@@TheSpaceRaceYT❤All will receive Jesus healing energy all old and aches and pains will be washed away. Takes 30 minutes best to relax and shut yr eyes. Also all who reads will receive level 1 portion of youth longevity digestion an self beauty Jesus energy wash tonight at 11 07 eastren. Negative energy will creep out yr feet tell it's time. The Illuminati aka fallen angels aliens NASA what ever you want to call them in there flying tin cans. Can't get out of lower orbit because of the vacuum. Universe is only 77 thousand SQ miles big breathable air through out space angels have to breath. Mars is only 250 miles away sun an moon are much closer an only a city big. Heaven is on Mars moon that's what all the thrusters are for space x Star ship try to punch through the vacuum and destroy Mars moon heaven. I cleaned out hell left the light's on I ripped the soul out the devil after he went dragon just to make it a fair fight. We don't know we are sheep because we don't know who the wolfs are. We always been the prey. 😊
Unlike the Moon mission, the Astronauts won't be coming back alive and will be most likely be advised to dig their own graves first thing after landing and bury themselves once the mission is complete 😂.
In 1973 I bought a plastic model Nerva engine -- with what the model maker called the "Pilgrim Observer" spaceship to go to and from Mars. I glued the thing together, including an artificial gravity module, a hydroponic garden module to produce oxygen, and a module with nuclear reactors to produce electricity. But this was considerably less expensive than the actual Nerva-powered ship that Nixon declined to fund.
Nixon had a war to fight! Which is much more important to Arms Manufacturers and Dealers when it comes to getting their Fair Share of the Taxpayers Money. Which would you like to do? A: fight a war 1/2 way around the World for the Military / Industrialist Complex and advance our War Making abilities Worldwide or B: Plan and Execute bold and new Space Exploration Missions while developing new technologies and advance the Human Race around the World? Seems like a no brainer, but some people have no brains!
@@fukhue8226considering he also mixtape the safer type of atomic reactor for one that was already proved dangerous at three mile island at that time because the big money was already invested in it shows where he was going to jump heck even beforehand jot elected the space programme was being sidelined and staved of money
The V2 wasn't the first long range guided missile. It was the first long range balistic rocket... Tilt etc. Worked trough timer that where set before the start after calculating spesific numbers for the location they where firing it from...
Dang! You got to the end with Nixon and didn't tell us what he chose to do! Was it the Mars Mission or the Space Shuttle? I won't be able to sleep until you tell me! What a cliff hanger!
Fortunately, I am good with history. Nixon decided that a second home for humanity was a great idea and chose the Mars Mission… Too bad about Watergate 😢
Braun wanted to go to space. He never wanted to kill people. Hitler took the man’s dream and turned it into a weapon. When all the man wanted to do was go to space. I would’ve loved to meet that man.
I truly and fully recommend you reading Javier Casado's Biography of Wernher Von Braun "Wernher Von Braun: Between The Eagle And The Swastika" (Wernher Von Braun: Entre el Águila y la Esvástica being the original title in Spanish) which is a great neutral (or at least way more objective and less biased) narration of his entire life, his hardships, triumphs and quirks from birth to death. Truly an eye opening experience in a world that relies solely on biases and is unable to understand that humans aren't just good or just evil, but rather complicated nuanced stories.
The Military Industrial Complex would not allow the American People to spend their Tax Money on foolish Scientific Projects that could Educate and Advance the Human Race (there is no Money in it for them). The only reason they allowed the Apollo Moon Mission was to Develop the Heavy Lift Saturn 5 Booster Technology to lift Hydrogen Bombs into orbit. You don't actually think they did it as a Friendly Race to the Moon did you? The Russians had a Heavy Lift Booster ( R-7 Semyorka "ICBM" Intercontinental Ballistic Missile), America needed a bigger one and they got it (the Saturn 5)!
There was no compelling reason to go back to the Moon in 1972. While there IS a compelling reason to establish a scientific manned presence on the Moon today, there is still NO compelling, logical reason to land people on Mars.
Yes. It didn't seem there was a constituency for it in America on the Right or the Left. The Right wing needed to keep the Commies at bay, and we didn't need any of that peacenik "we came for all mankind" stuff. And of course the Lefties are so sure that any money that doesn't go into the space program will just SURELY go to fighting poverty and injustice! (Spoiler..... FAT CHANCE. So you might as well spend it on space.) I get so irritated by those people that say that money spent on space is "wasted," as they browse TH-cam videos on their tiny computer phones and navigate by GPS.
I for one am happy for the operational pause in human space exploration. NASA needed to let technology catch up with their ambitions. That fact that we didn't have any fatalities in space during the Apollo missions was a stroke of good luck. Operating on the very edge of our capabilities is extremely dangerous. With a few near misses to showcase how close to the edge we were running things back then.
idk man i think its a fallacy that we can ever do this without seriously putting peoples lives at risk... and even then the fact apollo didnt have any fatalities in space is indicative of leaving and entering earths atmosphere being the highest energy part of the operation. "space" is kinda proven to not be the most dangerous part of the operation when you intend to leave and return to earth......
@@UIMcocodog Space travel will never be without risk, which is why many astronauts are/were test pilots for fighter jets. Those people like living life on the edge and push technologies further.
I don't think there is anything wrong with risking lives so long as the people risking their own lives consent and are fully informed of the risks. I think there is an opportunity cost risk that you are neglecting to account for. What happens to society if we do not innovate? Many past innovations have saved countless lives. How many lives does society neglect to save if we refuse to innovate?
It's all down to budgets - look at the cuts they are now doing to Artemis - after the Mars expedition people would have been outraged at how much it had cost; remember by Apollo 13 hardly anybody was watching this third attempt at landing on the Moon UNTIL the accident happened.
@@TearodisNot really, the amount of technological discovery needed for this would cut cost down dramatically. Like how we all use nasa level tire technology now because it’s both very durable and cheap all things considered
The only rocket even capable of lifting enough Materials and Equipment into LEO to PREPARE for a Mars Mission was the Sea Dragon and it never got off the drawing board. These missions and the Drawings and Plans are just to draw in money to NASA and keep it afloat. Otherwise someone would have to answer for all of the wasted money and planned missions that Never Happened!
We would have missed on other majors space missions like Voyager or Galileo. All the money trowed down the pit of a manned mission to Mars would have been unavaible for mission that yield real scientific results. Sending people to Mars is useless, we can achieve far better results with robots instead of "colonists" trapped in tank burried underground.
I also consider the technology at the time of space exploration. Materials and resources for developing Space Exploration were so rudimentary; electronics, raw metals, plastics, nutrition, water reclamation. It took another 20 years to perfect those things before more modern rocketry could sustain itself. We are now the benefactors of all this. I'm glad we are giving it another go now. Thanks for your great episode!
Being a big fan of Science Fiction, I find that the concept that Wernher von Braun's Spacecraft mirrors what was used in the 1955 movie "Conquest of Space" or vise versa.
NASA's 80-year plan to colonize Mars, that made me laugh. I'm envisioning NASA finally arriving in 80 years to have their first NASA astronaut step foot on the red planet, and just has a set foot on the soil, 20 colonists from the the SpaceX in colony coming out to say welcome you're good about time you guys got here, we have your habitat ready. Did you bring the pizza we ordered?
