MARS [NEW!!!]Constellation(DEFUNCT)/SLS : Manned Mission to Mars/ SLS ARCHITECTURE
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- How Project Constellation would have taken Man to Mars by the 2030's.
\This video features the ORION MPCV, Ares I , Ares V ,
the NTR cargo transfer vehicles and the NTR Mars transfer vehicles.\
No copyright infringment intended. Outer Space is for all humanity.
forum.nasaspace....
The Original Mars Direct Plan:
wp10988215.wp13...
Credits : John Frassanito & Associates for NASA.
![NASA Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity Rover) Mission Animation [HDx1280]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gwinFP8_qIM/mqdefault.jpg)
KSP gave me a whole new level of respect for people who work in space
Still playing KSP in 2024, even after the announced dissolution of KSP 2.
Now we see what remains of this grand vision. As sad as it is to see Constellation fade into the footnotes, I'm glad that it was partially scavenged. A piece of it will live on in Artemis and the SLS. Godspeed, Artemis!
Most likely the payload would possibly be Starship if necessary
This wasn’t a grand vision, it was something cobbled together as an excuse to keep paying everyone who work on the Space Shuttle.
More useful than the shuttle admittedly, but ultimately just an excuse to spend money.
Artemis and SLS continues that proud tradition, although at least some money got funnelled to SpaceX to help then develop Starship
@@HALLish-jl5mo Now they continue spending money, but on something less useful to get to Mars in 2030 decade...
Congress: accidentally adds zeroes to nasa budget
NASA:
Seeing "NEW!!!" and "DEFUNCT" in the same line is a little odd
It’s edited, it was Canned by Congress after this was uploaded.
Funni like number
"New"
Lol
Nasa: Plan to go to mars
Government: Can we strap a nuke on it?
Nasa: No....
Government: Cancelled.
In 2030 only reason is SpaceX they don't want to be beat
PS problem is massive don't want to get beat
Why they should go with this cheap space orbiter, rather they can ride on this and go there th-cam.com/video/0qo78R_yYFA/w-d-xo.html
Well nasa has started to make nuclear powered rockets
spacex:allow us to intriduce ourselves
In 2030?? This should have flown in 1995!
How?
@@cheeseeddy4188 He's just saying that the government should have been more fair to NASA and that if they were it would have happened in the 90s.
Well consider the space shuttle cost right.. about a billion dollars to launch and they built 5 of them... I'd say the US government was pretty fair to NASA... Do I think that politicians had too much influence on rocket scientists? Absolutely..But I don't think financial restraints were a contributing factor to some of the hurdles that they encountered
@@MIXMASTERBJB1 the space shuttle was supposed to be better and more efficient but the government fucked em
knowing the government its probably gonna be delayed at least another 5 years so 2035? maybe even 2040 we just might have a chance at mars, realistically 2050
If it actually happens in my lifetime I'm so gonna be on the edge of my seat following it all the way! will be mind blowing to watch!
+PyroChimp75 2039.... I'm 16 years old and i'll be forty damn years old. I feel really bad for the older space enthusiasts who won't live to see it.
Yea but in real life you cant skip time it will take some month to fly to the mars! So have fun wenn you follow it all the was on your seat:D
Leonard Graf it'll be brodcasted to the corner of our smartphone contacts.
Isaiah Phillip you don’t have to wait that long. Spacex will do it faster
Artemis: Im gonna make this man's day
It may seem very complicated, but it's generally better to keep your eggs in many baskets and keep the number of potential problems spread thin. Sending supplies to Mars ahead of the crew using multiple missions reduces the possibility of losing everything should something go wrong during the transit to Mars. So if we lose one of the two cargo ships en route, we can more easily build one more rather than having to buy one really big one that costs twice as much.
Here we are now in 2022 with Artemis, SLS and Starship!
the words scrubbed are now stuck in my head
help
@@AltairBlue 3 words
*Scrubbed Launch System*
I am now starting to believe it will be a Constellation repeat. Only one rocket from the program will launch then after, the whole thing will be cancelled.
@@Starfleet2269 this is aging well lmao
Excuse me while I memorize the steps by heart. Best animation I've ever seen. I want to give the animator a hug. :)
SURE, NANCY!
Everytime I watch this it makes me sad. What could have been.
