now im going to probably be the first here but to go to mars is kind of an urgent thing (making mass effect refrence) in the game mass effect (i know this probably means nothing but) they discovered on mars technological artifacts that advanced the science 200+ years. now if there really was anything on mars i think that would be worth finding think by 2030 we could be visiting other areas of the milky way possibly finding more alien life many many possibilites
Hey guys I have the real constellation animation about the Mission to Mars on my profile. Please share it with everyone you know! Support our manned space program!
Problem is coming back from Mars, Nasa set up the idea that they would send people to mars to colonize it, because of its atmosphere you would need another "Saturn 5" to actually relaunch from Mars to head home to earth, that's quite a big rocket to send there & back.
2:27, he's saying that he was surprised that NASA has nothing on mars. His ultimate goal for spacex is going to mars, and there is also not a single thing on the spacex website on when or how they might go to mars.
I think its funny that spacex goal is to land humans on mars, and then colonize it. They have very little information on how they plan on doing this, if they are going to set up a test-bed on the moon, and the only thing telling us when, is "best case 10 years, worst case 15-20 years"... Elon musk, c'mon couz, give us some mission animations
@Neoli2300 Kennedy said "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth" Now, he did give a time line but he made no mention of how to do it, except that it will be expensive. "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish."
Yet another example of how even one of the government's most efficient and effective programs (relatively speaking) is having it ass handed to it by a company.
@theRealAnonymousRain another 6 months in the space ship lol... but NASA keeps saying of how a trip to Mars should be a one way trip to make a little base.
Musk and and Robert Zubrin should team up and do the mars direct project through SpaceX. We could easily be there by 2020 or earlier! I know its not that simple but Musk and Zubrin seem to have the same vision and passion about exploration and who knows maybe they could make it that simple. I just hope that we get there soon!
A vehicle that could land humans on Mars, a far deeper gravity well than the moon, and return them to orbit would have to be massive just to carry the fuel needed. It would have to soft land without damage and launch without the assistance of a launch pad or Fed-Ex for overnight parts delivery (Try that with a space shuttle-not). Since the Millennium Falcon is pure fantasy, NO WAY this happens by 2020. A one way trip? Might as well just swap out a rover with a corpse and get it over with.
@321RCHeli These are all problems that coul be solved with extra fuel tanks launched into martian orbit, a dedicated return vehical with redundency and built in launch pad (really? The LEM fixed that almost 50 years ago), and less than one year's worth of the Afghan war budget. If we really want to do it, I think we certainly could.
@321RCHeli "A vehicle that could land humans on Mars, a far deeper gravity well than the moon, and return them to orbit would have to be massive just to carry the fuel needed"
It's probably technically feasible (ignoring cost) with current technologies.
To get there with a sensible budget and time frame I agree the fuel is the limiting factor.
Is it too soon to suggest a high temperature gas cooled thorium fission reactor? Could weigh less than fuel tanks.
@mysticarabknight "VASMIR" is more efficient, but doesn't have anything like the power to lift off from earth.
The one they're testing on ISS uses only a fraction of the reaction mass of a normal rocket, but it also produces only a fraction of the thrust per kg of engine. The ISS test will be 300kg and produce about 5 N of thrust from 200Kw of power. 5 N is enough to lift about two ounces against earth gravity.
Useful once in space, but needs a different rocket to get 'up' there.
@ImMichaelTaylor Yeah your right. the vasmir rocket only works in the vacuum of space. so it can only be used to get to mars and not to takeoff from earth. they can use a heavy duty rocket for that like the Russian soyez. although maybe they can attached a scram-jet engine to escape earths atmosphere? Although the scram-jet needs air so it wont wont once they are in space. but perhaps they can then switch a vehicle with the Vasmir rocket.
@mysticarabknight If a manned mars mission started today I think it would be something like that.
They'd use a rocket burning about a thousand tonnes of oxygen/kerosene in a couple of minutes to reach orbit, then use a very efficient one (like a vasmir type) to burn for a month or so on a small amount of fuel to accelerate to mars.
