How will you get the astronauts back from Mars to the station? Have them carry extra fuel? Use hydrogen? And how far is the development of this project?
die amis werden es niemals schaffen einen anderen planeten zu besiedeln.diese ami nigger kommen nur bis zum mond.die haben 15000 milliarden dollar schulden.zum mars würde es heute 450 milliarden kosten.das geld haben diese schwanzlutscher nicht mehr.vielleicht schaffen sie es bis 2050 ein oder zwei mal zum mars.danach werden sie es aus kostengründen wieder einstellen.schliesslich ist da nichts zu holen außer staub scheisseund ferne planeten zu besiedel kann man gleich vergessen.zu weit entfernt
This certainly looks cool, but I think we're well over 15 years away from being able to build such big and complex stuff in space. Why not just launch lots of "normal-sized" rockets to Mars from earth?
Instead of throwing gigantic wads of cash into the black holes created by the criminal bankers and warmongers just divert a small amount to these chaps. The people who created Concorde and the like would make this happen with the minimum of cost and fuss.
will never happen because of dirty four letter word that Michio Kaku will quickly remind us of....C.O. S. T. look to me like at least 100 billion, and thats probably bottom end.
You could stay on Mars for the rest of your life if you wanted. Some people do want this but nobody will endorse a 1 way mission.
This mission plan might be real but Skylon is very much Sci-fi. SSTO spaceplanes have been funded and developed for decades with no breakthroughs, chances of these Reaction guys cracking it I would say is quite low, but GOOD LUCK!
Sorry, my comments may have been a little out of place, that FAKE showed at the top so it got me thinking it was the last message.
I just read how you thought the dates would be fake though, however they may not be, UKSA has just been re-established early this year, the first time since HOTOL, to fund SKYLON along with ESA who have been giving small sums each year. REL hope to have 3 space ports in the early 20s and assuming all goes to plan, they could be ready by 2026.
Very nice work. I've wondered why not send multpile crewed ships on the same launch dates. (Dont object, sending the same number of crew on one ship would guarantee a 100 percent failed mission if there were trouble, rather than divide the risk, and would cost more).
uestion, is the orbiting assembly station meant to be preassurized, requiring no spacesuits? I know in one shot it shows an astronaut in one but the ship is exiting?
How significant would the changes be in your concept feasibility study if you applied Vasimr tugs for all material and non-life bearing transit vehicles? (Excluding seperate vehicles needed for excape velocities of Earth and mars ) Something to consider. Nice effort bye the way :)
@SpaceRenaissance - I wouldn't even bite on it. There are complete idiots such as smilelikeUmeanit90 all over YouTube making that fully retarded comment to just about every video posted.
@SpaceRenaissance i guess i haven't seen the "Concept Animation" bit ??... you just made an animated movie about the concept, right? that would explain...:)
@SpaceRenaissance So, we've seen that a manned mission to Mars is "possible". Using all chemical fuels and a total mission time of about 5 years, we can do what 1 small Orion, pulsed nuclear bomb, spacecraft can do in less than a half year. The difference is we could start building the Orion today. The propsed Skylon would take at least 10 years to make ready from the word go. It's a very clear choice, give up our superstitious fear of nuclear power or give up practical manned space travel.
@smilelikeUmeanit90 It isn't fake, Reaction Engines Ltd is company based in Oxfordshire, UK. ESA has been paying small sums each year for the company to test SKYLON's engines, as it is still in the testing stages, they have got round to building. And this year the UK has just re-established the UK Space Agency which will also provide Reaction Engines with funding. However Project TROY won't happen for a while as to my knowledge, at the moment SKYLON is the only project being funded.
@smilelikeUmeanit90 SKYLON is required for Project TROY and I'm sure before the ESA and the UKSA fund further Projects they will want to see how SKYLON turns out, however Project TROY isn't fake, I can assure you that.
This is fantastic to see how they plan to expand, maybe mars will be the 1st human colony, but i dont see why the astronauts have to return, why dont they just stay on mars?
@paldesic2009 Unless they can somehow adapt quickly or plant food on the surface... then I don't see how. Plus, I don't think they'd love to live there forever, they need to return with facts and data, plus if I were them I'd miss this big blue planet :D
@rct3fan00 Mars does actually have soil that would be fertile for strawberries if I remember correctly, I think they will be testing the soil fertility on the Mars mission to be honest. However, you would miss fresh air in a permanent Mars colony, Mars lacks a magnetic field or a very weak one due to a its centre having almost cooled, therefore it can't support an atmosphere and lacks protection from solar wind and the suns harmful rays, so you'd have to live in indoor settlements.
I don't see a reason for "Earth return" pods; It's just extra weight that needs to be push to mars and back; Why not dock to international space station and return to earth from there? And pods can be stationed at ISS, so they just dock on ISS, and use pods to get back.
@EmperorOfMars My idea was this: you lift to space all parts for craft, fuel, food, instruments AND pods. Then you just leave pods at ISS. But, you will need to lift LESS fuel, because you won't push those pods to mars and back, but they will wait for you at Earth. Pods have their mass (they have a heavy heat shield) and you need power to push that mass along with other.
@EmperorOfMars Those two pods on Crew vehicle; in animation named "Earth Return Vehicles" at 3:30 and you can see them used to dock with SKYLON ship at 6:30. If they will use SKYLON to go back to earth, then those pods are totally unnecessary. I'm sure that Troy ship can easily be modified so that he can dock with ISS or SKYLONs dock with him. And I think that it will be more economical to not return Precursor Vehicles back to earth (at 3:00), but to make new tanks. Fuel is heavier then tanks.
@koberko Hmm I see your point. Well for whatever reason apparently sending the Earth departure stage bake to Earth saves them the cost of launching a new one. However this doesn't make much scene considering you still need to haul fuel up into orbit. I'd just have to trust the engineers on this one, they did do the math.