Yeah, its sad that our main focus on space kinda disappeared after the apollo missions.
This thing ment to be launched using Ares 5 rocket with 180 tonnes cargo capacity . The SLS has only 130.
I remember watching this video when I was only 5 years old. I hope NASA sends people to Mars in the next 20 years!
Spacex will do it in 4
@@theenjeneer2792 Not without collaboration with NASA!
@@theenjeneer2792 they can't even launch and unnamed orbital test and you think they're doing a full crewed flight to Mars in 4 Years?
I grew up with the constellation program since I was very young...I really really looked up to this back then knowing what it could've very well achieved... and how it could advance the human race by the 2020's. yet here we are today. Stuck with with an abomination of this which will barely ever fly. a frankenmonster rocket that can't even get a tiny tiny service module into low lunar orbit. Has costed godknows how many billions of $ in the double digits. and has so far produced nothing of historical value.
What a let down. 😞
We also have SpaceX Starship
Why would NASA want to send Orion to LLO? Its a terrible staging orbit, unstable and requires a lot of propellant upkeep. NRHO by contrast is the complete opposite and is the perfect location for testing deep space habs and staging an eventual mars mission using DST (Deep Space Transport). SLS is perfectly suited for this.
@@odysseyvoyager2354 same man,those were the days
Well done thanks for making this, my maladaptive state of constant readiness explained in full. Every techie in the world lives for a human mission to mars.
When oil is found on mars
Actually, there's a lot of hydrocarbons on Titan.
Donel De Leon if u were actually educated you would know that oil means life
@@cancelanime1507 yeah, because if I remember oil forms from dead plants over millions of years
@@caav56 There are like 100x times more gas on Titan than on the Earth
"We didnt do it because it was easy,
we did it because OIL"
That was possibly the best space related animation I have ever seen.
6:29 all i could think of was "john madden john madden john madden"
LoL 😂
this plan is still doable the hardest part would be redisgning the ntr stage its simply too heavy its 9 tons overwieght and although sls can deliver 130tons to leo ifthey can make it 14-15 tons lighter then they can do it or increase
Sls lift capabilty to 150 then we can do this
It was designed with the Ares V in mind, which would have had a greater payload than the SLS. If the Magnetoinerial Confinement Fusion Engine works out, there will be no need for a ship that big.
I mean hell even if they could do it in ten SLS launches thatd still be great itd be like 1.5 billion extra but still
Now this is a beyond outdated comment but NASA has the Deep Space Transport design for the SLS, although I doubt that will ever be built
I wonder why i see sls on google maps
@@cheeseeddy4188 At Stennis? The core stage for Artemis 1 is currently there
Nothing is ever cancelled. Components of this will eventually fly.
It is go to Nasa website but we have the moon to mars program go check it out
While this looks great in theory, it's more complicated than that. One of the main reasons Constellation was cancelled was money. It wasn't getting enough funding to do what it needed to do. Also, problems with the Ares I rocket. They wanted to use a Shuttle SRB as a first stage. Engineers found out that the vibrations from this engine would be so severe it could kill the crew. They were literally going to fit a giant spring inside to dampen the vibrations, and even that wouldn't have been enough.
Now they have SLS and they haven't updated :(
They used a Shuttle SRB for the shuttle and the vibrations there didn't kill the crew. Why would it be so different for Ares I?
Lupa Lupo the shuttle and SLS have the boosters strapped to a much bigger fuel tank, having it being directly in the stack means those vibrations propagate directly Into the vehicle
This also was all planned before SpaceX was taken seriously. What I Imagine is NASA just using the SLS for heavy lift and possibly the future Falcon 9 Block 5.
@@kaberus7565 Two SRBs always vibrate at slightly different frequencies, that tends to cancel each other out. A single SRB hasn't this benefit and the vibrations are transmitted in full to the upper part of the rocket, where the crew resides. This can be dangerous and was a serious problem in Ares I project, though I'm sure that, if development continued, they would certainly have found an effective solution.
Depends of how you see it, it's a really exciting place for scientists. And as for sending thousands of people, it's just a question of will. There are many ways : building a giant spaceship in a space based facility, sending a spaceship fleet, etc. And OF COURSE it's not gonna be any time soon, but what is "soon" in human history and space conquest?