Using air breathing engines for the first part only saves a bit (with current designs). You save oxygen but need extra hardware, so still pretty heavy.
@mysticarabknight Soyuz rockets are not even close to the capacity required for a Mars mission. A scramjet attached to a rocket that produces no aerodynamic lift and cannot maintain a less inclined flight path would do essentially nothing good, just add weight. Scramjets are INCREDIBLY difficult to develop and work with- many programs have been cancelled because of them. Nuclear thermal rockets or advanced chemical rockets are best suited for conventional rockets.
@mysticarabknight VASIMR requires an ENORMOUS power source (BIG nuclear reactor) to achieve a 39-day earth-mars transit. It is still under development as well. While it shows great potential, a nuclear thermal rocket engine would be best suited for the interplanetary transit vehicle in the near future because it would be somewhat easier to develop (Project NERVA already did a lot of the work) and would require no enormous power source without precedent.
@mysticarabknight VASIMR requires an enormous nuclear reactor to get there that quickly. With current technology, a reactor of necessary power output would be so heavy that it would eliminate any performance gains over lower power operations, while increasing cost and reducing payload. VASIMR is a wonderful engine, but 39 day transits between Earth and Mars will not be feasible for quite some time.
I'm really excited by this and deeply inspired by musk. He's a really great example of a way for someone to spend their billions and use their brains. I hope one day i get to meet him.
@rocaho001 Yer, probably. but we've already got space hotels thats like 4 million to go there, so the prices for that are bowing to reduce a lot in the next 50, 100, or a few hundred years to suit average people range. an if we ever do go back to the moon we porbably cud go there for a holiday, but mars won't be for another 6 hundred years, or even longer
@Nanotech92 In 50 years not much will change. Look at the last 10 years, did much change? Technology wise on earth it'll change, space is a lot more complicated.
@rocaho001 I know space is complicated. Which is whyy I'm sayin it will take hundreds or years, at this rate, But too be honest, need to sort out our own planet before we bugger off to another 1
Not that i think it's a bad idea wouldn't we need to create a atmosphere on mars before people can walk the red planet. The only way i can see that happening is if we able to melt there polar ice caps with nuclear bombs and still thats very limited what about plants animals to live on the planet what i'm saying is you need to be able to make it worth humankinds worth to go there.
The atmosphere on mars will be blown away by cosmic and solar rays over time. You cant balance a atmosphere on mars. I simply know that, but perhaps it is possible to manufacture plants that turns nitrogen into oxygen of carbon dioxide into oxygen.
Maybe you can create a pure oxygen atmosphere which balance of the atmosphere is supported by the plants. But a atmosphere on mars can never be naturally stable. With pure oxygen, you might create a dense enough atmosphere.
@Armigo91 And earth will die in time too... doesnt stop us living here in the mean time.. its a question of how fast mars would loose its atmosphere...humans could live there a lng time before that needs to be a worry... and in time new technology might solve that problem
pure oxygen is not hazardous. As long as its density equals the density of oxygen in out atmosphere. which is about 21% and if pure oxygen its rougly 1/5th the atmospheric pressure. Of which percentage humans can take even less oxygen just to survive. Humans can survive and do labor if conditioned at altitudes of 10.000feet. Which equals 7.2kpa. Meaning theres 3times less oxygen compared to the 21% at sea level. meaning that humans could survive with a pure oxygen atmosphere at roughly 7% earths
Completely terraforming of mars cant be dont. unless you supply the planets core with iron, as much matter of it compared to the mass of a planet like mercury.
Only then mars will meet the requirements to creates its own natural balance. And its impossible to supply mars with these resources unless we have the power to pull planets asteroids and moons out of orbit. And we can barely send a washing machine to the lunar surface, let alone rocketing a planet into a preferred orbit.
@Armigo91 Ok thanks i know mars har polar ice caps what does that mean in the future for creating sutainable life on mars i personally think if you want to get humans intrested in space exploration they need to belive it's possible to live on another planet, otherwise the big money of the world will not put money into a project this big.