This proposal uses old fashioned propulsion. Surely it's time we started creating something that could act like a jet engine for spaceflight. The Sun's spews out cosmic radiactivity now surely that can be harnessed for a project like this so that we don't have to keep sending up all these millions of gallons of propellants.
The problem I see with any mission to mars, is the gravity. Not only the zero gravity of space, but mars has only 38% of earths gravity. And the problem of extended periods of time in less-than-Earth gravity is that human bone denisty is constantly being degraded. Even with artificial gravity, the bone densities still degrade. Then, after the crew returns, and even after months of physichal training or anything of the sort, the bone density of each crew man will be at least 10% less than before.
@joesephburke There was a Russian astronaut who spent over 300 days in Mir or ISS, I don't remember. But he returned fine. Astronauts practice exercises to keep their skeletal structure in microgravity.
Im not sure if that capsule could even leave mars, since earth and mars are slightly similar wouldnt it require more power for the capsule to leave mars surface just like we use Skylon to leave earth???
@mattou08 Mars has lover gravity then Earth (62% lover), so you need less power/fuel to land and less to take off; or, with same amount of fuel and power, you can lift "heavier" craft.
I really like the idea its more along the early NASA concepts of Mars exploration though i think it could be bigger, more concentrated on constructing a long term human presence on mars and built with other launchers also like Falcon 9 and F-9H.
What it needs is not "more Zubrin", but more Skylon. With that kind of vehicle, you'd do practically anything you wanted in space, including a robust and very ambitious Mars exploration programme. Unfortunately, Skylon or something like that is decades away, and I don't think anyone is willing to put their money into its development in this kind of economy. In 20 - 30 years, perhaps, but... I know, nobody wants to hear that, but sadly that the reality we live in.
Question, why are the returning capsules shaped as capsules? I thought they were made that way because it's easy to deorbit with that shape, do they return to earth after docking with the skylon?
Why not send a custom version of those tunnel digging machines they use to build subway systems? One of these could dig out miles of tunnels that in turn could be sealed and pressurized - the beginnings of a small city on Mars. Mars has a serious problem - radiation. These tunnels would provide the necessary protection from even the worst solar storms.
This idea is simply retarded, this would take waaay to high of a budget then nasa would possibly ever get, robert zubrins plan with mars direct would get us there in a much shorter period of time, who ever came up with this idea should be bitch slapped for over complicating exploration which proves the simpler rout you go the easier
@coldbleeder666 They're not complicating it. They're just making things simple and safe to start a new base. And i actually don't understand why is this complicated. Douchebag.
Very good video, but I'm sure there must be a cheaper way for an expedition to reach Mars. The cost of sending 6 spaceships to this planet would be prohibitive.
@fabianoasc - thank you so much for thei amazing video. While there is no doubt that this project would be exceedingly costly, I am convinced that it is a worthwhile venture that should be tacked by an international consortium to share the costs and any discovery related to the project. Based on all the Skylon videos I have watched so far, although I lack the necessary know-how to provide any valuable/relevant input, I trust that it is better poised to carry on with a Mars Mission than others
(TheWizardTrembyle:) There is certainly some truth in radiation hormesis. The Apollo astronauts suffered no ill effects from the relatively low amount of radiation they received during their trips to the moon. Just the same I'm not about to sign up for any radiotherapy unless I get cancer.
.There is certainly some truth in radiation hormesis. The Apollo astronauts suffered no ill effects from the relatively low amount of radiation they received during their trips to the moon. Just the same I'm not about to sign up for any radiotherapy unless I get cancer.
Why don't we take advantage of the iss and our moon to assemble the rockets and take care of the astronauts until the mission begins. That would make it more efficient
i wonder if in my lifetime we will travel to mars as tourists, im 17 now, maximum of 50 years from now to achieve the goal of travelling to the moon or mars as a tourist. i dont think we will for atleast a hundred years. its been over 30 years since we went to the moon nad how long will it be till we do this. to be honest there is no scientific break through to be made from this at all
@BjornPalmen you didnt mention one thing that was in any way a potential scientific breakthrough from this mars concept. its like whats more important, curing cancer or having a couple people walk on mars
@kahuna3901 "you didnt mention one thing that was in any way a potential scientific breakthrough"
Ask me again in ten years --- a breakthrough is new basic science and technology which was unknown before!
So it is unknown to me also! I can only speculate. The expedition must make oxygen, water and food on Mars and there are many roads to take. There is water on the Martian North Pole, from water you can make oxygen and food can be grown. This will be a major breakthrough -- don't you agree?
@BjornPalmen no, we do that on earth anyway its a natural process. we have been to the moon and nothing except a couple pictures and films came out of it. oh yeah and all those billions of dollars that we spent getting there whilst millions of people die of starvation and disease every year. so yeah lets go to mars where we can have the opportunity to put a couple rich people in a place where billions will never go. as for the "some" sick people, u would never say that if you understood cancer
@kahuna3901 You claim that we spend billions of dollars getting to the Moon whilst millions of people die of starvation. It is a breakthrough of sorts that you think NASA should feed millions of people.
Nasa supports basic science and technology and knowledge, which should keep your brain from starvation so you won't post stupid remarks!
@kahuna3901 "yeah lets go to mars where we can have the opportunity to put a couple rich people in a place where billions will never go. as for the "some" sick people, u would never say that if you understood cancer"
This is such a monumental misunderstanding of science and technology that I must correct it.
Nuclear power was not made for a couple of rich people. Mars might be the ideal place for people with
some sickness which need the 1/3 gravity and the radiation. -->
--> These are all the big discoveries of the future, so I cannot tell you what they will be, ok?