I'm lucky if i'm able to witness something like this in my lifetime. Space exploration seems to have (unexpectedly) taken a backseat, even though it may prove to be the "salvation" of the human race. The thought that we'd be stuck here for the foreseeable future is downright depressing.
There are several things we need to focus on to create a sustainable society in the long run, this is one of them.
Blame greed & money for holding back our potential.
Best bet is the development of graphene tubes and a space elevator to cheaply lift materials into low earth orbit. If we could do that, many problems go away For example, we can lift thousands of gallons of water into orbit and use it to line the inner wall of the vehicle and not only does the crew have its water supply, but water is an excellent radiation shield.The zero g environment is not nearly as damaging when a table sized centrifuge is used for about an hour a day to counter the zero g effects.Finally, by staging supplies, modules and fuel either in Martian orbit, or on Phobos, or on the Martian surface, ahead of the manned launch these modules, if automated, could begin the process of growing food and generating oxygen. This can be done now with current technology. Once the graphene production process is refined and perfected, the mass of what can be sent to space goes up in enormous magnitude.Then a crew size of 8-10 or more is not impossible and the amount of science performed is enhanced.
Frank Baccala
A space elevator... Well, that is a huge undertaking, i'd love to see it happen, it would take away a lot of the costs. The only serious party (to my knowledge) involved who has shown a desire to take a shot at this is Obayashi Corporation, with an estimate of completion at around 2050. Using carbon nanotubes (the same thing from what i can gather), and robotic cars powered by magnetic linear motors. I envision any serious attempt at this will require the same dedication & international cooperation the ISS has been built with.
For the moment i'm investing my hope in the Orion program (what comes out of it) and what reusable tech SpaceX, and other minor players in the market come up with. People really, really want us to go to Mars to get the ball rolling. But whatever motivates people on their own personal level to go there, at a larger scale, this is too important to ignore. Either we move on as a multi planetary species, or we stagnate, decay and vanish. Our world and society are finite and will reach their limits at some point...
Plus, i just think the world needs something to look forward to again, i can't think of anything bigger and ultimately more rewarding than this.
Space elevator would sort out the problem with nuclear waste too. Not investing in space is the true madness
Marco Ara There is a much better solution to the "problem" with nuclear waste: Vitrify and bury it, or place it in subduction zones.
A0vol9Z Without a strong defense this country won't be around to explore space! Idiot!
Just brilliant. This should have been the next step in our exploration in the universe. I openly wonder if we will ever make it beyond the moon.
Thanks so much for sharing this exciting dream of space travel. I'll share it with everyone I can.
Depends on what engines you use, and what kind of transfer orbit. It can take anywhere between weeks and years.
Nuclear thermal rockets, they could probably make it to mars in ~4 months. A minimum energy mars transfer at the optimal launch window would only take 6-8 months.
AWSOME! So smart, yet so complicated.
Great masterpiece!
I'm definitely going to try to recreate that lander design in KSP
No one country will reach Mars alone.
Only international efforts will make Mars achievable.
USA.
USA
bcbhfbrb4b nbjnbjnjhn5h How?
***** Why cold war?
***** Yes, many years ago the cold war was initiator of space achivements. But i am sure, the space race could be peacefull comptition between US and Russia like sport or economic. The mankind have lot of space for living and huge amond of energy in the space. We need to get it only.
Love the detail and visual quality of this flight simulation video. There's another video on a different channel that shows this Copernicus expedition ship in transit between Mars and Earth, simulating gravity by spinning the length of the ship on its center, amidships, for the sake of the astronauts during their long voyage. There's another simulation video on the same channel showing what an Apollo-era simulated mission would look like, and it even showed the expedition visiting the surfaces of Mars' moons as well. I would love to see all of these fascinating simulations somehow combined together to make an even more detailed, more thought-provoking presentation. Somehow, I don't think a Mars expedition will happen without spinning simulated gravity and/or some fast nuclear propulsion. I also wonder if it's practical and worthwhile to just send a tiny handful of astronauts on such a demanding mission; instead of 3 to 5 astronauts, the only way to really do the exploration of Mars and its moons justice may be an even larger ship to send 3 *dozen* astronauts. At least then, they could have an on-site command team, engineers, medical personnel and mission specialists.
