The disconnect this video has is astounding. Entire video praising Musk and then the insane meltdown over Musk buying Twitter 😂😂😂😂and yes obviously if you think Musk ruined Twitter that's because you were enjoying sensoring normal people and the republican party under the iron fist of woke ideology.
He will need to figure out the logistics on how to mine fuel and resources to manufacture stuff to expand the city and fully utilize the potential of the planet. Needs some extreme innovation to figure out how to manufacture a magnetic field through the planet so it can sustain an increased ozone layer. Don't care how smart Elon is but I believe these are problems that one genius should not be able to solve unless aging is cured.
That little dig didn't age well, did it. Lol. Musk himself has commented that he will not be going to Mars. He'll be too old for that. What he has been attempting to do(pretty successfully, so far.) Is create the tools and the economic incentive to do this. He has given the world the hardware to get there and make a go of it.
Thank you! I think that’s because they’re still working on a plan (as in, they don’t have one yet). They’re working on getting there for now. I think it’s still progress though. No plan doesn’t mean we can’t do it.
@drewfoust - the needed CO2 out of the Martian atmosphere, the needed H2O out of Martian water ice deposits. Recombind to CH4 (Methane) and O2 (Oxygen), which is what is needed to refuel Starship
@@drewfoust Since there's water on mars and Water consists hydrogen and oxygen, it can easily be split into two by Electrolys to then be used as fuel.
The two together are important. NASA is AT LEAST the part that convinces the government that these endeavors are worth chasing… even as wealthy as Elon is, he cannot fund this without convincing the public that our money should go towards it. Personally, I say YES! I would rather my money go towards this ideal than towards the kinds of lunacy we spend trillions on as it stands.
X Twitter is a perfect Xample of how a narcissistic Xtremist can destroy a company just to indulge his Xcessive ego. Financially X Twitter is Xcrement.
Elon. You will need people who are willing and able to go and have something to contribute. I have 2 MAs and ABD with a Doctorate. I'm smart. I'm 67. It's ok that I don't expect to survive long on the planet, or even the trip. Send us old folks up there, and give us the basic training we need to create a foundation for others to follow. Let us build a foundation for the younger people to live and work. This world doesn't value us much, but we can still give a lot for important things. That's it.
Excellent idea, Im a building engineer with an emphasis on air flow, positive and negative pressures and climate control within the buildings. Im sure I could be useful somewhere unless we are forced to live in space suits forever. Im ready and if we dont succeed, well then what better way to go.
This mode of thinking is what can make humans great. I know this is just a TH-cam comment and won't ever go anywhere but it's an amazing sentiment to see and it good to know there are people who have such noble intentions. Not many want to plant trees our great grand children will play under. Have a good one
Elon musk was my life standing hero ❤. Thank you for this comments that I would agreed also and willing to go on MARS if posible as a 25 year old man😍. I consider myself as a scientist, as a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture graduate and a License Agriculturist 🎉🎶
A billion is the most optimistic estimate, the more likely timeline is 500 million years until the sun has become hot enough to vaporize all liquid water on Earth's surface. So, as they used to say, smoke 'em if you've got 'em.
The mission to Mars will deploy at least two starships, tethered and rotating around a center of mass to simulate gravity for the trip, so we're talking about 200 tons at the least. Besides that, you send your cargo years ahead of time, so launch capacity per vehicle is less critical.
Funny: he must get his news from CNN. Twitter trounced Zuck's piece of shit, is running just as efficiently on 70% less staff, and has began to restore free speech. How that isn't "running Twitter" is beyond me.
That's exactly his point. If he can't do something that's been in trial and error for years now, how can we trust them to successfully CONTINUE the mission on mars? There's a LOT more to it than hiring scientists only to do this mission. You need all kinds of different specialties that people often don't thing of such as therapists, politicians, and other things that make the earth work to make this mission work.
@@boialkleptopod9165 Twitter was losing money for many years. Elon just bought it 9 months ago. He gutted it and is in the process of rebuilding it. Venture capitalists take years to restructure failing companies after they buy it. Elon has only owned it for 9 months and most vc takerovers are not as bad and toxic as Twitter. To make that comment means that neither you nor the author know anything about the process. As for Mars, no human has ever set foot on the planet. It's a massive undertaking with no previous blueprint for success. No one else on the planet is even remotely close to achieving what Elon has done with SpaceX. So, I think that the comparison is beyond ridiculous.
Haha, I guess that comparison might seem a bit like comparing apples to rocket engines! Running Twitter and creating a Mars colony are definitely on different ends of the cosmic scale. One involves virtual conversations in 280 characters, and the other involves launching rockets, building habitats, and sustaining life on another planet. But hey, in the realm of imagination, who knows what kind of cosmic connections we could make! 🚀🐦🪐
Would it make more sense to 'colonize' the moon first and use that as a staging point to launch material to Mars....? Certaainly I don't know. Seems like a neat idea.
Definitely. Growing up we camped in our backyard long before going out in the wilderness. I think they have tried two biodome-type environments on Earth and they both failed. I think they would learn a lot on the Moon. Look how much Elon has learned working and modifying rockets over the years. What makes them think they will get most of the kinks out before "living" on Mars. Neil and Buzz were almost stranded on the moon because of 1 switch that somehow broke off needed to launch the return orbital capsule.
Mars seems so overly complicated, with transfer windows and stuff. Sure it probably uses more fuel to land on the moon, but it costs so much less to take off from the moon, and there is no atmosphere to completely destroy habitats with storms. Why don’t we go there?
It's a fuel topic: it takes much less fuel to start from the moon, but you can use the moon to re-fuel the rocket. This means you will land at Mars with additional fuel available. That is a HUGE advantage.
The Delta v to go to the moon is actually greater than that to go to Mars. Also the moon is tidally locked, whereas Mars has an approximately 24 hour day/night cycle. The moon is airless whereas Mars has a thin co2 atmosphere which can be used to produce oxygen, rocket fuel & co2 for plants. Therefore you could grow crops under cover on Mars without the need for bulky/expensive/power hungry hydroponic lamps etc., plus having to ship all the oxygen & co2 to the moon. The moon has a lot less gravity than Mars, making it difficult for people to live there compared to Mars. In short, Mars is a much better potential place to set up bases, live & work. The only thing the moon really has going for it is that it's only a few days flight away instead of several months. But Mars is an entire planet, whereas the moon is an airless, tidally locked satellite.
@@ZoeandZacsDad YTer is intentionally throwing shade. Does it often too. Maybe he's bitter he built a channel on someone that doesn't agree with his politics.
I have read the bible, the Quran, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Tibetan book of the Dead, The Book of Mormon, along with a many others and they all tell me they are right. So I ask you, what makes your book any more truthful than any of the others?
100%!!!! I’ve been working in the Aerospace industry for the past 18yrs and NASA don’t build anything, all they do is contract companies to get the job done while they clamp the results and since they are funding the research they get to keep the patents of the inventions… NASA is just a bank funding the projects haha
Nuclear thermal still requires massive amount of liquid fuel. A hybrid nuclear-powered ion/plasma engine would provide the necessary thrust and require less fuel. This concept requires these craft to stay in space thus requiring separate craft from surface to orbit and orbit to surface at each end of the trip. This therefore requires orbital "terminals/stations" for transfer of personnel, equipment, cargo, fuel, etc. between the separate craft. It's a matter of logistics and how to best address the needs. Alternatively, possibly a "frame" that would have six or more Starships docked into transport stations and then delivered to and from Mars with its own nuclear-powered ion/plasma drive. This would make the Starships themselves its cargo. Just an idea from an old, retired Industrial Design Engineer.
