The VASIMR budget is used to produced low quality CGI movies like the ones you saw at Museums of Science and Industry in the 1980's.
VASIMR is a Hoax being perpetrated in order to have an impossible thing that will never go anywhere, an excuse to not fund a real program doable today.
The studies on it have been falsified.
The 6 month trip is doable today. The radiation threat is very slim (1% of radiation poison).
Vasimr is not strong enough for such a heavy payload. At least not with the power ouput from the available compact nuclear reactors (100-200kw). Some 100MW would be required and a huge reactor with a mass of 4000 tons... a boulder in space, no chance to accelerate this.
yes, and it is said that Ad Astra Company signed an agreement with NASA to arrange the placement and testing of a flight version of the VASIMR, the VF-200, on the International Space Station. its launch is anticipated to be in 2014
Anyone who is watching this, link this video up with the Metallica song entitled Suicide and Redemption, start the video and start the song at 1:06. Its amazing how in sync it is!!!!!!
Ok guys ... It turnsout that i was wrong.. There do exist nuclear power systems that are about 16 kg/kW , and I read about this one heat pipe nuclear reactor develpd by Los Alamos Labs that had the rating of ~0.443kg/kW...
Looks like VASIMR is'nt just a pipe dream after all...
What Nuclear engine has that higher power to weight ratio 16kW/kg. surely you meant kW/kg because if not the 0.443 kg/kW Los alamos engine has the higher power to weight ratio.
According to Dr Michio Kaku.. Ram Jet fussion would be much more efficient, scoop up hydrogen as it go and burning it up as fuel. and to the other poster below me, mentioning that it's too heavy to be built, who says it have to be built on earth?
The exposed tanks is a very bad idea.If this is trip to Mars it will be extreme importance to protect the O & H storage tanks.O & H can be used to generate power and heat the space ship,plus out put is water.Water is a must for that kind of a trip,and this kind of travel will have to be one way,crew had to stay and be the lab rats to see if we can adopt to life day by day on Mars.There is no way that after some time some one wants to bet back.LIVE OR DYE kind of mission.
NASA Just announced the NAUTILUS-X, both one for lunar and long-term explorationi and another for deep exploration, MANNED. Look it up! It looks like something straight outta 2001: A Space Odyssey!
@TonyN737 No one has stopped this program that I know of. Obama stopped the shuttle program, because it really was eating up money and the missions that the general public, NASA, and others want to set their sights on need far greater technology. VASIMR is this technology. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, Scientists have discovered that we will probably only need a magnetosphere several hundred meters across to protect astronauts, not massive ones spanning many kilometers.
where is the artificial gravity rotation? What about the heat radiators?
This idea isnt completely people, because nuclear reactor(fission) at the best have a efficeincy of about 30%. The Heat losses and the weight of radiators makes the speed losses enormous.
This idea isnt feasible for many years(decades) unless they come up with a way to make nuclear reactors more efficient!
@serpentphoenix These ships will also be equiped with solar panels which would offer several kilowatts of power. Experts say that a VASIMR rocket would need a power source of 20 megawatts and fission reactors can easily give that not to mention the ship would be capable of collecting hydrogen atoms from space which can be split for power.
@NANOFORGE sure the VASIMR can use solar panels to generate power for its propulsion,but it will never be feasible for a MANNED mars mission, and to use solar panels would be restricted only to lunar missions. And your suggestion of using H2 from space is not realistic either at this time because you would need electromag scoops miles wide to collect enough H2 & to heat it into a plasma( sounds like a bussard ramjet to me LOL). So yeah, heat radiators, and efficient atomic energy is the issue.
@serpentphoenix You basicly said everyhting that I was thinking, it's good to meet someone who thinks alike. Yeah the Bussard Ramjet got he thinking of scooping H2 from space, but at the moment we don't have that technology. The size of the reactor would be the issue, make it to big and to heavy, enormous amounts of fuel would be required to put it into orbit. I have read somewhere that the smallest nuclear fission reactor the americans can build can only generate upto 1 Megawatt, not enough.
@NANOFORGE If you need to survive space travel, nuclear energy is the ONLY way. you need enough energy to generate vast speeds so that you can slim down your chances of getting ZAPPED by radiation and FRYING ALIVE in your spaceship. solar energy is not suitable for deep space manned travel unless you've come up with a solution to the problem of radiation in space.
@serpentphoenix Solar energy would become less efficient the further away from the sun you get, I think solar energy would ok for a journey to the moon and back. You are right though one thing is for certain, nuclear power is the only way for deep space travel. There is also the problem of radiation, either the ship needs a lead hull or it would have to generate a magnetic field which nuclear power could support.
@DMK717 i assume to pick up momentum by using the earths gravity as a slingshot, also theres no such thing as a straight path when your talking about space travel
Yes, would be neat if they could pick up water on the way - maybe from asteroids. Or suck up stuff from supposedly empty space . I'm sure these experts have thought this struff through but nothing wrong with wondering. Zero-point energy? Warping space-time? Ooops my tinfoil hat is showing lol. fascinated by space travel though.
Rather than build a rocket ship thingy where you have to launch from earth into space, land on mars, take off again and land back on earth... wouldn't it be better to build, in space, a very large and flyable armored space station over a number of years, and have flights to and from that as it sits in orbit? Wrap the thing in tons of nano-fiber foil and that'll soak up all the space crap like kevlar.
@tom77092 That would take too long and burn millions of dollars. We have the technology to build a ship to launch from Earth and go direct to Mars. However, the political will is absent and it would require nuclear propulsion which is the bogeyman to the left wingers that control the purse strings to our space programs.
The same way the lunar module works. You would detach any spent fuel/propellant tanks and lift back off from Mars.
Because Mars has about 1/3rd the gravity and only about 1/100th the atmospheric pressure of earth, you don't need nearly as much power to get back to orbit as compared to launching a rocket from earth.
The problematic part of a Mission to Mars is the return, and if colonization is the goal it is really unnecessary anyway. Plus loads of people would want to go one-way. Plus you wouldn't contaminate earth with extraterrestrial microbes. Plus you spend the money you save for periodical unmanned shippings of material, even though a Mars to stay mission would be designed to be as independent from Earth as possible.
first of all, most people that make spelling and/or grammar mistakes are english dont speak it as a native language. BEcause theyre foreign. Also i want to point out that almost no english people (by mother tongue) are able to speak any other languages themselves apart from english.
So i know 3 languages, and most americans know only their own english language. your american or british yoruself right?
Then try to learn 3 languages on your own and then come back to me.
