I was under the impression that the supply ships would be sent first, so the starship carrying the astronauts would not need everything for the full 5-year mission. Just for the journey to get them to Mars lightening the load.
Great video! They likely would be able to tap oxygen directly from the main oxygen propellant tank though, so that would save a lot of mass from the oxygen tanks you factored in.
Similar with water as you can use the waste water from the hydrogen fuel cells to supply the crew. Shielding is another point, if 2mm of shielding is enough there is no way 5cm wouldbe used throughoutthe whole ship. That would mean a safty factor of 50x which i way overengeniered even if we arent talking about mass critical applications like space travel, and as mentioned a segnificant ammount of shielding could be provided by water tanks and other storrage as well as the structure itself with some areas havong more shielding to serve as shelter during solar storms or while travenling through the van allen belts for example where you have to factor in increased radiation levels.
Overall this is a good initial breakdown of the challenges of such mission, however I'm hoping a future video will take in consideration not just nuclear energy but also multiple ship arriving at the same time and/or multiple cargo ship already there waiting.
Well why should we even colonize mars? There's literally no way to be independently surviving there. We can't gather resources, it's not sustainable at all!
Yea, there's always more to remember organising these kinds of expeditions!! But the gym is six times larger than it needs to be, so they can store some suits there. ;) There is also plenty of spare ceiling space in this design for mounting extra equipment. The flight deck equipment could be on the ceiling and a rec area on the floor, eliminating one metal deck. They'll also need stuff like a rubbish compactor, and a solar storm shelter next to the fuel tank. A lot depends on what is already at the Mars landing site, and what needs to be brought along. Ideally the ship and its contents are mostly about doing the trip right. Staying in the ship on mars would be quite inconvenient, so heading to a hab would be nice... :)
Look at SpaceX suits for Dragon and is already design vacuum EVA suits. Mars is a mix, has a partial atmosphere so doesn't need reinforces joints but will need dust seals for joints, connectors and fittings. I can envision something like a Tesla charge connector plus a static charge generator.
@Darren New Because everything outside is literally trying to kill you. The rocks, the sand, the wind, the weather literally everything not inside your small capsule you'll be living in is a potential death sentence. There is no hospital. The question is why WOULD you go outside?? Theres literally nothing out there. Everything in that type of environment is a risk vs reward situation. Except for the sheer amazement of walking on Mars it affords no beneficial purpose on the contrary it's dangerous everytime they open the door because there is NOTHING out there.
@Kars Postema then those people shouldn't go to mars... there is no grass and there is no "alive" outside. They're going there to survive. Survival depends on keeping the outside OUT
Great video. I don't think the sections of the ship would be only dedicated to one thing. it is likely that there would be all elements included in each section. if they lost one section they would loose a percentage of all systems instead of loosing an entire system. if for some reason they couldn't enter the bathroom section for a week there are going to be problems. Amazing video
@Science Revolution Tell me you know nothing about spacetravel without telling me you know nothing avout spacetravel. Usually satellites have ion-engines to boost their orbit and keep it from decaying. The ISP of an ion-engine is much higher than a lower stage of for example Saturn V, which you used for your example. Secondly you don't understand relativity, because you feel to think that space is a stream of water or some shit. Please for god's sake study the subject before thinking you know more than actual rocket engineers.
@Science Revolution In answer to you ignorant garbage and this is more for others than you. 1) They can measure spacecraft speed and location through several techniques. One of the most common is with gyroscopes as part of inertial navigations systems. Also they use the locations and angles of stars the same way sailors have for generations to get their position. 2) We know how long it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun. We know the distance and its pretty simple calculation to get the earths average speed around the sun. 3) The ISS like most satellites needs orbital boosting. Space is not the pure vacuum many think there's just very little of anything. There's still some drag just as there is for a car or airplane. Over time orbits degrade which is why you need boosting. Most satellites have small rocket motors to do the same thing the ISS does. Those that don't eventually fall out of orbit. 4) So what about the burn time of those rockets. You clearly don't understand the difference between a rocket that flies a ballistic trajectory and one that flies into orbit. What's important is how high those first stages boost the upper stages and how fast those stages are going when the booster runs out. Ballistic rockets only have to get up high. Orbital rockets have to get up high and go fast when they are high. Please don't embarrass yourself any further.
There are man made satellite in space is a lie. Scientists have no method and instrument to measure speed in space is fact. Otherwise they can use it to prove earth speed in space. Why need made up math calculations to show it? NSSA said ISS needs to reboost its orbit once a while. How the rest thousands of satellites reboost their orbits? Rockets max burn time: Saturn V first stage: ~ 168 seconds. Falcon 9 first stage: ~ 170 seconds. Space Shuttle deorbit burn: ~ 240 seconds. Friendship 7: ~ 300 seconds. Rockets can burn only few minutes. How far it can go? All space missions are fake. NSSA sent 90 fake telescope into space already as they lied. All rockets burn out fuel and fall to earth/ocean. Otherwise we can put weapons in orbit and attack anyone. Did they really landed on Mars? Fake footages???,
That's really a good try at estimation, it highlights how difficult space can be, great insight. Looking forward to seeing the following episodes.. Thanks.
