Mars Sample Return would be a great uncrewed mission for Starship. It would achieve an important objective and establish the capability for return crewed missions to Mars in the future.
it starts as a scientific question and then it becomes a sociological question. first, we need to conduct a search for living life on Mars (the only time this has been done was in 1976). if this finds “no life” then we can only really say it is not present at the level of our detection sensitivity. by increasing our sensitivity, we can become more and more sure it is sterile (but never certain; a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack). thus, if we deem life not likely on Mars, then it is a sociological question… there will always be some risk there because we can never be sure and wouldn’t we, no matter what, be “contaminating” Mars? we will spread microbes everywhere we go.
@@footballct14 Over the last 50+ years, there have been landers from US, Russia, China, and the European space agency. There is no guarantee that one has not already contaminated Mars with Microbes. But when is enough science conducted enough? What if 10 years more passes and we've sent 10 more landers and still don't have a definitive answer? Do we never send a manned mission to mars because the science would be invalidated? At some point we, or they, will say "we got what we got but now we're going!"
You would need to explore the underground extensively. The whole thing is pointless nonsense though, as whenever we send space craft to Mars it is being contaminated. It is already too late to stop it from happening.
I think Rocketlab should be given the Mars sample return. The composite fiber rocket is much lighter than Starship and uses less fuel. It will be easier to decelerate in the thin Martian atmosphere than conventional metal. But as long as Bill Nelson is around, it will be the good ol boys club of Boeing & old leftover Artemis tech.
I listened to the teleconference also and either way with whomever or whatever eventually goes to Mars to retrieve the samples is still going to be ~2040. Administer Nelson had mentioned whichever of the options is utilized it will only cost somewhat less than the 11B (5-7B I believe he mentioned) but the timeframe is still 2039-2040. Either way, once a Starship is landed or crashed on the planet Mars any chance of finding empherical proof of life now or in Mars' past is moot. We would have already contaminated the planet just with Starship being there (just as we may have already done with the first craft ever sent. Any microbes attached anywhere on that ship could or would develop, grow, or terminate on the planet. I guess in the end we all just have to wait and see what develops with the new administration two weeks from now. 🚀🚀🚀
Your second sentence explains why the first sentence doesn't get much attention. It will be impossible to avoid contamination in the not so distant future.
The question if humans or robots was odd. I mean, right, planetary protection and so, but the most obvious is that there,s no scientific value if sending humans and doing so cost like 100 times as much (given costs if artemis versus comercial lunar cargo missions).
Starship is the obvious choice. Imo safest architecture would be to use starships massive payload capability to take a sample collection rover/copter and a return vehicle to mars. No need to synthesize propellent in situ. It could be part of the second batch of starships assuming the first missions to mars land successfully.
I would go for many plans but not a jpl retread which is what they seem to want. If rocket land got the contract I think it should include another launcher. Preferably a falcon 9.
Musk says he wants to send multiple Starships to land on Mars in the next transfer window 2 years from now. Could be SpaceX is considering doing the sample return as part of their Mars demo flight. Starship has plenty of cargo capacity to deliver whatever hardware they need to do the sample return.....Heck who knows maybe they'll send some Tesla bots with a Cybertruck to drive around and pick the samples up by hand 🤣
"Starship" is an LEO platform that hasn't reached orbit yet. Without actual orbital launches, its cargo capacity remains unproven. The SpaceX culture of rapid iteration isn't going to play at all well with the novel requirements of landing on Mars. But I'm sure the firm will welcome an infusion of government money to give it all a try.
@@biercenator Well that just sounds profoundly negative. There are some facts in there, at least up to this point, but the summary accusation is your opinion of Space X!
A lander that can collect the samples with helicopters and also has an ascent vehicle and another satellite to be loaded with the samples from the ascent vehicle that sends them back to Earth to be collected and analyzed...in 2040! We've called some of our landers "mini laboratories" but they were very limited. Might it be cheaper to just send a better laboratory and analyze the samples on Mars?
If SX demonstrates ship to ship propellant transfer this year and sends Starships to Mars in 2026, then a grab and go sample return could be possible by end of the decade. Recovering samples from the Perseverance rover is a tough nut to crack because it requires four spacecraft that haven't been designed yet.