The videos were filmed in a heavily modified version of the game "Kerbal Space Program" The latter video is a replica of the "Ares" ship as seen in Stephen Baxter's novel "Voyage"
*WoW*
*It's Amazing*
*Mind Blowing Concept*
Scientists: We discovered life on Mars!
US government: Eh, not interested.
Scientists: ...and oil.
US government:
If we find life then there is a non zero chance of oil
Кто смотрит этот шедевр в 2023 году
Good Modular Space project will be a fruitful prospect in space colonization and beyond .....
This aged well
Kerbal space program player be like:THIS IS SUPPER F*CKING EASY
wow!!! that's is a big mission!!
1. Вы цвета на парашютах перепутали. Снизу вверх - красный, синий, белый.
2. Что будет с MTV после отделения от него Ориона? Выйдет на околоземную орбиту для дозаправки и следующего рейса?
Now that they have docking. :D
i was born in 1990.. Amazing to think that my kids will be watching this amazing event and show them what america with help from all over the world Can do. unless america's/world economy colapses or delays..regaurdless, really cool.
Let me try this in KSP :D
This is a very good idea. However, I have a few things which I would change:
1) Use the top stage of the Ares (or SLS) to propel the 2 Mars landers to Mars thus saving 2 rocket launches. I'm not sure if they would have enough thrust but if they do it would be a good option.
2)I would put thrusters on the inflatable HAB to make it spin independently to the rest of the ship creating artificial gravity in that section. Bearings on the axis would prevent friction allowing it to spin freely.
3)I would only send 1 Orion capsule up for the transferring and docking procedures throughout the flight rather than have one already attached and then sending another. This would save an Orion capsule.
4)I would replace the Ares rockets with SLS rockets as they are what NASA are actually going to use.
+ShortFilmStudios Extra An Ares V upper stage doesn't have enough fuel to launch the landers into a mars transfer orbit, so you need a second, nuclear-thermal rocket stage to send them there.
+Sarge Rho That is true, but I'm talking about the SLS cargo block 2 and the SLS is far more powerful than Ares because of its large core stage, longer boosters and bigger upper stage.
ShortFilmStudios Extra Actually, the SLS Block II is about half as powerful as the Ares V. The SLS Block II has a LEO payload mass of 130 tons. The Ares V had somewhere around 250 tons. So you'll need even more SLS launches for this architecture to work.
That's why NASA is going to use Hall Thrusters instead of nuclear or chemical engines. It either lengthens or shortens the trip by a few weeks, depending on how good of a power source they'll have by then, but it reduces the number of launches needed.
Personally, I don't think NASA is ever going to go to Mars, at least not in the next 40-50 years, unless a president goes full Kennedy, then it'll be down to 8-10 years. SpaceX, China or India are probably going to be the first ones on Mars, maybe even ESA.
+Sarge Rho OK.
+Sarge Rho What if they replace the upper stage with the nuclear thermal stage?
You know how most Mars missions have like 3 or 4 critical events that have to go exactly right for it to work? I counted at least a dozen in this one. Robert Zubrin would have a fit.
Because it is manned unlike other missions which are unmanned
Yang Qiming Both Zubrin's Mars Direct, and SpaceX's MCT/BFR are manned, and only have a 3 or 4 major things that have to go perfectly for mission success - and only 2 of them would result in the death of a crew!
The Apollo missions were also very dangerous but NASA did them anyway.
Enzo Bueno But they didn't add needless risk that could be easily designed out, as seen here.
What kinds of risks?
I can, as a matter of fact. It's not nearly as much of a problem as you think, since for one there is water on mars, and you can (and have to) recycle water. As for food: Just carry freeze-dried, vacuum-packed food, like astronauts have always been doing.
A manned mars flight has been possible for 30 years, in fact.
This looks awesome, Too bad it would probably be unsafe beyond my comprehension and it would also cost a f***ton of money to fund.
*cough cough* BFR *cough cough*
*cough**cough*they don't have money *cough**cough*
Damminh Khoi *Cpugh cough* Elon has enough money to do it *cough cough*
Haxorlols Straight up, unless Elon want to bankrupt himself, no!
Damminh Khoi Nah, He has like 17B monayz, And the Mars project will only cost 2B
The events of Red Mars were so close to actually happening IRL. Damn.
And now that the U.S. government made the stupid idea to cancel the ares rockets, we will be lucky if we actually mkae it in the SLS.
