there trying to make a space shutle like appolo but alitle difrent there gonna try to send a man to a giant midior by 2025 and a man to mars at 2030 :)
Lol an elevator. Come on man, the orbits are different. It would brake apart, even it's flexible there are moments where earth and Mars are on the other sides of the sun so that would mean your elevator has to cross the sun and other planets like venus and mercury. It just won't work.
an elevator to mars? 100% impossible mars and earth travel at 2 different speeeds for 1 and another thing is that to do that you would need about as much steel as there is matter on earth.
@niggadownniggadown no no no no no. Carbon nano tubes. They are made of carbon. Steel is made of iron. But iron is carburized on its surface, inside an oven filled with methane gas at 927 degrees celcius. Your first statement is true, our planets, they are constantly moving. Space elevators are for near earth space installations (stations) orbiting the earth. But it may be possible to aquire all the carbon to build an elevator to mars, rather, close as possible to mars. But not very practical.
@CognitiveNetwork the carbon nano tubes would (as I believe you correctly presented) be the only material strong enough to support a space elevator. However, this material would not be anywhere strong enough to prevent the planets from continuing their orbit, and as the distance between the planets continually changes, would therefore break.
But building a space elevator to low-Earth-orbit would be very beneficial, as 2/3 the fuel (and costs) of a space missions past low earth orbit, are spent on reaching said orbit. A space elevator would reduce costs and fuel requirements, constituting cheaper and more effective space travel.
@CognitiveNetwork well the gravity of the earth is the force (or attraction) keeping all the air and gasses close to the earth, so it will still "pull" the gasses back into the earth.
While it is true that pressure naturally goes from high to low (without the added energy) the gravitational attraction of the earth contains the air around us and overcomes the force of pressure which pushes it outwards.
So in the end... no, gravity will attract it back to earth, so there is no danger there ;)
idiot? rocket? or a elevator??? an elevator.????? no that wouldnt work. an elevator into space to a station that is perfectly in line with the planets orbit and spin yes. but to have an elevator to mars?? you are aware the 2 planets spin at totally different speeds and it takes nearly 2 earth years for mars to go round the sun once.... so tell me your theory on how that would work? i think you must have some intellagance but odviously not that much to think that.
@maffew286 even if there was an elevator into the near orbit it would help a lot cause you are not dependent from rocket starts anymore, but yes, an elevator to mars is just impossible :)
The concept of the space elevator is for linking a station with the ground. If you went to mars you would dock at the station and take the elevator down. This would save massive amounts of fuel because it take much more to land on a planet than to fly through space. The concepted one to go from Earth to high orbit. Somthing about the orbit will "anchor" it to a fixed distance, and allow it to remain stable. Onther way to get stuff there would by by rail gun.
@Jerimiah10 Cheapest way would be to have two space elavators on earth and mars and a mars cycler orbit to connect them... this mode of transport could really be available in next 50 years and would be much cheaper than the expensive chemical rockets that we use today...
@JibranSial The Space elevator is way to dangerous, especialy on Mars where the atmosphere is to thin to burn any of it up when it falls, and the life support systems below are so frail.
On Earth the wheather could snap the tether and send it around through cities at thousands of miles per hour. Just build refueling stations of the moons. That will be much cheaper.
@monokhem for an elevator u wud need a geo-syncronous satelite with enuf mass at far end of the cable making up the lift part
The object would b far enuf from earth so that its tryin to escape the earths gravity (moving outward) due to this the cable wud B under V high tension to keep it tight with no slack & to stop the mass on the lift pulling the satelite down
A new material will b needed high tensile steel breaks at 1.6 Gpa you would need about 10 gpa, carbon nanotube rope will soon do this
@neogastropoda1 i think you would won't a rocket fuel pipeline blasting off into space with a space elevator because then you could assemble space rocket fuel stations along the way, like gas stations then people can remain stationary and start living on the moon earlier then you think.
@neogastropoda1 Even carbon nanotubes(CN) have tensile strength limitations, as you said (10Gpa). If a stability point is required, let's say at a geosynchronous orbit then that's a whole 36 million meters cable, weighing many thousand tons. Hence, the risk of a CN cable breakdown is very severe. Not to mention the highly expensive cost of CN construction. I think we won't be seeing any Space-Elevators in the next 200 years or so.
@monokhem for an elevator u wud need a geo-syncronous satelite with enuf mass at far end of the cable making up the lift part
The object would b far enuf from earth so that its tryin to escape the earths gravity (moving outward) due to this the cable wud B under V high tension to keep it tight with no slack & to stop the mass on the lift pulling the satelite down
A new material will b needed high tensile steel breaks at 1.6 Gpa you would need about 10 gpa, carbon nanotube rope will soon do this
you could not put water on mars it atomsphere it to thin to hold water and its to cold
water would freeze during the night,plus during the day mars is as warm as a summer day and during the night it gets freezing because there is no greenhouse gas to keep it warm earth would be almost the same is it didnt have any green house gas
Hahaha! A space elevator... ? Seriously? You di know that the planets turn around.... And move around the sun at different speed. = At some point it will go THRU our own planet or even the sun, moon etc. And its to freaking far and expensive... And don't say that NASA gave that example cuz that's just retarded.