Though the mission to mars will likely consist of multiple starships to fix the wieght problem it is fascinating to see that it is theoretically possible to do the full 5-year mission with a single starship.
Well done, this was an excellent break down. I loved the simple to understand presentation and ways that you discussed overcoming the problems and requirements. I'm looking forward to your next video.
Very nice quality content. I would've liked to see some discussion on alternative solar power configuration options, for example the two fan-like panels in SpaceX's early renders. What would be the solar area and power output of those? And what about doubling it to be 4 such fans coming out of the ship? I imagine that might be enough area for even Mars-level light dimness. And I think it would reduce complexity. Plus, they're gonna need as many solar panels as possible when they get to Mars, so it wouldn't make sense not to take as many as they can carry either way.
You can reclaim oxygen, recovering 75% of it, and reduce the O2 requirements by several factors. Also, you can achieve over 90% water reclemation reducing the water requirements by 8-10x. this reduces the consuables of O2 to just 250gms / day / person, and water to less then a liter / day / person. even with a water budjet of 20L / day, 1 cubic meter of water / person would be enough water for 18months. 1 cubic meter of liquid O2 would be enough for 1 person for 12 years. The rest of your numbers seem to be close to the mark, and the production quality is realy spot on! good work
You CAN reclaim O2, but you need to power that process and it takes a LOT of power. 1MW SMRs (of a size and weight needed here) are not a reality yet, so it doesn't make sense to plan around them. Carrying the power in batteries would weigh more than just carrying the O2. This video factors in H2O recycling.
And as for radiation shielding, he maybe forgot that methane has a lots of hydrogen atoms too. And Starsiip has to have a lot of liquid methane left to land on Mars.
@acasualviewer Oxygen candles are for emergency only. Most airliners use them too for passenger emergency oxygen supply (the crew use bottles). Nuclear submarines generate oxygen by electrolysis. Diesels just use snorkels and air bottles.
@acasualviewer Manned spacecraft do not use liquid oxygen tanks for breathing supply. They use _supercritical_ tanks where the contents are both a gas and liquid. No, we don't use combustibles within a spacecraft cabin
Loved the vid! I'm working on a huge simulation for getting to mars and having an ongoing station there and have come to a pretty similar conclusion. Without nuclear the amount of solar you would need starts to get crazy.
@Jay Lewis Its just a numerical sim, its all running out of a spreadsheet right now but the plan is to move it to python so I can do some kind of visualization.
با سلام : من طرحی برای تولید انرژی الکتریکی بصورت نامحدود وبدون مصرف سوخت دارم ( انرژی پاک ) که میتوان از آن بر روی زمین وسایر سیارات وایستگاه فضا یی استفاده کرد ، بدون نیاز از انرژی هسته ای یا انرژی خورشیدی .
There will be several starship involved in one mission and possibly a few at the same time. There would be countless problems if you imagine just one starship carrying astronauts to mars. They will be designing the space craft in way so that docking is possible in deep space. One for crew and another one for cargo. Also there'd already be a starship on mars with necessary cargo equipments. Also each starship has to refuel in orbit to reach mars. It's not easy and never will be but fitting everything in one go or a new concept will make unnecessary problems.
You worked out many constraints. Very good! The "belly flop" reentry phase means that seats need to swivel from down-toward-the-bottom-of-starship to down-toward-the-belly and back in a few seconds. This constrains the configuration of landing seats.
@Eaton Kuntz An airline row seating configuration is probably a realistic solution, there may be others. The couches would need to rotate up around their midpoint about 30 degrees for the decent and then quickly pivot back to horizontal for launch/landing. Space X will probably adapt existing seats they use now for the Dragon capsule.
The interior seating or couches might be reconfigured and repositioned for departure, zero g coast phase, and landing. Not really needed in zero G. Design for multiple use of major components are essential.
This was a great video to watch and very thought provoking. My thoughts at the end are that the trip to Mars needs to be a flotilla (maybe 3) vs one ship. This would have many benefits. The multiple ships could be used, for example, one to carry people, one to carry supplies, 3rd for fuel. The ships could be arranged during travel to provide shielding when necessary. Finally, the ships could be used as backup vehicles - should something go wrong in one or the other.
Great job! One video I've been waiting for is a discussion of methods to test the chopsticks. Many channels have talked about the possibility of SpaceX trying a catch on the first launch. That would be absurd and suicidal. Personally, I think Elon missed opportunities to test the chopsticks when he chopped up the various boosters 1 to 6. The crane could have been used to hold and lower a booster between the chopsticks at a controlled rate. Then the problem of swinging the chopsticks to match a variety of off-center and varying-velocity scenarios could have been tested and accommodated into the control algorithm. And what about the effects of wind? A lot of catch-questions need answers and proposed solutions.