But if we follow your great idea of spending it all on starving or sick people, then there will never be any great new discoveries of the future. In fact, there will never be a future.
@BjornPalmen the fact that nuclear power was not made for a couple rich people is exactly why its a valid use of our money, this is the complete opposite of the mars mission which only benefits several people. the point of science is to create a complete understanding of our reality and all of the universe. technology is subjective, it can have whatever purpose we desire. radiation is better used in controlled amounts, not in a constant environment. otherwise cancer would increase.
@kahuna3901 At this point in time a manned mission to Mars is not practical. It's difficult to imagine NASA or anyone else sending humans to Mars when humanity hasn't been to the Moon in thirty-nine years (come this December).
The problem is that space agencies like NASA or ESA are totally obsessed with nearly 100% safety. As a result, the Mars missions they propose are usually 5 times more complicated and at least 2 times as heavy as Zubrin's Mars Direct.
For example, they are irrationally afraid of aerocapture/aerobraking, which can save loads of fuel if used right, and they think producing fuel on Mars is "too risky". And so on, and so forth.
It's always going to be risky, for heaven's sake...
@Winner8501 Yeah, with such thoughts we will be on Mars after 2060 or 2080 ((( They are idiots, Zubrin and his colleagues (who are not even chemists ) created chemical plant that works in simulated Martian atmosphere with 98 % efficiency . If NASA and ESA don't like Mars Direct why they don't like Mars Semi-direct ? Zubrin offered it in response to all specific criticisms ... I don't understand it ...
It's not even about money - a Mars exploration programme would cost about 30 billion dollars to develop, give or take 10 billion. If spread over a decade or so, it's not that much - especially compared to the American government's bailouts of large banks and European Union's bailouts of Greece, Ireland and others. These cost hundreds of billions of Euros, yet only few say "no, it's too expensive".
They're simply afraid, they don't have the guts to take the risk. Sad, but true.
@Winner8501 Sad, very sad. USA spent much more money for war in Iraq ($1136859002848), and they HAD guts to send their people to hell (4,433 US Soldiers Killed, 32,006 Seriously Wounded ). And what they achieved ? - Nothing but hate ... If they spent this money for mission to Mars and accomplished it - they would be true heroes for all the world .
Because they're idiots. If they fitted the trans-hab module with a heat shield, they could use Earth's atmosphere for final capture/slowdown into low Earth orbit. They could use the same thing to stop at Mars on the first leg of the journey. This alone would save roughly 1/3 of the fuel.
Instead, they want to carry heavy crew capsules all the way to Mars and back so that the crew can land (the rest of the ship is discarded and lost - because that makes sense, right...).
(BTW I am not directing that at ReactionEngines Ltd. per se. The carrying of the return capsules is a recurring nonsense in almost all the Mars Missions proposals by NASA and other agencies I've ever seen. They just keep adding more and more heavy stuff until the whole mission becomes so heavy you'd need technologies like the nuclear-thermal rockets or similar stuff to make it feasible. With that kind of approach, we'll never get anywhere near Mars, much less land on it.)
@netptl39 good question. the capsules are kinda useless. simple docking with the skylon fleet would be enough. probably that animation is just some sort of pre-concept. thry always have unneccesary ore unlogic parts.
Space: the final frontier. Our mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
hmmm construction capsules that be cool i would like a job like that in space be awesome hope am not to old and crippled i be atleas 20 or 30 in 2028 the future @SpaceRenaissance
At any conceivable near-future economic environment, at private company will never raise funding for a $12 billion spacecraft development project. I’m all for private space ventures, but planning missions to Mars before even leaving earth is not the way to gain a reputable position in the private space industry.
I too could create an animation depicting a mission to Mars, or even Gliese 581 e, if I can use non-existent crafts and materials – and leave the economics out.
You might want to reconsider your basic transport vehicle. I realise Skylon is the main hope of Reaction Engines Limited, but judging by the historic line of space technology development, that craft will unfortunately never fly – even with the current, limited, ESA interest in SABRE engine development.
Hell. Nealy a year of travel time. We need better rockets than those in that concept. NERVAs, orions, warp drives, whatever. That's just a silly long travel time.
Other than that, this video is awesome, and I'd like to be there when something like this happens.
it took columbus almost 1 year aswell to get to the new world in late medieval vessels. You think that the first aproach of another world outside ours would be any different? Take it another few centuries until we can all benefit travel times of a few weeks.
As for now, the most wanted innovation on propulsion would be magnetoplasma rockets, in a few decades these propulsion factories might habitat space and we can expect the first probes or vesseld to be proppeled by this.
@Armigo91 Long travel times are a pain for the mental sanity of small crews, not to mention the radiation exposure that starts to become excessive. Columbus didn't have those problems.
Magnetoplasma rockets, while looking good on paper, have a major flaw: they are power-hungry and nuclear reactor tecnology can only get so much lighter.
Most articles make unrealistic assumptions of low mass power plants to give encouraging travel times (30 days to Mars!).
Self powered engines? You mean... reaction less drives? If so, the probability is higher that we will get fusion power light enough to provide the required wattage by kilogram... BEFORE getting reactionless drives.
I see. Are you considering fusion pulse propulsion and antimatter pulse propulsion together with Project Orion (nuclear fission pulse propulsion)?
Really, I dont consider pulse propulsion much speculative. I think the most speculative is fusion pulse, since I guess we still dont have the means to fuse small pellets at the rates required.
Anti-matter propulsion is the best and easiest... too bad we cant produce enough anti-matter (far away from doing so)
@rogerpenna I'm not considering antimatter at all. Since it is a pain to work with, mostly (confinement, radiation shielding, production, reaction efficiency).
I categorize all fusion stuff into "Fusion Torches". I think Orion wasn't adequately tested beyond (encouraging) proofs-of-concept experiments, so we don't know how and IF it will perform.