2. I speak 4 languages. And know enough about two more to keep the ball rolling.
3. I don't bother with bad spelling. I bother with lack of any meaning in a text due to the inability of the author to speak the language that is required for communication.
4. The dumbfuck "tomanyasses" had nothing to say. NOTHING. That was the very fact I criticised.
5. What is it that you have to say, besides being wrong?
Actually, having atleast a bit of competition is proven to be better than having none, a unified space program may be cheaper to afford, but it's universally slower.
Think of it as a race (wich it is)
you would be trying to run/drive/ride faster if you had opponents.
@RazorsharpLT You will run faster if the other way to prove you are superior is nuclear exchange. Wich is what Cold War was all about. A pissing contest to avoid resorting to more or less mutual annihilation.
I want to see this spacecraft built and flown. The thing about VASIMR is it is CONSTANT acceleration. It trims transit time Earth to Mars from about a half a year to roughly a month. That's spectacular.
@Thatboy1980 It is necessary for a spacecraft to turn around to stop. Since space is frictionless, they can't stop in the way you describe. They have to flip the craft around and apply the same amount of burn for the same amount of tie to come to a stop. But, because space is frictionless, most of the fuel is spent on these burns. The rest of the time it just coasts to it's destination, with no need to use the engines.
never too impressed with these, "how a mission to mars will go" videos. Just from the fact that going there, means a six month stay. Waiting for a prime time to return to Earth, due to orbits, takes six long months. Due to that Mars has a thin atmosphere, and looking up some information of radiation in space/Mars, I am not seeing anything that would deter a mission, as commented here on other posts. Water, Heat, Cold, and Time seem to be the main problems,
The capsule used aerobraking to land on Mars rather than overshooting it, but what happened to VASIMR? It didn't use aerobraking... Did it slow down by itself and entered Mars orbit or is it a one-way trip?
omgg still obeying with your newtonian bible, i see NASA.
You "N"eed "A"nother "S"pace "A"dministrator.
oh btw dear nasa dont ya know that by the time a human got to mars they would have died from radiation poisioning (earth orbit has very low level radiation) unless the shell of the craft was about 9 foot thick.
@The7of1 In some office in Houston a NASA administrator could be having an epiphany right now. "Oh man! Have you seen this comment?! Some guy on YouTube says Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong! We've been so misguided all these years! We need another Space Administrator!" (Whatever that is).
hey, give it guns and it be a tie fighter. just triple ion engines instead of twin. be allooooott slower though. dam laws of physics! they ruin everything!
Bwahahahaha! Would hate to be the interplanetary police officer who on a tight time schedule has no choice but to trek after some fugitive using VASIMR rockets.
By the way, such laser-type probes are probably already being used by other beings directed at earth. This is one explanation of why we sometimes see ghost-like images when certain atmospherics are present.
A laser projected VR sensor package could manifest into a ghost like image at the destination location, or it could be any range of things from an inanimate object to a hologram of a human form.
Ion drive is OK for slugging along inside the Jovian belt. Here's how we will do deep space exploration:
Project a laser-like beam at a location. Program the information on the carrier beam to create a set of sensor tools that can be operated in a virtual reality environment. Use a VR interface here on earth to operate the generated sensors at the destination, The time-distance issue can be compensated for by digital data compression, so that certain tasks can be performed in series.
@ClairLippincott: Nothing you do with compression is going to allow for near-realtime stimuli-response. No matter what, it's a half-hour (or more) to get data there and a half hour back. If the task requires feedback, then you have to wait.
I would like to see how you do this "create a set of sensor tools". How exactly does one use a laser beam to create a microphone on Mars, say? Or a drill to do subsurface exploration?
i did this summer program at Langley Research Center where we had to design a Mission to Mars and the mentors (who were engineers who worked there and helped us design the mission) said we could use these engines adn that they would be perfect for deep space flights
THE QUESTION IS WHEN ACTUAL MISSION TAKES PLACE. CONCEPTUAL STAGE IS FAR TIME CONSUMING THAN IT SHOULD BE. THERE EXISTED ENOUGH TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE VASIMR THAT COULD HAVE ENABLED HUMAN BEINGS TO CONQUER MARS.
I have a question relating to conjunction low energy TMI . I recall reading you can only travel a certain speed for Mars to capture you. Like in Apollo they could have got there in a Day but the Moon wouldn't be able to capture them. Without an insane about of rocket fuel to slow down.
So with a realistic mission mass, will there be enough fuel and thrust to slow down for Mars to capture traveling at those speeds? Or is this 4 week trip a maximum speed fly by?
@TheFluffyDuck: Since the mission uses plasma/ion rockets with constant thrust throughout, having the right speed for capture at Mars is just a question of adjusting the mission profile to yield it at the proper moment. Yes, in general, without a terminal maneuver, only a hyperbolic orbit of an encounter is possible. The plan would necessarily call for enough fuel to perform as planned. A Mars mission could also plan to retank at Mars for the return.
Thats a really strong heat shield, to be able to protect the small equipment like extending legs and refrain from damaging the ship too bad so it could just land gently after being a flaming ball of hell through the skies.
@neo942007: Yes. The technology and materials have come a long way since Apollo. I suppose the parachutes are out because of weight and g-forces. The flaming ball of hell at Mars is considerably less than it would be for Earth, though it may well last a lot longer.
@rogerpenna Off-the-shelf reactors are no-go. The reactor needs to be designed to operate in space. Reactors need to dump zounds of heat and vacuum is a excellent insulator. I don't think enough work has been done on space rated reactors to speculate, rendering the VASIMR Mars-ship a work of science fiction. I suspect that such research being funded is a work of political fiction :( But hey, the Moon's right thur. It could keep us busy for decades.
@Frapazoid: You're right, but the problems are just engineering ones; no new science has to be discovered, so it really isn't science fiction. It is mainly a question of will.
@puncheex That's why I often like to call it "budget fiction". I wouldn't say the nuclear electric scheme is a certainty, but there are nuclear-thermal and hydrolox systems perfectly up to the job. But a real colonization program would mean hurling thousands a year. It'd probably cost at least 30 billion a year. While that doesn't seem like much compared to our 600+ military budget, the value it gives our society is basically 0, so, not gonna be public funded for the forseeable future...
Cab anyone tell me the justification for such huge expense of a manned Mars mission when robots can do the job just as well? The Mars rovers were an incredible success now imagine they are many times bigger, ten times faster and (in the future) have artificial intelligence. They could effectively take scientists there in virtual reality.
Putting such robots up there would cost billions but still a small fraction of the cost of sending men up.
