made by The Mars Society. It is a thougt-through concept. and one of the cheapest ways of getting to mars.
@unclefixer actually, getting there any faster than 180 days isnt that helpful, as that is the necessary time frame for a free return trajectory. If we had propulsion of that variety or nuclear thermal rockets, we would use it to bring more to the martian surface instead of getting there faster.
@Topaz997235 An atmosphere does exist on mars but the parachutes would have to be way bigger than ones used on earth maybes even 10 times bigger than what is used on earth.
Cooked up? Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc.) by the number of launches. With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program.
I think the first explorers to Mars need to be willing to stay there for decades or more... we would save a HUGE amount of R&D (not to mention lift weight) by not having to put a worthless return vehicle on there. Send multiple flight teams (5 teams of 5, 25 total explorers)... land them within a 100km radius of some central point, and just have them live there and wait for the cavalry down the road
The belief in God will stand the test of time, will humanity be so lucky? If there is indeed an almighty god he resides in each of us and we are responsible for the goals we set and the tasks we accomplish along the way on our path. If we have to deviate from that path and return at some later point let us remember that it is not god, not mythical beliefs or superstition that drives us ever forward but our eternal belief in the human spirit and if it seems magical so be it! Great video and music
I don't think you are the only you knew how much you mean to you your a fan since I yu have to go back and I don't think that I have a great way of the day before I get a follow back on my way home from work to be the first half of the day before
And there is likely also bauxite - Aluminium ore, Titanium Dioxide, a good source of Titanium, and lots of other ores too. Hell, the Surface is covered in dust composed of Iron oxides.
Empty space contains 99% Hydrogen, >1% Helium, and the rest is heavier elements like lithium, oxygen, etc. And there is about 1 atom per cubic meter in interplanetary space.
It was, prior to the signing of the International Space Treaty. But, politically speaking, it is in fact considered international territory to its signators.
This is cool! It is interesting very much. If we want to build city on the mars, it will be necessary to build many Greenhouses. It will demand many cargoes with ground, seeds and fertilizers. And also be required strong and easy plastic for domes of greenhouses. Greater ships are necessary for delivery of all of it to Mars. It is More, than are shown in video. The source of water on Mars is necessary. It will demand the mountain equipment. It will demand greater ships and rockets (such as energy or saturn 5).
This is a just a system that will carry the first humans to Mars. These missions will teach us how to live on Mars, and after that, more rockets will follow it. We dont need to carry everything we need on Mars to Mars. We can just bring machines that will make the things we will need on Mars. There is water on Mars, iron in the soil, carbon and nitrogen in the atmosphere. We can mine these minerals and use them instead of bringing them from Earth.
Actually, you would only have to bring in seeds. You can extract water from the permafrost under the surface, and then do hydroponic farming. Later on you can start with proper farming.
Mining asteroids has one major setback. There is no gravity and thus there is no way to be able to dig without a solution to secure your equipment to the surface.
4: Low gravity and lack of magnetic field. The solar wind slowly errodes the Martian atmosphere, and also Mars can't hold an atmosphere quite as well as Earth due to its low gravity.
1: Yes and now. You can train yourself to live in low pressure environments, and some people are genetically predisposed to be able to better live in high altitude. But Mars is unsurvivable. You need a space suit, to protect from radiation, and the cold. 2: Hmm...There is barely any free oxygen, so it wouldn't help too much. 3: First CO2 level needs to go up, to heat the planet and release more CO2 from the soil, then you can use plants to convert the CO2 to Oxygen.
MarsOne is far, far more likely to happen than NASA going to Mars, because NASA always comes up with ridiculously complex mission plans that include the construction of a huge ship in orbit to go there.
@MrBubonicChronic Why? Why is it too early? Its exactly that prevailing thought which is keeping humans from going to mars. We could have been to mars 20 years ago had we pursued it instead of the space shuttle.