I think the Martian environment would be the perfect place to test my new spacecraft design of a metal sphere filled with an array of gyroscopes providing lift (and the sample containers of course) that is surrounded by a large horizontal spinning disk to provide the force to keep it level. Instead of the roar of explosive rockets it would just emit an oscillating humming noise as it ascends through the Martian atmosphere as if suspended on an invisible string. All it needs is a good name but I'm sure someone at NASA will think of something.
I'm pessimistic about finding life in our solar system. Not that we should stop looking, it just seems space is so anti life. All these planets and moons are so hot/ cold and full of radiation. Our solar system is harsh. The more we learn about our universe the more I appreciate our planet. Theres no place like home.❤
@novachromatic Yes. I'm excited about the clipper mission. We need a mission for enceladus as well. The more we learn about our solar system the better.
Starship will kick up dust, we don’t know if we can land on mars yet with starship, JPL has lot more experience with mars. No point replacing the current plans, until starship is proven technology.
Planetary protection with relation to Mars is incredibly ignorant in my opinion. We have already introduced microbes there from several craft. Once humans start going there and back, which isn't that far away relatively speaking, it will be impossible to stop the cross contamination(if there is Mars life).
I think a collaboration between SpaceX and JPL is a perfect partnership. Starship used as the delivery vehicle to the surface and JPL to use a rover to collect and send the samples back to a return-to-Earth vehicle. And Starship has enough payload capacity to deliver additional hardware as well that will be needed in the future development of a base on Mars. Win-win.
Makes no sense. You have to refuel a Starship 12 times just to get to the moon. Just send another rover on an existing rocket system to retrieve the samples. Then another rocket with the retrieval system which could consist of the lander/return to orbit system and a return to earth vehicle that would stay in orbit around Mars to rendezvous with the lander. 5his is probably what got canceled! The point is the problem is not getting to Mars, that's easy enough, it's developing the ability to retrieve and return the samples. Starship is just a rocket... We can already put car sized objects on the surface.
@@ijwilson One consideration might be cost though. NASA would presumably need to pay the full cost of those 2 flights of an existing rocket system and as we’ve already seen with the cancellation of the previous mission plan, funding is incredibly tight. It’s just possible that since SpaceX is developing the technology to go to Mars anyway it might agree to supply the transportation services at extremely low cost, or at least significantly cheaper than the cost of launching 2 existing systems, as long as NASA funds the payload. Even with the payload there might be some opportunity for SpaceX to use some of its own funds to subsidise at least some of the cost of the rover to go and get the samples. I can’t see SpaceX being too interested in subsidising the launch vehicle to get the samples off Mars but for the rover to go and get them that’s another technology (autonomous Mars rovers) that SpaceX will need to develop for ISRU so perhaps some deal where SpaceX contributes to the development in return for getting the right to use the resulting IP (including those bits developed by NASA/JPL) might be a possibility. It’s just possible that we might see a repeat of my impression of what we saw with HLS. When NASA initially only selected one system, HLS, that was because that was the only bid that it could afford and I suspect the reason SpaceX’s bid was so cheap (relative to Blue Origin and Dynetics) was because it was factoring in stuff (e.g. on-orbit refuelling, a Starship with landing legs, airlock and cargo elevator etc) that it was planning to develop anyway. It’s just possible that with Mars sample return there will also be so much technology that SpaceX already has in its development plans for its own Mars missions that it might be able to make an offer that NASA/congress can’t refuse, or more likely the only offer that it can get funding for. One wrinkle, if that came to pass, is of course the significant risk with an unproven Starship Mars landing. If one of SpaceX’s own fully internally funded landing attempts fails that’s not so bad if it only loses its own SpaceX-funded payload but if it fails to land and destroys a NASA payload that is embarrassing for all concerned. I’m not sure if SpaceX would be willing to offer any indemnity against that possibility but it would be a major consideration unless the Mars sample return landing isn’t attempted until the launch window after SpaceX has already demonstrated one or more of its own fully SpaceX funded Starships landing on Mars.
@@ijwilson Any other rocket wouldn't be able to carry more than just the rover. Starship will carry a far vaster quantity of payload instead for much less money.
@billthecat7536 but you'd need to launch over a dozen Starships to refuel the single one to Mars. Secondly, as I said it's not getting to Mars that's the problem. It's picking up the samples and getting them back to earth.