+Diabetic Alien Apparently NASA wanted to cancel the Constellation project because it was too inefficient and overpriced. The SLS is basically a more refined version of the Constellation project.
Diabetic Alien
Hey Just came from 2018. BFR will become the alternative for the Mars Exploration.
@@Alderite no it won't. We will see.
How so. They're already doing it with the Falcon Heavy and it was a success, also They're gonna send Multiple missions to the moon by 2021-2030. And They gone full steroids on the project.
Since I came accros this video I've watched it every once in a while
Like now
And now
HojozVideos me too its decent as fuck
stepitup89 I know right, I'm here AGAIN
Now too
Безумно сложный и дорогой проект. Боюсь, любой одной стране такое не осилить.
Well we kinda did it in the sixties, during a war, so given a good motive one country could pull it off.
That's assuming your basis of a country isn't Russia.
you forget that it provides fantastic research into the long terms effects of micro gravity. if we didnt have the ISS we would have never knew that astronaughts go blind in micro gravity. the zero g means increased blood pressure in the head, this causes a bulge in the optic nerve. it also gives us experience of what exposure to increased extra planetary debri and radiation will pose a risk. if any.
Without a centrifuge for the 6 to 9 month journey, the astronauts will probably be immobile once they've landed on Mars and may require assistance for the potentially weeks of recovery before performing their duties. It would be irresponsible to plan a Mars mission without a centrifuge component despite the higher structural mass required. The logical procedure would be to invest in a low Earth orbit space station with a variable radius of rotation centrifuge so we can determine at which extent the Coriolis effect becomes tolerable and what the effects of Moon and Mars gravity on our health would be. Currently, we only have crude estimates of the Coriolis effect limits via land based centrifuges and the sci-fi trope of hoping that Lunar gravity might be enough (note that the centrifuge in the 2001 movie was for Lunar gravity and the stated 60 mph tangential velocity mentioned in Babylon 5 inferred Lunar gravity). Both this now defunct NASA plan and the SpaceX MCT (Mars Colonial Transport) are criminally negligent in not including a centrifuge. At the very least, a short radius centrifuge would be needed though experimental results as to whether a short radius centrifuge treatment combined with exercise could offset the effects of microgravity are still needed.
NASA has proposal for a spacecraft that has artificial gravity. It name is Nautilus-X.
I'm well aware of the Nautilus-X but not only is it unlikely to be funded but it was designed as a way station for a journey to Mars, a place to rehabilitate and certify the health of astronauts after periods of microgravity. Besides, the Hoberman centrifuge which was proposed to be tested on the ISS doesn't even have enough radius to reach Lunar gravity without causing nausea due to the Coriolis effect.
+John Wang Bimodal NTRs would allow the spacecraft to spin end over end, producing .3g easily.
+Sarge Rho The two issues with artificial gravity by centripetal or centrifugal force is that anything that is rotated requires greater structural strength to support it's weight and if any rotating component is to be joined to a non-rotating component requires a seal and lubrication which are both very difficult in a zero g vacuum with extreme temperature changes. Both of these issues can be addressed but only with greater mass and so long as all materials are launched from Earth, greater mass means an exponential increase in costs. Granted, you can avoid building a ring by cabling a habitat with a counter mass then rotating the structures but then both the habitat and the counter mass must be built to support the stresses involved ( note, this is often called a bolo configuration, I think you made up the "bimodal" nomenclature ). Likewise, the problem of joining a rotating component and a non rotating component has been to enclose them in a single pressure vessel as shown by the spaceship in the movie 2001 but of course, that increases mass once again though it does introduce an interesting unexplored concept of tensile structural members in the non rotating pressure vessel instead of the rotating centrifuge hence not having to support it's own weight. Of course, addressing the artificial gravity issue does nothing to address the major flaw of the NTR experiment which is the vibration structural damage of the solid core fuel rods especially since structural fuel rods are inherently damaged by the Xenon transmutation anyways which is why only 0.5-0.7% of the energy in solid fuel rods can be extracted before reprocessing is required. The Thermal nuclear reactor approach would require a substantial amount of mass for shielding ( even a long beam as shown in 2001 requires a great deal of mass ) hence acquiring structural materials in space instead of launching from Earth would likely be a pre-requisite and an NTR would need something less vulnerable to structural stresses from either vibration or transmutation than solid core fuel hence experimenting with molten salt nuclear core reactors would likely be a pre-requisite as well, the US government politics and US nuclear industry is heavily biased against the inexpensive and successful molten salt experiments of the early 70's as acknowledging the MSR success raises questions about the expense of the fast breeder experiments and the even more expensive fusion experiments, the closest political consensus to MSR development would be a pebble reactor. An NTR spaceship to Mars isn't quite as plug in a technology as you might think and the issues are not just that of technologic development but also political and economic, even the current marketing of fusion reactor research requires that the public does not realize that a MSR slow breeder reactor could achieve the goals of safe clean and plentiful nuclear power for far less and could be implemented far sooner. A nuclear fission approach to travel to Mars places enough technologic concerns which require the exploration of technologies that would embarrass the industry and politicians in terms of which nuclear technologies they've chosen and still prefer to invest in. If we ever get a commitment to building an NTR spaceship, it would be designed in about as awkward and ineffective a fashion as possible rather than admit to having spent trillions of nuclear research dollars un-necessarily. The best we could hope for in a nuclear fission thermal reactor Mars spaceship design given current politics both in government and in the nuclear industry would be a pebble reactor and the costs would be far greater than a non-nuclear approach.