Excellent work. Don't forget the sequence of events: the Moon lander Starship version will be the first prototype of the Mars lander, and be used to test out some this technology.
I love these kinds of theory crafting and technology/number comparison! Paired with great graphics and voice over, this video really was absolutely incredible!
Lol I hope your joking about the "day, dusk and night operations" since there isn't really a dawn, day, dusk, night cycle in space ...but that has always been a problem with being in space for astronauts the human body does depend on something called Circadian rhythms though....
Hey brother love your videos and I'm always excited every time I see a notification from you. Thank you for all you do and you keep making these videos and I'll keep watching!!!!
This is awesome and very much what I've been thinking about. I've written 100+ pages of content about going to Mars and living there and just some of the technical challenges. The getting there bit is a big one that I don't think enough people have thought about. This is the greatest detail I've seen on the topic
@emma it would. The advantage of not being in orbit around the earth is that it receives 100% more solar energy. The space station spends 45 minutes in darkness and 45 minutes in the sun so a trip to mars would automatically have much more power available. combined with higher-end panels they should be able to power everything the ship needs. The inverse square law does come into play and the panels will come into play. Once Mars is reached there's only 590 w/m^2 compared to 1370 W/m^2 so the trip would be between those amounts
@secret name you are correct that nuclear submarines have small reactors. The submarine costs $3.45 billion with the reactor costing $200 million or more, aside from cost, spent steam at low pressure runs through a condenser cooled by seawater and returns to liquid form. The water is pumped back to the steam generator and continues the cycle. Any water lost in the process can be made up by desalinated sea water added to the steam generator feed water. There is no seawater in space to cool the steam so it would not work. Solar arrays are much cheaper and simpler to install and can be pointed at the sun for 24/7 energy. If we could develop an energy source alternative that does not require heating steam to turn a turbine, then that could be used but there is little out there that has been proven to work at a commercial or industrial level.
@emma nuclear wouldn't be feasible as it's large, heavy, and highly complex. Nuclear power just boils water to turn a turbine to generate electricity. Solar would be the most beneficial as the ship would have 24/7 solar radiation. There could be a heat exchanger that could help save energy by utilizing the light below UVB that solar uses to generate additional electricity.
The orientation of the seats on the flight deck could do some improvement, as the gforces during reentry should optimaly push you into the seat, with the ring config that would only be the case for a few of the astronauts so a more rektangular layout would be more comfortable. Anyway nice video in general with amazing graphics
@P Schmied when tje rocket reenters it doest feel the one g of gravity because its still fslling, but in the deceleration of the rocket is felt by the crew.This is why crews in ballistic emergency reentries fell a lot of gforces, the sttep entry int the atmosfere creates a lot of drag and thus gforce.
What G forces during reentry? Anything that falls, falls at that same speed. Until belly flop g force would be one G minus drag. The belly flop is to limit terminal velocity by increasing drag. If the seats were mounted "bottom down" relative to the rockets and the backs aligned with the "belly" during falls in the direction of the backs, the net drag and would be perfectly aligned for those seats. Once vertical the rockets' thrust would be opposing the seat bottoms
@George Aiva I actually really like the topic of reentry vehicles, and i think the main problem of the starship is gonna be reentry safety. Just think about it like you dont know anything about spaceflight. Would you rather sit on the tip of a skyscaper going mach 20 in the upper atmosphere, or a small metal box that is aerodynamicaly stable and always points right side down? Maybe starship is safer than space shuttle, but the fact you cant do preflight testfires because the tiles fall of seems kinda sketchy.
Good point. Although this ring config looks impressive, it is not practical and makes no sense. It would probably work well for launch but Starship is designed for reentry with the belly. Astronauts will need to have sturdy front facing sitting position during reentry.
Connect two together at the nose with several redundant cables (synthetic material) and have them rotate so that Martian like gravity is simulated in the ships. Either ship could which them together (in case of equipment failure on one ship) and de-spin. Could connect 3 or 4 nose to nose (think a 3 bladed or 4 bladed helicopter propeller). This would save on as much gym equipment, would allow the astronauts to get used to the gravity of where they are going, and be a simple to use and maintain (no complicated electronics, specialty equipment, etc; simple electric winches). Also, your designs do not seem to take into account deployable solar panels for power during the trip.
I'm starting to like your videos.This is the second one I have watched and I like your narration style along with the humorous comments you throw in for fun. Nice work.
Ya know, while I realize it would be completely impractical for a trip of this kind, my favorite in-space food delivery system is still the one they used on Skylab.
I tend to think Starship wont fly solo to Mars. Imagine if you will a "space dock" which is essentially a Starship without fins or cockpit that has four docking ports around the perimeter. The Dock would allow four ships to fly together offering massive redundancy in case of a system failure on any one ship as well as allowing crews to interact and spend time visiting the other Starships via connector tubes integrated into the Dock. The Dock could also house massive amounts of fuel and cargo allowing a reduction in those items aboard each individual Starship. The Starships themselves would provide propulsion for the Dock so instead of vacuum engines the Dock could be equipped with multiple nuclear power sources which would remove those from the Starships enhancing crew safety.