@F0rb1dd3n They have worked that out... It's not connected to anything it just carries large loads (or is supposed to) of equipment into space and reduces the cost by 100x. What do you mean it will go through our own planet and such?
hah, about the idea of building a huge space elevator; i think the autor forgot the fact that both( Mars and Earth) turn round the sun. Sooo, they move, and don't stand still. I give them 1houre before the elevator brakes :p
@puffyclouddd1 From what I heard, there is alot of frozen water in the polar caps. And if some of the material that is readily available is burned up and released into the atmosphere, it should be enough of a greenhouse effect to melt the water and keep it from leaving into space. But I also heard that it would take a veeery long time, way after we are dead.
@jarosdomanais THERE IS OXYGEN ON MARS. Didn't I just say that? lol... There is a sun, oxygen, and soil. You could find a way to grow plants, and trees.
@jarosdomanais No, it's not. Also, before we go there. Scientists have designed a way to create a green house effect in the planet's atmosphere. Creating percipitation, and more oxygen.
Good insight! However, the planet does not contain as much CO2 as Earth (since its atmosphere is only 1% as dense), and plants need O2 for respiration. Also, we must take into consideration that the planet is way too cold for even the strongest strain of photosynthetic life (namely algae) to survive. Finally, since mars lacks a strong magnetic field, deadly radiation will mutate and kill all life on the planet.
In light of this, its not so weird we havent colonized the planet. ;)
lol wtf is with the space elevator, both planets orbit at different speeds that would be absolutely impossible, obviously rockets the only option, and whats with that mars city? how could you devolop a city that fast? that still hasn't been pulled off on earth after 6000 years, how coyuld we build one on mars in 20?
@TheMehFilms Some smart-ass prodigy will eventually probably solve these problems. He/She will create their best innovations greater than they are today. You never know :D
@reelscorpion ... No, there's a point where Mars is on the opposite side of the sun from here, how could an elevator go all the way through the sun which is 15,000,000 degrees in the core. It's never going to happen. I do know
@TheMehFilms That's because whoever said about the space elevator connecting to both the Earth and Mars is wrong. It is there to easily station and supply spaceships with fuel and resources so they would not have to land on earth this would cut space travel cost by 100 times. Oh and they probably could build a base I mean science research has gone further in the last 10-20 years than the whole existence of humans on this Earth. (Sorry for the super long essay.)
@TheMehFilms Because they already have cities on Earth and stupid corrupt idiots and high-end officials will not re-build or build a city like that. Where as Mars has free land to make new plans and designs for a city.
@CookieMonzta1995 Good luck with that buddy. These high end officials will be the ones building cities on mars if anyone. Not some unsuccessful people without any decent architectial designs
mars may not be "terra-formable." but it has lots of natural resources,so one day it may be considered "habitable" in some places.., like mining colonies for example.
rockets are extinct in a few weeks, well in usa , kennedy space center is closed for good. no more space shuttles, the futur of space travel is more like what virgin galactic is doing. and the space elevator will be built in the futur i already know about this.
@ScribeOfShadows i think that's why gov't cut spending to NASA is to promote private space industry. It creates jobs true... but it's like we're starting from scratch almost. also im not a big fan of government agenda right now, but i think pushing the private sector into birthing fields is one step in the right direction
@joncl1 well waiting for NASA to do anything I be lucky to see another human on the moon let alone mars in my lifetime.
To be honest, with NASA leaving it so long to even think about man exploration again. It probably be like we were starting all over again even if it was NASA doing it.
I'm look forward to the next decade. Thanks for bringing SpaceX to my attention it be another company I be looking at to see what they do next in regards to Space exploration.
@joncl1 dude... i live in huntsville, al. AKA "rocket city". Marshall SpaceFlight Center (NASA), redstone arsenal (biggest arsenal in US), United Launch Alliance (build's delta and ares rockets), and many other companies are here. I'm going to school right now for aerospace engineering as my major with minor in robotics and automation... looking to get hired on with one of these companies. look up "lunar X prize" and you'll find alot of other companies to look into as well as ones here... later
@joncl1 yeah I've stumbled on to the googlelunar x-prize. I heard there 24 teams signed up for that already... good stuff.
Hope you get a job with one of those companies. LOL I'm bit past it age wise and got no qaulification to speak of so bit envious. Plus here in blighty there are pretty much zero companies of that nature anyways.
@VeryVeryMeanBastard investigate beyong pointing and clicking friend. They are by far the number 1 competitor. And they have NIIIIICE tech. i'm jealous
2030? i think it will be earlier :D + a space elevator doesnt look very good as planets have different speeds and u know that there is a rocket in development that can reach mars in 39 days? the new engine is going to be tested near 2011 on ISS and it doenst use fuel, only plasma
Mars To Stay is the only viable option. Sending stuff there is much cheaper than a return vehicle. There mus be A LOT of robotic pioneering. First robot base to stay, then human base to stay. No return.