John Wang No, Bimodal is what NASA calls it: ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040182399.pdf
I brought it up, because it allows you to skip solar panels, which makes it much easier to build a spinning ship.
The ship segments already have to survive several gees of acceleration during launch, and tensile strength is easier to come by than compressive strength.
Just imagine what space exploration would be like if we were not limited by money.
We can develop Alcubierre's Warp Drive and go to stars and beyond. In only the money not be a big brickwall 😔😖
Thanks Obama
Technology has moved a long way since Apollo. Remote landers are becoming ever more sophisticated and can arguably learn a lot more than a manned landing.
Remote landings cost a very tiny percentage of any manned attempt and there is no worry about bringing them home alive. So I ask ....... what possible justification is there for a manned mission?
The Apollo landings were the biggest dead end in the history of exploration.
Pls NASA. Try to find a Alien.
We are Aliens.
Aliens don't exist Ronin Zeus
"Try" (I know the aliens doesn't exist.)
Aliens exist. It's just a matter of math.
Haha, why there are so many galaxies and planets in universe, if there is no alien life forms? Anyone. :DD
1. Aerobraking and retro-burning would slow it down enough.
2. True, but the optimal transfer time to mars is 6 months and that is what NASA does on the ISS.
3. If you pay attention, both landers and the MTV segments are launched separately. It is more practical and cheaper to have multiple launches rather than one or two massive launches.
Hope I solved your problems.
That's simply way too many steps. I figured out a way to get to Mars in 3 SLS launches.
+Owldude000 What system did you come up with? I'm really curious.
+Owldude000 To quote many Redditors, *details*.
+Owldude000
its simple if you use zubrins idea of MAV and HAB with reduced crew of 3 instead of 4. that would be 70t combined payload instead of 80t. you launch those together and dock, and then launch H2 fuel tank and NTR package- 80tonns combined. so in total 150t or a bit more combined.
then you launch on free return trajectory -unmanned!!
this is important so NTR can be reused when it returns to earth in 2 years.... it releases MAV and HAB in mars orbit as it passes by it, then if mav and hab descent work and MAV is auto-refueeled on mars, then you resupply nuclear tug when it returnes to earth orbit with new H2 fuel and this time crewed habitat and reuse it for trans mars injection.
there is actually very very little uranium used during NTR burn so you should be able to use it many times as a tug between earth-mars.
this is trully minimum mass required man mars mission and available. first fly can be assembled from 3 falcon heavy launches not even SLS is needed.