Actually it is not the lowest possible launch cost. According to SpaceX (and the amounts they have sold flights for), the published cost per launch (2012) $80-125M. We know that Shuttle was 1.5 billion p/launch. Since the average Falcon Heavy average cost is 102.5 million, that is about 15 launches for the price of one Shuttle launch. Falcon Heavy does have over DOUBLE Shuttles lifting power.
Shuttle is only 450 if someone donated the vehicle, launcher, SRB's and all the NASA employees worked Pro Bono. Here is how a private company works. You take Revenues-Expenses (with includes salaries, launch, and development) to get a profit or at least break even. The price of SpaceX vehicles account for that or they could not be in business. SpaceX publishes their prices because they want to sell their services.
But the lack of gravity makes it easier to get stuff off of the asteroid. You need I believe 2000m/s of deltaV to get from Mars' surface to a low orbit. You just need to push yourself off of an asteroid to get into its orbit. As for securing equipment, there's always good old fashioned harpoons and fishing nets. "Arrrr, let's fish us some roids me hearties!"
@unclefixer mars is not 0g. it is 0.6g or 60% earth gravity. that is sufficient to keep muscle degradation in check, especially if they are spending lots of time doing physical activity such as exploring the planet. Yes regular supply trips and changing people out will be essential probably for centuries, as even with a full fleged colony with thousands of people it will be beneficial for earth mars commerce.
The key to space travel is to find a faster way to get there. The vasimir rocket can get us there in 39 days that makes it possible to make two or more trips a year instead of every two years. Second we need a interplanetary space fleet, ie ships that all they do is travel from earth to other planets. They carry men, landing craft and supplies to establish bases. We would need a cheap way to get into space and a way to make money off of it and not depend on fickle politicians anymore.
@aturayd Mars is gravity is about 40% of earth not 60. Still it would be enough to prevent muscle atrophy and bone degradation. Why would you want to spend 6-9 months cooped up in a space ship, if you could get there faster. Also if you live on Mars for several years, you would get to the point you could not handle earth gravity. Still who would want to come back to earth, why not live the greatest adventure.
this is of course until someone finds something worth fighting over and or finds a way to take absolute control then its "see ya suckers" question is who will it be... psh humans stick to their "treaty"? only when it suits the moment >.>
To make this sale & cost effective the lander will need to be single staged & utilize thermal-nuclear rockets. This will keep it light enough to propel there & fuel can be 'breed' when needed. Chem propulsion associated with deep space travel is the physics equiv to racing a formula1 grand-prix vehicle fitted with the latest 'steam engine'. Granted that technology for steam engines today is a lot better than yester-year 'a steam engine is a steam engine & limited by it's very laws of physics!'
What you talking about is a case of by managment trying to make everyone happy; however, insted of the managment trying to make everyone happy, they should simply try and get the job done well. Also, congress caused some problems by demanding NASA buy specific equipment from specific comanpies.
![NASA Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity Rover) Mission Animation [HDx1280]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gwinFP8_qIM/mqdefault.jpg)
I had forgotten about this channel until recently. I'm glad you all like this video. If you'd like to see more, be sure to check out the channel I run now: Orbital Velocity.
:) th-cam.com/users/OrbitalvelocityISS
That had to be one of the most stunning cgi mars video that I have ever laid my eye's on..
Wow, it's been long since I've watched this video. I was like, err 7 or something?
To 'Wild Boar': Neither stainless steel nor titanium would survive interplanetary reentry without becoming too heavy. Heat shields of that type are usually made to ablate during reentry, carrying away the heat. The PICA and PICA-X heat shields for example are made of carbon fiber impregnated in phenolic resin.
I love the fact that there's an International Outer Space Treaty signed (although, not necessarily ratified) by nearly every country in the World, including it's Superpowers (USA, China, Russia).That being said, no country can claim any planetary or asteroid body for their own, it's all International territory. "To Infinity, and beyond!"