Honestly, Starship is already slated to go and test unmaned landing on Mars in 2 years. It has a huge payload capabilities and practically no payload since it's just a test. And I'm pretty sure they will send multiple starships to thoroughly test them to see any flaws so even more free payload capacity. It should come out much cheaper and probably faster with that option, and there's really not much time to examine uncontaminated Mars since the plan is to send first human in 4 years if the landing test are successfull.
They have zero plan for keeping humans alive on Mars even IF they manage to build and certify a crewed version in just 4 years. I'll be impressed if they do it in even 12 years but 4 is just delusional
@notgreg123 They already have prototypes of lunar lander interior and life support. I'm also pretty skeptical about a 4-year timeline, but within 8 years seems like a sure thing, at least to me.
@antonio_fosnjar if they have prototypes and work done on the HLS, where do you get that info from. I've just never heard of any of this actually being started yet
@koijoijoe There are several pictures of just upper crew compartment assembled inside the starfactory, there aren't any pics from the inside but some leakers made a mockup 3D model of the interior, and there were airlock tests shown. It's not much but they definitely started. Honestly latest Starship RUD has me worried a bit, and I've seen some videos of employees talking about weird way SpaceX makes fast prototypes at all costs, even safety and reliability. I'm now much more certain that there won't be any uncrewed Mars test launches till in 4 or 6 years, plus for now they need at least 6 months for a single starship build, let alone a completely new Mars lander variant.
@antonio_fosnjar yaaa i think people get a little too optimistic because of the rapid prototyping honestly. I mean it's hard to tell I go back and forth kind of lol but sending up these basically empty ships is not the same as having a truly full flight ready, polished product. Like they can have this design philosophy if they want, and they're super exciting to watch but I think it gives people a dangerous confidence for sure. Everyone wants to complain about the FAA slowing them down but we should be thankful SOMETHING does and they aren't just going unchecked. Theres plenty to be impressed with but nothings perfect. And I've heard the same about employees. Im sure they'll get where they're going one way or another but we should genuinely pray that any Starship with a crew gets made to the same standard as the dragon capsules and falcon 9 rockets. Im certainly skeptical of any timeline though. Honestly the refueling in orbit plan sounds crazy to me too but I havnt exactly gotten out my math pad to check if there's a better way lol just seems crazy that it will take all of that when we're perfectly capable of putting people, landers, and equipment on the moon with single launches. But I suppose everyone agrees so far that the extra cargo space on the Starship is worth it... just a logistical nightmare seemingly
And NASA spent about $60bn in today’s money on the Apollo program and couldn’t even get a single rocket launched even on a sub-orbital trajectory. It’s pretty easy to make up silly numbers if you refuse to acknowledge that programs need to go through an R&D phase before delivering the planned end result. All I did to get my silly NASA/Apollo number was to only look at the funding from the start of the program through to the end of 1965 at which point no Apollo-related hardware had flown. The first actual flight for the Apollo program was AS-201 in Feb 1966, a Saturn 1B on a suborbital trajectory carrying an uncrewed command and service module to validate the heat shield. Apollo of course went on to achieve amazing things and it is very likely in my opinion that Starship will do the same but it’s ridiculous to look at spending part way through a development cycle before it has got anywhere close to the stage of delivering production hardware (as in hardware that meets the specifications defined for the final project deliverables). I’m sure there’s lots of scope for debate about how close (in terms of extra time needed) SpaceX currently is to having production hardware but I can’t imagine that anyone who actually follows and understands this stuff would claim that what is about to be flown for IFT-7 is the final Starship product.
Pleased to see ESA's ERO has stuck. I recall NASA saying the fact that the ERO was a fixed price contract and progressing smoothly was a risk to NASA as if ESA being on time was the issue LOL.
NASA is in a hard place to be. What if there is 'life' on Mars, how do you think this will effect human activity? I personally think it should have no impact on human activity.