@tpsossff I believe the primary reason is to colonize Mars. In large part, that's the same reason for the robots themselves. Heck, the Phoenix lander had kit to test the soil quality. If you don't eventually plan to send people there, Mars is no more valuable than Venus and we'll probably find ET through telescopes first anyway. But the Moon! The Moon has a lot of resources that we should be using robotics to acquire. The Moon is so close you can use RC bots in real time, with no AI advances.
If there were a hundred tons of gold neatly stacked on the moon right now it would never be economical to go and get it. The moon has next to no resources compared with earth due to the way both bodys were formed and geologicaly evolved.
@tpsossff Strawman, and no. Current infrastructure designed to launch a few dozen sats a year cannot bring down a hundred tons of gold. However it is possible to build infrastructure that could bring down dramatically larger quantities of finite platinum group metals that we require in our technology. Asteroids are rich in these and there should be asteroid remains on the Moon. Prospecting is ongoing. Moon > Asteroids; consistent proximity means RC teleoperation is practical. No humans on-site.
@tpsossff: Perhaps that they cannot do the job just as well? We've been asking whether there is life on Mars, now, for 40 years, and have sent probably a dozen robotic missions there, and still don't have an answer. Had we sent a manned mission, it is likely we'd have an answer.
Of course robots today are much more capable than Viking was, and what you say could become flexible enough to replace humans in another 50 years or so.
@puncheex Well, I for one actually like their approach. The Viking mission tried a naive "life detector" and the results were inconclusive because they didn't understand the environment. Resuming in the '90s, they're taking a step by step approach to understand the environment so that a 2nd attempt at "life detection" works. If successful, life will have been discovered for a grand total of under 20 billion dollars. Already, Phoenix mission discovered why one of the Viking experiments failed...
@Frapazoid: OK, I agree, but how does that affect my argument? Had they sent a man and a fair lab they could have had the answer in a couple of weeks.
@puncheex A few weeks after Jan 1, 2040 maybe. And a man would likely end up costing well over 100x more than a robotic mission. And they'd have to be lucky enough to set him down in the right spot to find the life. 100 rovers are more likely to find life on Mars than is a manned mission. Total cost of both MER rovers, including 6 years of exploration, is still under $1 billion. Even NASA was estimating $100B for Constellation, just through 2020. And you *know* it would actually have been more.
@sbergman27 Wow that much!?? You know if we cut all spending to the DEA then that would only take 2 years to save. I think we would also get a much bigger bang for our buck.
@elwood173 : Yes. That much. And I agree that it doesn't represent a lot in terms of the US's national budget. But I've been watching for 35 years. (I was born in 1963.) And I don't see any evidence that the US is ever going to be willing to fund space activities beyond what NASA is getting now. In case you haven't noticed, the US's status as a world leader is slowly deflating. Perhaps China or Russia will, someday, send manned missions. But I don't see the fat and sassy Americans doing it.
I wish that I could disagree but I am afraid you are right. I do still hold out hope though that at the 11th hour we as a nation could pull together and do something to this degree. What I would really like to see though is a multi-national effort and us as mankind reach for Mars.
@elwood173 In fact, a multinational effort is less likely to get men to Mars than is a new Cold War. Cooperation is unlikely to get much money out of the US Congress. What we need is for the Chinese to announce that they are going to put a colony on Mars, and lay claim to it, thereby proving the superiority of Communism over Capitalism and Democracy. The US public would go into a tizzy. It was relative international peace which killed the manned space program. History clearly demonstrates that.
I really love this kind of idea for advance space travel this would shut the mouths of all the stupid non belivers of space travel and would prove those idiots of non space flight supporters that we can and we sill achive space flight clear into the future and beyond. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK GUYS OVER THERE I SUPPORT YOU ALL THE WAY...!!!
VASIMR is such a pipe dream. The PCU, reactor and radiators weigh so much that that the gravity losses are enormous. If you want to get serious about Mars, Nuclear Thermal Propulsion is the only serious option which was also pointed out in NASA's own Mars Design Reference Missions 3.0, 4.0 and even in 5.0
@dayoflords: No, but you can rotate around the axis of propulsion; nd, of course, the propulsion itself provides a small fraction of a g continuously.
With 200 MW electrical power source a trip to Mars would take about 40 days. It would be best to have two VASIMR driven ships. One would go on slow Hofman transfer to maximize payload carrying Mars habitat and exploraration hardware, the second would depart with crew and go on a fast high energy transfer to reduce human exposure to radiation and zero G.
To the point: A mars mission will return no benefits to humanity, and it's impossible without a moon colony. A moon colony can return benefits, via a space power satellite system, and make mars a possibility.
@moonus111 How can you say, Mars will return no benefits to humanity? Developing new deep space human space flight technology requires new ideas and break through thinking. I want to go to Mars, Asteroids and even Titan. What can't be done on the ISS that requires a moon base? Do you want to watch China orbit Mars while we are landing on the Moon again, 60 years later? We aren't getting to deep space with the same rockets that can get us to the moon.
@jim6584 HELLO! I could do a dissertation on Mars being AFTER the moon. Among other reasons, launch costs are so high, developing anything on mars would take multiples of the world GDP. Going to the moon opens mars up, don't count on it happening before. There are more easily accesible resources that can benefit humanity in the short term on the moon making it something that can become profitable quicker. There's so much Mars propaganda I have to point it out. Check the PERMANENT forum 4 more.
jet boy o totally agree with you.. in the long runn it will be worth it.. nasa waste to much money over the last decades and they hid way to much .... mister regal your just another " shrugger who is jealous that obama is a black man in the presidents seat...
@wayman369 alright iv had it with this, you acuse him a jealosy over color which is racism he is intitled to his own opinion under law of the constition founded by our for fathers, secound for every dollar the gov. get half a penny, half a freaking penny go's to nasa and third they did not had anything, were do you think your cell phone came from?
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. To see a partial summary of hoax evidence, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15 of the thread. It's the 7th post from the top.
@Cosmored Completely ignore the mirror that is on the moon right now, that anyone with a high powered laser can bounce a beam off of and get a reading back.
"Yes, but ironically it has been there since the last moon mission."
The Surveyor probes had arrived before the Apollo craft supposedly arrived. They had the technology to send unmanned craft to the moon before the alleged moon landings.
055.033 O ye assembly of Jinns and men! If it be ye can (fly) pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, (fly) pass ye! not without authority shall ye be able to (fly) pass!