So you have absolutely no clue. Got it. SpaceX has NO intention whatsoever to go to Mars. None of the technical problems have bee addressed. Starship is really StarLinkship, designed to get those 40,000 (!) StarLink satellites into orbit, of which 4,000 will have to be replaced every single year. _
Spiro Agnew, Nixon's vice president, was cheerleading for a Mars mission right after the first moon landing. He was widely mocked, and one editorial cartoonist depicted him strapped to the side of a rocket blasting into space. (He later resigned from office in a "nolo contendere" plea bargain on bribery charges. He might have been better off blasted into space.)
Maybe I'm from a different timeline where all of this actually happened because for some reason as a child, I was so damn sure humanity had already reached Mars, had lunar bases and astronauts would go to the moon all the time... When I got older and actually learned the truth I was so disappointed. lol
Yeah same when I was still in my single digits of age I thought we had go pro videos on mars and that we recently just landed on Venus and created a colony there. I was so confused to find out we only landed on the moon and haven’t gone back since
The main issue with sending humans to Mars is radiation exposure. The Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere provide *a* *lot* of protection that humans frankly need. The best solution we've found is to bury Mars bases and spend as little time as possible on the surface and in transit. NASA is currently designing a nuclear rocket that they'll test in the next few years - because chemical rockets just aren't gonna be good enough.
The nuclear rocket works , untill some day it doesn't , that mess is very bad , so they didn't spend the big money , the German generator that uses balls , is suitable , safe , and tested ,
Radiation on Mars is not an issue. "Radiation" is not a big scary monster, it's a measurable phenomenon that you can plan around. A reasonably sized pressurized volume could sit completely exposed on the surface with no issues.
@@MemeMan_MEMESQUAD The problem is the long-term health effects of consistent exposure to high levels of radiation. It can be quantified, but quantification alone doesn't remove the health risks. Quantification tells you how much mitigation you need, and for Mars, that means burying your base and limiting EVA time. Go read up on the radiation doses involved in a Mars mission. It's no joke, and apart from some breakthrough in radiation resistance medication or diet, the only practical way we have of dealing with it is through mass shielding.
@@xitheris1758 it's roughly 4x the max allowance for radiation exposure for workers in the US. There are places on Earth with radiation levels that high though (from geologic sources) and there's no noticeable increase in cancer risk. You could fortify the food staples with zinc to reduce cancer risk even further. Anyway with a pressurized volume your ceiling height is determined by your anchoring cable length, and steel cables will be able to be made there fairly early on. So with one Starship load of ETFE plastic and some ISRU steel cables you can make 70 acres of pressurized volume with enough air between you and the ETFE liner to function as enough shielding to drop your risk down to zero. No digging needed.
@@xitheris1758 TH-cam deleted my comment, who knows why lol. I'm not getting all those numbers together again, maybe you can read it from your notifications
"Von Braun’s book contains a striking coincidence: “The Martian government was run by ten men, whose leader was elected by popular vote for five years and was called ‘Elon’." Apparently "Elon" was the title of the elected leader.
@@menotyou1234 An interesting post on this subject by Steve Baker: "“The Mars Project” (a technical book - not a novel) was written by Wernher Von Braun in 1953 ... But the fictionalized/novelized version of the story (“Project Mars: A Technical Tale. “) that put the name “Elon” in print for the first time was rejected by every publisher it was offered to - and wasn’t finally published until 2006, long after Von Braun’s death - and long after Elon Musk’s parents named him. So they could not possibly have been influenced by it in choosing that name - even if they somehow intended to raise him as a Mars colony enthusiast." A strange coincidence anyway.
Von Braun isn’t referred to as the “father of rocket science”. Father of MODERN rocket science, maybe, but then Goddard is also called the “father of modern rocketry” which is the exact same thing. Von Braun is more commonly known as the “father of space travel”.
The weekly TV show was called The Wonderful World of Disney not Disneyland. Disneyland was the first theme park in LA. They quite often promoted Disneyland on the TV show. The weekly episodes came from the various 'lands' that co-responded to the themed areas of the park.
You're too young to remember Disneyland the show, but didn't bother checking your 'facts' before posting misinformation. Additionally, Disneyland the park is in Anaheim, not Los Angeles, and it was not even the first theme park when it opened in 1955. Santa Claus Land (now Holiday World) in Indiana, which opened in 1946, is considered one of the first true theme parks because of its central theme of Santa Claus and Christmas. Disneyland was a television series on ABC, from October 27, 1954, to September 3, 1958, on Wednesday nights. It won the Emmy as Best Variety Series during its first season, and another award for Walt Disney as Best Producer of a Filmed Series the following year. The series was part of Disney's innovative strategy to promote his company’s ventures, which included films, TV shows, and the ambitious Disneyland theme park project. The show aired weekly and was divided into segments featuring different themes, often related to the core concepts of Disneyland itself: Adventureland, Tomorrowland, Fantasyland, and Frontierland. Each episode was designed to showcase Disney content, ranging from animated classics to behind-the-scenes features and nature documentaries. The episode "Man in Space," which aired on March 9, 1955 (note, before Disneyland the park opened in July of that year), featured Wernher von Braun, a key figure in rocketry and the space program, and was part of the "Tomorrowland" series of segments. "Man in Space" focused on the scientific principles behind space travel and offered a glimpse into what a journey to outer space might be like. It combined animation, live-action segments, and von Braun's expert commentary to explain concepts such as rocket propulsion and human spaceflight in an accessible way to a wide audience. The "Man in Space" episode became highly influential, even catching the attention of the U.S. government. It was said that President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested a copy to show to Pentagon officials, and it played a role in inspiring public interest and enthusiasm for the space race during the early years of NASA's formation. Von Braun’s contributions to these segments were a pivotal part of making complex space science approachable, helping to build excitement and support for America's exploration of space.
hello well done video would like to know if the astronaughts stayed in Mars for 30 days would they still not be able to stay in space for 1 year or does the timer reset after day 30 when they take off to space
5:10 I wanted to know if gliding into Mars was practical as we know it has very little atmosphere. 6:15 I see. 7:30 This reminds me of Project Orion in the 1960s. 9:08 Genius! But why Silicon oil? Why not water? 9:58 Metallic element cesium... I wonder how it would stack up against the ion thrusters 10:25. 14:14 Now this is more like the Project Orion in the 1960s. But it used it's fuel as mini bombs to move it. Sadly it would never make it and was axed by the Kennedy Administration.
In regards to that, first system being expendable, that could or would've laid the ground work to build a much more reusable version that could be used multiple times to and from Mars just my opinion
Well..... by looking at NASA's Project "ARTEMIS" with the successful ARTEMIS 1 launch that was a non-maned lunar orbit by the Orion module in 2022 and the maned lunar orbit of the ARTEMIS 2 launch happening next year, they are targeting for a Landing by 2026 (at most 2027) with the ARTEMIS 3. And finally the big one. ARTEMIS 4 being the first ever "Lunar Base" (It's basically an orion module but build to withstand more time at the lunar surface while stationary) targeted to happen before the 2030's. Now the cool part with all that is actually not that we are going back to the moon but that with this project they are gonna test A LOT more tech intended to be used for a mars human landing.