A good read about fusion and antimatter engines is "Comparison of Fusion-Antiproton Propulsion Systems for interplanetary travel". Google it. :)
This could be done, it would take some serious international cooperation, but its doable. We will have to get rid of space travel hating politicians, who keep trying to kill manned space exploration. Once we vote in some people who are not afraid of cutting off money for deadbeats, so it could be spent on space exploration, we could do it. Only an idiot does not know will have to eventually explore space, earth is only so big and has limited resources.
How will you get the astronauts back from Mars to the station? Have them carry extra fuel? Use hydrogen? And how far is the development of this project?
MegaOverCross 2 weeks ago
@MegaOverCross
IIRC they want to do some ISRU and produce fuel for the ascent on Mars. I think they want to use CO/O2 propellant.
Winner8501 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
die amis werden es niemals schaffen einen anderen planeten zu besiedeln.diese ami nigger kommen nur bis zum mond.die haben 15000 milliarden dollar schulden.zum mars würde es heute 450 milliarden kosten.das geld haben diese schwanzlutscher nicht mehr.vielleicht schaffen sie es bis 2050 ein oder zwei mal zum mars.danach werden sie es aus kostengründen wieder einstellen.schliesslich ist da nichts zu holen außer staub scheisseund ferne planeten zu besiedel kann man gleich vergessen.zu weit entfernt
yetiserol1 3 weeks ago
Hope i get to see man make it to mars....
tweaker205 1 month ago
This certainly looks cool, but I think we're well over 15 years away from being able to build such big and complex stuff in space. Why not just launch lots of "normal-sized" rockets to Mars from earth?
adept42 1 month ago
For the return leg, all 3 space craft's should be linked together to save fuel.
05Rudey 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
background music sounds like the Goron theme from Ocarina of Time lol
pstuddy 2 months ago
background music sounds like the Goron theme from Ocarina of Time
pstuddy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Google: Department of UFO,technologies,weapon,poison.
000vortex 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Google: Airborne aerial unmanned bulletproof combat drone of monitoring system.
000vortex 2 months ago
Instead of throwing gigantic wads of cash into the black holes created by the criminal bankers and warmongers just divert a small amount to these chaps. The people who created Concorde and the like would make this happen with the minimum of cost and fuss.
Carry on.
BringBack500s 2 months ago
Still with chemical propulsion? If we are going to colonise the solar system we are going to need something a lot faster.
Jason987262 2 months ago
Yeah... if whole world will live in peace and USA will not start another war in like 10 years - this is possible. But i doubt that :)
SkyrimGames 3 months ago
sorry but first we have to do some bailouts
milxl 3 months ago
Nicely done - I hope this kinda shit happens in my lifetime
MBMFC 3 months ago
Very interesting
brianay3000 3 months ago
will never happen because of dirty four letter word that Michio Kaku will quickly remind us of....C.O. S. T. look to me like at least 100 billion, and thats probably bottom end.
KinaNafasi 3 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 4 months ago
You could stay on Mars for the rest of your life if you wanted. Some people do want this but nobody will endorse a 1 way mission.
This mission plan might be real but Skylon is very much Sci-fi. SSTO spaceplanes have been funded and developed for decades with no breakthroughs, chances of these Reaction guys cracking it I would say is quite low, but GOOD LUCK!
JuggaloOzi 4 months ago
@JuggaloOzi yes, Skylon is a bit dodgy.
bryanttillman 4 months ago
Sorry, my comments may have been a little out of place, that FAKE showed at the top so it got me thinking it was the last message.
I just read how you thought the dates would be fake though, however they may not be, UKSA has just been re-established early this year, the first time since HOTOL, to fund SKYLON along with ESA who have been giving small sums each year. REL hope to have 3 space ports in the early 20s and assuming all goes to plan, they could be ready by 2026.
LilyLovesElvira4eva 4 months ago
Very nice work. I've wondered why not send multpile crewed ships on the same launch dates. (Dont object, sending the same number of crew on one ship would guarantee a 100 percent failed mission if there were trouble, rather than divide the risk, and would cost more).
uestion, is the orbiting assembly station meant to be preassurized, requiring no spacesuits? I know in one shot it shows an astronaut in one but the ship is exiting?
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 4 months ago
Looks simple enough. Lets do it
misterbarbister 4 months ago
How significant would the changes be in your concept feasibility study if you applied Vasimr tugs for all material and non-life bearing transit vehicles? (Excluding seperate vehicles needed for excape velocities of Earth and mars ) Something to consider. Nice effort bye the way :)
Sparkeee24 4 months ago
FAKE
smilelikeUmeanit90 5 months ago
@smilelikeUmeanit90 What is...? "Fake"...? Would you mind elaborating a bit further solely to illuminate youtube audiences that- little- bit- more?
SpaceRenaissance 5 months ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpaceRenaissance - I wouldn't even bite on it. There are complete idiots such as smilelikeUmeanit90 all over YouTube making that fully retarded comment to just about every video posted.
CmdrGendoIkari 5 months ago
@SpaceRenaissance i guess i haven't seen the "Concept Animation" bit ??...
smilelikeUmeanit90 5 months ago
@SpaceRenaissance i guess i haven't seen the "Concept Animation" bit ??... you just made an animated movie about the concept, right? that would explain...:)
smilelikeUmeanit90 5 months ago
@SpaceRenaissance Date of this mission is definitely "fake".
Maybe in 2050+
nadoeloiskat 4 months ago
@SpaceRenaissance So, we've seen that a manned mission to Mars is "possible". Using all chemical fuels and a total mission time of about 5 years, we can do what 1 small Orion, pulsed nuclear bomb, spacecraft can do in less than a half year. The difference is we could start building the Orion today. The propsed Skylon would take at least 10 years to make ready from the word go. It's a very clear choice, give up our superstitious fear of nuclear power or give up practical manned space travel.