Excellent point a out the nuclear reactors. It might be difficult to keep the radiation shielding aligned with the sun on all the starships unless whole interiors were shielded.
I wonder about dedicated decks in the final design. Just the way a hide-a-bed does double duty as both couch and bed, I think these floors will have design such that they each offer several functions.
I was thinking, "They're going to need nuclear power", all the way through the second half of the video. Hydrogen cells, solar and batteries are never going to work on such a lengthy mission. Over time, hydrogen leaks through of all known materials. I would be very nervous about hydrogen tanks that were meant to last five years, or even six months, without serious leakage problems. With nuclear, there will enough power to spare to split CO² back into carbon and oxygen. This means far less oxygen will need to be transported since it can be recycled from CO². With sufficient energy available, water can also be split into hydrogen and oxygen. In this scenario, the hydrogen doesn't need to be stored for long periods, minimising the leakage losses. Recycling everything combined with utilisation of resources found on Mars will be the key to manned journeys to Mars.
There are reformed methane (and methanol) fuel cells, that use steam reforming to crack methane into h2 and carbon particulate before running the H2 through a fuel cell. Keep in mind, the starship has massive tanks of methane and oxygen it uses for rocket fuel. simply allocating some extra tankage to account for the extra fuel and oxygen used for fuel cells would be comparatively simple and solves the hydrogen storage problem quite neatly. Granted nuclear power is still a very good idea, and solutions to lower mass microreactors for space applications is a very much needed field of development. All that being said, I think solar is actually still a potential solution with a more sensibly designed folding geometry, that can compact down more and unfold bigger. NASA has been researching origami for ways of folding big solar panels into smaller spaces for a while now and they have had some significant success.
@looksintolasers LOL, yeah that would look silly wouldn't it, taking diesel along while there are APUs that convert LH and LOX to electricity and heat.
There are man made satellite in space is a lie. Scientists have no method and instrument to measure speed in space is fact. Otherwise they can use it to prove earth speed in space. Why need made up math calculations to show it? NSSA said ISS needs to reboost its orbit once a while. How the rest thousands of satellites reboost their orbits? Rockets max burn time: Saturn V first stage: ~ 168 seconds. Falcon 9 first stage: ~ 170 seconds. Space Shuttle deorbit burn: ~ 240 seconds. Friendship 7: ~ 300 seconds. Rockets can burn only few minutes. How far it can go? All space missions are fake. NSSA sent 90 fake telescope into space already as they lied. All rockets burn out fuel and fall to earth/ocean. Otherwise we can put weapons in orbit and attack anyone. Did they really landed on Mars? Fake footages???,
Sorry to all but, this is disgraceful idiocy masquerading as engineering and scientific fact. FYI - I am an aerospace engineer and I'd love it if we had a spaceship that could go between the earth and the moon or Earth and Mars, *BUT this is NOT THAT.* This is idiotic science fiction masquerading as scientific fact. Point 1) There is no space to waste on any space craft - period. Go look at any of the footage from the ISS, Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Mir and there was/is no wasted space for anything. Point 2) While we are still using chemical based rocket motors there is allowance for wasted mass. Nobody is going to waste mass on anything that is not necessary and the only things that will have multiples will be critical systems like Oxygen systems, CO2 recycling, power systems, communications systems and water reclamation. Look at 30seconds for the gym area and then the detailed view at 3:30. There's 4 treadmills, 3 showers and 3 toilets and most stupidly of all 3 weights benches which wont work in free fall. *This's not even good enough for science fiction, it's ignorant science fantasy.*
I thought the plan was to send starships filled with supplies to the surface of mars ahead of the astronauts. That way they can save a lot of room/weight.
Really good video. Thank you for your great research 🙂 we can't take for granted what space X is building. Our first attempt of something similar to what we see in movies. The amount mind power needed for this project is mind boggling
I think one of easiest way to make sure trip to Mars will success is sending more than 1 ship. not 100... at the start. But like 4-5 ? 2 with crew , 2 with spare parts for the trip. 1 almost empty that can be used as rescue vehicle if one of crewed ships go some unrepairable damage. OFC all other important stuff is already on surface of Mars waiting.
Excellent - but, the flight deck is set up for under gravity, micro gravity, or launch only. It would be very bad for a belly flop during landing. Gimballed seats needed.
A lot of problems could be solved by not preparing everything just on the ground, but in space too. Just like and aircraft can take on external fuel tanks. External supply pods can be added to the exterior that were boosted to orbit on Falcon 9's. This is just a thought about it that others already were thinking about too.
I saw that the trip (to mars I think) would be 5 months, this is a lot like the first trip to America, it's really amazing. Based on another video I saw, it seems like the interior of the ship will be awesome. (apart from the fact that there's no gravity, but its depicted amazingly.)