I have been hoping this would happen in the next, what 20 years or so? Or do you think in 10 years? I heard one of the major aerospace companies have a contract to build a nuclear thermal engine.
Agreed. The best spacecraft for transit between Earth and Mars should be built and left in orbit. These 'liners' should include rotating habitats to maintain gravity. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are the most compact and efficicient choice for power on Mars and in space.
I think your idea is great too. Might take maybe 10-15 years to really get Lunar or Mars mining going; some orbital factories and stations in space; appropriate communications and navigation technologies, standards, and rules. Nations, corporations, academia and non-profits (along with space police and militaries), etc. will want their own places and stuff. The road to Mars (and asteroids) will be paved with good intentions as usual. Intentions/purposes/policies will be more important; transport technologies - then like now with cars, boats, and planes - will be taken for granted.
You thought people might get angry at you for saying SpaceX needed NASA? Well, maybe, but it would more likely be for your hostile characterizations such as, "The lunatic genius of Space," and "The guy couldn't even make a social media company work. If Elon tries to make a Mars colony work the way he runs Twitter, a lot of people are gonna die." Certainly, there are people who agree with you but, given the mess at Twitter when he took it over, he has been making great changes that should make you eat your words. Just beware of uncritically buying into the anti-Elon narrative in the media.
Seriously? You are criticizing how Elon Musk runs Twitter? You mean not censoring his political opponents and allowing free speech and free thought on the platform? Wow.
Can’t happen in space. There’s nothing to react against. The nuclear power will be just a power source you need an electric engine for it to power. That’s why it works with subs, aircraft carriers and airplanes because they are each reacting against the air or water. In space to move something you need to expel mass.
No they’ll just send multiple starships up, probably 3 total, 1 just to refuel them after leaving the atmosphere since that uses 90% of the fuel, one to stay in orbit around mars as another fuel tanker and one to land and use its payload for astronauts shit yk
NASA’s timeline for putting boots on Mars is a decade (at least) behind SpaceX’s ambitious plans. I think that NASA, ESA, and others will end up purchasing seats on a SpaceX trip to Mars before NASA is ready with a mission of their own.
At leas NASA is realistic. Elon famously announced that in 2022 there would be several cargo ships landed on Mars in preparation for a manned landing in 2024, yo must agree with SpaceX there’s ALOT OF HYPE with little substance. In reality SpaceX hasn’t even managed a successful launch of their Mars capable vehicle
Artimis needs to be built first, NASA wants to test how human body's react outside of earths magnetic field before going out. Starship needs to go to mars first bringing in gear etc.... its going to be 10 years of sending shit to mars before boots on the ground.
Glad to hear the suggestion that NASA SpaceX collaboration would help avoid catastrophe. Charging ahead is important, but so are decades of scientific testing and results, they could really benefit from working together.
@@redharrison894 but on Mars, if you arrive with a few tons of material, you don't have the mining equipment, you don't have the processing equipment to make anything.
Saturn V could not put 50 metric tons to the surface of the moon, it could send about that amount towards the moon. The most part of that was the command and service module with its fuel. the lunar lander, LEM, weighted about 15,800 kg, mostly fuel, and had an insignificant amount of crew life support supplies compared to its weight. So it makes no sense to estimate the needs for a Mars trip based on the TLI mass of about 50 tons.
Nuclear engines are very heavy. The propellant is light and far more efficient, but the added weight of the nuclear reactor is a drawback. The empty weight of the ship is heavier, but the loaded weight with propellant is less. Also, nuclear reactors are very very temperamental to throttle controls. They don't like being off/on or quickly throttled.
If Nuclear engines are gunna be used they would have to leave them in space, starship would have to dock onto a drive system that would take it there then undock to go down to the planet.
There is a lot of half information here. Yes, NTP will make things Much better. But refuelling Starships in orbit will also allow for parabolic orbits to Mars, which will cut flight time from 6 (not 8) months and allow for flights more often than the 24 (or so) month window for the cheapest Hohmann transfer orbits. Colonizing Mars CAN be done, just like colonizing Australia could be and was done with similar transit times from Britain.
On Australia the people had oxygen to breath, had sources of fresh water, had wood to make houses and they had animals to eat and a non poisonous soil to plant crops and other food.
@@richard--s Yes, "colonization" does mean sourcing your water, air and most of your food from in situ resources. That's an engineering problem. There is water and the elements needed to grow food on Mars. That has nothing to do with transit times. That's why you need to send so much equipment, to use the resources.
@@digitalnomad9985 how do you get rid of the calcium perchlorates in the Martian soil, which is toxic to humans? Oh, and it's not just toxic when it's digested from vegetation grown in it but also when it's inhaled or through contact with a person's skin.
@@helmsleyy the dust on Mars is no better and we've already figured out how to get rid of it. It was so sticky because of static electricity. Which can be easily grounded and then brushed off.
While colonizing other planets sounds like a fun idea, in practice it really isn't practical. It would be better to make space colonies. Basically giant rings we could inhabit. They can hold their own atmosphere. We could move them anywhere we wanted. As well, it would make mining the vast and rich resources of the solar system much easier.
personally I think they should stop trying to send starship to mars and instead use it to carry the materials and parts to build a giant ship in orbit. Use that to move stuff to mars and use a few starships as a ferry once you get there. Until they actually get to mars and try building something we can't tell how terrestrial materials will interact with the martian atmosphere, climates and gravity. They can model all they want but they wont know, which could leave the first manned trip kind of up a creek with no canoe, no paddle and short on water in the creek.
"we can't tell how terrestrial materials will interact with the martian atmosphere, climates and gravity" lol it's not like we're going to another dimension dude. Ofc we can simulate and test these things here.
@@1Meter a simulation is a prototype. Until you do it in situ you don't know how it will actually work. How does concrete in -100F temp in CO2 on a third our gravity set? How porous is it. How hard does it get? How strong does it get? How do dust storms interact with it? What kind of damage does the dust do in 100 km an hour winds? How does martian gravity affect our assumptions? You can do math all day long only to find out it doesn't work as expected. We can simulate everything but the gravity. Here on earth you can only do earth gravity or 0-gee.
Mars has many challenges, but water is not one of them. The NASA Curiosity Rover found compelling evidence that Mars once had water flowing on the surface, when the atmosphere was denser. And the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took photos of a canyon wall where, between orbits, a fountain of underground water spewed out into the atmosphere and fell on the nearby terrain, making what we all a spring here on Earth. The orbiter second pass photos showed a region of frozen snow and water ice below this momentary eruption of underground water. The volume of water was big enough to be photographed from space. If I were an astronaut looking for water, I would start drilling in that area. Also, send a bunch of robots with scoops and water tanks to the South Pole of Mars, where billions of tons of water ice are just sitting on the surface, waiting to be scooped up, melted and poured into tanks for reuse elsewhere. The North Pole, however, is mostly dry ice, so not a good source of water, as far as we currently know. Long story short: There is water all over Mars, under the surface. Notably, under the surface is also a good place to build habitation that is safe from cosmic radiation, Mars windstorms and solar wind or solar flare events. So, as long as we're digging under there anyway, we might as well do near known water sources. Would such water sources be cheap and easy? No. Will the water be contaminated by some nasty minerals? Probably. But these things can be investigated by robotic missions now in design and construction phases of development.
The secret to a successful colony is continual frequent flights to and from Mars. I believe we will have the technology but do we have the money and the will?
what a crazy time we live in. I remember in 2018 telling my teacher that we might have people on Mars in like 2030 and not many people would take it seriously. And here we are.