1DanConnors 4 months ago
@smilelikeUmeanit90 It isn't fake, Reaction Engines Ltd is company based in Oxfordshire, UK. ESA has been paying small sums each year for the company to test SKYLON's engines, as it is still in the testing stages, they have got round to building. And this year the UK has just re-established the UK Space Agency which will also provide Reaction Engines with funding. However Project TROY won't happen for a while as to my knowledge, at the moment SKYLON is the only project being funded.
LilyLovesElvira4eva 4 months ago
@smilelikeUmeanit90 SKYLON is required for Project TROY and I'm sure before the ESA and the UKSA fund further Projects they will want to see how SKYLON turns out, however Project TROY isn't fake, I can assure you that.
LilyLovesElvira4eva 4 months ago
@smilelikeUmeanit90 your face is fake
Mynameisnotooo 3 months ago
@Mynameisnotooo you dont know my face
smilelikeUmeanit90 3 months ago
@smilelikeUmeanit90 you dont know my fake
Mynameisnotooo 3 months ago
@smilelikeUmeanit90 Are you retarded? it says: CONCEPT animation
TheUltimateDown1 3 months ago
@smilelikeUmeanit90 it was pretty realistic compaired to the moon landing.... ;D
soverato3 3 months ago
This is fantastic to see how they plan to expand, maybe mars will be the 1st human colony, but i dont see why the astronauts have to return, why dont they just stay on mars?
paldesic2009 5 months ago
@paldesic2009 Unless they can somehow adapt quickly or plant food on the surface... then I don't see how. Plus, I don't think they'd love to live there forever, they need to return with facts and data, plus if I were them I'd miss this big blue planet :D
rct3fan00 4 months ago
@rct3fan00 Mars does actually have soil that would be fertile for strawberries if I remember correctly, I think they will be testing the soil fertility on the Mars mission to be honest. However, you would miss fresh air in a permanent Mars colony, Mars lacks a magnetic field or a very weak one due to a its centre having almost cooled, therefore it can't support an atmosphere and lacks protection from solar wind and the suns harmful rays, so you'd have to live in indoor settlements.
LilyLovesElvira4eva 4 months ago
I don't see a reason for "Earth return" pods; It's just extra weight that needs to be push to mars and back; Why not dock to international space station and return to earth from there? And pods can be stationed at ISS, so they just dock on ISS, and use pods to get back.
koberko 5 months ago
@koberko Because you would still use the same amount of fuel to launch the pods to the ISS. Ana even more to do earth to mars travel
EmperorOfMars 5 months ago
@EmperorOfMars My idea was this: you lift to space all parts for craft, fuel, food, instruments AND pods. Then you just leave pods at ISS. But, you will need to lift LESS fuel, because you won't push those pods to mars and back, but they will wait for you at Earth. Pods have their mass (they have a heavy heat shield) and you need power to push that mass along with other.
koberko 5 months ago
@koberko Let me clear up something first. What are the Earth return pods your referring to?
EmperorOfMars 5 months ago
@EmperorOfMars Those two pods on Crew vehicle; in animation named "Earth Return Vehicles" at 3:30 and you can see them used to dock with SKYLON ship at 6:30. If they will use SKYLON to go back to earth, then those pods are totally unnecessary. I'm sure that Troy ship can easily be modified so that he can dock with ISS or SKYLONs dock with him. And I think that it will be more economical to not return Precursor Vehicles back to earth (at 3:00), but to make new tanks. Fuel is heavier then tanks.
koberko 5 months ago
@EmperorOfMars And just to further explain about tanks (3:00 in video):
- you need to push extra fuel to mars, so that you can make them go back to Earth
- to do that, you need to have EXTRA fuel on trip from Earth to Mars (extra mass of return fuel)
- you have to lift all that extra fuel from Earth to space, and still lift fuel to fill up those tanks for crew ship.
And as I know it, cost of lifting stuff in to space is one of biggest parts of price for any space mission...
koberko 5 months ago
@koberko Hmm I see your point. Well for whatever reason apparently sending the Earth departure stage bake to Earth saves them the cost of launching a new one. However this doesn't make much scene considering you still need to haul fuel up into orbit. I'd just have to trust the engineers on this one, they did do the math.
EmperorOfMars 5 months ago
This proposal uses old fashioned propulsion. Surely it's time we started creating something that could act like a jet engine for spaceflight. The Sun's spews out cosmic radiactivity now surely that can be harnessed for a project like this so that we don't have to keep sending up all these millions of gallons of propellants.
TardisGeek 6 months ago
@TardisGeek VASIMIR could potentially get you to Mars in ittle over a month. A fusion rocket likely in a matter of days.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 to to that with a VASIMIR you would need a substantial amount of energy.. Probably something like a nuclear reactor on board
ThatAdelaideGuy 6 months ago
@ThatAdelaideGuy Yep, or oversized solar pannels.
Helge129 6 months ago
@TardisGeek
The skylon itself actually has an air-breathing engine. Yes it still uses the hydrogen/methane etc. but dosen't need to be any oxidant.