SpaceX intends to land five Starships on Mars in 2027 using its own funding, which means it will be able to deliver many *tons* of material to the Martian surface. That means that a Mars Sample Return Mission does not have to worry about how to get to the Martian surface. Just pay SpaceX for a rideshare. The MSRM wants to land near the samples already dropped by the Rovers. Then the MSRM does not need its own launch, and the capability to get all the way from the Earth to Mars. It just needs enough thrust to lift off Mars and rendezvous with the ESA orbiter. The Starships landing on Mars in 2027 will not have enough fuel to take off and return to Earth. They will carry equipment to manufacture fuel. When the next squadron arrives in 2029 they will refuel from the depot and fly back to Earth. Why could the MSRM not simply deliver the samples to the Starships and let SpaceX deliver them back to Earth. Where is the requirement for over $5B? If they really want to land themselves Starship could release them into low Martian orbit before initiating its own landing. On the biological hazard I agree that this needs to be seriously considered before we land humans on Mars. All life on Earth is the survivors from multiple extinction events. And there is life at places on Earth that are more hostile than some places on Mars. I therefore suggest that H. G. Wells was actually right when he wrote "The War of the Worlds" in 1897. Once Martian life competes with Terrestrial life it will be wiped out. And 60% of all of the cells in a human body are bacteria. We cannot live without those bacteria.
just stumbled on this channel... so, so interesting! :-)
@@jameslewis1960 Thanks!
Mars Sample Return would be a great uncrewed mission for Starship. It would achieve an important objective and establish the capability for return crewed missions to Mars in the future.
There's no way they're developing and deploying an entire ISRU fuel production plant on Mars in the next 7 years
If only you could fetch samples from Mars with a banana...
Great video I was so behind this week and now I am all caught up. Subscribed!
@@spacewithspo Thank you, and welcome!
At what point are we sure there's no life on mars and we don't need to worry about "contaminating" mars anymore?
Good question.
it starts as a scientific question and then it becomes a sociological question. first, we need to conduct a search for living life on Mars (the only time this has been done was in 1976). if this finds “no life” then we can only really say it is not present at the level of our detection sensitivity. by increasing our sensitivity, we can become more and more sure it is sterile (but never certain; a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack).
thus, if we deem life not likely on Mars, then it is a sociological question… there will always be some risk there because we can never be sure and wouldn’t we, no matter what, be “contaminating” Mars? we will spread microbes everywhere we go.
@@footballct14Well put
@@footballct14 Over the last 50+ years, there have been landers from US, Russia, China, and the European space agency. There is no guarantee that one has not already contaminated Mars with Microbes. But when is enough science conducted enough? What if 10 years more passes and we've sent 10 more landers and still don't have a definitive answer? Do we never send a manned mission to mars because the science would be invalidated? At some point we, or they, will say "we got what we got but now we're going!"
You would need to explore the underground extensively. The whole thing is pointless nonsense though, as whenever we send space craft to Mars it is being contaminated. It is already too late to stop it from happening.
Great video Laura!!! Keep up the great content. ❤
@@DonaldMovies Thank you!
I think Rocketlab should be given the Mars sample return. The composite fiber rocket is much lighter than Starship and uses less fuel. It will be easier to decelerate in the thin Martian atmosphere than conventional metal. But as long as Bill Nelson is around, it will be the good ol boys club of Boeing & old leftover Artemis tech.
I listened to the teleconference also and either way with whomever or whatever eventually goes to Mars to retrieve the samples is still going to be ~2040. Administer Nelson had mentioned whichever of the options is utilized it will only cost somewhat less than the 11B (5-7B I believe he mentioned) but the timeframe is still 2039-2040. Either way, once a Starship is landed or crashed on the planet Mars any chance of finding empherical proof of life now or in Mars' past is moot. We would have already contaminated the planet just with Starship being there (just as we may have already done with the first craft ever sent. Any microbes attached anywhere on that ship could or would develop, grow, or terminate on the planet. I guess in the end we all just have to wait and see what develops with the new administration two weeks from now. 🚀🚀🚀
Thanks for explaining the contamination issue, which seems to get little attention. Good luck decontaminating a Starship.
Your second sentence explains why the first sentence doesn't get much attention. It will be impossible to avoid contamination in the not so distant future.
The question if humans or robots was odd. I mean, right, planetary protection and so, but the most obvious is that there,s no scientific value if sending humans and doing so cost like 100 times as much (given costs if artemis versus comercial lunar cargo missions).
Are you saying their is no scientific value if sending humans to mars?
Starship is the obvious choice. Imo safest architecture would be to use starships massive payload capability to take a sample collection rover/copter and a return vehicle to mars. No need to synthesize propellent in situ. It could be part of the second batch of starships assuming the first missions to mars land successfully.