@@piehamcake1 well, we almost got the rocket that was considered impossible and did not exist 6 years ago. Chances are in next 6 years we might have something or someone on Mars.
Why is this man throwing shots at Elon for how he runs twitter and his companies. He clearly is extremely efficient and effective in his leadership strategies, why would he suck at logistics and project management on mars
Building underground is the best way to live there. Those powerful storms and the atmosphere will make it very hard to live. We can build cities underground we can do this.
I think that human beings need to develop the ability to build real space habitats, rotating, to generate gravity and learn to protect astronauts from cosmic rays, before that it would be a real Russian roulette for each ship that leaves here towards mars
Damn! I was about to subscribe but then this negative nancy started shitting on the greatest innovator of our time and making fun of the man that genuinely wants to better humanity. Good luck mate 👍
I liked this video. Especially images of what did look like an Alpha 1 Ballistic Missile (a great plastic toy I used to play with in late '50s - it used baking soda and vinegar, I recall, for propulsion). But to the point of Mars, if we can produce propellants on the Moon and Mars ... and have a few hundred extra Starships sitting in space, then before you know it, we can create and logistically support a "Mars Space-Road" of sorts with transport Starships leaving Mars every month for Earth or Moon and vice versa. For supply cargo, who cares if each ship of the line takes 8 months or longer to travel. Maybe have some faster passenger ships. Of course, Mars is closest every 2 years, but probably close enough to reach for at least 6 to 8 months during that time. Some of those transport ships might be filled by Amazon or Fed Ex or IKEA.
I love the idea, but the “what do I do at 6pm on a weekday” problem will never go away - or at least not for centuries. +20 seconds to communicate with anyone not on Mars (per message), the massive lack of infrastructure (can’t go to the park, grocery store, Mos Eisley Cantina was a long time ago), etc. won’t make life easy. And then we have the significant questions on how 30% gravity over human lifetime will affect everything from sexual reproduction to how our blood travel in out bodies.
You had to do didn’t you! Why would you call Elon a lunatic? What is wrong with you! I would recommend being a bit more professional. Keep your insults to yourself.
So, I have a couple questions. 1 - who is accountable if, during the launch of the nuclear material to power these things, the rocket from earth malfunctions and spreads said nuclear debris over a population center? 2 - Are there ways to eliminate the risk?
The answers to these questions are suggested by looking at incremental improvements upon established US launch policies and designs. For (1) Who is accountable? The launch system owners (one or more--can be several companies, as seen with ULA or various Arianespace collaborations) share joint responsibility with the launch site regulatory agency (thus the launch site nation. In the US, the FAA certifies spacecraft, and has commissioned several space ports which have yet to drop failing boosters on population centers. This is why Nasa chose to launch from the Florida Space Coast and launch vehicles in an easterly initial trajectory--over deep ocean. So, briefly, ensure that all nuclear launches use launch sites adjacent to oceans, and with strict regulatory oversight. As for (2) the risk can be drastically reduced by launching non-fuel nuclear engine component modules, via chemical rockets, as conventional payloads, to assemble in space. But for nuclear fuel payloads, special missions can be designed focusing maximum control and safety attention on just a few vehicles designed with two special features: To carry only the nuclear fuel, in fail-safe containers designed with fail-safe features all the way to orbit. Launch-abort systems would be included, as well as sturdy payload fairings that can handle return to earth from any stage in flight. The actual fuel for a nuclear reactor is a very small mass component of the reactor, so these extremely safe rockets would only be needed for a small fraction of the total interplanetary nuclear vehicle mass. All other components of the nuclear starship can use more conventional and cost-effective rocket launch designs, protocols and cost-saving features, while no component of the nuclear starship would be nuclear-powered during the initial orbital boost. Rapid developments in space-based assembly robots will help mitigate the cost of in-space assembly of nuclear reactors and mating with nuclear starships, and the fact that colonization requires (at least) thousands of these starships will allow initial design cost of reusable space assembly robots to be amortized over many units and many years of service life. The same robots can be transported to Mars orbit, where similar construction tasks would be performed to refit and repair the nuclear rockets, to prepare them to return to earth orbit and be used again. Mars cycler systems to exploit reusability economics have been proposed by several authors, including Buzz Aldrin. So, by these methods, nuclear risks could be compartmentalized and controlled to a level that would never place any populated land mass in danger. One area of current space flight risk not considered by this video, but should be discussed somewhere, is how to handle risky space operations performed by nations which place lower value on individual human lives than western nations typically (not always) do. For example, all US space launches are required by law and regulation to design, test and deploy a process for controlled reentry of major flight hardware components, to prevent hundreds of tons of space junk (for example, the eventual fate of the ISS) from falling in the middle of cities or other population zones. However, China openly announced (and their actions confirm) that they will impose no requirements on their own space program to control or predict the location where their falling boosters, expired space stations and other space junk will return to Earth. They impose no requirements on themselves to ensure safety of either their own nation or other nations, but they are actively building a space station today, actively dropping boosters related to their moon missions, and will continue these risky policies for the foreseeable future. What can or should be done to draw their attention to these risks and convince them to take a more responsible position than their current policy? If a Chinese booster or space station module falls on a school or large residential building, the deceased victims and grieving relatives will have no protection or legal recourse, whether those Chinese space junk bits contain fissionable nuclear isotopes or not.
Nasa has been launching nuclear material into space for years. All the rovers on Mars are fueled with nuclear power. And there are a bunch of probes also fueled with nuclear power
A terminal/stations will also be required between Mars and Earth. Obviously it will have windows to make the trip and timing is extremely important. There might be time that crew will have to transfer to the station and wait until the distance becomes close enough to make the last part of the trip to Mars. So a number of StarShip will shuttle from Mars to the station and others will shuttle from Earth.
This video gives off the impression that there are a bunch of 70 year old engineers at NASA. Sure the company has been around for a long time but there are young engineers there too.
Nuclear has some drawbacks and when you consider all the potential of nuclear, using it as a steam engine is kind of primitive . I would say that a thermal engine is the slowest and most inefficient use for a nuclear engine, but it provides good thrust . Using it to power a number of other designs like the Helion engine, might be more productive for long range. Imagine also putting a little oxygen into the hydrogen stream and igniting it further. Or putting a series of concentric rings of electromagnets in the bell nozzel to thrust the ions out faster and provide more thrust. This is contingent on your nuclear engine being able to generate megawatts of electrical power and that means carrying a large amount of water.
"Imagine also putting a little oxygen into the hydrogen " I have fielded that idea a few times, into deafening silence. inject the O2 immediately as the megasuper heated H2 exits the reactor. You are also adding the extra weight for the O2 tanks and handling system of course, so the benefits must be overwhelming.
@garybranigan9238 you are on the right track. I had the same idea, as a nuclear reactor can separate water into rocket fuel and oxygen without the need of a cryogenic system, burn that as rocket exhaust and then use the nuclear channels to blast it out even further. Not to mention it would then be ionized and you could use the same reactor generator to give it more thrust with magnetic coils, like a magnetic flux bell nozzel.
Elon has already said space is dangerous, mars extremely dangerous. However so far space x has a better track record than NASA. Don't forget their bravery.
Global warming 😂 Our breath is more dangerous than sending over 180 rockets into space , puncturing through the atmosphere every single time Not to mention the carbon emissions that come out from launching each of those rockets
Good stuff. But bad mouthing Musk regarding his success at twitter didn’t get you a subscribe. Innovatively he can clearly provide a path to how a mars base should run.
I find it interesting so many moon/mars station concepts show massive amounts of above ground structure like we do on Earth. I think there is a big issue most ignore, Micro meteorites. With such a thin atmosphere, MANY more hit land then here on earth. More concepts need to be show sub terrain ideas. Just 3cm deep and you can 'block' the vast majority of them. Like, build in a crater, then a dome, then cover with regolith.