A nanotube space elevator would help a lot, but it's not the only option. Reusable rockets, lauch loop, space fountain etc. Prior expanding of the ISS to about double the size would help as well.
A space elevator is do-able, just not with current tech. The elevator isn't 400 Mil Km long, it "only" goes to geosync. Pure fantasy for now, but in 200 years, who knows...
space elevator, are you high? planets arent standing still , mars and earth dont have the exact same orbit, and how the fuck we make a 400mil km long elavator, srsly where ever you read about a space elavator or its yours stupid idea, it would never ever ever work
Imagination land? Well yes, but even the most cursory examination of his biography would show that Clarke had credibilty in technical matters.
Just Google "Clarke" and "communications satellite".
Contrary to your comment of a few days ago, the space elavator idea has sound science behind it, currently we lack a material strong enough to construct it. But in future we probably will.
" space elavator or its yours stupid idea,"
It is not his idea, and it is not a stupid idea either.
well by that sense for future technology wouldnt it be likely that we had ships in which we could travel, mars relatively is a very close planet to earth so it has more logic then building a elevator
You might well be right. We are talking about one untried technology (the elevator) and one technology which is in its infancy (vehicles that can safely travel between orbit and a planet surface. We don't which would make the most sense economically.
Theoretically elvator does provide a solution to the fundemental problem in this area, defying gravity.
@ma049 but a shit load of problem of syncing it between the two planets and thousands of small meteorites going around hitting the elevator and how would someone travel in the elevator like a train still we need an engine that could achieve huge speed! its easier to make a ship lol
Hey, If you have problems with the theory there is plenty of hard data on the theory of a space elavator. As far as I know it is all based on sound science and It is but a google away.
By rocket or space elevator? First off I doubt you mean a chemical rocket because that would take too long and cost too much so a new propulsion system and a space elevator being 100million miles long I doubt it.
Sounds and is are not the same thing. Pretty sure iPhones sounded unrealistic 20-30 years ago when cellphones were large bricks hooked to a briefcase
The Space Elevator is something that is only currently hindered by how long we can make Carbon Nano-tube cables and they are getting bigger/stronger daily. It would only take about 10 years to build as it is actually a rather simple construction
You really think we can build a building 38500 miles tall in any time? ballshit. Would be cool if we could yea, but this wont happen untill maybe (at the very earliest) the year 5000. We would have to create a new fuel resourse caplable of moving a counterwieght. We would have to build some kinda anti-gravity force to keep the 38500 mile tall building up. Then after all that if we get our calculations 0000000000.1% it will fall the the ground and kill alot of people.
@crazybrity Oh, you were talking about the elevator. I don't even think anyone would bother doing that. because it would ruin both planets. Earth and Mars would be spinning around eachother and if we're lucky going around the sun. So, if we are that stupid in the future, they need to go to our school.
@crazybrity Dude, at least do some research rather than throwing random numbers from your head around willy nilly pretending they are fact....
It would be a ribbon, not a building, and it would do no real damage if it fell to the earth as most of it would burn up and break apart... IF it snapped... but they way it will be designed it can be repaired fragment by fragment during each cargo lift.
Don't spout negative ignorance and claim to know what you are talking about, try to be constructive.
@Moirera Dude your an idiot, think about the logic in it! Your talking about making a 38,500 mile tall building. This is very difficult to complete. We would have to develop new technologies that are at least hundreds of years away. Additionally, making a 38,500 mile tall building even if it IS a "ribbon" would cot trillions of dollars to make, and hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain. No government would ever fund such a thing. I know it would be cool, but use your head!
Man... are you that arrogant that you think your "logic" is greater than scientific fact? It would not cost a trillion dollars, it would cost $10 billion, it is a thin ribbon, not a building, do some ACTUAL research.
They fly up the ribbon on a rocket, anchor it to a heavy far out satellite or captured asteroid, reel it down to the centre of the pacific ocean and anchor it. Thousands of world renowned scientists are working on this and have most issues sorted.
Do you know how "illogical" aeroplanes would have sounded in the late 1800's? Or that 60 years later we would have people walking on the moon? or in the 70's if you said "everyone will have pocket wireless phones that use touch screens and plays music in 30 years" how stupid you would have sounded.
Simply writing something off as "illogical" without doing any research is the sort of crap that got us stuck in the dark ages for so long. It does nothing but impede scientific progress.
@Moirera You yield some good points man but its just not realistic, or worth the money that it would cost. It would cost you say, about 10 billion dollars to make. That is relativity cheap for a space elevator concept, but keep in mind the building has to be 38,500 miles tall so that the counterweight is in symmetrical orbit. Now if its 38,500 miles tall, and IF the elavator is traveling at say 100Mph, it would take that elevator 16 days to reach the top. That is just one more illogicality.