+Zeroni82 The NTR experiment used solid fuel rods which suffered excessive structural stress during the ground experiments. Solid fuel rods already suffer from structural stress due to the expansion of Xenon gas when some of the reaction products transmutes into Xenon. The NTR is not a suitable concept. However, variations such as a molten salt reactor with perhaps a vortex to separate out the Xenon gas (which could be recovered as propellent) or a Doppler effect pebble reactor could be options. A solar electric drive may be more marketable and inexpensive reflectors in Earth orbit or perhaps even on the ground could help concentrate sunlight on the solar panels. The transit vehicle could also be left in a stable elliptical orbit hence only a small capsule containing the crew and supplies need be accelerated to dock or berth with the transit vehicle and decelerate into Mars orbit. The large mass of a centrifuge and a closed ecologic life support system could simply be left in an orbit that continuously traveled between Mars and the Earth. However, the Zubrin Mars Express concept ruled out any transit vehicle such as an NTR due to complexity and cost so your assertion of having a three launch plan but with an NTR transit vehicle contradicts itself.
if you play Kerbal Space Program and you tested it there........it'll probably work. Otherwise your figures would not overcome many other "things"
Wow excellent video thanks!
Explains it very well.
See America, this is what you could of done if you didn't get obsessed by nuclear weaponry
Emperor Doge , the United States , back in the 1980's and 1990's, pulled the plug on our newest ICBM system of the time, the MX, peace keeper, with 10 men's
And stuck with at the time a 30 to 40 year old system the minuteman, which is now 50 to 60 years of age, with 3 mrv's.
Like it or not the Russians and Chineese have chosen to up grade their systems, .
And both countries are upgrading there boats and sub launched missiles.
Maybe jack ass's like you should ask them to stop , instead of the United States ?
Nukes are the reason spaceflight on the scale of the 60s happened in the first place.
We need to do something practical in space, specifically, asteroid work. It qualifies as a level one priority, in my opinion. They're useful and valuable, if we develop technology to intercept close or incoming ones and kick or tow them into an orbit somewhere so that later private (resource extraction,etc) contractors can deal with them constructively, profitably-maybe. Some occasional incoming asteroids do significant damage and have very deadly potential. Ones that are too big to for intercepting, kicking and towing, will need other do-able measures in place for those, as well.. So we're talking 1) Earth safety, 2) Space industry 3) more space "spin-off" tech., learning/R&D derived from those projects.
not to mention, once there you can grow your own food with greenhouses. Water can be found on mars as you said, and oxygen can be won from splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen (thank you good guy professor August Wilhelm von Hofmann for that last invention!)
Anything we need and can't get on mars we can fly in later.
And there you have it: history repeats itself again. Well, lets hope for it'll quick.
Being able to colonize other planets - especially Mars, is a step foward for human society to thrive and expand our knowledge. More knowledge of how to explore the universe could potentially land us in another goldilock zone for supporting human kind, and even the discovery of new things that wouldn't be known had we stayed in our own little hole. Without exploration, many societies today would not exist, and many technologies would have never been invented.
Let's hope this will get us to mars
I have no words...
I was a little distracted by the thunderbirds music in the background XD
Joking aside, despite a few little issues there, and the number of things that could go wrong, there is something to work with here.
There was never a question of whether this ship could be built. The only question was whether we had the courage to build it. We didn't. So now, 50 years later, we are reduced to playing a chemical rocket shell game, hoping we can put together a crew of 4 or 5 who won't go completely crazy after being cooped up together for over 30 months in an area smaller than a small motel room.
I personally think we should put more focus on permanently establishing ourselves on the Moon before we think about going to Mars
LoneStarWolf Entertainment why not both
The weight of the vehicle to take curiosity to mars was almost 6,500 pounds. That thing didn't need any food, water, living space, etc. So just imagine how much stuff you need and how much all of that would weigh. Plus, you can't land any of that with only parachutes. You also need multiple of anything critical. So if the food lander crashed into mars, you could have enough to survive the return home with the landers that were successful.
Nice! No matter where we go in the universe, it seems we will always need pooper scoopers. ;)
C'est super ! Tout ça avec le beau logo «NASA». Mais au train ou vont les choses le jours ou les USA seront prêts à aller sur Mars, il leur faudra demander aux Chinois l'autorisation d'atterrir...
Welp, time to try and build this in KSP RSS/RO
This looks like it'd be a fun video game.
He was really happy about the launch as always.While Bill and Bob were freaking out. XD
Great video nice to dream. Okay so Ares rocket is out, but NASA configuring SLS space launch system w interchangable crew, cargo upper stages on same size booster. Plausible idea. I like the trans hab idea here, 8 months a long way in Orion alone. Still nothing wrong w a dress rehersal to our moon to perfect our hardware. ISS is a viable rest stop too.