Could you launch multiple rockets of cargo up to orbit the earth and then last the passenger rocket and link all the cargo craft together with the passenger craft and arrive on Mars all at once?
Humans to Mars endeavour has more to do with saving the global economy by providing it with a new gargantuan opportunity for growth and prosperity, than just for finding out signs of allien life.
Spot on. Nuclear, plasma and ion rockets all have a far greater potential specific impulse beyond the best chemical rockets. Being stuck on a tin can for 45 days beats going loony toons insane from a 8 month trip.
He could put Space Shuttle like doors on the SpaceX Starship and have cargo pods (24’ X 48’ to 68’) that are pushed out of the cargo bay using springs, and have anti-spin, course correction devices on the cargo pods and use a cargo pod pusher to push the cargo pod towards the moon / Mars, and use a cargo pod lander, to land the cargo pods on the moon / Mars. And have at least two doors on the bottom of the cargo pods, and connect the cargo pods together using inflatable tunnels, covered with cement by 3D printers, the cargo pods could also be covered with cement by 3D printers, the cargo pod could have built in facilities in them, like everything a moon / Mars lander would have in it, or everything a space capsule for 100 people would have in it. Or a refinery, factory, warehouse, farm, orchid, dairy, ranch, fish growing facility, grocery store, retail store, hardware store, park, amusement park, arcade, night club, city hall, police station, jail, recycling plant, repair shop, etc., etc.. Also he could use inflatable habitats / buildings, covered with cement by 3D printers, when larger facilities are needed / wanted.
Only 12 Astronauts landed on the moon. Not 24 as mentioned. Nine missions made the journey to the moon. 24 Astronauts made the journey. Three astronauts made the journey from Earth to the Moon twice: James Lovell (Apollo 8 and Apollo 13), John Young (Apollo 10 and Apollo 16), and Gene Cernan (Apollo 10 and Apollo 17). Just to clarify
Any permanent settlement on Mars would be dependent on Earth for a long time. Until it can stand alone we can't really be considered a multi-planet civilization. It would be a great step though.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Twitter has never been better 😂😂😂
keep your politics to yourself
@@infringenoo294 keep your politics to yourself
@@infringenoo294 why ?
@@Rocco-r6vbecause they’re afraid of the big red one! It’s coming lmao bye bye Kamala, she’s going back to McDonald’s!
The disconnect this video has is astounding. Entire video praising Musk and then the insane meltdown over Musk buying Twitter 😂😂😂😂and yes obviously if you think Musk ruined Twitter that's because you were enjoying sensoring normal people and the republican party under the iron fist of woke ideology.
Elon Musk saved Twitter.
Made it 1000x worse wtf u on about nigga
And possibly the world now
He will need to figure out the logistics on how to mine fuel and resources to manufacture stuff to expand the city and fully utilize the potential of the planet. Needs some extreme innovation to figure out how to manufacture a magnetic field through the planet so it can sustain an increased ozone layer. Don't care how smart Elon is but I believe these are problems that one genius should not be able to solve unless aging is cured.
That little dig didn't age well, did it. Lol. Musk himself has commented that he will not be going to Mars. He'll be too old for that. What he has been attempting to do(pretty successfully, so far.) Is create the tools and the economic incentive to do this. He has given the world the hardware to get there and make a go of it.
He saved X and fired everyone that had anything to do with Twitter😂
“Elon couldn’t get a social media company to work” this part of the video did not age well
😂😂😂 couldn't believe he shoved his politics into a "science " video
Downvote
That's where i clicked off, guy clickbaiting us clearly a kamala knucklehead
Elon Musk is doing a wonderful job. I love Elon Musk, X as well as everything else has out there accomplishing in the word right now.
Came for the plan to colonise other planets and 5mins in and still getting a history lesson on Elon and SpaceX.
I hate when youtubers do this, I want new information, not a history lesson. Thank you for saving my precious time!
No mars, not during solar maximum 😂
Thank you! I think that’s because they’re still working on a plan (as in, they don’t have one yet). They’re working on getting there for now.
I think it’s still progress though. No plan doesn’t mean we can’t do it.
Yeah its so annoying when videos saying something and then explain abunch of other random stuff that i dont care about.
if you dont know History future is not happened
The world needed X for free speech he's doing great
Tragically Musk is spreading malicious disinformation on X and promoting the fascist psychopath Donald Trump.
Why all the Elon hate? The guy's a genius. Stick to the subject matter please. 🤷
To the subject: Elon is the greatest con artist.
But he wouldn't be one without a mass of morons who believe him
Elon is FAR from a genius lol
@@MagicToenailand you are mr magic toenail?
I enjoy your material on space, Less injecting politics maybe.
im pretty sure they will keep the methane fueled engines, cuz the whole point is that you can make methane on mars
They stick to Methane because they have no access to nuclear fuel
That was my question. Where you would get fuel to get back.
@drewfoust - the needed CO2 out of the Martian atmosphere, the needed H2O out of Martian water ice deposits. Recombind to CH4 (Methane) and O2 (Oxygen), which is what is needed to refuel Starship
@@drewfoust Since there's water on mars and Water consists hydrogen and oxygen, it can easily be split into two by Electrolys to then be used as fuel.
Send me up, feed me Mexican food nightly, and I'll supply all the power they need! 😀
Twitter has never been better.
My money is on Elon. Not NASA
You better buy a safe and put your money away.
The two together are important. NASA is AT LEAST the part that convinces the government that these endeavors are worth chasing… even as wealthy as Elon is, he cannot fund this without convincing the public that our money should go towards it.
Personally, I say YES! I would rather my money go towards this ideal than towards the kinds of lunacy we spend trillions on as it stands.
they should merge together, NAXA
NASA is a JOKE
amazon
X is great and flourishing. I’d say him and Linda are doing a great job with it.
Vid was good too.
@Landon-si5xc
We got your address.
You're pretty stupid.
@Landon-si5xc Jesus Christ is God
The aliens will show us the way😂
X Twitter is a perfect Xample of how a narcissistic Xtremist can destroy a company just to indulge his Xcessive ego. Financially X Twitter is Xcrement.
Elon is doing a.great job with X
Elon. You will need people who are willing and able to go and have something to contribute. I have 2 MAs and ABD with a Doctorate. I'm smart. I'm 67. It's ok that I don't expect to survive long on the planet, or even the trip. Send us old folks up there, and give us the basic training we need to create a foundation for others to follow. Let us build a foundation for the younger people to live and work. This world doesn't value us much, but we can still give a lot for important things. That's it.
I am with you.
Not because of degrees we got.
But for action far more better than just talking .
👍
Great idea. I am pushing 83 and even though I am in perfect shape so far, it won’t last forever
Excellent idea, Im a building engineer with an emphasis on air flow, positive and negative pressures and climate control within the buildings. Im sure I could be useful somewhere unless we are forced to live in space suits forever.
Im ready and if we dont succeed, well then what better way to go.
This mode of thinking is what can make humans great. I know this is just a TH-cam comment and won't ever go anywhere but it's an amazing sentiment to see and it good to know there are people who have such noble intentions. Not many want to plant trees our great grand children will play under. Have a good one
Elon musk was my life standing hero ❤. Thank you for this comments that I would agreed also and willing to go on MARS if posible as a 25 year old man😍. I consider myself as a scientist, as a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture graduate and a License Agriculturist 🎉🎶
If the Earth has only got a Billion years left, it's hardly worth me ordering that new lawnmower i was looking at.