@Armigo91 Ok thanks i know mars har polar ice caps what does that mean in the future for creating sutainable life on mars i personally think if you want to get humans intrested in space exploration they need to belive it's possible to live on another planet, otherwise the big money of the world will not put money into a project this big. would it be possible to create a genisis probe somthing when it hits the atmosphere will start generating new life it could just be some kind of bacteria.
I wouldn't go to mars in a box that didn't have an engine that can run anytime you want for as long as you want!! Plus who says you will B allowed if you get my drift?
Too many electric vehicles running around to bother with that nonsense!!
Feast your eyes as we witness the next type of industrial revolution. More than even the technological revolution. No more common place thinking after we colonize the moon!!!
There will never be any space travel beyond LEO by privatized American space companies. Space will be reduced to a shameful joy ride for billionaires and spectacular feats of space-based advertising. The glory of discovery and national pride will be replaced by the filthy feel of commerce. A money-grubbing venture full of unsavory characters.
Only government can acquire the capital to go to the moon again. Unfortunately, the global debt pyramid scheme to finance such a venture is exhausted.
@InfiniteMushroom I'm sure int the 20's and 30's people said similar things about flying in those airplanes and zeppelins. Sure only the reasonably wealthy can afford to own these aircraft but the use of them has come down in price over the decades.
It's a defeatist mentality that leads to comments like yours.
@BlueGlowingLight4 I don't think you realize what you just said. Private aircraft is EVEN MORE SO a rich man's toy! It used to be that private aircraft was within reach of the middle class 40+ years ago, thanks to FAA support in those days.
The Think Tanks decided it was time to get the Little People out of the air. A class war was waged on General Aviation via product liability lawsuits. Baseless charges that shut down private aviation and priced the American People out of the air.
@InfiniteMushroom you're missing my point. back then most of the people flying around in the skies were either really rich or worked for some government or other. Note i'm talking about the 20's and 30's not the 60's and 70's btw.
and i wasn't talking about owning the aircraft personally. I could book a seat on a plane from Edinburgh to Brussels tonight and be there by tomorrow evening if i was willing to wait a week i could get a cheaper seat. The point i'm making is that in the 20's... (cont.)
(Cont.) ...some doomsayer like yourself was likely telling everyone who'd listen how only the super rich would be able to travel across the continent because they'd push the prices up so that the poor can't travel.
there is no reason to think that 90 years from now we can't have seen a shift in that someone could afford to visit the moon as I can visit Brussels.
Simply put your comment that space will become a "joy ride for billionaires" has no backing other than your assertion.
@BlueGlowingLight4 Wow, you REALLY don't understand how the macro-economy works. By the art of mystification and lies, we are taught to glorify forces we don't understand.
Air travel became "cheap" by Carter's deregulation fiasco, which led to financial debt games, degraded service quality, and rape of labor in the airline industry. Not by any wonderful manifestation of technology or "magic of the marketplace."
The current paradigm of privatization WILL give us Joy Rides For Billionaires in LEO
@InfiniteMushroom seriously mate, what's your obsession with USA politics? believe it or not, it's NOT all about you guys.
Regardless, the mechanism by which air travel became affordable is irrelevant. The fact is that it DID become affordable in under 90 years. You simply come across as arrogant asserting that there's no way a similar shift could occur simply because you cannot conceive how one might occur.
@BlueGlowingLight4 If you knew how things worked, you would not be so glib about the criminal malfeasance that accompanied all these ostensible blessings! When given a choice between the sanctity of the social contract and a short-sighted benefit, like cheap air travel, the social contract must ALWAYS be first. Maybe after you've lived a while and seen enough, you'd understand.
U.S. politics matter because WE are the NWO. Space WILL be reserved for Big Brother and Billionaire Joy Rides
@InfiniteMushroom While some of your comments are hyperbole, it is true that this society's penchant for litigation has made aviation crazy expensive, unless you can build your own.
@psycotria I love hyperbole and epic metaphors! They are very effective at saying the most with the fewest words. An important quality in a forum where one is only allowed 500 characters to comment.