@quto01 This good man is "Conquest of Paradise", the soundtrack of the movie Colombus for the colonisation of the New World. Written by GREEK composer and musical genius Vangelis Papathanasiou, this piece has become a symbol of exploration, voyages into the unknown and great undertakings. Long live the Greek soul!
I hope I live long enough to see this become a reality!
@aturayd You are correct, being able to land and do useful work is the point of the trip. One thing to consider, if we have a base on Mars, it will be some time before its self sufficient, so regular resupply trips are essential. The colonist may not be able to wait 6 months for supplies and also zero g weakens the body, the less time you spend in it, the better. Do a search for NAUTILUS, it a space ship with a wheel for artificial gravity.
3 Falcon heavies are enough to lift up the ship that was supposed to be used in the Constellation program to go to Mars... + 4 more Falcons for the 2 landers + engine sections.
atlest bcuz of this music ..every one watches till end....awesome tone,,,touched ma heart...it feels as if i went to mars....:)
@nesokretep -- I understand your point about the increasing diffulty of landing with the help of parachutes when payloads get heavy. However, I don't think the chutes will have any difficulty of taking the weight of the lander on mars, so it is just a matter of being able to make them large enough. Hopefully that can be done. Otherwise another breaking method will certainly be found. I do share Corinthian404's frustration that it all takes longer than necessary.
Love the video. Just finished , for the millionth time, Mars underground. Great music btw
Lithium and Oxygen were the first 2 fusion-products that came to mind after Helium, that's why I used them :P
They call it empty because it's virtually empty. Matter is made mostly of empty space.
What you refer to is called a Bussard ramjet: A magnetic funnel collects hydrogen as the ship moves along, which then fuels a fusion engine.
I know they weren't building it, it was mostly in the conceptual phase.
It was part of the constellation program however. 2 Mars landers, one of them a crewlander/hab, one a mars ascent vehicle, both of them with a nuclear thermal rocket stage, the crew lander would remain in orbit, the MAV would land.
2 years later, the crewed ship, consisting of an NTR module, a fuel tank for the trip to mars that is jettisoned before departing Mars, and a crew module consisting of a inflatable hab + orion.
Very nicely done.
Excellent video.
As one people we need to take this step to establish viable colonies on Mars and the Moon.
I have a question: I'm guessing you guys have sophisticated equipment at your disposal, after all you send probes all over our Solar System, but you can only manage 480p video quality??? AMAZING!
I agree, I follow Mars One, and I think that it is a very good plan. I'm applying for the astronaut program when the applications come out this summer.
Do you know what the Copernicus from the Constellation Program looked like? It was 3 segments, one had engines and a fuel tank, one was a truss with a fuel tank and communication dishes, and the other was a Hab with 2 docking ports, solar arrays, an orion capsule and storage compartments. Later a normal Falcon 9 could bring up the crew.
For raw materials, mining asteroids might make more sense, since it takes next to no deltaV to take off from one, and many are easier to reach than the Moon. But I agree: Metallurgy is likely to be(come) Mars' main industry. Along with perhaps extreme sport-tourism.
Meraviglioso!!! mille grazie!!!
(cont.)
The crew gets to Mars in that ship, called Copernicus, and transfers to the orbitting lander using an orion capsule. And land. Then, when Earth and Mars are in an alignment that allows the transfer from Mars to Earth they return from Mars to the ship with the MAV and fly home. They then land with the Orion capsule that was used to transfer them to the lander.
@cipihevent When I was a kid in the 80´s I used to think that by the year 2010 we will have Colonies on Mars. They always say in the next 20 years we will be on Mars....so sad but I hope that in the next 20 years....
Considering you can have 15 falcon Heavy launches for the cost of one Shuttle launch and perhaps 45+ Falcon Heavy launches for an SLS launch. Quantity of launches is not an issue. Basically, 2 launches is the same weight as SLS.