HNMpepper2 5 months ago
The problem I see with any mission to mars, is the gravity. Not only the zero gravity of space, but mars has only 38% of earths gravity. And the problem of extended periods of time in less-than-Earth gravity is that human bone denisty is constantly being degraded. Even with artificial gravity, the bone densities still degrade. Then, after the crew returns, and even after months of physichal training or anything of the sort, the bone density of each crew man will be at least 10% less than before.
joesephburke 6 months ago
@joesephburke There was a Russian astronaut who spent over 300 days in Mir or ISS, I don't remember. But he returned fine. Astronauts practice exercises to keep their skeletal structure in microgravity.
meteor4163 6 months ago
Im not sure if that capsule could even leave mars, since earth and mars are slightly similar wouldnt it require more power for the capsule to leave mars surface just like we use Skylon to leave earth???
mattou08 7 months ago
@mattou08 Mars has lover gravity then Earth (62% lover), so you need less power/fuel to land and less to take off; or, with same amount of fuel and power, you can lift "heavier" craft.
koberko 5 months ago
I really like the idea its more along the early NASA concepts of Mars exploration though i think it could be bigger, more concentrated on constructing a long term human presence on mars and built with other launchers also like Falcon 9 and F-9H.
valcan321 7 months ago
Needs more Zubrin.
blacklinen99 7 months ago 9
@blacklinen99 True dat!
MasterSanders 4 months ago
@blacklinen99 Zubrin would never wait for an RLV like Skylon...
stardolphin2 2 months ago
@blacklinen99
What it needs is not "more Zubrin", but more Skylon. With that kind of vehicle, you'd do practically anything you wanted in space, including a robust and very ambitious Mars exploration programme. Unfortunately, Skylon or something like that is decades away, and I don't think anyone is willing to put their money into its development in this kind of economy. In 20 - 30 years, perhaps, but... I know, nobody wants to hear that, but sadly that the reality we live in.
Winner8501 3 days ago
Question, why are the returning capsules shaped as capsules? I thought they were made that way because it's easy to deorbit with that shape, do they return to earth after docking with the skylon?
supertrinko 7 months ago
@supertrinko Maybe its for emergency landing, i guess they should always keep a plan B
pacal007 7 months ago
who's leading the way in technology? reaction engines ltd or NASA?
PlaneAU 7 months ago
Why not send a custom version of those tunnel digging machines they use to build subway systems? One of these could dig out miles of tunnels that in turn could be sealed and pressurized - the beginnings of a small city on Mars. Mars has a serious problem - radiation. These tunnels would provide the necessary protection from even the worst solar storms.
wrcousert 8 months ago 2
@wrcousert Those machines weigh insane amounts and require maintanence and human supervision.
Reall they wouldnt be nessesary as there are already volcanic tubes on mars and you could also just pile up soil on the habs.
valcan321 7 months ago
I think this idea has a lot of potential. It is mostly based on existing technologies, which is good..
brianhaddad 8 months ago
This idea is simply retarded, this would take waaay to high of a budget then nasa would possibly ever get, robert zubrins plan with mars direct would get us there in a much shorter period of time, who ever came up with this idea should be bitch slapped for over complicating exploration which proves the simpler rout you go the easier
coldbleeder666 8 months ago
@coldbleeder666 This isn't a plan for NASA.
supertrinko 7 months ago
@coldbleeder666 They're not complicating it. They're just making things simple and safe to start a new base. And i actually don't understand why is this complicated. Douchebag.
SZXDuncan 7 months ago
I like the idea of sending three ships out with a large crew.
matthewakian2 8 months ago
Reaction Engines sure have got some ambitious plans. If they just get those Skylon space planes developed that would be a great achievement.
matthewakian2 8 months ago
Muito interessante
a informação
e a animação
muito bom mesmo
obrigada por me enviar
beijo
rosabinenbojn 9 months ago
Cool!!!!
great!!!!
thank you for sharing this video very interesting
shalom
LailahLilin 9 months ago
Amigo Augustus obrigada por enviar-me este interessante vídeo!!!
rosaloreto 9 months ago
5:26 is marsville
Armigo91 9 months ago
Very good video, but I'm sure there must be a cheaper way for an expedition to reach Mars. The cost of sending 6 spaceships to this planet would be prohibitive.
odalrich 9 months ago
@fabianoasc - thank you so much for thei amazing video. While there is no doubt that this project would be exceedingly costly, I am convinced that it is a worthwhile venture that should be tacked by an international consortium to share the costs and any discovery related to the project. Based on all the Skylon videos I have watched so far, although I lack the necessary know-how to provide any valuable/relevant input, I trust that it is better poised to carry on with a Mars Mission than others
AugustusAurelianus1 9 months ago
Афигеть )
activan2 10 months ago
(TheWizardTrembyle:) There is certainly some truth in radiation hormesis. The Apollo astronauts suffered no ill effects from the relatively low amount of radiation they received during their trips to the moon. Just the same I'm not about to sign up for any radiotherapy unless I get cancer.
BjornPalmen 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.There is certainly some truth in radiation hormesis. The Apollo astronauts suffered no ill effects from the relatively low amount of radiation they received during their trips to the moon. Just the same I'm not about to sign up for any radiotherapy unless I get cancer.
TheWizardTrembyle 10 months ago
Why don't we take advantage of the iss and our moon to assemble the rockets and take care of the astronauts until the mission begins. That would make it more efficient
MsMarniac 1 year ago
i wonder if in my lifetime we will travel to mars as tourists, im 17 now, maximum of 50 years from now to achieve the goal of travelling to the moon or mars as a tourist. i dont think we will for atleast a hundred years. its been over 30 years since we went to the moon nad how long will it be till we do this. to be honest there is no scientific break through to be made from this at all
kahuna3901 1 year ago
@kahuna3901 "There is no scientific break through to be made from this at all"
With that kind of prejudice (from a 17 year old!) progress will be difficult indeed,
The first men on Mars will experience all kinds of scientific firsts.
They will be landed near the Martian North Pole where there is enough water to flood the whole planet.
Nuclear power will make the difference.
BjornPalmen 10 months ago
@BjornPalmen you didnt mention one thing that was in any way a potential scientific breakthrough from this mars concept. its like whats more important, curing cancer or having a couple people walk on mars
kahuna3901 10 months ago
@kahuna3901 "you didnt mention one thing that was in any way a potential scientific breakthrough"
Ask me again in ten years --- a breakthrough is new basic science and technology which was unknown before!