A billion is the most optimistic estimate, the more likely timeline is 500 million years until the sun has become hot enough to vaporize all liquid water on Earth's surface. So, as they used to say, smoke 'em if you've got 'em.
But Mars is already like that!@@EinKerl3554
allah doesn't exist bow before Jesus Christ not mohhamed that had 9 year old wives
@@EinKerl3554Our tech in 500 million years probably allow us to control the sun
Who said that grass doesnt grow on the other side of universe.
The mission to Mars will deploy at least two starships, tethered and rotating around a center of mass to simulate gravity for the trip, so we're talking about 200 tons at the least. Besides that, you send your cargo years ahead of time, so launch capacity per vehicle is less critical.
Dude, you actually compared running Twitter to creating a Mars colony?
Funny: he must get his news from CNN. Twitter trounced Zuck's piece of shit, is running just as efficiently on 70% less staff, and has began to restore free speech. How that isn't "running Twitter" is beyond me.
That's exactly his point. If he can't do something that's been in trial and error for years now, how can we trust them to successfully CONTINUE the mission on mars?
There's a LOT more to it than hiring scientists only to do this mission. You need all kinds of different specialties that people often don't thing of such as therapists, politicians, and other things that make the earth work to make this mission work.
@@boialkleptopod9165 Twitter was losing money for many years. Elon just bought it 9 months ago. He gutted it and is in the process of rebuilding it. Venture capitalists take years to restructure failing companies after they buy it. Elon has only owned it for 9 months and most vc takerovers are not as bad and toxic as Twitter. To make that comment means that neither you nor the author know anything about the process.
As for Mars, no human has ever set foot on the planet. It's a massive undertaking with no previous blueprint for success. No one else on the planet is even remotely close to achieving what Elon has done with SpaceX. So, I think that the comparison is beyond ridiculous.
@@boialkleptopod9165please don’t tell me you’re serious?
Haha, I guess that comparison might seem a bit like comparing apples to rocket engines! Running Twitter and creating a Mars colony are definitely on different ends of the cosmic scale. One involves virtual conversations in 280 characters, and the other involves launching rockets, building habitats, and sustaining life on another planet. But hey, in the realm of imagination, who knows what kind of cosmic connections we could make! 🚀🐦🪐
Would it make more sense to 'colonize' the moon first and use that as a staging point to launch material to Mars....? Certaainly I don't know. Seems like a neat idea.
Definitely. Growing up we camped in our backyard long before going out in the wilderness. I think they have tried two biodome-type environments on Earth and they both failed. I think they would learn a lot on the Moon. Look how much Elon has learned working and modifying rockets over the years. What makes them think they will get most of the kinks out before "living" on Mars. Neil and Buzz were almost stranded on the moon because of 1 switch that somehow broke off needed to launch the return orbital capsule.
Mars seems so overly complicated, with transfer windows and stuff. Sure it probably uses more fuel to land on the moon, but it costs so much less to take off from the moon, and there is no atmosphere to completely destroy habitats with storms. Why don’t we go there?
It's a fuel topic: it takes much less fuel to start from the moon, but you can use the moon to re-fuel the rocket. This means you will land at Mars with additional fuel available. That is a HUGE advantage.
The Delta v to go to the moon is actually greater than that to go to Mars. Also the moon is tidally locked, whereas Mars has an approximately 24 hour day/night cycle. The moon is airless whereas Mars has a thin co2 atmosphere which can be used to produce oxygen, rocket fuel & co2 for plants. Therefore you could grow crops under cover on Mars without the need for bulky/expensive/power hungry hydroponic lamps etc., plus having to ship all the oxygen & co2 to the moon. The moon has a lot less gravity than Mars, making it difficult for people to live there compared to Mars. In short, Mars is a much better potential place to set up bases, live & work. The only thing the moon really has going for it is that it's only a few days flight away instead of several months. But Mars is an entire planet, whereas the moon is an airless, tidally locked satellite.
@@realsatoshihashimoto Thanks for the response. Makes sense. Cheers :)
Elon is running X just great. I can't believe you just said that...
I can believe he said it because people always need to inject their politics into everything the do.
@@ZoeandZacsDad YTer is intentionally throwing shade. Does it often too. Maybe he's bitter he built a channel on someone that doesn't agree with his politics.
The video creator is a libtard.
He's on the left
@@alexanders9198 That tells me everything I need to know about the guy.
Visiting from 1 year in the future. X is now the most trusted place for news.
Oh, PR project for NASA. I’d say nasa needs SpaceX more .
@Landon-si5xc Your address is easy to find.
You're in a half way house for morons.
I have read the bible, the Quran, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Tibetan book of the Dead, The Book of Mormon, along with a many others and they all tell me they are right. So I ask you, what makes your book any more truthful than any of the others?
NASA doesn't need musk anymore than they did in the past. Elon is only able to do what he does because of NASA giving him money
@Landon-si5xcallah doesn't exist bow before Jesus Christ not mohhamed that had 9 year old wives
100%!!!! I’ve been working in the Aerospace industry for the past 18yrs and NASA don’t build anything, all they do is contract companies to get the job done while they clamp the results and since they are funding the research they get to keep the patents of the inventions… NASA is just a bank funding the projects haha
"Couldn't run Twitter"? You had me until that. Won't be liking and/or subscribing.
Nuclear thermal still requires massive amount of liquid fuel. A hybrid nuclear-powered ion/plasma engine would provide the necessary thrust and require less fuel. This concept requires these craft to stay in space thus requiring separate craft from surface to orbit and orbit to surface at each end of the trip. This therefore requires orbital "terminals/stations" for transfer of personnel, equipment, cargo, fuel, etc. between the separate craft. It's a matter of logistics and how to best address the needs. Alternatively, possibly a "frame" that would have six or more Starships docked into transport stations and then delivered to and from Mars with its own nuclear-powered ion/plasma drive. This would make the Starships themselves its cargo. Just an idea from an old, retired Industrial Design Engineer.
Great idea 👍
I have been hoping this would happen in the next, what 20 years or so? Or do you think in 10 years? I heard one of the major aerospace companies have a contract to build a nuclear thermal engine.
Agreed. The best spacecraft for transit between Earth and Mars should be built and left in orbit. These 'liners' should include rotating habitats to maintain gravity. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are the most compact and efficicient choice for power on Mars and in space.
@@classic_sci_fi yep I thought of the same thing
I think your idea is great too. Might take maybe 10-15 years to really get Lunar or Mars mining going; some orbital factories and stations in space; appropriate communications and navigation technologies, standards, and rules. Nations, corporations, academia and non-profits (along with space police and militaries), etc. will want their own places and stuff. The road to Mars (and asteroids) will be paved with good intentions as usual. Intentions/purposes/policies will be more important; transport technologies - then like now with cars, boats, and planes - will be taken for granted.
Uncalled for calling Elon Musk a lunatic. This man is humanity’s saviour.
Elon is the offspring of Elizabeth Holmes and the Pied Piper.
Elons a fraud
Had me until the Elon Musk can't run Twitter and people will die comment. How arrogant of you.
Yeah, kinda silly Elon has nothing to do with any of the science and engineering. The smart people will be doing the work.
Typical lefty thinking and world view. As expected with a bunch of dodos.
As someone who works for the company in charge of the nuclear engine I am so excited for the future!
Lets hope AI doesn't take that from us.
every single one of us is ready for mars after covid quarantine
Omg truth
@Landon-si5xc stop spamming bro
Landon, been reported.
@Landon-si5xcallah doesn't exist bow before Jesus Christ not mohhamed that had 9 year old wives
I'ld live in Mars in a heartbeat !!! If I was younger and could take my kitty !!!