Fascinating yet so scary, I cant imagine living in a pod for 7 months, weightless, and with very risky components and possibilities. Much respect to the brave astronauts
An excellent presentation of how we can getter dun. I would enjoy some feedback on using our Moon as a staging point for various vehicles, each specializing in one support activity or each one containing a fraction of all support. These vehicles after collection and readiness for the move to Mars could then be linked together (think train) and then launched toward the final destination. Such a configuration could resolve a lot of today's what-ifs. To include important redundancy, reliability & reduced crew stress. One of the links in the train could even be a doughnut-ring artificial gravity module. OK, Ed, let's end this here.
Great presentation - thanks! Even if the mass to orbit remains at 100 tons (the number of raptor engines seem to provide a strong possibility for more) - it would be trivial to launch another starship with additional supplies - vis-a-vis several refueling missions. Of course this would also affect necessary delta v. However, you could instead/also launch a companion uncrewed starship for security, storage and backup.
I was going to say the same thing. Mass to orbit is irrelevant, as you can transfer cargo in orbit. What matters is how much mass can be sent to Mars from orbit after refueling and cargo transfer. I would expect the crew won't even launch until the Starship is refueled, so they're not present during what may be one of the more dangerous operations. And of course, resupply and refueling at Mars is assumed with cargo Starships. While this could be taken a step further with resupply during the journey, that adds complexity to the mission that would be avoided if at all possible (and as argued in the video, avoiding it is clearly possible). Another option is to build a new Starship design that is essentially a booster with a detachable nosecone. In orbit, discard the nosecone, fuel it up, and then dock it with the mission Starship. This would act as an additional stage to give them a boost out of Earth's gravity. This could also result in shorter missions, reducing the cargo needs.
If they could launch 2 ships into space, then orbit them. They could connect the two. Either side by side, or some kind of tether device, and pull it. Then they could have more supplies in case something were to happen. They could then sustain themselves better. Then when they get to Mars the other ship would be fueled and ready if need be to escape fast.
@samuelec Yeah but movies sensationalize everything. Always putting the worst scenarios so they get people glued to the movie. It could be a possibility but maybe that’s the chance taken when exploring.
There's a movie on Netflix called "Stowaway" the physics is correct, by the way at one point they have to go on the other tethered ship.. spoiler alert, isn't going too well
This is the Best video ever made by you🤩. You had done such an Extensive research for this topic and also Extensive amounts of Efforts you placed in making such Super Amazing 3D models and Editing this video. Hats Off to you Sir😎😌.
Like that you went into a such details. Most people just skip that and go play interior designer. ANd by the way, Moon mission will use small nuclear reactors so i think SpaceX could use them for Mars mission too instead of hydrogen cells.
I do think for a crew that large (ten astronauts as opposed to 4-6) for a mission that long (5 years instead of 2 years), they would pre-deploy another Starship full of supplies and equipment near the landing site. Indeed, if you picked an area within reasonable driving distance of interesting Martian terrain, then it would probably make sense to just build a base when you arrived.
Great video diving into Starship going to Mars. I like the idea of keep crew complement to 4 on 4 Starships. 2 Starships will be configured with a small space station to launch maybe for enough for 8 and up to 4 Starships can dock to it to provide more cargo and living area. The other two Starships can land on Mars and off load the first popup dwelling.
I kinda predict they will make a longer fairing section for Mars human missions. Similar to the LEO tanker graphic they showed. The current size is just large enough but I reckon to be extra safe they'll use a longer version for Mars since it doesn't need flaps to land there They could just launch on regular Starship then move to Mars Starship in orbit like what they plan to do with HLS Starship
it's gonna take a fleet of about 5-7 ships to do the trip. some will be for cargo only, and controlled from earth/computers. i also think they should be coming up with a docking/connection port that they can link the ships together, and make the trip as one bigger starship.
Indeed, I can imagine a connector/docking terminal for 6 Starships, rotating to produce artificial gravity and heading to Mars. Each Starship containing cargo, life support & crew or 4 containing cargo and 2 supporting crew comfortably. A number of configurations to consider for sure if multiple Starships are mated together before the journey and all able to land or only the crew Starships land once at Mars.
Seems smart, keep all the shielding in 1, power in the other. Only 1 ship would ever have to land or reenter earth rest can just shuttle back and forth on a free return trajectory.
One thing that gets left out is repair and replacement of damaged components. Things WILL break down and need repair, There needs to be an allowance for this.
That's why it's unlikely there will be only one Starship launched from Earth and landing on Mars at a time. Private industry doing colonization doesn't think like NASA with just test pilots, volunteers prepared to die in all or nothing missions. , AKA Expendable astronauts. Multiple ships could be conjoined , docked, acts as lifeboats. SpaceX isn't building one friggin' Starship at a time, launching it and waiting to see what happens. Look at Falcon 9 and scale it up.
Yeah thank God this suicide mission won't happen. Current tech is abysmal. Anyone with even basic reason would opt for lunar missions and development a lunar launch facility utilizing diminished gravity, atmosphere orbital velocity and much more. Further more nuclear battles and reactors would be crucial. In short Lunar development and nuclear power.