Or just use a falcon 9 in conjunction with other hardware.
Finally a take on starship that doesn't just hand wave all the problems away. This is actually feasible
You know that rocket lab got money from nasa to study a cheaper and faster Mars sample return? So starship cerrainly isn.t the only option!
I would go for many plans but not a jpl retread which is what they seem to want. If rocket land got the contract I think it should include another launcher. Preferably a falcon 9.
Rocket Lab's proposal was not chosen, even though it is faster and cheaper than the 2 proposals that were selected.
@ so far none are really selected.
I really hope the science isn't sacrificed for ego. The future is watching us.
Musk says he wants to send multiple Starships to land on Mars in the next transfer window 2 years from now. Could be SpaceX is considering doing the sample return as part of their Mars demo flight. Starship has plenty of cargo capacity to deliver whatever hardware they need to do the sample return.....Heck who knows maybe they'll send some Tesla bots with a Cybertruck to drive around and pick the samples up by hand 🤣
That would be a sight! He does like to integrate his companies' products.
Sorry, but lol. Remember that he said humans be landing on Mars by now?
@@dirkeisinger4355 Well Starship has been grounded for most of the last 4 years.
"Starship" is an LEO platform that hasn't reached orbit yet. Without actual orbital launches, its cargo capacity remains unproven. The SpaceX culture of rapid iteration isn't going to play at all well with the novel requirements of landing on Mars. But I'm sure the firm will welcome an infusion of government money to give it all a try.
@@biercenator Well that just sounds profoundly negative. There are some facts in there, at least up to this point, but the summary accusation is your opinion of Space X!
A lander that can collect the samples with helicopters and also has an ascent vehicle and another satellite to be loaded with the samples from the ascent vehicle that sends them back to Earth to be collected and analyzed...in 2040! We've called some of our landers "mini laboratories" but they were very limited. Might it be cheaper to just send a better laboratory and analyze the samples on Mars?
If SX demonstrates ship to ship propellant transfer this year and sends Starships to Mars in 2026, then a grab and go sample return could be possible by end of the decade. Recovering samples from the Perseverance rover is a tough nut to crack because it requires four spacecraft that haven't been designed yet.
I think the Martian environment would be the perfect place to test my new spacecraft design of a metal sphere filled with an array of gyroscopes providing lift (and the sample containers of course) that is surrounded by a large horizontal spinning disk to provide the force to keep it level. Instead of the roar of explosive rockets it would just emit an oscillating humming noise as it ascends through the Martian atmosphere as if suspended on an invisible string. All it needs is a good name but I'm sure someone at NASA will think of something.
JP Aerospace had an interesting entry as well.
I'm pessimistic about finding life in our solar system. Not that we should stop looking, it just seems space is so anti life. All these planets and moons are so hot/ cold and full of radiation. Our solar system is harsh. The more we learn about our universe the more I appreciate our planet. Theres no place like home.❤
Have you heard of Europa's subsurface oceans and the Europa Clipper mission?
@novachromatic Yes. I'm excited about the clipper mission. We need a mission for enceladus as well. The more we learn about our solar system the better.
Starship will kick up dust, we don’t know if we can land on mars yet with starship, JPL has lot more experience with mars. No point replacing the current plans, until starship is proven technology.
So will any ship.
No. JPL is too slow and expensive. This is just a retread that will turn into a 20 year 20 billion dollar project.
@@jamskinnerthe difference is that starship weighs 100 tons as opposed to around 1 or 2 at most
Planetary protection with relation to Mars is incredibly ignorant in my opinion. We have already introduced microbes there from several craft. Once humans start going there and back, which isn't that far away relatively speaking, it will be impossible to stop the cross contamination(if there is Mars life).
I think a collaboration between SpaceX and JPL is a perfect partnership. Starship used as the delivery vehicle to the surface and JPL to use a rover to collect and send the samples back to a return-to-Earth vehicle. And Starship has enough payload capacity to deliver additional hardware as well that will be needed in the future development of a base on Mars. Win-win.