055.034 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Quran
very interesting video thanks
rodswebdesign 2 days ago
some really good stuff here
jessyjessy4 5 days ago
The VASIMR budget is used to produced low quality CGI movies like the ones you saw at Museums of Science and Industry in the 1980's.
VASIMR is a Hoax being perpetrated in order to have an impossible thing that will never go anywhere, an excuse to not fund a real program doable today.
The studies on it have been falsified.
The 6 month trip is doable today. The radiation threat is very slim (1% of radiation poison).
What's missing is a budget.
hep48 2 weeks ago
can u send me a price and how long it tke to create...plz no spoof
TheIPC2011 1 month ago
If you want this to be reality...
1) Support AdAstra, ensure that they have a VASIMR drive on the ISS by atleast 2015.
2) Support private space-flight programs like SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace etc.
3) Support a Research&Development Program that will bring out nuclear reactors with the rating of 10kg/kW
4) Get the international community involved to send a Man to Mars.
serpentphoenix 2 months ago
What's with the spiral?
FrankLee46 2 months ago
@FrankLee46 The orbital path around the earth before it heads to Mars!
JMURDER367 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my profile. I have the animated video about Constellation Mission to Mars! :)
energyscience 3 months ago
I heard this would take us to mars in only 39 days, why not take that trip instead of 6 months??
Antimatter050 3 months ago
@Antimatter050 Because the 6 month trip could have been done 20 years ago, and we'd have colonies on Mars today.
hep48 2 weeks ago
'
only american can go mars land
bestamerica 4 months ago
I found this on the NASA Human Space Flight site several years ago and it had music.
Man2Break 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Vasimr is not strong enough for such a heavy payload. At least not with the power ouput from the available compact nuclear reactors (100-200kw). Some 100MW would be required and a huge reactor with a mass of 4000 tons... a boulder in space, no chance to accelerate this.
Kalatiso 6 months ago
yes, and it is said that Ad Astra Company signed an agreement with NASA to arrange the placement and testing of a flight version of the VASIMR, the VF-200, on the International Space Station. its launch is anticipated to be in 2014
henrytanful 7 months ago
Anyone who is watching this, link this video up with the Metallica song entitled Suicide and Redemption, start the video and start the song at 1:06. Its amazing how in sync it is!!!!!!
bjf5027 7 months ago
Ok guys ... It turnsout that i was wrong.. There do exist nuclear power systems that are about 16 kg/kW , and I read about this one heat pipe nuclear reactor develpd by Los Alamos Labs that had the rating of ~0.443kg/kW...
Looks like VASIMR is'nt just a pipe dream after all...
serpentphoenix 7 months ago 2
@serpentphoenix
What Nuclear engine has that higher power to weight ratio 16kW/kg. surely you meant kW/kg because if not the 0.443 kg/kW Los alamos engine has the higher power to weight ratio.
marmaladekamikaze 6 months ago
/raises hand
"Yo, I'll go!" in a freakin heart beat, no thoughts involved. only 1 question asked, "It is a round trip ticket, right?"
torjones1701 8 months ago
who would be crazy enough to go to mars. sounds like a suicide mission
michu070 8 months ago
@michu070 If you can find someone "crazy" enough to go to the Moon, why not to Mars?
mike4ty4 8 months ago
@mike4ty4 the moon sounds a lot less suicidal. at least you could still see the earth
michu070 8 months ago
@michu070 If you can see Mars from Earth, you can see Earth from Mars, twice as big even.
Helge129 6 months ago
@Helge129 fair enough. still the idea scares the shit outa me
michu070 6 months ago
@mike4ty4 Where do I sign up?
edstar83 7 months ago
@edstar83 Unfortunately, the craft doesn't even exist yet, except on paper :)
mike4ty4 7 months ago
According to Dr Michio Kaku.. Ram Jet fussion would be much more efficient, scoop up hydrogen as it go and burning it up as fuel. and to the other poster below me, mentioning that it's too heavy to be built, who says it have to be built on earth?
ujayet 9 months ago
how will we get back?
SuperOllie121 9 months ago
Can we do this by 2020?
Aslapacrosstheface 9 months ago
Earthquakes are so polite
toastersXftwX 10 months ago
The exposed tanks is a very bad idea.If this is trip to Mars it will be extreme importance to protect the O & H storage tanks.O & H can be used to generate power and heat the space ship,plus out put is water.Water is a must for that kind of a trip,and this kind of travel will have to be one way,crew had to stay and be the lab rats to see if we can adopt to life day by day on Mars.There is no way that after some time some one wants to bet back.LIVE OR DYE kind of mission.
CastleRockCO 11 months ago
NASA Just announced the NAUTILUS-X, both one for lunar and long-term explorationi and another for deep exploration, MANNED. Look it up! It looks like something straight outta 2001: A Space Odyssey!
magog1138 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This open system is obsolete see approachconcepts com
johnroach1 11 months ago
I hope whoever beats Obama in 2012 brings back this program!
TonyN737 11 months ago
@TonyN737 No one has stopped this program that I know of. Obama stopped the shuttle program, because it really was eating up money and the missions that the general public, NASA, and others want to set their sights on need far greater technology. VASIMR is this technology. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, Scientists have discovered that we will probably only need a magnetosphere several hundred meters across to protect astronauts, not massive ones spanning many kilometers.
TheZeus022 11 months ago
@TonyN737
...And...who out there is capable of beating Obama without soumding like a complete tea bagging lunatic...mmm?
deetjay1 11 months ago
@TonyN737 Obama just cancelled space craft and told nasa to advance not to shut them selves down.
TheMaxi3234 10 months ago
This is very interesting..
kartingzz1 11 months ago
where is the artificial gravity rotation? What about the heat radiators?
This idea isnt completely people, because nuclear reactor(fission) at the best have a efficeincy of about 30%. The Heat losses and the weight of radiators makes the speed losses enormous.
This idea isnt feasible for many years(decades) unless they come up with a way to make nuclear reactors more efficient!
serpentphoenix 11 months ago
@serpentphoenix These ships will also be equiped with solar panels which would offer several kilowatts of power. Experts say that a VASIMR rocket would need a power source of 20 megawatts and fission reactors can easily give that not to mention the ship would be capable of collecting hydrogen atoms from space which can be split for power.