@Moirera Additionally by the time the technology is available to make a space elevator, (looks like in your mind at least a few hundred years) we would have already perfected semi-advanced space flight which would allow a pace shuttle to reach space at minimal cost probably as much as it costs an airliner to travel across the country today. As you say (correctly) we are advancing very quickly.
@Moirera There are many things unrealistic about a space elevator concept im not going to discuss all of them but think about this. You would have to have a counterweight at geo-symmetrical orbit. Now as you get closer to the earth the speed of orbit increases, so how would you build a building through this fast orbit? It is impossible! think of the power of nature, then think of the power of the WHOLE earth spinning. You cant counter that with rockets, nuclear propulsion systems or anything.
there trying to make a space shutle like appolo but alitle difrent there gonna try to send a man to a giant midior by 2025 and a man to mars at 2030 :)
ValorXT 3 weeks ago
you got a lot of fantasy, anyway the song was awesome David Bowie rules :)
nfrantnik 1 month ago
Lol an elevator. Come on man, the orbits are different. It would brake apart, even it's flexible there are moments where earth and Mars are on the other sides of the sun so that would mean your elevator has to cross the sun and other planets like venus and mercury. It just won't work.
dekippiesip 2 months ago
@dekippiesip
Elevator is just for get something to orbit Earth / Mars. Travel between remain same.
TheAnubis022 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dekippiesip
Elevator is just for get something to orbit Earth / Mars. Travel between remain same.
TheAnubis022 2 months ago
an elevator to mars? 100% impossible mars and earth travel at 2 different speeeds for 1 and another thing is that to do that you would need about as much steel as there is matter on earth.
niggadownniggadown 2 months ago
@niggadownniggadown no no no no no. Carbon nano tubes. They are made of carbon. Steel is made of iron. But iron is carburized on its surface, inside an oven filled with methane gas at 927 degrees celcius. Your first statement is true, our planets, they are constantly moving. Space elevators are for near earth space installations (stations) orbiting the earth. But it may be possible to aquire all the carbon to build an elevator to mars, rather, close as possible to mars. But not very practical.
CognitiveNetwork 2 months ago
@CognitiveNetwork the carbon nano tubes would (as I believe you correctly presented) be the only material strong enough to support a space elevator. However, this material would not be anywhere strong enough to prevent the planets from continuing their orbit, and as the distance between the planets continually changes, would therefore break.
PhysicsManual 2 months ago
@CognitiveNetwork
But building a space elevator to low-Earth-orbit would be very beneficial, as 2/3 the fuel (and costs) of a space missions past low earth orbit, are spent on reaching said orbit. A space elevator would reduce costs and fuel requirements, constituting cheaper and more effective space travel.
PhysicsManual 2 months ago
@PhysicsManual But what if a small hole appears at the top of the elevator, then wouldn't all air, all gasses from earth, escape into the vacuum?
CognitiveNetwork 2 months ago
@CognitiveNetwork well the gravity of the earth is the force (or attraction) keeping all the air and gasses close to the earth, so it will still "pull" the gasses back into the earth.
While it is true that pressure naturally goes from high to low (without the added energy) the gravitational attraction of the earth contains the air around us and overcomes the force of pressure which pushes it outwards.
So in the end... no, gravity will attract it back to earth, so there is no danger there ;)
PhysicsManual 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HEY GUYS I HAVE THE REAL MISSION VIDEO ON MY PROFILE!! CHECK IT OUT!!
sincerely , energyscience
energyscience 3 months ago
idiot? rocket? or a elevator??? an elevator.????? no that wouldnt work. an elevator into space to a station that is perfectly in line with the planets orbit and spin yes. but to have an elevator to mars?? you are aware the 2 planets spin at totally different speeds and it takes nearly 2 earth years for mars to go round the sun once.... so tell me your theory on how that would work? i think you must have some intellagance but odviously not that much to think that.
maffew286 4 months ago
@maffew286 even if there was an elevator into the near orbit it would help a lot cause you are not dependent from rocket starts anymore, but yes, an elevator to mars is just impossible :)
blueheadphoneguy 3 months ago
I wan a live on the moon,i thought blondes listened,build moon city,you aint listening.
omega4chimp 5 months ago
Waot 250 years
1Nekit1 7 months ago
This is the gayest music I've ever heard
s7saleens 7 months ago
The concept of the space elevator is for linking a station with the ground. If you went to mars you would dock at the station and take the elevator down. This would save massive amounts of fuel because it take much more to land on a planet than to fly through space. The concepted one to go from Earth to high orbit. Somthing about the orbit will "anchor" it to a fixed distance, and allow it to remain stable. Onther way to get stuff there would by by rail gun.
Jerimiah10 8 months ago
@Jerimiah10 Cheapest way would be to have two space elavators on earth and mars and a mars cycler orbit to connect them... this mode of transport could really be available in next 50 years and would be much cheaper than the expensive chemical rockets that we use today...
JibranSial 7 months ago
@JibranSial The Space elevator is way to dangerous, especialy on Mars where the atmosphere is to thin to burn any of it up when it falls, and the life support systems below are so frail.