@BlueGlowingLight4 I'll take U.K. politics more seriously when you guys elect Nigel Farage of the UKIP to be prime minister and give him a big fat majority in both houses of Parliament!
@InfiniteMushroom Politics has NOTHING to do with it. I'm not asking you to respect UK politics. I love the hypocrisy though, UKIP is against the EU but you seem quite happy to have a NWO so long as the USA is in charge. You wouldn't want Europe being a rival now would you.
But back to the topic of conversation, aircraft aren't the only examples. Cars, TV, phones and computes all started as necessities for governments and/or novelties for the wealthy but look at them now... (cont.)
(Cont.) I am a fairly poor student yet I own a car, a TV (although no license), a mobile phone and a laptop that would put any computer from the 60's to shame.
Technology advances regardless of the politics of any nation (no matter how self important they feel) and with these advances come inevitable changes to how we perceive/use the technology. I don't pretend to know how the future of space travel will unfold but i'll gladly point out that your defeatism has no solid foundation.
@BlueGlowingLight4 My parody of a U.S.-led NWO somehow didn't come across. I am AGAINST anything that weakens nation-state sovereignty and all the hard won economic rights of the early-mid 20th century.
That said, consumer products operate under different economic forces than space. Computers did go from an institutional application to a consumer one BUT, behind the falling prices are gargantuan negative social costs that computers have enabled i.e. offshoring of our industrial and textile base.
@BlueGlowingLight4 As for the EU being a competitor, our Power Elites were trying very hard to teach the EU how to collaborate on an imperial exercise in Libya! Trying to get the U.K., France, Germany, and Italy to coordinate their respective political and military forces towards one goal is like trying to herd cats together
The U.S. is dying from many political and economic cancers. Our elites are trying to get the EU to be the new imperial power that will defend their criminal enterprises
@InfiniteMushroom what part of my having no interest in discussing politics with you aren't you getting?
Also your utterly unclear 'parody' either shows you to be incredibly inept at conversing in a text format or dishonestly backpedalling, either way you're not helping your point. Neither does changing the subject btw.
You brushed over the cause of the shift making computers a consumer product, advancing technology. The various social implications are irrelevant for gauging if such a... (cont.)
(Cont.) ...shift might occur in the space industry. The chief cost in breaking orbit is the energy required, if in the coming decades a fusion reactor is made workable we should see a significant rise in our energy potential lowering the cost for achieving orbit.
There might be other avenues by which space flight could be made cheaper, many never considered. If such a shift happens it would likely bring with it its own social shifts which could be positive or negative depending on perspective.
@BlueGlowingLight4 "... There might be other avenues by which space flight could be made cheaper, many never considered. ..."
Building a space elevator, which is technologically on the horizon, is the only environmentally viable way of enabling space access for the masses. It all depends on civilization's continued balancing on the knife edge. Some would have us retreat into the Dark Ages through idiotic faith-based belief and dogma, however.
@psycotria reaching orbit isn't the only place where costs of space travel could be reduced, it's just the main one.
i agree the a Space Elevator could allow for large scale transit to orbit but it isn't the only way. We have no way of knowing what advances might occur over the next 90 years. some form of teleporter would make the SE look like a joke.
As for those who'd wish to regress, leave them to it, so long as they don't try to seize power they're not really a threat.
@BlueGlowingLight4 Very well, then. If you're satisfied with the popular understanding of progress, then so be it
As time goes on, what is technically feasible will fail to materialize and you'll always wonder why. Based on the technical curve established in the early 1970's, we should have manned Moon colonies and manmade structures on Mars by now.
You will never understand why it never happened UNTIL you explore the dark side of politics and the black evil of finance capital.
There will never be any space travel beyond LEO by privatized American space companies. Space will be reduced to a shameful joy ride for billionaires and spectacular feats of space-based advertising. The glory of discovery and national pride will be replaced by the filthy feel of commerce. A money-grubbing venture full of unsavory characters.
Only government can acquire the capital to go to the moon again. Unfortunately, the global debt pyramid scheme to finance such a venture is exhausted.