@SternMann93 I believe space travel is much like the first voyages to america...costs of millions of dollars, taking months of risky travel across a large distance just to find whats there,
ok, maybe thats not the reason why...
but you can see the similarity?
@Topaz997235 there's alittle bit of air there so there's also wind
but anyways yeah there can do that even if there's no air
@Marci124 YES! 3:32 Triumph of science! I hope I live to see it... By the year 2025, we choose to put a solar powered garden light on mars- not because these things are easy, but because they are hard.
For those who don't understand. The lack of oxygen on Mars will make certain processes so much cheaper that it might become profitable to import these products from mars. Superb cast metals like iron and titanium being the most obvious. Next stop Titan. Sending autonomous robotic harvesters from mars for example.Methane is quite handy for further expansion as well.(2)
Parachutes are used to slow down the descent; final landing is done with thrusters.
Radiation is a hazard we can deal with - all you need to do is to properly shield the habitable section of the ship. Also, a new tech. is being developed that will use artificial magnetic fields to reduce the amount of charched particles reaching the ship. A mission to Mars is doable with present-day or near-future technology. All we need is money and a political leadership willing to commit itself to this goal.
brings tears to my eyes... :-)
@unclefixer i agree there need to be larger ships that stay in space used for interplanetary space travel
Nice video. I believe that a single lift, aka SLS, is a very expensive, prolonging, and unpractical way way to go to Mars that may prevent us from ever going. I would also mean we actually would be taking less. I think several low cost launches AKA Falcon Heavy and building a Mars transportation system is the way to go. The system could be much bigger, happen faster, it would be affordable, it would work.
Indirectly. On Earth, we have a magnetic field due to convection in the inner mantle and outter core, the heat for it is provided by pressure and to a much larger part, decay of radioactive materials, mostly uranium and plutonium.
@jplengineer07
I've read up on Mars Direct only a very small amount, but from what I've read, I doesn't look like it includes the VASIMR drives. I think those are vital for decreasing exposure to cosmic rays, and 39 days - artificial gravity may not even be needed.
Has the Mars Society made a sort of "updated" version of Mars Direct including VASIMR drives?
Sure Mars Direct is possible RIGHT NOW, but IMO, by the time we go to Mars, VASIMR will be ready. It'll be sooner than other tech, anyways
@nesokretep Landing the way as shown in this video has been done before (not sure but I think it was firstly done by the Viking lander). This video is in accordance with the suggestions made by The Mars Society. It is a thougt-through concept. and one of the cheapest ways of getting to mars.
@unclefixer actually, getting there any faster than 180 days isnt that helpful, as that is the necessary time frame for a free return trajectory. If we had propulsion of that variety or nuclear thermal rockets, we would use it to bring more to the martian surface instead of getting there faster.
It all starts with an idea.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
-Albert Einstein
@Topaz997235 An atmosphere does exist on mars but the parachutes would have to be way bigger than ones used on earth maybes even 10 times bigger than what is used on earth.
Cooked up? Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc.) by the number of launches. With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program.
Awesome! Go Zubrin!
It still has an atmosphere.....
I think the first explorers to Mars need to be willing to stay there for decades or more... we would save a HUGE amount of R&D (not to mention lift weight) by not having to put a worthless return vehicle on there. Send multiple flight teams (5 teams of 5, 25 total explorers)... land them within a 100km radius of some central point, and just have them live there and wait for the cavalry down the road
The belief in God will stand the test of time, will humanity be so lucky? If there is indeed an almighty god he resides in each of us and we are responsible for the goals we set and the tasks we accomplish along the way on our path. If we have to deviate from that path and return at some later point let us remember that it is not god, not mythical beliefs or superstition that drives us ever forward but our eternal belief in the human spirit and if it seems magical so be it! Great video and music
Beautiful! Get it done NASA! Get it done!!! Watch his video and make it happen!