On Earth the wheather could snap the tether and send it around through cities at thousands of miles per hour. Just build refueling stations of the moons. That will be much cheaper.
monokhem 7 months ago
@monokhem for an elevator u wud need a geo-syncronous satelite with enuf mass at far end of the cable making up the lift part
The object would b far enuf from earth so that its tryin to escape the earths gravity (moving outward) due to this the cable wud B under V high tension to keep it tight with no slack & to stop the mass on the lift pulling the satelite down
A new material will b needed high tensile steel breaks at 1.6 Gpa you would need about 10 gpa, carbon nanotube rope will soon do this
neogastropoda1 5 months ago
@neogastropoda1 i think you would won't a rocket fuel pipeline blasting off into space with a space elevator because then you could assemble space rocket fuel stations along the way, like gas stations then people can remain stationary and start living on the moon earlier then you think.
omega4chimp 5 months ago
@neogastropoda1 Even carbon nanotubes(CN) have tensile strength limitations, as you said (10Gpa). If a stability point is required, let's say at a geosynchronous orbit then that's a whole 36 million meters cable, weighing many thousand tons. Hence, the risk of a CN cable breakdown is very severe. Not to mention the highly expensive cost of CN construction. I think we won't be seeing any Space-Elevators in the next 200 years or so.
Neueregel 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@monokhem for an elevator u wud need a geo-syncronous satelite with enuf mass at far end of the cable making up the lift part
The object would b far enuf from earth so that its tryin to escape the earths gravity (moving outward) due to this the cable wud B under V high tension to keep it tight with no slack & to stop the mass on the lift pulling the satelite down
A new material will b needed high tensile steel breaks at 1.6 Gpa you would need about 10 gpa, carbon nanotube rope will soon do this
neogastropoda1 5 months ago
If we get there in 2060 by rocket I will be ashamed. Rockets are stone age old!
CookieMonzta1995 8 months ago
more like in 150 years
CHRISIDDON17 8 months ago
you could not put water on mars it atomsphere it to thin to hold water and its to cold
water would freeze during the night,plus during the day mars is as warm as a summer day and during the night it gets freezing because there is no greenhouse gas to keep it warm earth would be almost the same is it didnt have any green house gas
Jackmachinima 9 months ago
Hahaha! A space elevator... ? Seriously? You di know that the planets turn around.... And move around the sun at different speed. = At some point it will go THRU our own planet or even the sun, moon etc. And its to freaking far and expensive... And don't say that NASA gave that example cuz that's just retarded.
F0rb1dd3n 9 months ago
@F0rb1dd3n apparenlty it would work, but hey thats just according to the people who've done the maths....
MrFreeMinecraft 9 months ago
@F0rb1dd3n They have worked that out... It's not connected to anything it just carries large loads (or is supposed to) of equipment into space and reduces the cost by 100x. What do you mean it will go through our own planet and such?
CookieMonzta1995 8 months ago
By googling it.
richig761 10 months ago
It won't took 100 years for mars to be terraformed , it will take appro 1100 years.
elfsblack 10 months ago
hah, about the idea of building a huge space elevator; i think the autor forgot the fact that both( Mars and Earth) turn round the sun. Sooo, they move, and don't stand still. I give them 1houre before the elevator brakes :p
93Unclesam 10 months ago
Ok about the elevator... what if the elevator gts unkown problems and the hole thing crashes down... do you know how much distruction it will cause?
turkanator123 10 months ago
This song doesnt fit am sorry' and how would we breath on mars! were is the resources like water,and other natural meterals?
puffyclouddd1 11 months ago
@puffyclouddd1 From what I heard, there is alot of frozen water in the polar caps. And if some of the material that is readily available is burned up and released into the atmosphere, it should be enough of a greenhouse effect to melt the water and keep it from leaving into space. But I also heard that it would take a veeery long time, way after we are dead.
tostrong4you 10 months ago
@puffyclouddd1 How would we breath? Uhhh.... Just like we breath on Earth. There is an atmosphere with less oxygen, but there is oxygen.
richig761 10 months ago
@richig761 then,when you need oxygen,plant trees,right?
jarosdomanais 5 months ago
@jarosdomanais THERE IS OXYGEN ON MARS. Didn't I just say that? lol... There is a sun, oxygen, and soil. You could find a way to grow plants, and trees.
richig761 5 months ago
@richig761 but it's too little.
jarosdomanais 5 months ago
@jarosdomanais No, it's not. Also, before we go there. Scientists have designed a way to create a green house effect in the planet's atmosphere. Creating percipitation, and more oxygen.
richig761 4 months ago
@richig761 actually plants produce oxygen, they need CO2 to live and Mars is full of it
cipihevent 3 months ago
Comment removed
PhysicsManual 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cipihevent
Good insight! However, the planet does not contain as much CO2 as Earth (since its atmosphere is only 1% as dense), and plants need O2 for respiration. Also, we must take into consideration that the planet is way too cold for even the strongest strain of photosynthetic life (namely algae) to survive. Finally, since mars lacks a strong magnetic field, deadly radiation will mutate and kill all life on the planet.