Makes no sense. You have to refuel a Starship 12 times just to get to the moon. Just send another rover on an existing rocket system to retrieve the samples. Then another rocket with the retrieval system which could consist of the lander/return to orbit system and a return to earth vehicle that would stay in orbit around Mars to rendezvous with the lander. 5his is probably what got canceled! The point is the problem is not getting to Mars, that's easy enough, it's developing the ability to retrieve and return the samples. Starship is just a rocket... We can already put car sized objects on the surface.
@@ijwilson One consideration might be cost though. NASA would presumably need to pay the full cost of those 2 flights of an existing rocket system and as we’ve already seen with the cancellation of the previous mission plan, funding is incredibly tight. It’s just possible that since SpaceX is developing the technology to go to Mars anyway it might agree to supply the transportation services at extremely low cost, or at least significantly cheaper than the cost of launching 2 existing systems, as long as NASA funds the payload.
Even with the payload there might be some opportunity for SpaceX to use some of its own funds to subsidise at least some of the cost of the rover to go and get the samples. I can’t see SpaceX being too interested in subsidising the launch vehicle to get the samples off Mars but for the rover to go and get them that’s another technology (autonomous Mars rovers) that SpaceX will need to develop for ISRU so perhaps some deal where SpaceX contributes to the development in return for getting the right to use the resulting IP (including those bits developed by NASA/JPL) might be a possibility.
It’s just possible that we might see a repeat of my impression of what we saw with HLS. When NASA initially only selected one system, HLS, that was because that was the only bid that it could afford and I suspect the reason SpaceX’s bid was so cheap (relative to Blue Origin and Dynetics) was because it was factoring in stuff (e.g. on-orbit refuelling, a Starship with landing legs, airlock and cargo elevator etc) that it was planning to develop anyway. It’s just possible that with Mars sample return there will also be so much technology that SpaceX already has in its development plans for its own Mars missions that it might be able to make an offer that NASA/congress can’t refuse, or more likely the only offer that it can get funding for.
One wrinkle, if that came to pass, is of course the significant risk with an unproven Starship Mars landing. If one of SpaceX’s own fully internally funded landing attempts fails that’s not so bad if it only loses its own SpaceX-funded payload but if it fails to land and destroys a NASA payload that is embarrassing for all concerned. I’m not sure if SpaceX would be willing to offer any indemnity against that possibility but it would be a major consideration unless the Mars sample return landing isn’t attempted until the launch window after SpaceX has already demonstrated one or more of its own fully SpaceX funded Starships landing on Mars.
@@ijwilson Any other rocket wouldn't be able to carry more than just the rover. Starship will carry a far vaster quantity of payload instead for much less money.
@billthecat7536 but you'd need to launch over a dozen Starships to refuel the single one to Mars. Secondly, as I said it's not getting to Mars that's the problem. It's picking up the samples and getting them back to earth.
@@ijwilsona dozen refueling missions plus the dedicated ship is around 300 million dollars. Really not that bad
Honestly, Starship is already slated to go and test unmaned landing on Mars in 2 years. It has a huge payload capabilities and practically no payload since it's just a test. And I'm pretty sure they will send multiple starships to thoroughly test them to see any flaws so even more free payload capacity. It should come out much cheaper and probably faster with that option, and there's really not much time to examine uncontaminated Mars since the plan is to send first human in 4 years if the landing test are successfull.
They have zero plan for keeping humans alive on Mars even IF they manage to build and certify a crewed version in just 4 years. I'll be impressed if they do it in even 12 years but 4 is just delusional
@notgreg123 They already have prototypes of lunar lander interior and life support. I'm also pretty skeptical about a 4-year timeline, but within 8 years seems like a sure thing, at least to me.
@antonio_fosnjar if they have prototypes and work done on the HLS, where do you get that info from. I've just never heard of any of this actually being started yet
@koijoijoe There are several pictures of just upper crew compartment assembled inside the starfactory, there aren't any pics from the inside but some leakers made a mockup 3D model of the interior, and there were airlock tests shown. It's not much but they definitely started. Honestly latest Starship RUD has me worried a bit, and I've seen some videos of employees talking about weird way SpaceX makes fast prototypes at all costs, even safety and reliability. I'm now much more certain that there won't be any uncrewed Mars test launches till in 4 or 6 years, plus for now they need at least 6 months for a single starship build, let alone a completely new Mars lander variant.