I guarantee our world will come to an end before we ever set foot on mars... my belief and please dont hate on it, is that the government and nasa have already been preparing the moon for colonization for years now. And its the ultimate back up plan for them for when shit hits the fan on earth. They have the money and the power to outlive us all. AND, the world will be out of resources by 2020 without a doubt...so maybe they will eat eachother. Definately will be eating nitrates for sure.
@techweenie1 Yes, because they seem to be unaware that America actually did go back, about 9 times...
We haven't gone back in decades, but that means we didn't go? That's just stupidity.... Why exactly would we go back, what was our incentive suppose to be?
@Kanoki989 nice generalization, so how many of the 500 million or so Europeans did you talk to in order to work out that it's more than a rare minority?
I mean really, heck I know a few guys who'd pretend to be nut's just to wind you up.
Incidentally where about in Europe were you? Each country has it's own unique national identity and some will probably have higher numbers of conspiracy nuts than others.
@BlueGlowingLight4 I worked out it's a more than a rare minority because that was based off of poll numbers you moron... Where are people like you speaking out against the generalization or America that is done by some Europeans? Oh yeah, there not referring to you so you don't give a shit. Pretend to be dumb for a poll, they're not faking, they're genuinely retarded...
@Kanoki989 ok, so it was a poll. That's not what you'd said but ok, i like how my few comments (and maybe my channel) has led you to conclusively conclude that I've never denounced generalization of groups other than my own.
So where was this poll taken? how many people were polled? who did the polling? was it an honest poll? was there a similar poll of the USA pop relating to the USSR being the first in space? (people are more prone to believing things that make them feel better after all.)
I think to have permanent present in space in low earth orbit is already fantastic achievement. Then, next step should be doing the same but on the moon. Then going on Mars. The further you go, more you need to be independant of the Earth supply! Currently ISS crew depends soo much on Earth supply!
@castronm69 I believe we have been to the moon. Its mainly because we have not been back in 40 years. Therefore, its imperative we go deeper and farther into space to shut up those conspiracy theotrists.
They make a mockery of the sacrifice of the Apollo astronauts.
Here's the facts: NASA launched ten Saturn V's and NONE failed. Every single one successfully completed its mission. The shuttle has completely failed twice, killing the crew both times. No asrronaut has died in a capsule/vertical stack launch. No cosmonaut either. The Russians had a luncher with Cosmonauts blow up, but the escape system worked and the crew survived.
The Russians could have easy covered up a launch disaster in the communist days though, but yeah rockets are waaaaay safer than the shuttle, which really was a deathtrap.
@SuperPHAG when he says Saturn V was better than the shuttle I think he refers to efficiency, not technological advance. Saturn V was a very efficient way to get there, a simple system (simple for a rocket) but only with one use. The Shuttle was a system that was partially recovered, leading of being used multiple times, but in terms of power or getting payload from A to B was inferior. Basically it traded off simplicity and efficiency for multiple use. Do i make any sense?
@Zamolxes77 because the shuttle can be reused over and over and carry payloads into low earth orbit which was what it was designed to do. also 1 in every 5 saturn v's failed. without the shuttle we wouldnt be where we are today with the iss and hubble etc. they couldnt have been achieved with a saturn design. the space transportation system (sts) for the noobs was not designed to take shit to the moon or mars, but it has been one of the most greatest technological thing ever made.
@SuperPHAG Both Saturn 5 and the shuttle were build with similar technology, like 5 years apart? My point was: Saturn 5 peak thrust 34 MN and 118 tones lift capacity to LEO. Shuttle peak thrust at 30 MN of thrust and 28 tonnes payload capacity, 25% of the Saturn 5. Saturn 5 wins, by a large margin in payload delivery. That's what this guy is trying to say when he mentions that Saturn 5 was so much better than Shuttle.
You are going to say this to the guy that just got the first commercial rocket into space.
Please explain why you think hes wrong?