Living in a freezing cold cave for the rest of your life in an environment you’re not genetically evolved to live in. Good luck with that😂
You thought people might get angry at you for saying SpaceX needed NASA? Well, maybe, but it would more likely be for your hostile characterizations such as, "The lunatic genius of Space," and "The guy couldn't even make a social media company work. If Elon tries to make a Mars colony work the way he runs Twitter, a lot of people are gonna die." Certainly, there are people who agree with you but, given the mess at Twitter when he took it over, he has been making great changes that should make you eat your words. Just beware of uncritically buying into the anti-Elon narrative in the media.
This video is as fresh as buttermilk left in the trunk for a month
X doesn't work?! What planet are you currently on? smh
I know right lol
Exactly!!!!! We see his political leanings. He must be one of the “i love free speech except speech I disagree with” lol.
Mercury lol 😆 little too close to the sun
@Landon-si5xcallah doesn't exist bow before Jesus Christ not mohhamed that had 9 year old wives
@@Gringosaurusyou mean like elon banning people he doesn't like?
Hmmm, " Couldn't run a social media company" looks like its working fairly well and way more efficiently!
Seriously? You are criticizing how Elon Musk runs Twitter? You mean not censoring his political opponents and allowing free speech and free thought on the platform? Wow.
Agreed. Nuclear propulsion is absolutely necessary for Mars colonization. If Starship/Space X could be equipped with nuclear engines- Game Changer!
Can’t happen in space. There’s nothing to react against. The nuclear power will be just a power source you need an electric engine for it to power. That’s why it works with subs, aircraft carriers and airplanes because they are each reacting against the air or water. In space to move something you need to expel mass.
No they’ll just send multiple starships up, probably 3 total, 1 just to refuel them after leaving the atmosphere since that uses 90% of the fuel, one to stay in orbit around mars as another fuel tanker and one to land and use its payload for astronauts shit yk
NASA’s timeline for putting boots on Mars is a decade (at least) behind SpaceX’s ambitious plans. I think that NASA, ESA, and others will end up purchasing seats on a SpaceX trip to Mars before NASA is ready with a mission of their own.
At leas NASA is realistic. Elon famously announced that in 2022 there would be several cargo ships landed on Mars in preparation for a manned landing in 2024, yo must agree with SpaceX there’s ALOT OF HYPE with little substance. In reality SpaceX hasn’t even managed a successful launch of their Mars capable vehicle
All talk no action SpaceX didn't do even half of what Nasa accomplished
Artimis needs to be built first, NASA wants to test how human body's react outside of earths magnetic field before going out. Starship needs to go to mars first bringing in gear etc.... its going to be 10 years of sending shit to mars before boots on the ground.
@@SpruceMoose-iv8un we are not sending people to mars....lol
SpaceX will not be able to fund a Mars Mission and no one is going to want to live there once reality of what that entails is realised.
Thumbs down for the political jabs…
absolutely agree
Glad to hear the suggestion that NASA SpaceX collaboration would help avoid catastrophe. Charging ahead is important, but so are decades of scientific testing and results, they could really benefit from working together.
What do you gain from being quicker in open space on Mars? There is no fresh air, still very much in open space.
I remember the last few crews sent by NASA got blown up and killed everyone. They have experience making exploding shuttles.
@@richard--sResources! In space you have none 🤷♂️
@@redharrison894 but on Mars, if you arrive with a few tons of material, you don't have the mining equipment, you don't have the processing equipment to make anything.
@@richard--s 100s of Starships will land on Mars before first humans will arrive
Personally, I wouldn't trust our government to empty a bucket of piss without spilling half of it.
Saturn V could not put 50 metric tons to the surface of the moon, it could send about that amount towards the moon. The most part of that was the command and service module with its fuel. the lunar lander, LEM, weighted about 15,800 kg, mostly fuel, and had an insignificant amount of crew life support supplies compared to its weight. So it makes no sense to estimate the needs for a Mars trip based on the TLI mass of about 50 tons.
“Earth has a billion years left of habitation.” Aliens 👽 “Hold my beer!” ☄️
Nuclear engines are very heavy. The propellant is light and far more efficient, but the added weight of the nuclear reactor is a drawback.
The empty weight of the ship is heavier, but the loaded weight with propellant is less.
Also, nuclear reactors are very very temperamental to throttle controls. They don't like being off/on or quickly throttled.
If Nuclear engines are gunna be used they would have to leave them in space, starship would have to dock onto a drive system that would take it there then undock to go down to the planet.
You Sheeple love parroting your Daddy NASA 😅😂🤣🤦
What!? ha ha ha ha ha
@@ratratrat59 I misidentified Uranium as being "light".
The true fact is the reactor is heavy.
@@MarkBarrett Do you mean weight or mass? Do you understand the difference?
“Couldn’t even make a social media company work” 😂😂😂
Elon Musk for King 👑 King of the World
Elon is just an incredible person!
Will go down as one of the greatest men in history if he pulls it all off! 🙏🙏🙏
There is a lot of half information here. Yes, NTP will make things Much better. But refuelling Starships in orbit will also allow for parabolic orbits to Mars, which will cut flight time from 6 (not 8) months and allow for flights more often than the 24 (or so) month window for the cheapest Hohmann transfer orbits. Colonizing Mars CAN be done, just like colonizing Australia could be and was done with similar transit times from Britain.
On Australia the people had oxygen to breath, had sources of fresh water, had wood to make houses and they had animals to eat and a non poisonous soil to plant crops and other food.
Why is it important to fly more often than the 26ish month window?
@@richard--s
Yes, "colonization" does mean sourcing your water, air and most of your food from in situ resources. That's an engineering problem. There is water and the elements needed to grow food on Mars. That has nothing to do with transit times. That's why you need to send so much equipment, to use the resources.
I think we need to produce a magnetic field over the future settlement spot first.
@@digitalnomad9985
how do you get rid of the calcium perchlorates in the Martian soil, which is toxic to humans? Oh, and it's not just toxic when it's digested from vegetation grown in it but also when it's inhaled or through contact with a person's skin.
Wow, your ignorant bias towards Elon was a big gamble my friend, good bye! Unsubscribed!
Yep, same here. So sick of hearing this crap, I just subbed and when he said that, I unsubbed and hit the thumbs down button
What did elon do
Provided the FAA lets Starship launch!
Before the ship can go to mars we have to go to a planet next to a black hole to get the quantum equations
Instantly stopped watching when you started bashing Elon and Twitter
X (Twitter) is doing just fine. Better than ever !! Pay attention.
A Mars colony now is just a prestige move. The moon should be our focus it will make Mars a cakewalk.
Mars or nothing
@@huibu8987 Why?
@@huibu8987 I want someone to just once give me more than feelz as to why Mars should be done in tandem or before the moon.
Moon dust gets everywhere just like sand at the beach................................
@@helmsleyy the dust on Mars is no better and we've already figured out how to get rid of it. It was so sticky because of static electricity. Which can be easily grounded and then brushed off.
While colonizing other planets sounds like a fun idea, in practice it really isn't practical. It would be better to make space colonies. Basically giant rings we could inhabit. They can hold their own atmosphere. We could move them anywhere we wanted. As well, it would make mining the vast and rich resources of the solar system much easier.
personally I think they should stop trying to send starship to mars and instead use it to carry the materials and parts to build a giant ship in orbit. Use that to move stuff to mars and use a few starships as a ferry once you get there. Until they actually get to mars and try building something we can't tell how terrestrial materials will interact with the martian atmosphere, climates and gravity. They can model all they want but they wont know, which could leave the first manned trip kind of up a creek with no canoe, no paddle and short on water in the creek.