NANOFORGE 11 months ago
@NANOFORGE sure the VASIMR can use solar panels to generate power for its propulsion,but it will never be feasible for a MANNED mars mission, and to use solar panels would be restricted only to lunar missions. And your suggestion of using H2 from space is not realistic either at this time because you would need electromag scoops miles wide to collect enough H2 & to heat it into a plasma( sounds like a bussard ramjet to me LOL). So yeah, heat radiators, and efficient atomic energy is the issue.
serpentphoenix 9 months ago
@serpentphoenix You basicly said everyhting that I was thinking, it's good to meet someone who thinks alike. Yeah the Bussard Ramjet got he thinking of scooping H2 from space, but at the moment we don't have that technology. The size of the reactor would be the issue, make it to big and to heavy, enormous amounts of fuel would be required to put it into orbit. I have read somewhere that the smallest nuclear fission reactor the americans can build can only generate upto 1 Megawatt, not enough.
NANOFORGE 9 months ago
@NANOFORGE If you need to survive space travel, nuclear energy is the ONLY way. you need enough energy to generate vast speeds so that you can slim down your chances of getting ZAPPED by radiation and FRYING ALIVE in your spaceship. solar energy is not suitable for deep space manned travel unless you've come up with a solution to the problem of radiation in space.
serpentphoenix 9 months ago
@serpentphoenix Solar energy would become less efficient the further away from the sun you get, I think solar energy would ok for a journey to the moon and back. You are right though one thing is for certain, nuclear power is the only way for deep space travel. There is also the problem of radiation, either the ship needs a lead hull or it would have to generate a magnetic field which nuclear power could support.
NANOFORGE 9 months ago
Why must the craft circle around the earth for 30 days before getting to Mars? Why can't it go in a straight path?
DMK717 1 year ago
@DMK717 i assume to pick up momentum by using the earths gravity as a slingshot, also theres no such thing as a straight path when your talking about space travel
eaglestdogg 1 year ago
So what if:
1. A crew member get sick beyond a cure/beyond medical help
2. A catastrophic mechanical failure occurs mid flight.
3. Not all space Debris are tracked properly, they get hit by tiny debris.
4. Crew members go mental, turn on each other.
5. Navigation messes up and they miss their target and go past mars, Becoming a space Tomb forever.
6. Loose communication links with earth, no one knows whats going on.
7. 8. 9. 10................
But I hope everything goes smoothly.
tku28 1 year ago
the sooner we start to populate mars the better! because it wont be long befor earth is fucked
MrMushroom90 1 year ago 2
how do they get back?
roofy2k 1 year ago
@roofy2k the same way the got thier? or they may go to set up a base near the poles as there is water and supplies ect would come to them
TheAlexagius 1 year ago
Yes, would be neat if they could pick up water on the way - maybe from asteroids. Or suck up stuff from supposedly empty space . I'm sure these experts have thought this struff through but nothing wrong with wondering. Zero-point energy? Warping space-time? Ooops my tinfoil hat is showing lol. fascinated by space travel though.
RSleepy 1 year ago
Yes, would be neat if they could pick up water on the way - maybe from asteroids
RSleepy 1 year ago
Obama won't let this Mars mission launch unless it's manned by UAW thugs demanding overtime!
Taimak77 1 year ago
Rather than build a rocket ship thingy where you have to launch from earth into space, land on mars, take off again and land back on earth... wouldn't it be better to build, in space, a very large and flyable armored space station over a number of years, and have flights to and from that as it sits in orbit? Wrap the thing in tons of nano-fiber foil and that'll soak up all the space crap like kevlar.
tom77092 1 year ago
@tom77092 That would take too long and burn millions of dollars. We have the technology to build a ship to launch from Earth and go direct to Mars. However, the political will is absent and it would require nuclear propulsion which is the bogeyman to the left wingers that control the purse strings to our space programs.
Taimak77 1 year ago
@Taimak77 Spot on mate.
Jason987262 1 year ago
OK... so now that you've landed on Mars, how do you get home again?
tom77092 1 year ago
@tom77092
The same way the lunar module works. You would detach any spent fuel/propellant tanks and lift back off from Mars.
Because Mars has about 1/3rd the gravity and only about 1/100th the atmospheric pressure of earth, you don't need nearly as much power to get back to orbit as compared to launching a rocket from earth.
craftmatic2 1 year ago
@tom77092 First mission to mars is going to be one way only trip; whoever flies to mars, will most probably never come back to earth.
PKENDIK 1 year ago
@PKENDIK why not?
supremeon1 1 year ago
@supremeon1 Loads been written about it all over internet. Google it
PKENDIK 1 year ago
@supremeon1
It's called "Mars to stay".
The problematic part of a Mission to Mars is the return, and if colonization is the goal it is really unnecessary anyway. Plus loads of people would want to go one-way. Plus you wouldn't contaminate earth with extraterrestrial microbes. Plus you spend the money you save for periodical unmanned shippings of material, even though a Mars to stay mission would be designed to be as independent from Earth as possible.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton and if most die not body will want to go
tomanyasses 1 year ago
@tomanyassesAs I said, the are enough voluntiers right now. You don't know what you are talking about.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton enough volunteers are you kidding
tomanyasses 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tomanyasses
I repeat: You don't know what you are talking about.
Get a vague clue by doing some reading on the subject, then come again. I'm not your nanny.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton no, you dont know what your talking about
tomanyasses 1 year ago
@tomanyasses
Learn English. Get an education. Dumbfuck.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton only douch bags bother people on spelling , douch bag
tomanyasses 1 year ago
@tomanyasses
Learn to read, dumbfuck.
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton learn to stop being dumb smart ass
tomanyasses 1 year ago
@trakkaton
first of all, most people that make spelling and/or grammar mistakes are english dont speak it as a native language. BEcause theyre foreign. Also i want to point out that almost no english people (by mother tongue) are able to speak any other languages themselves apart from english.
So i know 3 languages, and most americans know only their own english language. your american or british yoruself right?
Then try to learn 3 languages on your own and then come back to me.
Armigo91 1 year ago
@Armigo91 "americans know only their own english" - English not american.
English is British.
America have not their own language.
mphet26 1 year ago
@mphet26 We have the native languages, but the few remaining natives live separate from most "Americans" on reservations.
DMK717 11 months ago
@trakkaton
and wether your english by native tongue, its in all scenarios a lil bit childish to correct others on their spelling.
If you wanna act smart, get some real input. Not that educational brabble, cause i bet u havent paid attention in school at all.
douche bag.
Armigo91 1 year ago
@Armigo91
1. I'm neither British nor an USan.
2. I speak 4 languages. And know enough about two more to keep the ball rolling.
3. I don't bother with bad spelling. I bother with lack of any meaning in a text due to the inability of the author to speak the language that is required for communication.