We could have landed on Mars sure, if there was the money and the will to. But getting back? Completely different story. Considering we still haven't figured out ISRU well enough yet, and the fuel/resources needed for a complete round trip is prohibitively massive for *today's* tech much less what we had in the 60s/70s. If for no other reason than materials science and manufacturing limitations, plus development time being limited with a lack of computational modeling and calculation speeds
The reuseable glider = spaceshuttle + spacestation was proposed as the starting point for a much bigger moonlanding. This way, a thing learned through the V2, the launching costs would sink dramatically. Instead, earth-direct-to-moon, the less intelligent way had to be done. Exactly that doomed the US-spaceprogram right after achieving the first set goal. The shuttle would have needed the saturn rocket anyway to get off the ground.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The Earth-Direct-to-Moon was the way to beat the Soviet communists to the goal, and THAT was the ONLY priority at the time! The whole POINT of the US's moon-landing program was to BEAT the Soviet Union to the goal of landing a man on the Moon. Do you understand? Science, while performed, especially on later Apollo missions, was SECONDARY to the PRIMARY geopolitical motivation of beating the commies to the Moon. Like it or not, that is the truth.
I did boiler cleaning for coal power plants and paper mills for 20 plus years. Used 2250hp frac pumps @ 8k pressure 600gals minute. Boilers are for steam turbine electric and to cook chemicals. You could generate power with each launch. Build tunnel straight down line boiler tubing layer with high heat refrac. Build a tunnel horizontal to tee into launch pad. It will contain the force and divert explosion to where ever you decide to vent. Also allow the rocket engines to all be brought up to power without cooking launch pad. You could lower pad to ground. It will pull enormous vacuum at inlet and needs vent tunnels that damper the effects. You can use boiler tubing down the tunnels to convert heat into usable energy and save wear and tear to launch site. You plan to make multiple launch per hours lot of money being wasted. You would be able to run all engines at idle up to test launch without launching. When I saw the damage to concrete on pad it has bothered me every since. I have done concrete demolition where we cut out bad spots on bridges. We used 15k psi @ 50 per minute. Stripping concrete leaves rebar. Had rotary head and thick metal blast shield. Also we use pressure washer with 300hp 609hp diesel motor Vacuum truck with 300hp would be ahead of time to have them with electric motor chemical plants are strict on emissions first to build would be ahead of everyone. Want percentage to go into trust to build assisted living for my brother and the elderly in Crockett Texas build this town into retirement for elderly. Self driving vans on call for wheelchair build back medical facilities and college. Training for all mabe a plant for you. Ez to find.
Step 1 of the plan is the construction of Rotating space stations. Interesting. Perhaps we should be more focused on acheived step 1 first. That and a lunar base.
Parallels between rocket shape from then and now are interesting, but expected. There is only 1 efficient shape to use with rocket propulsion through an atmosphere, and that is the one we all use.
First you need artificial gravity, proper shielding and mitigate all health risks to ab acceptable level before you can even think of an expedition let alone a colonisation.
Im hoping to see man walk on mars in my lifetime. At 42 , odds are pretty good , but the artemis mission has crazy delays and thats simply returning to the moon , so who knows. We wasted billions in vietnam to no avail , while killing the apollo program.. Unreal
We so should've keep going after the Apollo missions. We should've already had a base on the Moon and our first steps on Mars long ago. Imagine what we could accomplish if we pooled our resources and did this together for all humanity not just Nationalism..
Technological progress is so unpredictable and misunderstood. I remember hearing a computer scientist in the 80’s saying it would be nearly impossible to get a computer that could talk to you and understand human language like the one on Star Trek. He said it’s a hundred years off. Well, say hello to your i-phone or Alexa or maybe your toaster oven.
That intro sounds exactly like the storfilmen for ‘for all mankind’ on Apple play. In case this sounds interresting. As a space nerd, i highly recommend it 💪
Today, NASA returned to Earth, dust and rock samples from asteroid Bennu, yet to date, there's still been no sample return mission from Mars. Says a lot about how important Mars is considered to be, with regards to scientific discovery. The main reason for putting people on Mars is, it's one of only two space destinations practical to visit.
The biggest driving force behind Elon Musk's decision to get to Mars is that he believes that mankind is going to be extinct on Earth and hopes to prevent it, and be seen as mankind's savior. Sorry to dash his dreams, but we already have one! And we don't need to go to Mars to live, either. However, regardless of his faithless reasoning, I like the science behind the missions and designs of what I've seen thus far. I'm just not sure that it can work seeing as how Mars has no Van Allen belts like Earth does, so there's no protection from radiation, and there are a number of other hurdles that need to be overcome. But you can't overcome them if you don't try.
@@hotflashfoto Elon is a businessman, a salesman, he didn't become a billionaire without the ability to attract investment. He's aware America won the space race to the moon, he knows the American people want to win the space race to Mars, he's feeding that dream, and in doing so, has fanboys looking to him as some type of god. Has the American people looking him as their only chance of beating China, Russia, India, etc, to put the first man on Mars. With his strategy of pandering to that desire, all the investment funds he needs become available for projects like Starship, which I'm convinced will simply pick up from where the space shuttle finished and have very little to do with getting to Mars. If the human race is smart enough to colonize Mars, then it's definitely smart enough to avoid extinction on this planet. The extinction thing is the businessman's age old strategy of adding urgency and importance to the deal, for what he's trying to achieve, investment funding, belief in its importance with regards to him saving the human race from extinction. Elon the hero. Nothing wrong with setting Mars a his ultimate goal though, similar to over engineering, if Starship performs as intended through testing, no lives lost but only gets to the moon, it can be considered to have been a success.
The public appetite for for space travel faded because of the "been there, done that" factor for the moon - there was still, I think appetite for more deep space exploration. I remember as a kid (I was 8 when Neil Armstrong made his "one small step") reading the NASA plans for future space missions and being enthralled. Brooke Bond Tea in the UK used to include little picture cards in their packets of tea - I bullied my mum into buying their tea and collected them in a little book, "Race Into Space". The art was incredible. I've spent the rest of my life regretting the ending of the manned space programme and that I wasn't going to see men on Mars, or any of the other great stuff predicted. And I can't help reflecting on what America (and the world) would be like today if the funding had continued - I read somewhere that the bulk of the money spent on the Apollo programme stayed in America so all those space engineers on good salaries were adding to consumption and paying taxes etc, and the technological advances were astounding. NASA made science and engineering cool - generations of bright kids could have been encouraged to follow careers in those fields if the jobs were there. And I think that would have changed the culture of the country for the better - the more I travel America today the more frequently it seems closed minded, pessimistic and provincial in attitude - possibly the social changes would have been even cooler than the scientific ones.
Big problem is that people back then didn't full know what a year in space would do to the human body. Or even understand what 1/3 of Earths gravity would do over years on the Martian surface. Now? After decades of experiments in space (like Scott Kelly's year in space), we understand far more than we ever could back then. I think with Starship inevitably going to be a success and Artemis 2 planned in two years. It's highly likely we could have the first human on Mars in the 2030's. Granted I bet the mission will take 4-5 years planning. So I'd bet 2035.