I agree with you there my friend 😊
They are.
"we can't tell how terrestrial materials will interact with the martian atmosphere, climates and gravity" lol it's not like we're going to another dimension dude. Ofc we can simulate and test these things here.
@@1Meter a simulation is a prototype. Until you do it in situ you don't know how it will actually work. How does concrete in -100F temp in CO2 on a third our gravity set? How porous is it. How hard does it get? How strong does it get? How do dust storms interact with it? What kind of damage does the dust do in 100 km an hour winds? How does martian gravity affect our assumptions? You can do math all day long only to find out it doesn't work as expected. We can simulate everything but the gravity. Here on earth you can only do earth gravity or 0-gee.
Mars has many challenges, but water is not one of them. The NASA Curiosity Rover found compelling evidence that Mars once had water flowing on the surface, when the atmosphere was denser. And the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took photos of a canyon wall where, between orbits, a fountain of underground water spewed out into the atmosphere and fell on the nearby terrain, making what we all a spring here on Earth. The orbiter second pass photos showed a region of frozen snow and water ice below this momentary eruption of underground water. The volume of water was big enough to be photographed from space. If I were an astronaut looking for water, I would start drilling in that area. Also, send a bunch of robots with scoops and water tanks to the South Pole of Mars, where billions of tons of water ice are just sitting on the surface, waiting to be scooped up, melted and poured into tanks for reuse elsewhere. The North Pole, however, is mostly dry ice, so not a good source of water, as far as we currently know. Long story short: There is water all over Mars, under the surface. Notably, under the surface is also a good place to build habitation that is safe from cosmic radiation, Mars windstorms and solar wind or solar flare events. So, as long as we're digging under there anyway, we might as well do near known water sources. Would such water sources be cheap and easy? No. Will the water be contaminated by some nasty minerals? Probably. But these things can be investigated by robotic missions now in design and construction phases of development.
Too bad you had to take the Twitter cheap shot.
Tuning out now.
elons the goat
The secret to a successful colony is continual frequent flights to and from Mars. I believe we will have the technology but do we have the money and the will?
what a crazy time we live in. I remember in 2018 telling my teacher that we might have people on Mars in like 2030 and not many people would take it seriously. And here we are.
Yes, here we are, still on Earth.😂
@@batcollins3714 but it's only 2023 yet)
@@gazirovkinn2024 now still not even close
@@piehamcake1 well, we almost got the rocket that was considered impossible and did not exist 6 years ago. Chances are in next 6 years we might have something or someone on Mars.
@@piehamcake1 in 2018 going to Mars was like "flying cars". But now it's basically a matter of time
For the Emperor!! That was unexpected and awesome.
This is so exciting!!! Can't wait to occupy Mars !!!
You obviously take issue with Elons policies. Shocking! Leave your politics out of your videos. Your not funny.
อิลอนฯคิดง่ายและตรงเกินไปที่จะขนส่งมวลขนาดมากๆและจำนวนคนขึ้นไปจากโลกด้วยจรวดเพราะอาจเกิดระเบิดขึ้นง่ายๆ ขอเสนอ2ขั้นตอน1สร้างสถานีอวกาศนอกโลกและเตรียมยานขนาดใหญ่ที่นั้น 2มีระบบขนมนุษยขึ้นไปที่สถานีที่ว่านี้อย่างปลอดภัยแบบไม่ระเบิดฯ แล้วค่อยเดินทาง
Why is this man throwing shots at Elon for how he runs twitter and his companies. He clearly is extremely efficient and effective in his leadership strategies, why would he suck at logistics and project management on mars
He is only busy with his rockets. He never talks about the dangers of living on Mars and how to protect humans there.
NASA paying influencers for props probably... Maybe they'll get an interview with The View....
Been A fan of rocket science since the moon flights in the 60s-70s and it's about time
He’s busting on Elon but using everything Elon has mentioned. You Tool!👊🏻
Building underground is the best way to live there. Those powerful storms and the atmosphere will make it very hard to live. We can build cities underground we can do this.
I think that human beings need to develop the ability to build real space habitats, rotating, to generate gravity and learn to protect astronauts from cosmic rays, before that it would be a real Russian roulette for each ship that leaves here towards mars
why should human beings do that? let the squirrels be in charge
yes we want astronaut squirrels, Chip And Dale, they would be perfect to prove that there is intelligence on this planet@@turnipsociety706
The Twitter thing is a bit low considering Elon is 1 in 1 billion people ever to achieve what he has. but i like the docu still.
Your Twitter comments are subjective BS and added nothing of value to addressing how SpaceX will get to Mars.
My X /Twitter account is working GREAT 👍. There is freedom to discuss topics without being censored.
This has to be one of, if not *the* best video you've ever produced!
Except for the Twitter comment lmao
The quick emperor of mankind picture was awesome haha
Damn! I was about to subscribe but then this negative nancy started shitting on the greatest innovator of our time and making fun of the man that genuinely wants to better humanity.
Good luck mate 👍
So how many astronauts do you think NASA is willing to kill off to achieve this goal?
I liked this video. Especially images of what did look like an Alpha 1 Ballistic Missile (a great plastic toy I used to play with in late '50s - it used baking soda and vinegar, I recall, for propulsion). But to the point of Mars, if we can produce propellants on the Moon and Mars ... and have a few hundred extra Starships sitting in space, then before you know it, we can create and logistically support a "Mars Space-Road" of sorts with transport Starships leaving Mars every month for Earth or Moon and vice versa. For supply cargo, who cares if each ship of the line takes 8 months or longer to travel. Maybe have some faster passenger ships. Of course, Mars is closest every 2 years, but probably close enough to reach for at least 6 to 8 months during that time. Some of those transport ships might be filled by Amazon or Fed Ex or IKEA.
I love the idea, but the “what do I do at 6pm on a weekday” problem will never go away - or at least not for centuries. +20 seconds to communicate with anyone not on Mars (per message), the massive lack of infrastructure (can’t go to the park, grocery store, Mos Eisley Cantina was a long time ago), etc. won’t make life easy. And then we have the significant questions on how 30% gravity over human lifetime will affect everything from sexual reproduction to how our blood travel in out bodies.
Mars is not for unimaginative sissies.
You had to do didn’t you! Why would you call Elon a lunatic? What is wrong with you! I would recommend being a bit more professional. Keep your insults to yourself.
Simplest way to explain. Remember transitory, well look at our data mass today versus 1960.
So, I have a couple questions. 1 - who is accountable if, during the launch of the nuclear material to power these things, the rocket from earth malfunctions and spreads said nuclear debris over a population center? 2 - Are there ways to eliminate the risk?