The shuttle has many flaws. He explains this in the full interview. this is only part of the interview. The full interview is here in youtube. its about hour and thirty minutes long.
@trats20050 because the shuttle can be reused over and over and carry payloads into low earth orbit which was what it was designed to do. also 1 in every 5 saturn v's failed. without the shuttle we wouldnt be where we are today with the iss and hubble etc. they couldnt have been achieved with a saturn design. the space transportation system (sts) for the noobs was not designed to take shit to the moon or mars, but it has been one of the most greatest technological thing ever made.
Manned mission to Mars by 2020? It's near the end of 2010 and they've only just got a capsule to orbit earth and re-enter succesfully. Not that that isn't anything... just, it's following in the footsteps of what was done 50 years ago. Getting a man to Mars and back is new pioneer territory in terms of science... and then you have to factor in MONEY as well. This is a tall order. The US isn't interested; Russia is broke; China might pull something off but they haven't had a man on the moon yet.
Well that doesn't matter so much, when you realize it's possible to send a small amount up at a time, keep them at the ISS, then send up the reactor and fill it with the material.
I can imagine designing a reactor that could do that would be quiet a challange.
But the effects of a nuclear-powered VASIMR engine are AMAZING! It would make a lunar colony look like kids play, access to space would quickly become so easy.
@Eagle1Division2 Yes, it would be nice, but I think nuclear-powered rockets are politically impossible. At least for the moment. Did You know that Soviet planned to build nuclear-engined rockets and testfire them by letting them fall in big waterponds at the target? Sounds a bit risky...
@YDDES Sadly I'll have to agree on the first point.
Lol, kinda funny about the Russians. NASA has always been more sort of "elite" and such, but you gotta appreciate the Russian approach of just doing what works - like using a pencil in space instead of a super pen (Heard that story?).
Another thing about the Russians is they aren't so nuclear-phobic like the US is. A small nuke would solve our oil spill, nuclear power will solve our porblems, but our current legislation thinks Nukes are evil...
@Eagle1Division2 Yes, that NASA space-pen was in those days when money was flowing...
The soviets have been a little too frivolous about nuclear things. Their old nuclear submarines lying rusting in the open and so on. I don't think I would have liked them flying nuclear rockets or aeroplanes around the planet...
To me, this unites humanity with a single goal. The costs are great, but not so difficult if everyone on earth donates 25 cents. And with the internet these days and how campaigns can raise money, huge money, we can raise the money. To me, and I am 33 years old, this is the only donation that I could make that I could see tangible results from. And you don't know what it might yield. Mars may hold new materials and unlimited resources. I say we make a website and donate.
@unapologeticmind yeah but if you see it from another perspective. Instead of sending some more probes to Mars we could send a crew. Instead of building a base on our doorstep we could build on on Mars! We could find cures to diseases on Mars! More experiments are waiting on Mars!
Build a Saturn V with a 3rd stage using nuclear thermal propulsion. We could of done this 40 years ago before Elon was even born. World politics wasted our time.
@mergeform And, what if the rocket failed, and the nuclear stage fell down somewhere? Heard about the Soviet satellite with a nuclear reactor that crashed in Canada some decades ago? Luckily it fell in wasteland, but it took a long, hard work to find and pick up the deadliest pieces.
@YDDES Satillites carry nuclear material more than you'd think. In fact, all of the outer planetary probes had nuclear powerplants in the form of RTG's - Radioisotope Generators.
As for platinum, it would be a bit before the price fell - long enough to make a LOT of money selling the first batch or two.
@Eagle1Division2 Yes, nuclear isotopes are carried by probes and even the Lunar landers had them on board. But a whole nuclear reactor, capable to propel a spaceship, is a different thing. That's why both USA and Soviet terminated their nuclear rocketengine programs before actual flights.
It would never be profitable to bring back an asteroid in a manner it could be mined. It would cost trillions.
@mergeform We couldn't realistically have done it in the 70's. Had Von Braun had his way we would have done it in the 80's. The technology for a precision landing on mars was not available during the 70's. But that's the Apollo mindset that you have: we'll find a way. You are correct in saying that it was possible. It was possible in the 80's, it was possible in the 90's, it was possible during the 00's, and it is possible now. We just need someone commit.