4. The dumbfuck "tomanyasses" had nothing to say. NOTHING. That was the very fact I criticised.
5. What is it that you have to say, besides being wrong?
trakkaton 1 year ago
@trakkaton trackton has nothing but shit to say, you know languages so what so do five year olds know language ,dumb shit head
tomanyasses 1 year ago
@PKENDIK yaaaaaaaa sounds good to me
tomanyasses 1 year ago
@PKENDIK This remind me on Mission to Mars movie. :)
Darko2625 1 year ago
@tom77092 ask the martians for a ride home, tell them you ll have obama come to mars and say he was born there
tomanyasses 1 year ago
Uh, NASA...you gave Mars a BLUE sky there, dude. WHOOOPSIE!
cedelong5 1 year ago
Should have been some commentary or something
captainhobo1234567 1 year ago
lets get on building this now!!!1!!!!!!11!
stanrock0 1 year ago
Go to approachconcepts "dot" com for real inertial propulsion.
johnroach1 1 year ago
Actually, having atleast a bit of competition is proven to be better than having none, a unified space program may be cheaper to afford, but it's universally slower.
Think of it as a race (wich it is)
you would be trying to run/drive/ride faster if you had opponents.
RazorsharpLT 1 year ago 6
@RazorsharpLT You will run faster if the other way to prove you are superior is nuclear exchange. Wich is what Cold War was all about. A pissing contest to avoid resorting to more or less mutual annihilation.
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
u sure this american made thing wont explode
spike378 1 year ago
@spike378 positive
225USAboy 1 year ago
..what if the legs fail on landing,,eh..eh.?!..this design is far too convenient for my financing.!!
Warren111able 1 year ago
@Warren111able: What do you propose? The bouncing balloon?
puncheex 1 year ago
I want to see this spacecraft built and flown. The thing about VASIMR is it is CONSTANT acceleration. It trims transit time Earth to Mars from about a half a year to roughly a month. That's spectacular.
kd1s 1 year ago
@kd1s
yes!! but how do we slow down my friend, if space is a fabric why not grab hold to it to slow down just as we us metal brake pads on our cars.
Thatboy1980 1 year ago
@Thatboy1980 It is necessary for a spacecraft to turn around to stop. Since space is frictionless, they can't stop in the way you describe. They have to flip the craft around and apply the same amount of burn for the same amount of tie to come to a stop. But, because space is frictionless, most of the fuel is spent on these burns. The rest of the time it just coasts to it's destination, with no need to use the engines.
halo07guy2 1 year ago
@kd1s: Well, in the animation, it was 1 month getting away from Earth and three m0nths in transit, but I agree it's better than the usual half-year.
puncheex 1 year ago
Thats a very complicated way to go to mars.
Domibond007 1 year ago
@Domibond007: It is? As opposed to what?
puncheex 1 year ago
never too impressed with these, "how a mission to mars will go" videos. Just from the fact that going there, means a six month stay. Waiting for a prime time to return to Earth, due to orbits, takes six long months. Due to that Mars has a thin atmosphere, and looking up some information of radiation in space/Mars, I am not seeing anything that would deter a mission, as commented here on other posts. Water, Heat, Cold, and Time seem to be the main problems,
jondeare 1 year ago
Is there any good reason we dont use solar powered hydrogen oxygen separation in space travel? You would have something to breath and burn.
Thanks for your Vids
DanielWaerea1 1 year ago
@DanielWaerea1 Interesting idea but maybe water is heavy to carry?
RSleepy 1 year ago
@RSleepy How much H2 you can you get out of a glass of water ?Im just guessing but I bet it’s a lot.
DanielWaerea1 1 year ago
@The7of1 "Newtonian bible?" As far as I'm aware, Gravity is not just a good idea. It's the law.
OftenRatherAmused 1 year ago
in 2145 We are all doomed . Evil has coming ...
IbanezRobol 1 year ago
The capsule used aerobraking to land on Mars rather than overshooting it, but what happened to VASIMR? It didn't use aerobraking... Did it slow down by itself and entered Mars orbit or is it a one-way trip?
eiverr 1 year ago
@eiverr
They rotate it around and apply braking force from VASIMR.
kd1s 1 year ago
@eiverr:It stays in orbit while the lander lands.
puncheex 1 year ago
omgg still obeying with your newtonian bible, i see NASA.
You "N"eed "A"nother "S"pace "A"dministrator.
oh btw dear nasa dont ya know that by the time a human got to mars they would have died from radiation poisioning (earth orbit has very low level radiation) unless the shell of the craft was about 9 foot thick.
Doh!
The7of1 1 year ago
@The7of1 In some office in Houston a NASA administrator could be having an epiphany right now. "Oh man! Have you seen this comment?! Some guy on YouTube says Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is wrong! We've been so misguided all these years! We need another Space Administrator!" (Whatever that is).
OftenRatherAmused 1 year ago
That landing sequence doesn't make much sense.
FantasticBob7000 1 year ago
this method sucks the craft has to turnaround no fuel left sucks ass good engine of course the best...
Thatboy1980 1 year ago
this method sucks due to the fact that the craft has to turn around to slow down all the fuel deplited sucks ass.
Thatboy1980 1 year ago
@Thatboy1980 What?
Elukka 1 year ago
sdfsd
camtra1 1 year ago
hey, give it guns and it be a tie fighter. just triple ion engines instead of twin. be allooooott slower though. dam laws of physics! they ruin everything!
Joesolo13 1 year ago 2
Bwahahahaha! Would hate to be the interplanetary police officer who on a tight time schedule has no choice but to trek after some fugitive using VASIMR rockets.
"Day 79.. almost to Mars, can see it now!"
pkscolax 1 year ago
mars direct is better ..
rhn94 1 year ago
@rhn94: How is it better?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex it's simple and cost effective ..
rhn94 1 year ago
By the way, such laser-type probes are probably already being used by other beings directed at earth. This is one explanation of why we sometimes see ghost-like images when certain atmospherics are present.
A laser projected VR sensor package could manifest into a ghost like image at the destination location, or it could be any range of things from an inanimate object to a hologram of a human form.
ClairLippincott 1 year ago
Comment removed
puncheex 1 year ago
@ClairLippincott: I want to see progress in creating a laser which could, say, burn a hole in the Jovian clouds, or even in a moon rock, for a start.
puncheex 1 year ago
Ion drive is OK for slugging along inside the Jovian belt. Here's how we will do deep space exploration:
Project a laser-like beam at a location. Program the information on the carrier beam to create a set of sensor tools that can be operated in a virtual reality environment. Use a VR interface here on earth to operate the generated sensors at the destination, The time-distance issue can be compensated for by digital data compression, so that certain tasks can be performed in series.