I love how you did this, it's food for thought. You see where you said hydrogen... Actually, why not carry some of the water as hydrogen and oxygen, such that the power requirements of the ship don't become a distinct mass for it's own purposes. ie convert hydrogen and oxygen into water thru fuel cells, which produces the required power and boom you solve many problems at once. Remember, the ship has a huge tank of oxygen already, the only missing piece here is hydrogen, which again goes to my poop 💩 comment below. 😂 Hydrogen can be obtained from human poop, we can actually scrap carrying hydrogen in large quantities and commend the crew to pooping, tell them their business means life and a safe return 🥴. So don't waste that poop, seriously. So yeah, we can obtain the ship's power from human poop and a bit of the propellant. Obviously batteries are needed and I bet they will be structurally built into the ship, just like 4680 cells in the newer Tesla Model Y, serving a dual purpose for energy storage and radiation shielding. Not sure if it will be safe or whether batteries are affected by cosmic radiation, but it makes sense to do it that way.
@Leonard Gibney whaaaat? "too puny as a species??!!" ah, dude, look around you ! we, as a species, have engineered our way to live right around the entire planet, and increasingly beyond it. The radiation issue is not a show stopper, because it is manageable, as are all other things, we engineer our way around the problems, just like we have always done, from the very start after we put on our animal skins and left Africa to colonize the world.
You mention cosmic radiation, but there's also the problem of Solar radiation. There's a constant Solar wind which is problematic in itself, but the main danger is CMEs. If the mission is hit by one, goodbye. I would also fear the unknown. Personally l don't believe in manned space flight. I think we're too puny as a species and evolved for life on Earth we can't really leave. At the time of Apollo science pundits predicted we would be shuttling tourists to and from the moon routinely by the year 2000.
we should try fixing 4-5 spaceships together in Orbit and disconnect them in Mars Orbit again. The medium ship could be the Center for maneuvring, this would also protect the astronauts in the middle ship from space rays, not completely but for sure more as in a solo ship. We will see. Furthermore it would be a good idea to put always 8ppl of the crew in some kind of stasis, and keeping two up per 1 or 2 month shift, it would safe food, oxygene, water and other things ♥ IN MUSK I TRUST ♥
I saw one concept about having a 30m or so long truss and attaching one starship to each end, and spinning it up to like 3 rpm would generate 1G of spin gravity in the starships, thart way you could get around the bone degradation issues. Also, 1g isnt even necessary, martian gravity would be good, getting the crew to adjust to that gravity for months before even getting there.
@Assar Strömblad If you don’t kill the angular velocity, the two ships are going to be separating at a fairly high speed… The one with the tether will also have a spin around the new centre of mass.
@Allan Gibson Well the idea is that the ships swivel to stop the spin before separating from it, I't feels intuitively like that might be a problem if you are using a flexible cable.
They should have a couple of decks outer wall spin, kinda like the fairground sticky wall centrifugal ride. I know the Starship's diameter is a little narrow for this to work as living space long term as many start to suffer types of dizziness related effects, but it could be good to do fitness training at close to 1G.
You could probably stick something like the reactors they have in nuclear submarines into a big enough rocket. Those things could run a small city, and you could have more than one.
@E not how it works, go and look it up;) Heat and heat transfer are not the same thing ;) TEG's need a hot and a Cold part in order to generate electricity, they are rather bad at it with a maximum efficiency of at best 10%
@nuno pinheiro I allready told you I'm wasting my time here with you. You aren't reading my comments. You were the one saying water is used for cooling, for which I replied it was heat transfer. Then you completly ignore it and tell me "heat doesn't produce energy" well duh that was astablished literally the first comment. My later comment about not needing water is because there is a different heat transfer used in space, which i allready mentioned is using thermalcouples. It's called the seeback effect and it's allready in use for many years in radioisotope thermoelectric generators. Look i was just trying to help you understand nuclear energy in space, while obviously its not the same as a submarine reactor as there is no fision, but I'm not interested in some kind of debate where either I'm just a terrible explainer or you are just not reading what i say. So again, have a nice day but i'm not interested in continueing this conversation.
@Doctorthee do you understand how any of this works? Do you know how for example a nuclear reactor produces electricity? You need a gradient in order to have any sort of energy source... Example for a wind mill you need diferent pressure on 2 sides of the windmill bales. On a whater dam you need water pressure differential pressure n order to generate energy. In a steam turbine you need diferent temperatures in order for the steam to go from A high pressure hight temperature steam to B low temperature liquid water...
Only neutron radiation would have any significant effect on this and even then it would need to happen over a very long time. Most other forms of radiation such as high energy protons, and alpha particles will be stopped dead by even a sheet of paper. High energy electrons are stopped fairly easily by metals and gamma radiation passes through most things and so is difficult to prepare for.
Radiation and radio activity particles are different, you can bombard almost everything with radiation and nothing else change, radioactive particles are a different story because they are small and if you ingest or get them in your longs you will be constantly getting that radiation and probably dye.