All indicators are that: Years of exposure to Mars's .38 gravity will be a very bad thing and seriously detrimental to human physiology. Scott Kelly is fucked up to this day, and freely admits it! So too is Russian cosmonaut Polyakov who spent even more time in space than Kelly. Don't count on "starship" (liquid-fueled, chemical rocket), or SpaceX, to solve these problems of microgravity or partial-gravity,
With a moon colony underway this decade we will learn a lot about what it takes to make a perfect colony and in doing so it would rapidly progress human expansion into the solar system and beyond.
Not sure your assertion that a glider would *never* work. Parachutes work on Mars. There is a helicopter there. I understand Mars atmosphere is much thinner than estimated at time of Von Braun...but the glider wings could much much bigger. Possibly still require some landing rocket assist. It may still be unfeasible , but unless you've done the maths I cant see it as a 'never'.
12:46 this video was good until you said that. The radiation between 8 months and 12 months isn't so great that it'll be fine at 8 and deadly at 12. And microgravity isn't an issue for 12 months if you plan for it.
Kind of a weak ending, and by ending on such a passive cliff hanger, you make it sound like Nixon killed the program. It was more accurate to say that the focus on a reusable space launch system seemed to make so much more sense and was so better suited to expanding our orbital infrastructure that it was much more logical to focus on that, because it would give us the flexibility to do other things later. Of course, the Shuttle turned out to be nowhere near what it was promised to be. But hindsight is 20/20.
Like Robert Zuring i also think that developing space travel in trough solar system makes usa great. I mean thats make people in usa more educated more motivated to study science
In the early 1970s literature, which i still have, predicted a NASA base on Mars for 1985. It was assumed the Apollo program would continue beyond 1973 and lead to a moon base by the late 1970s. A Mars mission profile had been planned using the tech of the time, which was entirely capable and plausible, being a kind if Apollo on a grander scale. Needless to say budgets and waning public enthusiasm for space after the moon landings - been there, done it - saw the Mars plans avandoned. Nevertheless, it's interesting to think there could have people on Mars 40 years ago, one of the great 'what ifs?'.
Starship is snub-nosed, has two flaps very close to the nose, bigger flaps towards the bottom and has heat shielding tiles on over half of it. Other than being made of metal and a cylinder with the “pointy end up and the flamey end down” (Everyday Astronaut) there are no significant similarities between Starship and anything shown that was colored by von Braun. Not to be too picky but there’s no way those ships look like each other. Otherwise the show is good.
NASA is being put to shame for how incredibly successful Falcon 9 and Heavy have been. And how revolutionary Starship is. Just proves that the government is worthless when it comes to innovation and being bold.
@@ReveredDead I believe that in the early days of NASA, their achievements were impressive and they got shit done. Today they are frauds, can't even return to the moon (if we ever were there in the first place). Their claims of rovers on Mars seems sketchy, because they say it takes several months to reach Mars, but a few weeks later claim to have pictures. They need to be thoroughly investigated, on all accounts; especially when they waste billions of dollars on achieving nothing.
Yup, They could have done it all in the 80s. Well, except for the 'Alive' part. The ISS has done a good job of showing us what they didn't know about that. Could they figure it out. Yes but then you were not in the 80s any more.
Gliders on Mars would glide like a stone!I don't think that the problem is getting to Mars it's surviving the trip there and back plus the time spent there.
Those would be different technologies, in some respect. Though I understand what you're saying and I agree. I think the Antartic is a better place for trying to test colonization. We already have stations there doing science (probably).
6:36 "aside from there being no life on Mars" should be "aside from there being no life discovered yet on Mars". We're still testing and searching for possible life there. We haven't looked enough to be sure there is none.
One of the best episodes so far. A 1970s mission to Mars would have been amazing.
would have been amazingly carcinogenic for the astronauts
Thanks Will!
@@TheSpaceRaceYT❤All will receive Jesus healing energy all old and aches and pains will be washed away. Takes 30 minutes best to relax and shut yr eyes. Also all who reads will receive level 1 portion of youth longevity digestion an self beauty Jesus energy wash tonight at 11 07 eastren. Negative energy will creep out yr feet tell it's time.
The Illuminati aka fallen angels aliens NASA what ever you want to call them in there flying tin cans. Can't get out of lower orbit because of the vacuum. Universe is only 77 thousand SQ miles big breathable air through out space angels have to breath. Mars is only 250 miles away sun an moon are much closer an only a city big. Heaven is on Mars moon that's what all the thrusters are for space x Star ship try to punch through the vacuum and destroy Mars moon heaven. I cleaned out hell left the light's on
I ripped the soul out the devil after he went dragon just to make it a fair fight. We don't know we are sheep because we don't know who the wolfs are. We always been the prey. 😊
Unlike the Moon mission, the Astronauts won't be coming back alive and will be most likely be advised to dig their own graves first thing after landing and bury themselves once the mission is complete 😂.
Tsiolkovsky is the one regarded as the father of rocket science not Von Brauhn 😂😂
In 1973 I bought a plastic model Nerva engine -- with what the model maker called the "Pilgrim Observer" spaceship to go to and from Mars. I glued the thing together, including an artificial gravity module, a hydroponic garden module to produce oxygen, and a module with nuclear reactors to produce electricity.
But this was considerably less expensive than the actual Nerva-powered ship that Nixon declined to fund.
Nixon had a war to fight! Which is much more important to Arms Manufacturers and Dealers when it comes to getting their Fair Share of the Taxpayers Money. Which would you like to do? A: fight a war 1/2 way around the World for the Military / Industrialist Complex and advance our War Making abilities Worldwide or B: Plan and Execute bold and new Space Exploration Missions while developing new technologies and advance the Human Race around the World? Seems like a no brainer, but some people have no brains!
@@fukhue8226considering he also mixtape the safer type of atomic reactor for one that was already proved dangerous at three mile island at that time because the big money was already invested in it shows where he was going to jump heck even beforehand jot elected the space programme was being sidelined and staved of money
@@fukhue8226 if was only them... the lobby made space schutle be a thing while not being no were near economic as they call it.
I also built one of those and it worked! I flew it to Mars a couple of times and started a very small colony. Then my little brother stepped on it.
@@ontheruntonowhere I suppose you also won the Super Bowl - on your Electric Football game!
The V2 wasn't the first long range guided missile. It was the first long range balistic rocket... Tilt etc. Worked trough timer that where set before the start after calculating spesific numbers for the location they where firing it from...
Dang! You got to the end with Nixon and didn't tell us what he chose to do! Was it the Mars Mission or the Space Shuttle? I won't be able to sleep until you tell me! What a cliff hanger!
😂😂😂
Fortunately, I am good with history. Nixon decided that a second home for humanity was a great idea and chose the Mars Mission…
Too bad about Watergate 😢
Nixon chose Skylab (which was a dumb boring idea).
Braun wanted to go to space. He never wanted to kill people. Hitler took the man’s dream and turned it into a weapon. When all the man wanted to do was go to space. I would’ve loved to meet that man.
I truly and fully recommend you reading Javier Casado's Biography of Wernher Von Braun "Wernher Von Braun: Between The Eagle And The Swastika" (Wernher Von Braun: Entre el Águila y la Esvástica being the original title in Spanish) which is a great neutral (or at least way more objective and less biased) narration of his entire life, his hardships, triumphs and quirks from birth to death. Truly an eye opening experience in a world that relies solely on biases and is unable to understand that humans aren't just good or just evil, but rather complicated nuanced stories.