ClairLippincott 1 year ago
@ClairLippincott: Nothing you do with compression is going to allow for near-realtime stimuli-response. No matter what, it's a half-hour (or more) to get data there and a half hour back. If the task requires feedback, then you have to wait.
I would like to see how you do this "create a set of sensor tools". How exactly does one use a laser beam to create a microphone on Mars, say? Or a drill to do subsurface exploration?
puncheex 1 year ago
i did this summer program at Langley Research Center where we had to design a Mission to Mars and the mentors (who were engineers who worked there and helped us design the mission) said we could use these engines adn that they would be perfect for deep space flights
Qasimbajwaa 1 year ago
Mission impossible
ziurke666 1 year ago
THE QUESTION IS WHEN ACTUAL MISSION TAKES PLACE. CONCEPTUAL STAGE IS FAR TIME CONSUMING THAN IT SHOULD BE. THERE EXISTED ENOUGH TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE VASIMR THAT COULD HAVE ENABLED HUMAN BEINGS TO CONQUER MARS.
WHEREAREBESTFILMS 1 year ago
I have a question relating to conjunction low energy TMI . I recall reading you can only travel a certain speed for Mars to capture you. Like in Apollo they could have got there in a Day but the Moon wouldn't be able to capture them. Without an insane about of rocket fuel to slow down.
So with a realistic mission mass, will there be enough fuel and thrust to slow down for Mars to capture traveling at those speeds? Or is this 4 week trip a maximum speed fly by?
TheFluffyDuck 1 year ago
@TheFluffyDuck: Since the mission uses plasma/ion rockets with constant thrust throughout, having the right speed for capture at Mars is just a question of adjusting the mission profile to yield it at the proper moment. Yes, in general, without a terminal maneuver, only a hyperbolic orbit of an encounter is possible. The plan would necessarily call for enough fuel to perform as planned. A Mars mission could also plan to retank at Mars for the return.
puncheex 1 year ago
Thats a really strong heat shield, to be able to protect the small equipment like extending legs and refrain from damaging the ship too bad so it could just land gently after being a flaming ball of hell through the skies.
neo942007 1 year ago
@neo942007: Yes. The technology and materials have come a long way since Apollo. I suppose the parachutes are out because of weight and g-forces. The flaming ball of hell at Mars is considerably less than it would be for Earth, though it may well last a lot longer.
puncheex 1 year ago
That is a really really strong heat shield.
neo942007 1 year ago
how long to Mars with 400 MW?? (4 polywell reactors)
rogerpenna 1 year ago
@rogerpenna Off-the-shelf reactors are no-go. The reactor needs to be designed to operate in space. Reactors need to dump zounds of heat and vacuum is a excellent insulator. I don't think enough work has been done on space rated reactors to speculate, rendering the VASIMR Mars-ship a work of science fiction. I suspect that such research being funded is a work of political fiction :( But hey, the Moon's right thur. It could keep us busy for decades.
Frapazoid 1 year ago
@Frapazoid Please note: solar power can help. ww w.stretched lensarray.c om/ Papers /SLASR-WCPEC4.pdf
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
@bobafetthotmail Possibly! That much solar power would be heavy, but then, so are nuclear reactors. It might be possible with the latest advances.
Frapazoid 1 year ago
@Frapazoid: You're right, but the problems are just engineering ones; no new science has to be discovered, so it really isn't science fiction. It is mainly a question of will.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex That's why I often like to call it "budget fiction". I wouldn't say the nuclear electric scheme is a certainty, but there are nuclear-thermal and hydrolox systems perfectly up to the job. But a real colonization program would mean hurling thousands a year. It'd probably cost at least 30 billion a year. While that doesn't seem like much compared to our 600+ military budget, the value it gives our society is basically 0, so, not gonna be public funded for the forseeable future...
Frapazoid 1 year ago
@Frapazoid: I agree.
puncheex 1 year ago
Cab anyone tell me the justification for such huge expense of a manned Mars mission when robots can do the job just as well? The Mars rovers were an incredible success now imagine they are many times bigger, ten times faster and (in the future) have artificial intelligence. They could effectively take scientists there in virtual reality.
Putting such robots up there would cost billions but still a small fraction of the cost of sending men up.
tpsossff 1 year ago
@tpsossff I believe the primary reason is to colonize Mars. In large part, that's the same reason for the robots themselves. Heck, the Phoenix lander had kit to test the soil quality. If you don't eventually plan to send people there, Mars is no more valuable than Venus and we'll probably find ET through telescopes first anyway. But the Moon! The Moon has a lot of resources that we should be using robotics to acquire. The Moon is so close you can use RC bots in real time, with no AI advances.
Frapazoid 1 year ago
@Frapazoid
If there were a hundred tons of gold neatly stacked on the moon right now it would never be economical to go and get it. The moon has next to no resources compared with earth due to the way both bodys were formed and geologicaly evolved.
tpsossff 1 year ago
@tpsossff Strawman, and no. Current infrastructure designed to launch a few dozen sats a year cannot bring down a hundred tons of gold. However it is possible to build infrastructure that could bring down dramatically larger quantities of finite platinum group metals that we require in our technology. Asteroids are rich in these and there should be asteroid remains on the Moon. Prospecting is ongoing. Moon > Asteroids; consistent proximity means RC teleoperation is practical. No humans on-site.
Frapazoid 1 year ago
@tpsossff Also, when I say "strawman" there I don't mean to set an argumentative tone, its just hard to pack complex topics in 500 characters.
Frapazoid 1 year ago
@tpsossff: Perhaps that they cannot do the job just as well? We've been asking whether there is life on Mars, now, for 40 years, and have sent probably a dozen robotic missions there, and still don't have an answer. Had we sent a manned mission, it is likely we'd have an answer.
Of course robots today are much more capable than Viking was, and what you say could become flexible enough to replace humans in another 50 years or so.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Well, I for one actually like their approach. The Viking mission tried a naive "life detector" and the results were inconclusive because they didn't understand the environment. Resuming in the '90s, they're taking a step by step approach to understand the environment so that a 2nd attempt at "life detection" works. If successful, life will have been discovered for a grand total of under 20 billion dollars. Already, Phoenix mission discovered why one of the Viking experiments failed...
Frapazoid 1 year ago
@Frapazoid: OK, I agree, but how does that affect my argument? Had they sent a man and a fair lab they could have had the answer in a couple of weeks.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Hmmmm, probably. Sometimes the height of technology is a man with a shovel. Like in those Apollo pics.