So it is unknown to me also! I can only speculate. The expedition must make oxygen, water and food on Mars and there are many roads to take. There is water on the Martian North Pole, from water you can make oxygen and food can be grown. This will be a major breakthrough -- don't you agree?
BjornPalmen 10 months ago
@BjornPalmen no, we do that on earth anyway its a natural process. we have been to the moon and nothing except a couple pictures and films came out of it. oh yeah and all those billions of dollars that we spent getting there whilst millions of people die of starvation and disease every year. so yeah lets go to mars where we can have the opportunity to put a couple rich people in a place where billions will never go. as for the "some" sick people, u would never say that if you understood cancer
kahuna3901 10 months ago
@kahuna3901 You claim that we spend billions of dollars getting to the Moon whilst millions of people die of starvation. It is a breakthrough of sorts that you think NASA should feed millions of people.
Nasa supports basic science and technology and knowledge, which should keep your brain from starvation so you won't post stupid remarks!
BjornPalmen 10 months ago
@kahuna3901 "yeah lets go to mars where we can have the opportunity to put a couple rich people in a place where billions will never go. as for the "some" sick people, u would never say that if you understood cancer"
This is such a monumental misunderstanding of science and technology that I must correct it.
Nuclear power was not made for a couple of rich people. Mars might be the ideal place for people with
some sickness which need the 1/3 gravity and the radiation. -->
BjornPalmen 10 months ago
--> These are all the big discoveries of the future, so I cannot tell you what they will be, ok?
But if we follow your great idea of spending it all on starving or sick people, then there will never be any great new discoveries of the future. In fact, there will never be a future.
BjornPalmen 10 months ago
@BjornPalmen the fact that nuclear power was not made for a couple rich people is exactly why its a valid use of our money, this is the complete opposite of the mars mission which only benefits several people. the point of science is to create a complete understanding of our reality and all of the universe. technology is subjective, it can have whatever purpose we desire. radiation is better used in controlled amounts, not in a constant environment. otherwise cancer would increase.
kahuna3901 10 months ago
@kahuna3901 "cancer wlould increase" How on earth (and moon and Mars) do you know?
Look up "hormesis":
The French National Academy has concluded that there is sufficient evidence for beneficial hormesis occurring at low doses.
BjornPalmen 10 months ago
Comment removed
TheWizardTrembyle 10 months ago
Comment removed
TheWizardTrembyle 10 months ago
@kahuna3901 At this point in time a manned mission to Mars is not practical. It's difficult to imagine NASA or anyone else sending humans to Mars when humanity hasn't been to the Moon in thirty-nine years (come this December).
TheWizardTrembyle 10 months ago
@kahuna3901 "we do that on earth anyway"
Well sorry, but WE DON'T DO IT ON EARTH ANYWAY:
The Hubble space telescope, satellite navigation (after 100 m turn to the right), laser measurements to the moon
etc. could NOT have been done "on earth anyway."
"No Mr. know-it-all Columbus, the queen of Spain will not pay for doing your explorations because we do that in Spain anyway."
BjornPalmen 10 months ago
@kahuna3901 You ask whats more important, curing cancer or having people walk on Mars!
A cancer cure may be nice for some sick people, but landing on Mars will open the road to the planets.
BjornPalmen 10 months ago
4:00 - Zefram Cochrane pops in a microdisk with Steppenwolf.
Let's ROCK AND ROLL!
Stoney3K 1 year ago
The Mars Direct Mission proposed by Bob Zubrin is much more better , simpler and cheaper ... and can be accomplished even tomorrow
MrAndersohn 1 year ago
@MrAndersohn
The problem is that space agencies like NASA or ESA are totally obsessed with nearly 100% safety. As a result, the Mars missions they propose are usually 5 times more complicated and at least 2 times as heavy as Zubrin's Mars Direct.
For example, they are irrationally afraid of aerocapture/aerobraking, which can save loads of fuel if used right, and they think producing fuel on Mars is "too risky". And so on, and so forth.
It's always going to be risky, for heaven's sake...
Winner8501 1 year ago
@Winner8501 Yeah, with such thoughts we will be on Mars after 2060 or 2080 ((( They are idiots, Zubrin and his colleagues (who are not even chemists ) created chemical plant that works in simulated Martian atmosphere with 98 % efficiency . If NASA and ESA don't like Mars Direct why they don't like Mars Semi-direct ? Zubrin offered it in response to all specific criticisms ... I don't understand it ...
MrAndersohn 1 year ago
@MrAndersohn
It's not even about money - a Mars exploration programme would cost about 30 billion dollars to develop, give or take 10 billion. If spread over a decade or so, it's not that much - especially compared to the American government's bailouts of large banks and European Union's bailouts of Greece, Ireland and others. These cost hundreds of billions of Euros, yet only few say "no, it's too expensive".
They're simply afraid, they don't have the guts to take the risk. Sad, but true.
Winner8501 1 year ago
@Winner8501 Sad, very sad. USA spent much more money for war in Iraq ($1136859002848), and they HAD guts to send their people to hell (4,433 US Soldiers Killed, 32,006 Seriously Wounded ). And what they achieved ? - Nothing but hate ... If they spent this money for mission to Mars and accomplished it - they would be true heroes for all the world .
MrAndersohn 1 year ago 2
1 Question: why are they carrying several tons of earth re-entry capsules?
wouldn't it be easier to just fly around the earth to decelerate and bring them home with 1 plane?
netptl39 1 year ago
@netptl39
Because they're idiots. If they fitted the trans-hab module with a heat shield, they could use Earth's atmosphere for final capture/slowdown into low Earth orbit. They could use the same thing to stop at Mars on the first leg of the journey. This alone would save roughly 1/3 of the fuel.