Thank you. I was a fan of this era and knew that humanity COULD have succeeded if the national will had permitted the effort
The Military Industrial Complex would not allow the American People to spend their Tax Money on foolish Scientific Projects that could Educate and Advance the Human Race (there is no Money in it for them). The only reason they allowed the Apollo Moon Mission was to Develop the Heavy Lift Saturn 5 Booster Technology to lift Hydrogen Bombs into orbit. You don't actually think they did it as a Friendly Race to the Moon did you? The Russians had a Heavy Lift Booster ( R-7 Semyorka "ICBM" Intercontinental Ballistic Missile), America needed a bigger one and they got it (the Saturn 5)!
There was no compelling reason to go back to the Moon in 1972. While there IS a compelling reason to establish a scientific manned presence on the Moon today, there is still NO compelling, logical reason to land people on Mars.
Yes. It didn't seem there was a constituency for it in America on the Right or the Left. The Right wing needed to keep the Commies at bay, and we didn't need any of that peacenik "we came for all mankind" stuff. And of course the Lefties are so sure that any money that doesn't go into the space program will just SURELY go to fighting poverty and injustice! (Spoiler..... FAT CHANCE. So you might as well spend it on space.)
I get so irritated by those people that say that money spent on space is "wasted," as they browse TH-cam videos on their tiny computer phones and navigate by GPS.
There is not enough funding. Not gonna lie if the Soviet Union didn't collapse the Americans woukd have a reason to get to Mars.
LlPZl.
Listening to RFK Jr talk about his father's funeral made me cry in mourning for what could have been.
...Great channel! Always a good post.
I for one am happy for the operational pause in human space exploration. NASA needed to let technology catch up with their ambitions. That fact that we didn't have any fatalities in space during the Apollo missions was a stroke of good luck. Operating on the very edge of our capabilities is extremely dangerous. With a few near misses to showcase how close to the edge we were running things back then.
I've had this feeling we shouldn't go to Mars until the 2050s then colonize in the 22nd century.
idk man i think its a fallacy that we can ever do this without seriously putting peoples lives at risk... and even then the fact apollo didnt have any fatalities in space is indicative of leaving and entering earths atmosphere being the highest energy part of the operation. "space" is kinda proven to not be the most dangerous part of the operation when you intend to leave and return to earth......
@@UIMcocodog Space travel will never be without risk, which is why many astronauts are/were test pilots for fighter jets. Those people like living life on the edge and push technologies further.
I don't think there is anything wrong with risking lives so long as the people risking their own lives consent and are fully informed of the risks.
I think there is an opportunity cost risk that you are neglecting to account for. What happens to society if we do not innovate? Many past innovations have saved countless lives. How many lives does society neglect to save if we refuse to innovate?
A lot of alien Civilizations probably thought the same until the great filter happened @DHTSciFiArtist
This was a really well done video!!! A mix of History .... with a vision of the Future... !!! Very well done indeed !!!
A mix of lies
Is anyone else thinking what would of happen or how different the world could if this nasa mission success back then?
We would just have people saying the Mars landings of the 1980s were fake and the USA would be slightly more poor.
It's all down to budgets - look at the cuts they are now doing to Artemis - after the Mars expedition people would have been outraged at how much it had cost; remember by Apollo 13 hardly anybody was watching this third attempt at landing on the Moon UNTIL the accident happened.
@@TearodisNot really, the amount of technological discovery needed for this would cut cost down dramatically. Like how we all use nasa level tire technology now because it’s both very durable and cheap all things considered
The only rocket even capable of lifting enough Materials and Equipment into LEO to PREPARE for a Mars Mission was the Sea Dragon and it never got off the drawing board. These missions and the Drawings and Plans are just to draw in money to NASA and keep it afloat. Otherwise someone would have to answer for all of the wasted money and planned missions that Never Happened!
We would have missed on other majors space missions like Voyager or Galileo. All the money trowed down the pit of a manned mission to Mars would have been unavaible for mission that yield real scientific results. Sending people to Mars is useless, we can achieve far better results with robots instead of "colonists" trapped in tank burried underground.
Love Your videos man
Love the Mars glider and rocket return option. Real Visionary!
You should see the 1955 movie "Conquest of Space." That same spacecraft concept was used in that movie.
@@southtexasprepper1837 i will check that out! Thanks!
It was all fake
I also consider the technology at the time of space exploration. Materials and resources for developing Space Exploration were so rudimentary; electronics, raw metals, plastics, nutrition, water reclamation. It took another 20 years to perfect those things before more modern rocketry could sustain itself. We are now the benefactors of all this. I'm glad we are giving it another go now. Thanks for your great episode!
We're still rudimentary in our technology, and the, "time", of space exploration, has been ongoing since 1957.
Being a big fan of Science Fiction, I find that the concept that Wernher von Braun's Spacecraft mirrors what was used in the 1955 movie "Conquest of Space" or vise versa.
That movies spaceship design was taken from Wernher von Braun's actual designs that appeared in a 1954 issue of Collier's.
NASA's 80-year plan to colonize Mars, that made me laugh. I'm envisioning NASA finally arriving in 80 years to have their first NASA astronaut step foot on the red planet, and just has a set foot on the soil, 20 colonists from the the SpaceX in colony coming out to say welcome you're good about time you guys got here, we have your habitat ready. Did you bring the pizza we ordered?
So you have absolutely no clue. Got it. SpaceX has NO intention whatsoever to go to Mars. None of the technical problems have bee addressed. Starship is really StarLinkship, designed to get those 40,000 (!) StarLink satellites into orbit, of which 4,000 will have to be replaced every single year.
_
You underestimate NASA and overestimate SpaceX(though Spacex is quite impressive)
LOL. You still trust the racist Musk?
Spiro Agnew, Nixon's vice president, was cheerleading for a Mars mission right after the first moon landing. He was widely mocked, and one editorial cartoonist depicted him strapped to the side of a rocket blasting into space. (He later resigned from office in a "nolo contendere" plea bargain on bribery charges. He might have been better off blasted into space.)
Most Americans soon would have favored sending Agnew to Mars -- one way.
@@brianarbenz1329 Especially all those nattering nabobs of negativity... ;-)
@@StormyDog Remember those Spiro Agnew watches? I guess they're set to Martian time.
Futurama did him wrong. He was depicted as a headless android who only grunted to communicate. It was hilarious and I had no idea he was Nixons vp
Maybe I'm from a different timeline where all of this actually happened because for some reason as a child, I was so damn sure humanity had already reached Mars, had lunar bases and astronauts would go to the moon all the time...
When I got older and actually learned the truth I was so disappointed. lol
In that case we are from the same timeline
Me too and I'm devastated...they owe us big time LOL !
Yeah same when I was still in my single digits of age I thought we had go pro videos on mars and that we recently just landed on Venus and created a colony there. I was so confused to find out we only landed on the moon and haven’t gone back since
The main issue with sending humans to Mars is radiation exposure. The Earth's magnetic field and atmosphere provide *a* *lot* of protection that humans frankly need. The best solution we've found is to bury Mars bases and spend as little time as possible on the surface and in transit. NASA is currently designing a nuclear rocket that they'll test in the next few years - because chemical rockets just aren't gonna be good enough.