@mergeform Poeple are passive creatures. Only when pressed with certain death do some of us start to use our brains extensively with most creative and logical vigor.
@aliciafb In some ways yes when elon said update it he ment it. The saturn V had and is the basis of a truely awesome launch vehicle. Its what everyone who wants a heavy lift emulates. An upgrades saturn V could put almost 300,000lbs into LEO or almost 6 times that of the orbiter (Space shuttle).
Consider the russians have basicly just updated their launchers. THAT is intelligent instead of trying to Jump 20yrs every decade and then canceling like we do.
@valcan321 The Russians have VERY limited payload capabilities- essentially nothing more massive than a soyuz spacecraft. Saturn V's were incredibly expensive and a launch vehicle made using some of the technologies developed for the space shuttle combined with technologies from the Saturn V (like the Jupiter Direct launch vehicle- look it up) would be much more cost effective and capable. That would not use technology 20 years ahead of us, and that is what NASA is doing.
@AurorusTech You mean direct? So your telling me your gonna use the same tech SRB, etc that helped make the shuttle a nightmare and force that as a launcher.
Remember part of the reason the shuttle was so expensive was the enourmous amount of people required to launch her 50k per launch. The huge boosters required a huge vehicle to carry them and cant be shut off.
I hope you can do it but i also hope you dont drive the COTS people away. Hopefully its not robbing peter to pay paul so to speak.
@valcan321 I know what you mean when you say that SRBs have their issues, but for a heavy lift launch vehicle that can launch over 100 tons of payload using existing technology and not cost too much to develop or use, SRBs, combined with SSMEs and J-2Xs provide the best option. The heavy lift vehicle wouldn't even carry humans, only cargo. The issues that caused the SRBs to explode in the Challenger incident have been corrected.
@valcan321 Also, the COTS companies are only developing smaller capacity vehicles for orbital resupply and manned transport. The Falcon 9 series does have a few possible heavy lift configurations that would make it pretty close to Direct in terms of payload capacity, but it will be a while before the Falcon series is that developed. Direct is more capable than any of the projected Falcon configurations (for super-heavy lift operations in the near future- Falcons are great for lighter payloads)
@valcan321 Sorry, but one last thing, by allowing NASA to develop it's own heavy lift vehicle, we allow it to push the boundaries of space exploration. NASA's entire budget should not be devoted to helping private companies develop orbital transports. Those companies are capable of handling almost all of their own funding needs- they are PRIVATE after all. SpaceX is already well on its way to providing orbital transportation. NASA needs it's funds to carry out the more difficult work.
Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
Saying the Shuttle was a mistake is kinda...lacking an understanding of history. The Shuttle was build for low-orbit to transport AND RETRIEVE space weapons up there.
The UDSSR did the same with the Buran.
It was crucial to be able to retrieve nuclear weapons and not let them burn up in the atmosphere, something the rocket design wasn't able to do.
Today, yea, we don't need that anymore, and so, in retrospective, we can say it was a mistake. But in historical context, it was not.
I don't think people put enough thought into how amazing it was to get to the Moon way back in '69. That was the biggest engineering push in history, and not a single man died on any of those missions. If I were to write a book counting down reasons to be proud of being human, that would be #1. Mars should be easy by now.
i think earth is not the right place to make very long distance travel shuttles but if we could make one in space we could make it huge and able to carry enough air food and water to go to mars its very possible and stuff to do
The funds required for a mission need to be acquired. Whether a private company or an agency like NASA do it, there will always be a 10-year window. It's just a deadline.
Also, in order for there to be a manned mission, you need a few missions prior to that to take place. for a safe journey.
Elon Musk should talk to Dr. Robert Zubrin !! And make this happen !! Yes get to Mars by 2020 !! Alas you will need a Ares V to get the rocket to low Earth orbit. Read "The case for Mars" ! And Constellation has been cancelled !! So wrong !