Frapazoid 1 year ago
@Frapazoid: ...or at least the height of flexibility.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex Indubitably.
Frapazoid 1 year ago
@puncheex A few weeks after Jan 1, 2040 maybe. And a man would likely end up costing well over 100x more than a robotic mission. And they'd have to be lucky enough to set him down in the right spot to find the life. 100 rovers are more likely to find life on Mars than is a manned mission. Total cost of both MER rovers, including 6 years of exploration, is still under $1 billion. Even NASA was estimating $100B for Constellation, just through 2020. And you *know* it would actually have been more.
sbergman27 1 year ago
@sbergman27 Wow that much!?? You know if we cut all spending to the DEA then that would only take 2 years to save. I think we would also get a much bigger bang for our buck.
elwood173 1 year ago
@elwood173 : Yes. That much. And I agree that it doesn't represent a lot in terms of the US's national budget. But I've been watching for 35 years. (I was born in 1963.) And I don't see any evidence that the US is ever going to be willing to fund space activities beyond what NASA is getting now. In case you haven't noticed, the US's status as a world leader is slowly deflating. Perhaps China or Russia will, someday, send manned missions. But I don't see the fat and sassy Americans doing it.
sbergman27 1 year ago
@sbergman27
I wish that I could disagree but I am afraid you are right. I do still hold out hope though that at the 11th hour we as a nation could pull together and do something to this degree. What I would really like to see though is a multi-national effort and us as mankind reach for Mars.
elwood173 1 year ago
@elwood173 In fact, a multinational effort is less likely to get men to Mars than is a new Cold War. Cooperation is unlikely to get much money out of the US Congress. What we need is for the Chinese to announce that they are going to put a colony on Mars, and lay claim to it, thereby proving the superiority of Communism over Capitalism and Democracy. The US public would go into a tizzy. It was relative international peace which killed the manned space program. History clearly demonstrates that.
sbergman27 1 year ago
ho will be the first man on mars! me!
xzharmayne03 1 year ago
I really love this kind of idea for advance space travel this would shut the mouths of all the stupid non belivers of space travel and would prove those idiots of non space flight supporters that we can and we sill achive space flight clear into the future and beyond. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK GUYS OVER THERE I SUPPORT YOU ALL THE WAY...!!!
keys201 1 year ago
VASIMR is such a pipe dream. The PCU, reactor and radiators weigh so much that that the gravity losses are enormous. If you want to get serious about Mars, Nuclear Thermal Propulsion is the only serious option which was also pointed out in NASA's own Mars Design Reference Missions 3.0, 4.0 and even in 5.0
webbj123 1 year ago
@webbj123: perhaps; it's just so hard on the rest of creation, though!
puncheex 1 year ago
only draw back is the engines have to be on all the time so cant rotate the ship on teather to produce gravity
dayoflords 1 year ago
@dayoflords: No, but you can rotate around the axis of propulsion; nd, of course, the propulsion itself provides a small fraction of a g continuously.
puncheex 1 year ago
anyone ask the astronauts what they think of being shielded by the fuel tanks?
mowmow445 1 year ago
@mowmow445: Life's a risk. The tanks are better than your pink skin. If it is sufficient, then what beef do the astronauts have?
puncheex 1 year ago
With 200 MW electrical power source a trip to Mars would take about 40 days. It would be best to have two VASIMR driven ships. One would go on slow Hofman transfer to maximize payload carrying Mars habitat and exploraration hardware, the second would depart with crew and go on a fast high energy transfer to reduce human exposure to radiation and zero G.
SkyyCaptainn 1 year ago
To the point: A mars mission will return no benefits to humanity, and it's impossible without a moon colony. A moon colony can return benefits, via a space power satellite system, and make mars a possibility.
moonus111 1 year ago
@moonus111 How can you say, Mars will return no benefits to humanity? Developing new deep space human space flight technology requires new ideas and break through thinking. I want to go to Mars, Asteroids and even Titan. What can't be done on the ISS that requires a moon base? Do you want to watch China orbit Mars while we are landing on the Moon again, 60 years later? We aren't getting to deep space with the same rockets that can get us to the moon.
jim6584 1 year ago
@jim6584 HELLO! I could do a dissertation on Mars being AFTER the moon. Among other reasons, launch costs are so high, developing anything on mars would take multiples of the world GDP. Going to the moon opens mars up, don't count on it happening before. There are more easily accesible resources that can benefit humanity in the short term on the moon making it something that can become profitable quicker. There's so much Mars propaganda I have to point it out. Check the PERMANENT forum 4 more.
moonus111 1 year ago
@jim6584 Also check out my channel
moonus111 1 year ago
Russia is going to send a nuclear spaceship to Mars and Japan Humanoid Robots to the Moon by the year 2020...
luisbeck007 1 year ago
Please search for "chem trails" (no space) ASAP! I've filmed it lots myself... :(
TrutherD1 1 year ago
jet boy o totally agree with you.. in the long runn it will be worth it.. nasa waste to much money over the last decades and they hid way to much .... mister regal your just another " shrugger who is jealous that obama is a black man in the presidents seat...
wayman369 1 year ago
@wayman369 alright iv had it with this, you acuse him a jealosy over color which is racism he is intitled to his own opinion under law of the constition founded by our for fathers, secound for every dollar the gov. get half a penny, half a freaking penny go's to nasa and third they did not had anything, were do you think your cell phone came from?
emerychandler 1 year ago
This is a little off-topic but-
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. To see a partial summary of hoax evidence, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15 of the thread. It's the 7th post from the top.
Also, do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".
Cosmored 1 year ago
@Cosmored Completely ignore the mirror that is on the moon right now, that anyone with a high powered laser can bounce a beam off of and get a reading back.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
"Completely ignore the mirror that is on the moon right now, that anyone with a high powered laser can bounce a beam off of and get a reading back."
Unmanned robot craft can have adjustable mirrors attached to their sides. Mirrors aren't proof that there were people on the moon.
Cosmored 1 year ago
@Cosmored Yes, but ironically it has been there since the last moon mission.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Yes, but ironically it has been there since the last moon mission."
The Surveyor probes had arrived before the Apollo craft supposedly arrived. They had the technology to send unmanned craft to the moon before the alleged moon landings.
Cosmored 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The power of God Almighty - flights grounded
055.033 O ye assembly of Jinns and men! If it be ye can (fly) pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, (fly) pass ye! not without authority shall ye be able to (fly) pass!
055.034 Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny? Quran
2009abuabdullah 1 year ago