The nuclear rocket works , untill some day it doesn't , that mess is very bad , so they didn't spend the big money , the German generator that uses balls , is suitable , safe , and tested ,
Radiation on Mars is not an issue. "Radiation" is not a big scary monster, it's a measurable phenomenon that you can plan around. A reasonably sized pressurized volume could sit completely exposed on the surface with no issues.
@@MemeMan_MEMESQUAD The problem is the long-term health effects of consistent exposure to high levels of radiation. It can be quantified, but quantification alone doesn't remove the health risks. Quantification tells you how much mitigation you need, and for Mars, that means burying your base and limiting EVA time. Go read up on the radiation doses involved in a Mars mission. It's no joke, and apart from some breakthrough in radiation resistance medication or diet, the only practical way we have of dealing with it is through mass shielding.
@@xitheris1758 it's roughly 4x the max allowance for radiation exposure for workers in the US. There are places on Earth with radiation levels that high though (from geologic sources) and there's no noticeable increase in cancer risk. You could fortify the food staples with zinc to reduce cancer risk even further.
Anyway with a pressurized volume your ceiling height is determined by your anchoring cable length, and steel cables will be able to be made there fairly early on. So with one Starship load of ETFE plastic and some ISRU steel cables you can make 70 acres of pressurized volume with enough air between you and the ETFE liner to function as enough shielding to drop your risk down to zero. No digging needed.
@@xitheris1758 TH-cam deleted my comment, who knows why lol. I'm not getting all those numbers together again, maybe you can read it from your notifications
Is it true that Von Brown named the mars administrator character in this book "Elon"?
"Von Braun’s book contains a striking coincidence: “The Martian government was run by ten men, whose leader was elected by popular vote for five years and was called ‘Elon’." Apparently "Elon" was the title of the elected leader.
Yes, Elons dad picked his name from the book.
@@menotyou1234 An interesting post on this subject by Steve Baker: "“The Mars Project” (a technical book - not a novel) was written by Wernher Von Braun in 1953 ... But the fictionalized/novelized version of the story (“Project Mars: A Technical Tale. “) that put the name “Elon” in print for the first time was rejected by every publisher it was offered to - and wasn’t finally published until 2006, long after Von Braun’s death - and long after Elon Musk’s parents named him. So they could not possibly have been influenced by it in choosing that name - even if they somehow intended to raise him as a Mars colony enthusiast." A strange coincidence anyway.
Von Braun isn’t referred to as the “father of rocket science”. Father of MODERN rocket science, maybe, but then Goddard is also called the “father of modern rocketry” which is the exact same thing. Von Braun is more commonly known as the “father of space travel”.
The weekly TV show was called The Wonderful World of Disney not Disneyland. Disneyland was the first theme park in LA. They quite often promoted Disneyland on the TV show. The weekly episodes came from the various 'lands' that co-responded to the themed areas of the park.
Disneyland was not in L.A. it is in Anaheim.
You're too young to remember Disneyland the show, but didn't bother checking your 'facts' before posting misinformation. Additionally, Disneyland the park is in Anaheim, not Los Angeles, and it was not even the first theme park when it opened in 1955. Santa Claus Land (now Holiday World) in Indiana, which opened in 1946, is considered one of the first true theme parks because of its central theme of Santa Claus and Christmas.
Disneyland was a television series on ABC, from October 27, 1954, to September 3, 1958, on Wednesday nights. It won the Emmy as Best Variety Series during its first season, and another award for Walt Disney as Best Producer of a Filmed Series the following year. The series was part of Disney's innovative strategy to promote his company’s ventures, which included films, TV shows, and the ambitious Disneyland theme park project. The show aired weekly and was divided into segments featuring different themes, often related to the core concepts of Disneyland itself: Adventureland, Tomorrowland, Fantasyland, and Frontierland. Each episode was designed to showcase Disney content, ranging from animated classics to behind-the-scenes features and nature documentaries.
The episode "Man in Space," which aired on March 9, 1955 (note, before Disneyland the park opened in July of that year), featured Wernher von Braun, a key figure in rocketry and the space program, and was part of the "Tomorrowland" series of segments. "Man in Space" focused on the scientific principles behind space travel and offered a glimpse into what a journey to outer space might be like. It combined animation, live-action segments, and von Braun's expert commentary to explain concepts such as rocket propulsion and human spaceflight in an accessible way to a wide audience.
The "Man in Space" episode became highly influential, even catching the attention of the U.S. government. It was said that President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested a copy to show to Pentagon officials, and it played a role in inspiring public interest and enthusiasm for the space race during the early years of NASA's formation. Von Braun’s contributions to these segments were a pivotal part of making complex space science approachable, helping to build excitement and support for America's exploration of space.
hello well done video
would like to know if the astronaughts stayed in Mars for 30 days would they still not be able to stay in space for 1 year or does the timer reset after day 30 when they take off to space
No reset. Cumulative exposure.
5:10 I wanted to know if gliding into Mars was practical as we know it has very little atmosphere. 6:15 I see.
7:30 This reminds me of Project Orion in the 1960s.
9:08 Genius! But why Silicon oil? Why not water?
9:58 Metallic element cesium...
I wonder how it would stack up against the ion thrusters 10:25.
14:14 Now this is more like the Project Orion in the 1960s. But it used it's fuel as mini bombs to move it. Sadly it would never make it and was axed by the Kennedy Administration.
Overall a great video , nice to learn about con brauns novel!
Way, WAY cool awe awesome stuff! As the old saying goes of all the words of tongue and pin, the saddest are these what might have been!
In regards to that, first system being expendable, that could or would've laid the ground work to build a much more reusable version that could be used multiple times to and from Mars just my opinion
The real tragedy is that we never built a base on the moon.
@MidriffKOwhat's that?
Name of the moon base?
Well..... by looking at NASA's Project "ARTEMIS" with the successful ARTEMIS 1 launch that was a non-maned lunar orbit by the Orion module in 2022 and the maned lunar orbit of the ARTEMIS 2 launch happening next year, they are targeting for a Landing by 2026 (at most 2027) with the ARTEMIS 3. And finally the big one. ARTEMIS 4 being the first ever "Lunar Base" (It's basically an orion module but build to withstand more time at the lunar surface while stationary) targeted to happen before the 2030's.
Now the cool part with all that is actually not that we are going back to the moon but that with this project they are gonna test A LOT more tech intended to be used for a mars human landing.
Love your channel. keep up the good work.
A great show similar to this is for all man kind
Great video! VERY informative and not filled with junk science. Loved every minute of it! Earned a like and a sub from this space geek.
NASA is currently trying to return to the moon and travel to Mars using 1970's & 80's technology. They call it SLS!
Slow Launch System😂
Mars? Not enough payload, I guess that's a one way mission.
There was an web series called FOR ALL MANKIND
Your graphic for the mercury craft said mecury lol
"What if" is actually the Apple+ series "For all Mankind" which I think is an amazing fantasy
What would be the name of the first colony be called
This one is the best video so far.
Glad you liked it!
Neat info! Really enjoyed it.