Cool cool cool to see you at all times in a while and then you
I don't think you are the only you knew how much you mean to you your a fan since I yu have to go back and I don't think that I have a great way of the day before I get a follow back on my way home from work to be the first half of the day before
No? The vehicles launched at the beginning are Earth-Return Vehicles.
Mars-One is one way.
i love the music
Ángel
Russia music😉
It will happen believe this in time
The human's next extraordinary adventure
And there is likely also bauxite - Aluminium ore, Titanium Dioxide, a good source of Titanium, and lots of other ores too. Hell, the Surface is covered in dust composed of Iron oxides.
Let's go conquer Mars!!!
No I'm serious lets go.
Empty space contains 99% Hydrogen, >1% Helium, and the rest is heavier elements like lithium, oxygen, etc. And there is about 1 atom per cubic meter in interplanetary space.
It was, prior to the signing of the International Space Treaty. But, politically speaking, it is in fact considered international territory to its signators.
Sarebbe una vera figata :-)
MARS ONE mission is awesome!!!
This is cool! It is interesting very much. If we want to build city on the mars, it will be necessary to build many Greenhouses. It will demand many cargoes with ground, seeds and fertilizers. And also be required strong and easy plastic for domes of greenhouses. Greater ships are necessary for delivery of all of it to Mars. It is More, than are shown in video. The source of water on Mars is necessary. It will demand the mountain equipment. It will demand greater ships and rockets (such as energy or saturn 5).
This is a just a system that will carry the first humans to Mars. These missions will teach us how to live on Mars, and after that, more rockets will follow it. We dont need to carry everything we need on Mars to Mars. We can just bring machines that will make the things we will need on Mars. There is water on Mars, iron in the soil, carbon and nitrogen in the atmosphere. We can mine these minerals and use them instead of bringing them from Earth.
Actually, you would only have to bring in seeds. You can extract water from the permafrost under the surface, and then do hydroponic farming. Later on you can start with proper farming.
Mining asteroids has one major setback. There is no gravity and thus there is no way to be able to dig without a solution to secure your equipment to the surface.
i think it's a bit too early to be thinking of mars. we need to start localy. we have a perfectly good moon and various lagrange points.
4: Low gravity and lack of magnetic field. The solar wind slowly errodes the Martian atmosphere, and also Mars can't hold an atmosphere quite as well as Earth due to its low gravity.
@davissairgil lol the earth is dying 'soon' ?
What do you mean with 'soon' ?
great !
I SEARCHED 1 HOUR FOR THIS VIDEO
is it powerful enough to project them upwards?
1: Yes and now. You can train yourself to live in low pressure environments, and some people are genetically predisposed to be able to better live in high altitude. But Mars is unsurvivable. You need a space suit, to protect from radiation, and the cold.
2: Hmm...There is barely any free oxygen, so it wouldn't help too much.
3: First CO2 level needs to go up, to heat the planet and release more CO2 from the soil, then you can use plants to convert the CO2 to Oxygen.
what I hate about the space race,is that it is a race.Things will be overlooked when competing
MarsOne is far, far more likely to happen than NASA going to Mars, because NASA always comes up with ridiculously complex mission plans that include the construction of a huge ship in orbit to go there.
What rocket is that? Cuz it sure ain’t ares v
@MrBubonicChronic Why? Why is it too early? Its exactly that prevailing thought which is keeping humans from going to mars. We could have been to mars 20 years ago had we pursued it instead of the space shuttle.
@Villymayn space exploration will more than likely result in many wars. not that i'm against space exploration, it's just inevitable
Actually it is not the lowest possible launch cost. According to SpaceX (and the amounts they have sold flights for), the published cost per launch (2012) $80-125M. We know that Shuttle was 1.5 billion p/launch. Since the average Falcon Heavy average cost is 102.5 million, that is about 15 launches for the price of one Shuttle launch. Falcon Heavy does have over DOUBLE Shuttles lifting power.
minute 1:52,just make me cry, i dont know why
Shuttle is only 450 if someone donated the vehicle, launcher, SRB's and all the NASA employees worked Pro Bono. Here is how a private company works. You take Revenues-Expenses (with includes salaries, launch, and development) to get a profit or at least break even. The price of SpaceX vehicles account for that or they could not be in business. SpaceX publishes their prices because they want to sell their services.
under whose banner though?