The answers to these questions are suggested by looking at incremental improvements upon established US launch policies and designs. For (1) Who is accountable? The launch system owners (one or more--can be several companies, as seen with ULA or various Arianespace collaborations) share joint responsibility with the launch site regulatory agency (thus the launch site nation. In the US, the FAA certifies spacecraft, and has commissioned several space ports which have yet to drop failing boosters on population centers. This is why Nasa chose to launch from the Florida Space Coast and launch vehicles in an easterly initial trajectory--over deep ocean. So, briefly, ensure that all nuclear launches use launch sites adjacent to oceans, and with strict regulatory oversight. As for (2) the risk can be drastically reduced by launching non-fuel nuclear engine component modules, via chemical rockets, as conventional payloads, to assemble in space. But for nuclear fuel payloads, special missions can be designed focusing maximum control and safety attention on just a few vehicles designed with two special features: To carry only the nuclear fuel, in fail-safe containers designed with fail-safe features all the way to orbit. Launch-abort systems would be included, as well as sturdy payload fairings that can handle return to earth from any stage in flight. The actual fuel for a nuclear reactor is a very small mass component of the reactor, so these extremely safe rockets would only be needed for a small fraction of the total interplanetary nuclear vehicle mass. All other components of the nuclear starship can use more conventional and cost-effective rocket launch designs, protocols and cost-saving features, while no component of the nuclear starship would be nuclear-powered during the initial orbital boost. Rapid developments in space-based assembly robots will help mitigate the cost of in-space assembly of nuclear reactors and mating with nuclear starships, and the fact that colonization requires (at least) thousands of these starships will allow initial design cost of reusable space assembly robots to be amortized over many units and many years of service life. The same robots can be transported to Mars orbit, where similar construction tasks would be performed to refit and repair the nuclear rockets, to prepare them to return to earth orbit and be used again. Mars cycler systems to exploit reusability economics have been proposed by several authors, including Buzz Aldrin. So, by these methods, nuclear risks could be compartmentalized and controlled to a level that would never place any populated land mass in danger. One area of current space flight risk not considered by this video, but should be discussed somewhere, is how to handle risky space operations performed by nations which place lower value on individual human lives than western nations typically (not always) do. For example, all US space launches are required by law and regulation to design, test and deploy a process for controlled reentry of major flight hardware components, to prevent hundreds of tons of space junk (for example, the eventual fate of the ISS) from falling in the middle of cities or other population zones. However, China openly announced (and their actions confirm) that they will impose no requirements on their own space program to control or predict the location where their falling boosters, expired space stations and other space junk will return to Earth. They impose no requirements on themselves to ensure safety of either their own nation or other nations, but they are actively building a space station today, actively dropping boosters related to their moon missions, and will continue these risky policies for the foreseeable future. What can or should be done to draw their attention to these risks and convince them to take a more responsible position than their current policy? If a Chinese booster or space station module falls on a school or large residential building, the deceased victims and grieving relatives will have no protection or legal recourse, whether those Chinese space junk bits contain fissionable nuclear isotopes or not.
Nasa has been launching nuclear material into space for years. All the rovers on Mars are fueled with nuclear power. And there are a bunch of probes also fueled with nuclear power
Majority of launches are on the coast and head out over open water…. So little chance going over populated areas on launch.
A terminal/stations will also be required between Mars and Earth. Obviously it will have windows to make the trip and timing is extremely important. There might be time that crew will have to transfer to the station and wait until the distance becomes close enough to make the last part of the trip to Mars. So a number of StarShip will shuttle from Mars to the station and others will shuttle from Earth.
Imagine if we put the budget from the military into space exploration
It's obvious which way this guy swings
but i wonder if his girlfirends boyfriend agrees 🤔
This video gives off the impression that there are a bunch of 70 year old engineers at NASA. Sure the company has been around for a long time but there are young engineers there too.
Nuclear has some drawbacks and when you consider all the potential of nuclear, using it as a steam engine is kind of primitive . I would say that a thermal engine is the slowest and most inefficient use for a nuclear engine, but it provides good thrust . Using it to power a number of other designs like the Helion engine, might be more productive for long range. Imagine also putting a little oxygen into the hydrogen stream and igniting it further. Or putting a series of concentric rings of electromagnets in the bell nozzel to thrust the ions out faster and provide more thrust. This is contingent on your nuclear engine being able to generate megawatts of electrical power and that means carrying a large amount of water.
"Imagine also putting a little oxygen into the hydrogen "
I have fielded that idea a few times, into deafening silence. inject the O2 immediately as the megasuper heated H2 exits the reactor. You are also adding the extra weight for the O2 tanks and handling system of course, so the benefits must be overwhelming.
@garybranigan9238 you are on the right track. I had the same idea, as a nuclear reactor can separate water into rocket fuel and oxygen without the need of a cryogenic system, burn that as rocket exhaust and then use the nuclear channels to blast it out even further. Not to mention it would then be ionized and you could use the same reactor generator to give it more thrust with magnetic coils, like a magnetic flux bell nozzel.
That is excellent and I have the best idea!
I don’t think we’ll ever colonize mars.
Elon has already said space is dangerous, mars extremely dangerous. However so far space x has a better track record than NASA. Don't forget their bravery.
Global warming 😂
Our breath is more dangerous than sending over 180 rockets into space , puncturing through the atmosphere every single time
Not to mention the carbon emissions that come out from launching each of those rockets
No one cares.
This YouthTube
You missed a jab...
Good stuff. But bad mouthing Musk regarding his success at twitter didn’t get you a subscribe. Innovatively he can clearly provide a path to how a mars base should run.
I would Like to see this happen in my lifetime but I won't hold my breath!
Mark today as the first successful chopstick catch of super heavy!!! 🤯 🚀
I find it interesting so many moon/mars station concepts show massive amounts of above ground structure like we do on Earth. I think there is a big issue most ignore, Micro meteorites. With such a thin atmosphere, MANY more hit land then here on earth. More concepts need to be show sub terrain ideas. Just 3cm deep and you can 'block' the vast majority of them. Like, build in a crater, then a dome, then cover with regolith.
Hit land THAN, not hit land then.
Wow.... You don't think Elon has done well with X (FKA Twitter)? Please explain. I'd love to understand your stance on that one.
Could you launch multiple rockets of cargo up to orbit the earth and then last the passenger rocket and link all the cargo craft together with the passenger craft and arrive on Mars all at once?
Humans to Mars endeavour has more to do with saving the global economy by providing it with a new gargantuan opportunity for growth and prosperity, than just for finding out signs of allien life.
Spot on. Nuclear, plasma and ion rockets all have a far greater potential specific impulse beyond the best chemical rockets. Being stuck on a tin can for 45 days beats going loony toons insane from a 8 month trip.
He could put Space Shuttle like doors on the SpaceX Starship and have cargo pods (24’ X 48’ to 68’) that are pushed out of the cargo bay using springs, and have anti-spin, course correction devices on the cargo pods and use a cargo pod pusher to push the cargo pod towards the moon / Mars, and use a cargo pod lander, to land the cargo pods on the moon / Mars. And have at least two doors on the bottom of the cargo pods, and connect the cargo pods together using inflatable tunnels, covered with cement by 3D printers, the cargo pods could also be covered with cement by 3D printers, the cargo pod could have built in facilities in them, like everything a moon / Mars lander would have in it, or everything a space capsule for 100 people would have in it. Or a refinery, factory, warehouse, farm, orchid, dairy, ranch, fish growing facility, grocery store, retail store, hardware store, park, amusement park, arcade, night club, city hall, police station, jail, recycling plant, repair shop, etc., etc.. Also he could use inflatable habitats / buildings, covered with cement by 3D printers, when larger facilities are needed / wanted.
Only 12 Astronauts landed on the moon. Not 24 as mentioned. Nine missions made the journey to the moon. 24 Astronauts made the journey. Three astronauts made the journey from Earth to the Moon twice: James Lovell (Apollo 8 and Apollo 13), John Young (Apollo 10 and Apollo 16), and Gene Cernan (Apollo 10 and Apollo 17). Just to clarify
Any permanent settlement on Mars would be dependent on Earth for a long time. Until it can stand alone we can't really be considered a multi-planet civilization. It would be a great step though.
"Mars to stay" is probably a good solution for the expensiveness of the flight.
solid video, but the Twitter reference had me rolling my eyes.
Also far more sensible to set up colonies on the moon and build the mars fleet there - much cheaper escape velocity and zero pollution of earth
5:55 Luke never completed his Jedi training...