Wondering why you have only 172k sub, amazing video
Great video! Very interesting
For all mankind is as close as we will get to that reality
Very interesting can't wait for the next episode
Thank you for this! It was an incredibly interesting slice of aerospace history! Liked and subscribed.
MARS & BEYOND
We could have landed on Mars sure, if there was the money and the will to. But getting back? Completely different story. Considering we still haven't figured out ISRU well enough yet, and the fuel/resources needed for a complete round trip is prohibitively massive for *today's* tech much less what we had in the 60s/70s. If for no other reason than materials science and manufacturing limitations, plus development time being limited with a lack of computational modeling and calculation speeds
"they even shot his little brother" had me rolling xD
The reuseable glider = spaceshuttle + spacestation was proposed as the starting point for a much bigger moonlanding. This way, a thing learned through the V2, the launching costs would sink dramatically. Instead, earth-direct-to-moon, the less intelligent way had to be done. Exactly that doomed the US-spaceprogram right after achieving the first set goal. The shuttle would have needed the saturn rocket anyway to get off the ground.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The Earth-Direct-to-Moon was the way to beat the Soviet communists to the goal, and THAT was the ONLY priority at the time! The whole POINT of the US's moon-landing program was to BEAT the Soviet Union to the goal of landing a man on the Moon. Do you understand? Science, while performed, especially on later Apollo missions, was SECONDARY to the PRIMARY geopolitical motivation of beating the commies to the Moon. Like it or not, that is the truth.
I think we need at least another 100 years to be able to reliably send people to Mars.
They are already there sleapy head.
do propellers work in space?
18:09 6 crew, but only 3 touch down on Mars? Who the hell would want to take that years long journey and yet not actually go to Mars?
Nice job!
Great episode
comment for the algorithm and to help the channel
Giving up doesn't always mean you are weak. Sometimes it means that you are strong enough to let go.
I did boiler cleaning for coal power plants and paper mills for 20 plus years. Used 2250hp frac pumps @ 8k pressure 600gals minute. Boilers are for steam turbine electric and to cook chemicals.
You could generate power with each launch.
Build tunnel straight down line boiler tubing layer with high heat refrac. Build a tunnel horizontal to tee into launch pad. It will contain the force and divert explosion to where ever you decide to vent. Also allow the rocket engines to all be brought up to power without cooking launch pad. You could lower pad to ground. It will pull enormous vacuum at inlet and needs vent tunnels that damper the effects. You can use boiler tubing down the tunnels to convert heat into usable energy and save wear and tear to launch site. You plan to make multiple launch per hours lot of money being wasted.
You would be able to run all engines at idle up to test launch without launching.
When I saw the damage to concrete on pad it has bothered me every since. I have done concrete demolition where we cut out bad spots on bridges. We used 15k psi @ 50 per minute. Stripping concrete leaves rebar. Had rotary head and thick metal blast shield.
Also we use pressure washer with 300hp 609hp diesel motor
Vacuum truck with 300hp would be ahead of time to have them with electric motor chemical plants are strict on emissions first to build would be ahead of everyone. Want percentage to go into trust to build assisted living for my brother and the elderly in Crockett Texas build this town into retirement for elderly. Self driving vans on call for wheelchair build back medical facilities and college. Training for all mabe a plant for you. Ez to find.
Colonizing Mars makes no sense when there are still vast uninhabited areas on our planet. North America is like 90% empty especially Canada
His glider might not have worked but a glider on Mars should work considering a multi rotor can fly on Mars
a rotor lifting a camera and some electronics is different than a ship carrying people and payload.
Great content
Step 1 of the plan is the construction of Rotating space stations. Interesting. Perhaps we should be more focused on acheived step 1 first. That and a lunar base.
Parallels between rocket shape from then and now are interesting, but expected. There is only 1 efficient shape to use with rocket propulsion through an atmosphere, and that is the one we all use.
First you need artificial gravity, proper shielding and mitigate all health risks to ab acceptable level before you can even think of an expedition let alone a colonisation.
Living on mars is the dumbest suicide mission ever.
when?
Im hoping to see man walk on mars in my lifetime. At 42 , odds are pretty good , but the artemis mission has crazy delays and thats simply returning to the moon , so who knows. We wasted billions in vietnam to no avail , while killing the apollo program.. Unreal
We so should've keep going after the Apollo missions. We should've already had a base on the Moon and our first steps on Mars long ago. Imagine what we could accomplish if we pooled our resources and did this together for all humanity not just Nationalism..
First people traveling to Mars will have to sacrifice a third of their life because of cosmic radiation. Volunteers?
@@NikZ8736 Ive always said we need to be sending senior citizens
Technological progress is so unpredictable and misunderstood. I remember hearing a computer scientist in the 80’s saying it would be nearly impossible to get a computer that could talk to you and understand human language like the one on Star Trek. He said it’s a hundred years off. Well, say hello to your i-phone or Alexa or maybe your toaster oven.
That intro sounds exactly like the storfilmen for ‘for all mankind’ on Apple play. In case this sounds interresting.
As a space nerd, i highly recommend it 💪
Fantastic presentation! You presented this so everyone can understand and I thank you!!
Great episode. It left me wondering how many G's they were pulling when 3 nuclear rockets fire up to send you to Mars.
great video...
You show a video of an open loop + closed loop liquid propellant rocket engine with the label "Hypergolic Propellant".
8:21 I know damn well thats Slurms Mackenzie in that picture
Disney's T.V. show was called "Wonderful World of Disney", not "Disneyland".
@fleetingfacet8028 Yes, there was a "the".
Never bend your head. Always hold it high. Look the world right in the eye.
3:12 This is when you lost me... It's in the shape of a bullet because outside of a drop of water, bullet is the most aerodynamic.
Today, NASA returned to Earth, dust and rock samples from asteroid Bennu, yet to date, there's still been no sample return mission from Mars. Says a lot about how important Mars is considered to be, with regards to scientific discovery. The main reason for putting people on Mars is, it's one of only two space destinations practical to visit.
The biggest driving force behind Elon Musk's decision to get to Mars is that he believes that mankind is going to be extinct on Earth and hopes to prevent it, and be seen as mankind's savior.
Sorry to dash his dreams, but we already have one! And we don't need to go to Mars to live, either.
However, regardless of his faithless reasoning, I like the science behind the missions and designs of what I've seen thus far. I'm just not sure that it can work seeing as how Mars has no Van Allen belts like Earth does, so there's no protection from radiation, and there are a number of other hurdles that need to be overcome. But you can't overcome them if you don't try.
@@hotflashfoto Elon is a businessman, a salesman, he didn't become a billionaire without the ability to attract investment. He's aware America won the space race to the moon, he knows the American people want to win the space race to Mars, he's feeding that dream, and in doing so, has fanboys looking to him as some type of god. Has the American people looking him as their only chance of beating China, Russia, India, etc, to put the first man on Mars. With his strategy of pandering to that desire, all the investment funds he needs become available for projects like Starship, which I'm convinced will simply pick up from where the space shuttle finished and have very little to do with getting to Mars. If the human race is smart enough to colonize Mars, then it's definitely smart enough to avoid extinction on this planet. The extinction thing is the businessman's age old strategy of adding urgency and importance to the deal, for what he's trying to achieve, investment funding, belief in its importance with regards to him saving the human race from extinction. Elon the hero. Nothing wrong with setting Mars a his ultimate goal though, similar to over engineering, if Starship performs as intended through testing, no lives lost but only gets to the moon, it can be considered to have been a success.