The world needs to come together in order for us to explore the great universe, imagine what type of tech we will invent if we put great minds and people from around the world.
..of dozens. It's big enough to provide artificial "gravity" by rotation. Spacious enough so each crew member gets his/her own room. It makes the trip to Mars in less than a month. The whole ship lands, using chem propellents only for the last few seconds before touchdown & after takeoff. Not being limited by the need to line planets up for the return, the crew stays as long as it desires. Then powers its way back to Earth in less than a month. We could have done this in the 60's (1960's).
That returning capsule design sure looks familiar.. now where have I seen it before....? ;)
Its Orion capsule, now being used for SLS.
spacex is the best bet to get to Mar's first and i really hope they do its like the commercialization of airplanes
space travel will hopefully become common place
wow. cant believe we are planning on using old tech for this. we have the technical ability to do better now!!.
SUA on the top of the world !
A in state flight can be like a flight to the moon. A long distense international flight like a flight from the US to India can be like a flight to another galaxy. About the recources like food and water, we have dicovered a these giant planets that are the same like earth, with water and air that are 10 times bigger, if we will expand are spaceports to other planets, we could maybe get to those giant earths. Sorry for the spelling mistakes, I am a 12.5 year old kid from Israel!
This video is ...
Flagged As Awesome!
If anyone's interested, I recommend watching "The Case For Mars" by Robert Zubrin. His lecture is on TH-cam, though it's an hour long! It's very interesting though, basically even though it was 1997, he had a solid plan for getting to Mars within 10 years, and that NASA keeps putting out concepts with ridiculous time-frames, e.g. "How Project Constellation would have taken Man to Mars by the 2030's."
I was reading about NASA wanting to build a permanent station somewhere on the opposite side of the moon and be able to have astronauts stationed there permanently. But then theres the question of getting supplies to and from. What happens in an emergency situation? Rescue operations? shit like that. The article was including the aspects that would most likely be handled by private enterprises. It was a very interesting article.
I do agree...something Like this No one space agencies or nation can do alone...it would make much more sense if all three worked on it together.
Once (if, actually) we get a space elevator, interplanetary missions such as these will be so much easier because they won't require the fuel needed to get out of our atmosphere.
Stunning graphics and detail
On Earth we can do anything, which usually ends up with 'lets go to Mars' anyway. Hahaha. I think you're right though- having the opportunity to come back is good. We could return samples and stuff if everyone was okay with Mars for the time being.
Besides, having nobody die in space is great for PR.
Excuse me why there are two orion spacecrafts one at the ARES 1 and the other on the mars exploration vhecle
One is for returning to earth/ mars orbit operations and the other is for launching the crew
Was the Altair lander designed to be launched uncrewed and then the crew boards it when they're already in lunar orbit?
They would do EOR-LOR, so Orion meets Altair in LEO, they both go to LLO, then altair lands with the crew
There is ice a few feet under the ground that can be molten using solar power, and the soil is basically made of nutrients.
For that Most of all the world powers are working on a joint venture to create a new space propulssion system. The candidates are Vasimr plasma rocket, Nuclear thermal rocket and Ion propulsion.
Thanks Mr. Moore
Well, this explicitly tells us that we dont really know the earth that much more than we do with space, but this should not be a restriction to stop us from venturing out there, just because we have not explored a hundred percent of our planet..
Water does not necessarily means large ponds of liquid. It can also mean ice sheets or water vapor... Mars has plenty of the former.
And regarding those Nutrients, Results from a experiment done by the Phoenix lander, indicates that the Martian soil has enough Nutrients to grow Asparagus. I'm pretty sure we can extract enough Nutrients from Martian soil to grow pretty much anything we want in a greenhouse. And we can always fly in that what we can't find there.
Those examples for space propulsion will shorten the travel it takes to get to mars some say that you could get to mars in 39 days with the Vasimr tachnology.
I should have worded my comment differently...
Air-augmented rocket engines will always be more efficient than say, the Shuttle engines, because they don't carry all of their propellant. Instead, they carry all of their fuel, but only part of the oxidizer. While the Isp is I think equal or lower, you get further because you can carry more fuel, and don't have to carry as much oxidizer. The SABRE engine that's being developed (and has been partially tested) for example.
My point was that you don't need to use something big. That was also the point of the Mars direct program.