@antonio_fosnjar yaaa i think people get a little too optimistic because of the rapid prototyping honestly. I mean it's hard to tell I go back and forth kind of lol but sending up these basically empty ships is not the same as having a truly full flight ready, polished product. Like they can have this design philosophy if they want, and they're super exciting to watch but I think it gives people a dangerous confidence for sure. Everyone wants to complain about the FAA slowing them down but we should be thankful SOMETHING does and they aren't just going unchecked. Theres plenty to be impressed with but nothings perfect. And I've heard the same about employees. Im sure they'll get where they're going one way or another but we should genuinely pray that any Starship with a crew gets made to the same standard as the dragon capsules and falcon 9 rockets. Im certainly skeptical of any timeline though. Honestly the refueling in orbit plan sounds crazy to me too but I havnt exactly gotten out my math pad to check if there's a better way lol just seems crazy that it will take all of that when we're perfectly capable of putting people, landers, and equipment on the moon with single launches. But I suppose everyone agrees so far that the extra cargo space on the Starship is worth it... just a logistical nightmare seemingly
Use Starship and a Rover/s. Starship for the return. Don't need humans to get those samples... yet.
Starship would need to refuel on Mars. It can't do the return trip
It took space x 3 billion dollars to almost get a banana into orbit
And NASA spent about $60bn in today’s money on the Apollo program and couldn’t even get a single rocket launched even on a sub-orbital trajectory.
It’s pretty easy to make up silly numbers if you refuse to acknowledge that programs need to go through an R&D phase before delivering the planned end result. All I did to get my silly NASA/Apollo number was to only look at the funding from the start of the program through to the end of 1965 at which point no Apollo-related hardware had flown. The first actual flight for the Apollo program was AS-201 in Feb 1966, a Saturn 1B on a suborbital trajectory carrying an uncrewed command and service module to validate the heat shield.
Apollo of course went on to achieve amazing things and it is very likely in my opinion that Starship will do the same but it’s ridiculous to look at spending part way through a development cycle before it has got anywhere close to the stage of delivering production hardware (as in hardware that meets the specifications defined for the final project deliverables).
I’m sure there’s lots of scope for debate about how close (in terms of extra time needed) SpaceX currently is to having production hardware but I can’t imagine that anyone who actually follows and understands this stuff would claim that what is about to be flown for IFT-7 is the final Starship product.
Hey, I happen to LIKE my own personal _ecosystem._ 😉🤭
Pleased to see ESA's ERO has stuck. I recall NASA saying the fact that the ERO was a fixed price contract and progressing smoothly was a risk to NASA as if ESA being on time was the issue LOL.
Ha!
My bet is on the Chinese
NASA is in a hard place to be.
What if there is 'life' on Mars, how do you think this will effect human activity?
I personally think it should have no impact on human activity.
I don't know about human activity, but it will change our perceptions about Earth and what else is out there.
SpaceX intends to land five Starships on Mars in 2027 using its own funding, which means it will be able to deliver many *tons* of material to the Martian surface. That means that a Mars Sample Return Mission does not have to worry about how to get to the Martian surface. Just pay SpaceX for a rideshare. The MSRM wants to land near the samples already dropped by the Rovers. Then the MSRM does not need its own launch, and the capability to get all the way from the Earth to Mars. It just needs enough thrust to lift off Mars and rendezvous with the ESA orbiter. The Starships landing on Mars in 2027 will not have enough fuel to take off and return to Earth. They will carry equipment to manufacture fuel. When the next squadron arrives in 2029 they will refuel from the depot and fly back to Earth. Why could the MSRM not simply deliver the samples to the Starships and let SpaceX deliver them back to Earth. Where is the requirement for over $5B? If they really want to land themselves Starship could release them into low Martian orbit before initiating its own landing.
On the biological hazard I agree that this needs to be seriously considered before we land humans on Mars. All life on Earth is the survivors from multiple extinction events. And there is life at places on Earth that are more hostile than some places on Mars. I therefore suggest that H. G. Wells was actually right when he wrote "The War of the Worlds" in 1897. Once Martian life competes with Terrestrial life it will be wiped out. And 60% of all of the cells in a human body are bacteria. We cannot live without those bacteria.
Sending one Starship to Mars in 2 years time is a fantasy, never mind 5!
There is no place on Earth that is more hostile than any place on Mars. Antarctica is a garden of Eden and a paradise compared with Mars.
Moonites😂