I’m optimistic going to Mars will take place next decade the least and 2040s at the latest. Regardless it will happen eventually in given time.
The public appetite for for space travel faded because of the "been there, done that" factor for the moon - there was still, I think appetite for more deep space exploration. I remember as a kid (I was 8 when Neil Armstrong made his "one small step") reading the NASA plans for future space missions and being enthralled. Brooke Bond Tea in the UK used to include little picture cards in their packets of tea - I bullied my mum into buying their tea and collected them in a little book, "Race Into Space". The art was incredible. I've spent the rest of my life regretting the ending of the manned space programme and that I wasn't going to see men on Mars, or any of the other great stuff predicted.
And I can't help reflecting on what America (and the world) would be like today if the funding had continued - I read somewhere that the bulk of the money spent on the Apollo programme stayed in America so all those space engineers on good salaries were adding to consumption and paying taxes etc, and the technological advances were astounding. NASA made science and engineering cool - generations of bright kids could have been encouraged to follow careers in those fields if the jobs were there. And I think that would have changed the culture of the country for the better - the more I travel America today the more frequently it seems closed minded, pessimistic and provincial in attitude - possibly the social changes would have been even cooler than the scientific ones.
Big problem is that people back then didn't full know what a year in space would do to the human body. Or even understand what 1/3 of Earths gravity would do over years on the Martian surface. Now? After decades of experiments in space (like Scott Kelly's year in space), we understand far more than we ever could back then. I think with Starship inevitably going to be a success and Artemis 2 planned in two years. It's highly likely we could have the first human on Mars in the 2030's. Granted I bet the mission will take 4-5 years planning. So I'd bet 2035.
All indicators are that: Years of exposure to Mars's .38 gravity will be a very bad thing and seriously detrimental to human physiology. Scott Kelly is fucked up to this day, and freely admits it! So too is Russian cosmonaut Polyakov who spent even more time in space than Kelly. Don't count on "starship" (liquid-fueled, chemical rocket), or SpaceX, to solve these problems of microgravity or partial-gravity,
US can't even put humans on the moon today.
The Apollo mission is nothing but a cheap Hollywood for fools.
With a moon colony underway this decade we will learn a lot about what it takes to make a perfect colony and in doing so it would rapidly progress human expansion into the solar system and beyond.
10:17
Wow, thats not how trust works haha
Watch 'For All Mankind' for a really interesting alternate reality that shows this happening. It's sooo good
Not sure your assertion that a glider would *never* work. Parachutes work on Mars. There is a helicopter there. I understand Mars atmosphere is much thinner than estimated at time of Von Braun...but the glider wings could much much bigger. Possibly still require some landing rocket assist. It may still be unfeasible , but unless you've done the maths I cant see it as a 'never'.
Who here has heard to opening statement of this video and reflected on the awesome work of the Apple TV+ series [ For All Mankind ]
The happiness of a man in this life does not consist in the absence but in the mastery of his passions.
11:39 Camera operator which been left on Moon perfectly follows spacecraft lift-off moment :)
nice studio
12:46 this video was good until you said that. The radiation between 8 months and 12 months isn't so great that it'll be fine at 8 and deadly at 12. And microgravity isn't an issue for 12 months if you plan for it.
So wait, when did they send that "Capricorn One" mission, again? ;)
Man we could have have been to Mars before I was born. 22 years later I’m drooling over For all Mankind wishing it was real
Good docu, but the flickering backgrounds are very annoying
Kind of a weak ending, and by ending on such a passive cliff hanger, you make it sound like Nixon killed the program. It was more accurate to say that the focus on a reusable space launch system seemed to make so much more sense and was so better suited to expanding our orbital infrastructure that it was much more logical to focus on that, because it would give us the flexibility to do other things later.
Of course, the Shuttle turned out to be nowhere near what it was promised to be. But hindsight is 20/20.
Like Robert Zuring i also think that developing space travel in trough solar system makes usa great. I mean thats make people in usa more educated more motivated to study science
In the early 1970s literature, which i still have, predicted a NASA base on Mars for 1985. It was assumed the Apollo program would continue beyond 1973 and lead to a moon base by the late 1970s. A Mars mission profile had been planned using the tech of the time, which was entirely capable and plausible, being a kind if Apollo on a grander scale. Needless to say budgets and waning public enthusiasm for space after the moon landings - been there, done it - saw the Mars plans avandoned. Nevertheless, it's interesting to think there could have people on Mars 40 years ago, one of the great 'what ifs?'.
Once the rocket goes up, who cares where they come down? Thats not my department says Werner Von Braun.
Sounds really safe.
Showing your age there LOL. My beatnik parents were also fans of Tom Lehrer.
@@tracyhardyjohnson1315 Actually in my 30s. But Tom Lehrer is a local treasure.
Starship is snub-nosed, has two flaps very close to the nose, bigger flaps towards the bottom and has heat shielding tiles on over half of it.
Other than being made of metal and a cylinder with the “pointy end up and the flamey end down” (Everyday Astronaut) there are no significant similarities between Starship and anything shown that was colored by von Braun.
Not to be too picky but there’s no way those ships look like each other.
Otherwise the show is good.
NASA is being put to shame for how incredibly successful Falcon 9 and Heavy have been. And how revolutionary Starship is. Just proves that the government is worthless when it comes to innovation and being bold.
@@ReveredDead
Spacex is build on the shoulders of NASA.
Achievements of NASA far outweighs SpaceX.
@@ReveredDead I believe that in the early days of NASA, their achievements were impressive and they got shit done. Today they are frauds, can't even return to the moon (if we ever were there in the first place). Their claims of rovers on Mars seems sketchy, because they say it takes several months to reach Mars, but a few weeks later claim to have pictures. They need to be thoroughly investigated, on all accounts; especially when they waste billions of dollars on achieving nothing.
@@ReveredDeadIf Musk is such a badass, why can't he even put a person on the moon? NASA did it 55 years ago with tinfoil Cracker Jack box toy.
RATHER THAN FINDING WAYS TO HELP OUR PLANET
LEO was probably a better thing to fund. The Shuttle probably should not have been the vessel though.
Yup, They could have done it all in the 80s. Well, except for the 'Alive' part. The ISS has done a good job of showing us what they didn't know about that. Could they figure it out. Yes but then you were not in the 80s any more.
Gliders on Mars would glide like a stone!I don't think that the problem is getting to Mars it's surviving the trip there and back plus the time spent there.
I wouldn’t expect extraterrestrial colonisation to be feasible until we’ve proved we can do it underwater for a at least a decade without issue.
Those would be different technologies, in some respect. Though I understand what you're saying and I agree. I think the Antartic is a better place for trying to test colonization. We already have stations there doing science (probably).
6:36 "aside from there being no life on Mars" should be "aside from there being no life discovered yet on Mars". We're still testing and searching for possible life there. We haven't looked enough to be sure there is none.
will we tera-forming Mars ?
That book about a unified earth kept unified by a giant orbital weapon. Sounds metal as fehk.