In light of this, its not so weird we havent colonized the planet. ;)
PhysicsManual 2 months ago
Comment removed
ixonixas 1 year ago
@ixonixas wth ?
DjOttsel1234 11 months ago
lol wtf is with the space elevator, both planets orbit at different speeds that would be absolutely impossible, obviously rockets the only option, and whats with that mars city? how could you devolop a city that fast? that still hasn't been pulled off on earth after 6000 years, how coyuld we build one on mars in 20?
TheMehFilms 1 year ago
@TheMehFilms Some smart-ass prodigy will eventually probably solve these problems. He/She will create their best innovations greater than they are today. You never know :D
reelscorpion 1 year ago
@reelscorpion ... No, there's a point where Mars is on the opposite side of the sun from here, how could an elevator go all the way through the sun which is 15,000,000 degrees in the core. It's never going to happen. I do know
TheMehFilms 11 months ago
@TheMehFilms I'm sure they would be able to manuver it, so it won't go through at that point.
richig761 10 months ago
@richig761 they just wouldn't do it, the rockets the only choice
TheMehFilms 10 months ago
@TheMehFilms I mean.... I don't know why NASA would talk about it, if they couldn't do it.
richig761 10 months ago
@richig761 what makes you think they have?
TheMehFilms 10 months ago
@TheMehFilms That's because whoever said about the space elevator connecting to both the Earth and Mars is wrong. It is there to easily station and supply spaceships with fuel and resources so they would not have to land on earth this would cut space travel cost by 100 times. Oh and they probably could build a base I mean science research has gone further in the last 10-20 years than the whole existence of humans on this Earth. (Sorry for the super long essay.)
CookieMonzta1995 10 months ago
@CookieMonzta1995 yes but mankind hasn't even devoloped a city like that yet on the earth, how could they on mars? Exactly, they can't
TheMehFilms 10 months ago
@TheMehFilms Because they already have cities on Earth and stupid corrupt idiots and high-end officials will not re-build or build a city like that. Where as Mars has free land to make new plans and designs for a city.
CookieMonzta1995 10 months ago
@CookieMonzta1995 Good luck with that buddy. These high end officials will be the ones building cities on mars if anyone. Not some unsuccessful people without any decent architectial designs
TheMehFilms 10 months ago
mars may not be "terra-formable." but it has lots of natural resources,so one day it may be considered "habitable" in some places.., like mining colonies for example.
ChemicalMikeUK 1 year ago
this song is so nice
joshodst 1 year ago
rockets would be extinct by then idiot
SlayerGod999 1 year ago
@SlayerGod999
rockets are extinct in a few weeks, well in usa , kennedy space center is closed for good. no more space shuttles, the futur of space travel is more like what virgin galactic is doing. and the space elevator will be built in the futur i already know about this.
freakoutguitarsolo1 1 year ago
SpaceX CEO bets manned mission to mars by 2020...........
joncl1 1 year ago
@joncl1 that be a real kick in the teeth if a private company gets there before NASA.
ScribeOfShadows 1 year ago
@ScribeOfShadows i think that's why gov't cut spending to NASA is to promote private space industry. It creates jobs true... but it's like we're starting from scratch almost. also im not a big fan of government agenda right now, but i think pushing the private sector into birthing fields is one step in the right direction
joncl1 1 year ago
@joncl1 well waiting for NASA to do anything I be lucky to see another human on the moon let alone mars in my lifetime.
To be honest, with NASA leaving it so long to even think about man exploration again. It probably be like we were starting all over again even if it was NASA doing it.
I'm look forward to the next decade. Thanks for bringing SpaceX to my attention it be another company I be looking at to see what they do next in regards to Space exploration.
ScribeOfShadows 1 year ago
@joncl1 dude... i live in huntsville, al. AKA "rocket city". Marshall SpaceFlight Center (NASA), redstone arsenal (biggest arsenal in US), United Launch Alliance (build's delta and ares rockets), and many other companies are here. I'm going to school right now for aerospace engineering as my major with minor in robotics and automation... looking to get hired on with one of these companies. look up "lunar X prize" and you'll find alot of other companies to look into as well as ones here... later
joncl1 1 year ago
@joncl1 yeah I've stumbled on to the googlelunar x-prize. I heard there 24 teams signed up for that already... good stuff.
Hope you get a job with one of those companies. LOL I'm bit past it age wise and got no qaulification to speak of so bit envious. Plus here in blighty there are pretty much zero companies of that nature anyways.
ScribeOfShadows 1 year ago
@joncl1 SpaceX CEO have to first show us that his company can produce something more than cute website full of wishful thinking and nice graphics...