Very nice video, thanks!. Yet I believe the first cargo to Mars would be Batteries and Solar panels, while the first passenger would be groups of Tesla Bot that operates with AI combined with Metaverse concept by operator on Earth.
Great video. I suspect early missions will primarily rely on the Tesla Optimus robot rather than humans, thus removing many requirements and increasing storage capability.
I am quite intrigued on how they get the power on the Starship 2.0. During the recent Mars rover mission (Perseverance) they attached some sort of nuclear power. That was much more efficient than solar panels. Why not add them on the Starship? I am assuming because of the dangers of it?
@Arena_Alpha_Alex I'd say a mix of fuel cells, solar panels and big batteries. But then again, I'm no rocket engineer, and SpaceX has a much better idea of the power, mass, and cost requirements than I do. What I will say is that RTGs are expensive, special equipment and putting one on board a reentry vehicle which could come into the Earth's atmosphere over a populated area is probably not going to be taken well.
@Max V I see. Thank you for answering my question. I just feel like there are better ways for the starship 2.0 to have it's source of power. As a matter of fact. You answered my question, now what's your theory on how the Starship 2.0 should receive it's power?
Yes, primarily. That's a nuclear RTG, which I believe stands for Radioisotope thermal generator. Two Mars rovers, as well as both voyager probes, have them, and variants are likely to be used in colonies and bases. But my guess is that it's too dangerous or complex for the mission plan, it's possible that could be wrong though.
I am pretty sure they will not build a one-fits-all solution. Cargo will be send to mars ahead of time. The human transport configuration will only hold the supplies that are needed for the transfer. Also i do not expect to have a full flight control deck for all crew members. I imagine something similar in size to an airplane cockpit. Why would the system do need a lot of human interaction, if the starship is designed to fly without crew and carry cargo on its own anyway?
Despite claims to the contrary, the astronaut who went to the ISS for 12 months, while his twin brother remained on earth. It was discovered that significant damage was suffered by the twin who went to space, and also by his own statements (he felt very sick in a general way with a malaise, perhaps a debilitating depression? It would take him a very long time to return to 80% of his former self, by his own admission.) Were this to occur on a Mars journey (and the likelihood would be increased due to the ISS being in LOE,)and still marginally within our planet's magnetosphere. What and how would we react/deal with a crew that could not function upon landing on Mars? Not enough resources are being put into this, as basic facts of space travel. 12 months on the ISS, or 6 months on the way to Mars, or the round trip to the moon and back. These all have differing timelines with their own hazards. Nobody is realistically dealing with any of the hazards that I am aware of. Psychological, social and physiological factors need to be taken into account before we start venturing into the unknown with humans, I would suggest. Cheers 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Polyakov's 678 days in Space, Avdeyev's 747 days in Space, and they're fine. At least the Mars mission has a purpose, unlike those Astronauts who just orbit earth for months and months without any real destination in sight. Also Starship is way way bigger than Soyuz capsules, bigger than ISS and etc etc, plenty ways for the Mars astronauts to stay in shape.
I'll believe we have a hope in hell of colonizing Mars when we put a town in the middle of the Sahara or on Antarctica and don't resupply it for three years.
Despite your argument being valid in the sense that psychological as well as physiological issues will arrise you faild to mention the name of the astrounout you are refearing to but i assume its Scot Kelly, in which case both him and his twin brother mark were diagnosed with prostate cancer arroud a similiar time. If you are refearing to the canges in genetic activity thats somethig that happens in everyone in response to the environement and has an entire field of study called epigenetics dedicated to it. Something also missing in your argument that reaserarching the long there effects of living in space was kind of the point of the iss. After 20 years of reaserch we know a lot more about the dangers and how to prevent them and likely we'll get another 10-20 years of reasearch in before we ca consider trips to mars. The argument that nobody is dealing withnthe human factor is simply falls. Astronouts that travel to the iss undergo segnificant psychological evaluation and traing before missons to ensure they can work as a team and NASA conducted multiple studes on the psychological and physical effects of long tearm space habitation. Your argument makes it sound like astrounouts comming back from the iss are in a vegetative state unable to do anything which is frankly not the case, while also dissmissing the reasearch and brakethroughts thousends of scientists have achived in the last decades. Im not saying spaceX will be the ones to reach mars with the timeline they suggested, that is a PR stunt with an unachivable goals in that timeframe, but arrguing that no reaserch is done on the human factor is ignoring the work of a lot of people who have dedicated ther laifs to this cause.
Your point is quite valid and essentially makes a 5-year mission to Mars a one-way trip for those who go. I continue to say this every time something "Elon" comes up be it SpaceX, Tesla, The Boring Company or Hyperloop (among others)....Elon Musk will, someday, go down as the greatest conman in the history of the world.