Instead, they want to carry heavy crew capsules all the way to Mars and back so that the crew can land (the rest of the ship is discarded and lost - because that makes sense, right...).
Winner8501 1 year ago
(BTW I am not directing that at ReactionEngines Ltd. per se. The carrying of the return capsules is a recurring nonsense in almost all the Mars Missions proposals by NASA and other agencies I've ever seen. They just keep adding more and more heavy stuff until the whole mission becomes so heavy you'd need technologies like the nuclear-thermal rockets or similar stuff to make it feasible. With that kind of approach, we'll never get anywhere near Mars, much less land on it.)
Winner8501 1 year ago
@netptl39 good question. the capsules are kinda useless. simple docking with the skylon fleet would be enough. probably that animation is just some sort of pre-concept. thry always have unneccesary ore unlogic parts.
MTTT1234 1 year ago
all thanks to the skylon ey
Neoli2300 1 year ago
OMG, the future is today,
Space: the final frontier. Our mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
SuperFlyingBrick 1 year ago
hmmm construction capsules that be cool i would like a job like that in space be awesome hope am not to old and crippled i be atleas 20 or 30 in 2028 the future @SpaceRenaissance
inr21sevier 1 year ago
What about artificial gravity?
SpaceAnimator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At any conceivable near-future economic environment, at private company will never raise funding for a $12 billion spacecraft development project. I’m all for private space ventures, but planning missions to Mars before even leaving earth is not the way to gain a reputable position in the private space industry.
I too could create an animation depicting a mission to Mars, or even Gliese 581 e, if I can use non-existent crafts and materials – and leave the economics out.
MONDARIZDK 1 year ago
You might want to reconsider your basic transport vehicle. I realise Skylon is the main hope of Reaction Engines Limited, but judging by the historic line of space technology development, that craft will unfortunately never fly – even with the current, limited, ESA interest in SABRE engine development.
MONDARIZDK 1 year ago
Comment removed
MONDARIZDK 1 year ago
Comment removed
MONDARIZDK 1 year ago
Hell. Nealy a year of travel time. We need better rockets than those in that concept. NERVAs, orions, warp drives, whatever. That's just a silly long travel time.
Other than that, this video is awesome, and I'd like to be there when something like this happens.
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
@bobafetthotmail
it took columbus almost 1 year aswell to get to the new world in late medieval vessels. You think that the first aproach of another world outside ours would be any different? Take it another few centuries until we can all benefit travel times of a few weeks.
As for now, the most wanted innovation on propulsion would be magnetoplasma rockets, in a few decades these propulsion factories might habitat space and we can expect the first probes or vesseld to be proppeled by this.
Armigo91 1 year ago
@Armigo91 Long travel times are a pain for the mental sanity of small crews, not to mention the radiation exposure that starts to become excessive. Columbus didn't have those problems.
Magnetoplasma rockets, while looking good on paper, have a major flaw: they are power-hungry and nuclear reactor tecnology can only get so much lighter.
Most articles make unrealistic assumptions of low mass power plants to give encouraging travel times (30 days to Mars!).
We need self-powered engines. Badly.
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
@bobafetthotmail
Self powered engines? You mean... reaction less drives? If so, the probability is higher that we will get fusion power light enough to provide the required wattage by kilogram... BEFORE getting reactionless drives.
rogerpenna 1 year ago
@rogerpenna a self-powered engine is an engine that doesn't require power from a generator to accelerate its propellant.
Self-powered engines are:
-Chemical rockets
-NERVA-like fission engines
-Orion project (the one of Freeman Dyson)
-So-called "Fusion torches", where the fusion reaction throws plasma out of the nozzles at silly high speeds.
So far, only the last two (HIGHLY speculative, mind me) have a decent performance.
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
@bobafetthotmail
I see. Are you considering fusion pulse propulsion and antimatter pulse propulsion together with Project Orion (nuclear fission pulse propulsion)?
Really, I dont consider pulse propulsion much speculative. I think the most speculative is fusion pulse, since I guess we still dont have the means to fuse small pellets at the rates required.
Anti-matter propulsion is the best and easiest... too bad we cant produce enough anti-matter (far away from doing so)
rogerpenna 1 year ago
@rogerpenna I'm not considering antimatter at all. Since it is a pain to work with, mostly (confinement, radiation shielding, production, reaction efficiency).
I categorize all fusion stuff into "Fusion Torches". I think Orion wasn't adequately tested beyond (encouraging) proofs-of-concept experiments, so we don't know how and IF it will perform.
A good read about fusion and antimatter engines is "Comparison of Fusion-Antiproton Propulsion Systems for interplanetary travel". Google it. :)
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
@rogerpenna Oh, btw, I'm a so bad guy... :)
Here is a paper about collecting natural occurring antimatter.
w ww.centauri-dreams.o rg/?p=1569
Read also the comments, there is lots of meat there too.
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
@Armigo91
the difference was that there was plenty of food in the new world. And they could breath its air!
rogerpenna 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rogerpenna Yes, there was plenty of food in the new world and they could breath the air.
And the temperature was a pleasant 20 C. And the natives were friendly. But Columbus relied on his three ships.
They moved without fuel.
BjornPalmen 10 months ago
This could be done, it would take some serious international cooperation, but its doable. We will have to get rid of space travel hating politicians, who keep trying to kill manned space exploration. Once we vote in some people who are not afraid of cutting off money for deadbeats, so it could be spent on space exploration, we could do it. Only an idiot does not know will have to eventually explore space, earth is only so big and has limited resources.
unclefixer 1 year ago
@unclefixer I Wholeheartedly Agree With Yu On That
Joe35983 1 year ago
cool a SPACEship yard
RecklessTornado 1 year ago