VeryVeryMeanBastard 1 year ago
@VeryVeryMeanBastard investigate beyong pointing and clicking friend. They are by far the number 1 competitor. And they have NIIIIICE tech. i'm jealous
joncl1 1 year ago
there will not be a space elevator by then, and the space shuttle is being retired
Georgeqaws 1 year ago
2030? i think it will be earlier :D + a space elevator doesnt look very good as planets have different speeds and u know that there is a rocket in development that can reach mars in 39 days? the new engine is going to be tested near 2011 on ISS and it doenst use fuel, only plasma
TheDRstudios 1 year ago
@TheDRstudios thats awesome!
miniwars123 1 year ago
whats the songs name?
balutube43 1 year ago
orginisms
szivalj 1 year ago
Mars To Stay is the only viable option. Sending stuff there is much cheaper than a return vehicle. There mus be A LOT of robotic pioneering. First robot base to stay, then human base to stay. No return.
A nanotube space elevator would help a lot, but it's not the only option. Reusable rockets, lauch loop, space fountain etc. Prior expanding of the ISS to about double the size would help as well.
trakkaton 1 year ago
Wonderful video - good choice of track too
Hoogliette 1 year ago
"Is there life on maaars..." that line always sends a shiver up my spine :)
This is exciting stuff, I hope I get to see this happen.
Uzzie101 1 year ago
A space elevator is do-able, just not with current tech. The elevator isn't 400 Mil Km long, it "only" goes to geosync. Pure fantasy for now, but in 200 years, who knows...
phantomcruiser 1 year ago
@phantomcruiser
ok how about meteorites? the elevator would be bombarded with small meteorites all the time
Yaaacar 1 year ago
space elevator, are you high? planets arent standing still , mars and earth dont have the exact same orbit, and how the fuck we make a 400mil km long elavator, srsly where ever you read about a space elavator or its yours stupid idea, it would never ever ever work
Yaaacar 1 year ago
Arthur C Clarke.
ma049 1 year ago
@ma049
ok i googled the guy he is dead and i dont want to offend the dead, but as i saw it was in his syfy novel! imagination land
Yaaacar 1 year ago
Imagination land? Well yes, but even the most cursory examination of his biography would show that Clarke had credibilty in technical matters.
Just Google "Clarke" and "communications satellite".
Contrary to your comment of a few days ago, the space elavator idea has sound science behind it, currently we lack a material strong enough to construct it. But in future we probably will.
" space elavator or its yours stupid idea,"
It is not his idea, and it is not a stupid idea either.
ma049 1 year ago
@ma049
well by that sense for future technology wouldnt it be likely that we had ships in which we could travel, mars relatively is a very close planet to earth so it has more logic then building a elevator
Yaaacar 1 year ago
You might well be right. We are talking about one untried technology (the elevator) and one technology which is in its infancy (vehicles that can safely travel between orbit and a planet surface. We don't which would make the most sense economically.
Theoretically elvator does provide a solution to the fundemental problem in this area, defying gravity.
ma049 1 year ago
@ma049 but a shit load of problem of syncing it between the two planets and thousands of small meteorites going around hitting the elevator and how would someone travel in the elevator like a train still we need an engine that could achieve huge speed! its easier to make a ship lol
Yaaacar 1 year ago
Hey, If you have problems with the theory there is plenty of hard data on the theory of a space elavator. As far as I know it is all based on sound science and It is but a google away.
ma049 1 year ago
its called greenhouse gases
garuga0777 1 year ago
and barack obama isn't even gonna be pres past 2012 as far as we know..so don listen to him..haa
MrSurfsAlot 1 year ago
sure
SatoTM3 1 year ago
barrack said we be there by 2030.
Theplanets1717 1 year ago
By rocket or space elevator? First off I doubt you mean a chemical rocket because that would take too long and cost too much so a new propulsion system and a space elevator being 100million miles long I doubt it.
CookieMonzta1995 1 year ago
argh I hate my mouse it made me press dislike stupid thing oh well here is my true rating (*****)
timelordcreation 1 year ago
what melody is that????????????????????????????
georgel19841 1 year ago
An Space Elevator hmn...
u forgot about planet rotations and mini meteoroids.
they r tiny as a regular rock in earth but goes around the system with a huge speed.
Angelotvkool 1 year ago
@Angelotvkool oh yeah rotation
Theplanets1717 1 year ago
@LebaneseNostalgia "agree space elevator sounds unrealistic!"
Sounds and is are not the same thing. Pretty sure iPhones sounded unrealistic 20-30 years ago when cellphones were large bricks hooked to a briefcase
The Space Elevator is something that is only currently hindered by how long we can make Carbon Nano-tube cables and they are getting bigger/stronger daily. It would only take about 10 years to build as it is actually a rather simple construction
spaceward(dot)org(slash)elevator-faq
Moirera 1 year ago
2030 more like 3030 lol
allthings321 1 year ago
By rocket or by space elevator? yea by rocket we will not get to mars by a space elevator lol that is completely illogical.
crazybrity 1 year ago
agree space elevator sounds unrealistic!