And redundancy of any of these systems haven't even been mentioned 😂 I always felt that Elon's claim of being able to to move 100 people to Mars on one ship was total BS 😂 More realistically it's 5-6 people because none of the other things needed on the mission have been mentioned. Like spare parts, any resources or materials needed on the Mars surface and probably a coffin or two, as the likelihood that all astronauts will survive such a trip is small to none
People need to remember that there is a massive difference between the first voyages of discovery with small crews and large amounts of equipment and supplies v much later voyages carrying colonists on a rapid one way trip to an existing facility. Then there's the hype element on top of that. An eva suit would make a fine coffin and could be used for a space burial.
You don't need separate O2 tanks, Starship has a large and small O2 tanks. Lunar Starship has the ability to adapt the liquid oxygen to breathable temperature oxygen.
@Darren New I was criticizing the design that uses Hydrogen fuel cell but using separate Oxygen tanks. That's just extra mass. The CO2 can be solved using MOXIE, or its full scale version. That thing converts CO2 to O2.
Great video concept! Was actually trying to model my own version over the last month - just sharing my thoughts to some of it and some comments: They can send at least a pair of Cargo ships 2 years before the Crew mission, to have some certainties. Can also send ships in groups of 2 or more, to dock and share space, rec.facilities, expand crew social/sanity options, and even rig a simple spin-g to have modest gravity for part of the trip, and share redundancy of equipment and resources, or even emergency befalling one ship.. 6 bathrooms and 6 gym machines, for 10 crew? at that rate, might as well have en-suite bathroom and gym, just saying. Really want to see this fast tracked so I get to see us on Mars in my lifetime. Thanks!
Sorry to all but, this is disgraceful idiocy masquerading as engineering and scientific fact. FYI - I am an aerospace engineer and I'd love it if we had a spaceship that could go between the earth and the moon or Earth and Mars, *BUT this is NOT THAT.* This is idiotic science fiction masquerading as scientific fact. Point 1) There is no space to waste on any space craft - period. Go look at any of the footage from the ISS, Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Mir and there was/is no wasted space for anything. Point 2) While we are still using chemical based rocket motors there is allowance for wasted mass. Nobody is going to waste mass on anything that is not necessary and the only things that will have multiples will be critical systems like Oxygen systems, CO2 recycling, power systems, communications systems and water reclamation. Look at 30seconds for the gym area and then the detailed view at 3:30. There's 4 treadmills, 3 showers and 3 toilets and most stupidly of all 3 weights benches which wont work in free fall. *This's not even good enough for science fiction, it's ignorant science fantasy.*
Very thorough... answered some of my questions about Starship 2. First missions will not be 5 years in duration, maybe 3-6 months instead. Personally, 1 year to and from Mars and 3-6 months on Mars is not my idea of a space vacation. I have better things to do than spend 2 years on a mission that might cost me my life.
Ok I know other people are already talking about this but I really think its an important idea that needs to be put out there more: Long distance space ships are only going to become really effective (large number of people, fairly comfortable, etc) if they are built in space and aren't designed to exist anywhere but space. If there ever comes a time when a fleet of starships head to mars, it would be (in my opinion) idiotic not to create some sort of mothership that accompanies, and even combines with them. When this 'mothership' reaches wherever its goin, mars for example, the landing ships (starships), the crew (all, or most, or maybe only some of the crew) will leave the mothership in orbit while they board the starships, undock from the mothership, and land on mars. To me, this is the only reasonable or even feasible way to transport colonists. There is far too much room taken up by launch and landing capabilities on a single starship, and there will simply not be enough room for the number of people that SpaceX envisions living on a Starship. Istg if anybody tries to put 100 people on a single starship heading to mars they're more braindead than a rock that was diagnosed braindead by 9/10 dentists.
@Darren New I agree. Because NASA is intrinsically tied up with bureaucracy, setting smaller goals might not be the best game-plan for getting the most stuff done as efficiently as possible. But its also a double edged sword, because if they're too ambitious and they make a big mistake, then congress gets mad and cuts funding. If we're talking about SpaceX, then yeah I think they'd learn a lot of very valuable information from a test-run on the moon. Thats one of the reasons why I'm so glad that they got the human landing system contract, because I know for sure that otherwise Elon would be an overambitious dumbass and go straight to mars. So yeah I think we should go to the moon. But tbh I think it should be more of a test run than anything, and should turn into its own project only after it has done the work of propping up a mars mission. But thats honestly an opinion piece so do with it what you will :)
Great video although this will never happen. The future of space is unmanned, small, smart and efficient. Colonizing other worlds in the past has always been about return on investment and never for the sake of colonizing.
Why not send multiple ships at once? The ships could combine after lift off for the majority of the trip and separate again for landing. From the calculations of this video much of the supplies and equipment needed for "living" conditions could be spread out. Spreading the resources, weight and power could make the trip doable and with less constraints. Please do a video on how resources, supplies and power could be separated and combined to accomplish this. Elon Musk has all ready proposed that multiple ships are needed. Why not send them at the exact same time??
I think that it's because they want to be sure that the supply ships are safely on Mars before sending the crew. Imagine if one of the supply ships failed and the crew would be stranded or would starve -- it would be a disaster.