1 "wise guy" wouldn't have left Europe in 1492 and holds no hope for the future of humanity.
But the lack of gravity makes it easier to get stuff off of the asteroid. You need I believe 2000m/s of deltaV to get from Mars' surface to a low orbit. You just need to push yourself off of an asteroid to get into its orbit. As for securing equipment, there's always good old fashioned harpoons and fishing nets.
"Arrrr, let's fish us some roids me hearties!"
@unclefixer mars is not 0g. it is 0.6g or 60% earth gravity. that is sufficient to keep muscle degradation in check, especially if they are spending lots of time doing physical activity such as exploring the planet. Yes regular supply trips and changing people out will be essential probably for centuries, as even with a full fleged colony with thousands of people it will be beneficial for earth mars commerce.
dose uranium effect magnetic fields
Exactly. Which is why NASA will most likely never land astronauts on Mars.
Where we would be now if Apollo had not been cancelled.
can please someone tell me the name of this music ? thanks
In a few seconds probably, because we'd freeze, and all air gets sucked out, blood boils, etc.
The key to space travel is to find a faster way to get there. The vasimir rocket can get us there in 39 days that makes it possible to make two or more trips a year instead of every two years. Second we need a interplanetary space fleet, ie ships that all they do is travel from earth to other planets. They carry men, landing craft and supplies to establish bases. We would need a cheap way to get into space and a way to make money off of it and not depend on fickle politicians anymore.
wait a moment....about the music....the music that I heard is made by Vangelis...of the soundtrack 1492 .......
@aturayd Mars is gravity is about 40% of earth not 60. Still it would be enough to prevent muscle atrophy and bone degradation. Why would you want to spend 6-9 months cooped up in a space ship, if you could get there faster. Also if you live on Mars for several years, you would get to the point you could not handle earth gravity. Still who would want to come back to earth, why not live the greatest adventure.
Spirit/ Opportunity in 3:28- 3:38?
@unclefixer If i will ever get the sheer up to a mil, that's where its gonna go.
Conquest of Paradise by Vangelis.
@davissairgil In billions of years from now. You know, thousands of millions?
ONE SLS launch may cost as much as 45 Falcon Heavy launches (hint: That's too expensive).
Yes we can if the nations work together :)
the martians are like, aw fuck, this may be a problem....
@zethist Ha! Being so young probably means you'll have a good shot to be one of the first people!
Your lungs would collapse, due to the pressure in your chest cavity being waay higher than the pressure in your lungs, and the atmosphere around.
Yes. You don't need a whole lot of fuel to get off Mars. 1/90th earth atmosphere, much less gravity...
this is of course until someone finds something worth fighting over and or finds a way to take absolute control then its "see ya suckers" question is who will it be... psh humans stick to their "treaty"? only when it suits the moment >.>
@Topaz997235 they have air, just not enough to breath
I love you😊
To make this sale & cost effective the lander will need to be single staged & utilize thermal-nuclear rockets. This will keep it light enough to propel there & fuel can be 'breed' when needed. Chem propulsion associated with deep space travel is the physics equiv to racing a formula1 grand-prix vehicle fitted with the latest 'steam engine'. Granted that technology for steam engines today is a lot better than yester-year 'a steam engine is a steam engine & limited by it's very laws of physics!'
what name of music?
What you talking about is a case of by managment trying to make everyone happy; however, insted of the managment trying to make everyone happy, they should simply try and get the job done well. Also, congress caused some problems by demanding NASA buy specific equipment from specific comanpies.
colonization of venus isnt all 2 far fetched either. about 100 years of wait and well be able to adjust the atmospheric conditions.