LebaneseNostalgia 1 year ago
You really think we can build a building 38500 miles tall in any time? ballshit. Would be cool if we could yea, but this wont happen untill maybe (at the very earliest) the year 5000. We would have to create a new fuel resourse caplable of moving a counterwieght. We would have to build some kinda anti-gravity force to keep the 38500 mile tall building up. Then after all that if we get our calculations 0000000000.1% it will fall the the ground and kill alot of people.
crazybrity 1 year ago
@crazybrity We've been getting robots there and have designs made and are already building the parts.
SalienMovies 1 year ago
@SalienMovies If your talking about a space elevator then you sir....are fucking retarted
crazybrity 1 year ago
@SalienMovies If your talking about the mars base then yea ur right
crazybrity 1 year ago
@crazybrity Oh, you were talking about the elevator. I don't even think anyone would bother doing that. because it would ruin both planets. Earth and Mars would be spinning around eachother and if we're lucky going around the sun. So, if we are that stupid in the future, they need to go to our school.
SalienMovies 1 year ago
@crazybrity Dude, at least do some research rather than throwing random numbers from your head around willy nilly pretending they are fact....
It would be a ribbon, not a building, and it would do no real damage if it fell to the earth as most of it would burn up and break apart... IF it snapped... but they way it will be designed it can be repaired fragment by fragment during each cargo lift.
Don't spout negative ignorance and claim to know what you are talking about, try to be constructive.
Moirera 1 year ago
@Moirera Dude your an idiot, think about the logic in it! Your talking about making a 38,500 mile tall building. This is very difficult to complete. We would have to develop new technologies that are at least hundreds of years away. Additionally, making a 38,500 mile tall building even if it IS a "ribbon" would cot trillions of dollars to make, and hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain. No government would ever fund such a thing. I know it would be cool, but use your head!
crazybrity 1 year ago
@Moirera Think about the logic in it dude its not that hard to understand how unrealistic a space elevator concept is.
crazybrity 1 year ago
@crazybrity
Man... are you that arrogant that you think your "logic" is greater than scientific fact? It would not cost a trillion dollars, it would cost $10 billion, it is a thin ribbon, not a building, do some ACTUAL research.
They fly up the ribbon on a rocket, anchor it to a heavy far out satellite or captured asteroid, reel it down to the centre of the pacific ocean and anchor it. Thousands of world renowned scientists are working on this and have most issues sorted.
Your logic =/= fact.
Moirera 1 year ago
@crazybrity
Do you know how "illogical" aeroplanes would have sounded in the late 1800's? Or that 60 years later we would have people walking on the moon? or in the 70's if you said "everyone will have pocket wireless phones that use touch screens and plays music in 30 years" how stupid you would have sounded.
Simply writing something off as "illogical" without doing any research is the sort of crap that got us stuck in the dark ages for so long. It does nothing but impede scientific progress.
Moirera 1 year ago
@Moirera You yield some good points man but its just not realistic, or worth the money that it would cost. It would cost you say, about 10 billion dollars to make. That is relativity cheap for a space elevator concept, but keep in mind the building has to be 38,500 miles tall so that the counterweight is in symmetrical orbit. Now if its 38,500 miles tall, and IF the elavator is traveling at say 100Mph, it would take that elevator 16 days to reach the top. That is just one more illogicality.
crazybrity 1 year ago
@Moirera Additionally by the time the technology is available to make a space elevator, (looks like in your mind at least a few hundred years) we would have already perfected semi-advanced space flight which would allow a pace shuttle to reach space at minimal cost probably as much as it costs an airliner to travel across the country today. As you say (correctly) we are advancing very quickly.
crazybrity 1 year ago
@Moirera There are many things unrealistic about a space elevator concept im not going to discuss all of them but think about this. You would have to have a counterweight at geo-symmetrical orbit. Now as you get closer to the earth the speed of orbit increases, so how would you build a building through this fast orbit? It is impossible! think of the power of nature, then think of the power of the WHOLE earth spinning. You cant counter that with rockets, nuclear propulsion systems or anything.
crazybrity 1 year ago
@Moirera vulcans lol
MrStartrekepisodes 1 year ago
@crazybrity Houston, we have a probleeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEM!
*Shoots off into space.*
lol
SalienMovies 1 year ago
first, watch your spelling
second, i'd love to go there as scientist, and, like jamamanjamh13, retire there
great pictures
lpdj12 2 years ago
I'll retire there.
jamamanjamh13 2 years ago
The only way will ever colonise other planets is to invent self assembling robots capable of
drilling the asteroids,
milling the ore,
extracting the materials,
forming parts,
assembling the parts.
Still we have to figure out how to do organic chemistry in space like plastics and rubber, glue and many more materials and substances.
Mission to Mars is pointless if we do not discover space manufacturing.
Sourcing from Earth is not a good solution in a long term.
gespilk 2 years ago
toyota are already doing that like asimo the automaton
timelordcreation 2 years ago
lol,terraforming mars,just like in futurama
zequan56 2 years ago
and how the hell would it be possible to create atmosphere?
Leopardipzg 2 years ago
taking too long, i'll be an old crap in 2060
Leopardipzg 2 years ago 2
Ohh, cool great and epic!
redblackproductions1 2 years ago