BLA BLA BLA BLA.
nicolaiesorin 6 days ago
Turning nuclear missiles into manned rockets... Thats what we should've been doing for the last fifty years.
helljumpr5150 2 weeks ago
@helljumpr5150 uh thats what we've been doing. Atlas Titan R-7 Proton Soyez
venku1222 2 weeks ago
I am very happy to see the vidoe SpaceX CEO Bets Manned Mission from you, hopefully the others also are happy for You
Ondelendo 3 weeks ago
I Love The Video SpaceX CEO Bets Manned Mission to Mars It Can Increase My Knowledge
bebeheuy 3 weeks ago
Nice Video SpaceX CEO Bets Manned Mission That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You
willamricard 3 weeks ago
I Really Like The Video SpaceX CEO Bets Manned Mission to Mars From Your
imegatrone 3 weeks ago
Your Video SpaceX CEO Bets Manned Mission to Mars Is Very Useful Sharing
bundawartini 3 weeks ago
now im going to probably be the first here but to go to mars is kind of an urgent thing (making mass effect refrence) in the game mass effect (i know this probably means nothing but) they discovered on mars technological artifacts that advanced the science 200+ years. now if there really was anything on mars i think that would be worth finding think by 2030 we could be visiting other areas of the milky way possibly finding more alien life many many possibilites
JRhalo14 1 month ago
Hey guys I have the real constellation animation about the Mission to Mars on my profile. Please share it with everyone you know! Support our manned space program!
Sincerely , Energyscience
energyscience 2 months ago
Problem is coming back from Mars, Nasa set up the idea that they would send people to mars to colonize it, because of its atmosphere you would need another "Saturn 5" to actually relaunch from Mars to head home to earth, that's quite a big rocket to send there & back.
PETE4REALITY 3 months ago
"Forget about the moon, Let's go for Mars!" - Buzz Aldrin
burnmehdown214 4 months ago
ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah
plague1313 4 months ago
Christopher Columbus of the new century!!
magicznyrafal 4 months ago
2:27, he's saying that he was surprised that NASA has nothing on mars. His ultimate goal for spacex is going to mars, and there is also not a single thing on the spacex website on when or how they might go to mars.
Neoli2300 4 months ago
I think its funny that spacex goal is to land humans on mars, and then colonize it. They have very little information on how they plan on doing this, if they are going to set up a test-bed on the moon, and the only thing telling us when, is "best case 10 years, worst case 15-20 years"... Elon musk, c'mon couz, give us some mission animations
Neoli2300 4 months ago
@Neoli2300 Kennedy said "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth" Now, he did give a time line but he made no mention of how to do it, except that it will be expensive. "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish."
sklaterjd 2 months ago
Prima! Sein Scheib will macht ein taetig Raumgesselschaft. Haben Sie Raumfuehrerschein und wo ist sein Aktienabzeichen?
prittwitz1 4 months ago
Yet another example of how even one of the government's most efficient and effective programs (relatively speaking) is having it ass handed to it by a company.
Monsmak 4 months ago
run that by me again... nasa lost the plans for the saturn v ...haha what!??
firstamendright 5 months ago
ask yourself this
if its possible for man to travel to mars and moon
why isn't it possible for "things" on other planets to travel to earth?
19OperationGetRich97 5 months ago
Smart guy...bad,speaker
larful123 5 months ago
Falcon Heavy will be the monster,but not even close to the SLS.
Darko2625 5 months ago
God bless our species... and Space X
nitroxide2011 5 months ago 14
@nitroxide2011 god blessed our species with spacex
Neoli2300 4 months ago
@Neoli2300 exactly
nitroxide2011 4 months ago
@nitroxide2011 yeah! ^^ apes won ! we're the smartest ! ^^
machinmanidol2 3 months ago
@nitroxide2011 uhh what?
nitroxide2011 3 months ago
Getting there is one thing, but how do they get back? lol
theRealAnonymousRain 5 months ago
@theRealAnonymousRain another 6 months in the space ship lol... but NASA keeps saying of how a trip to Mars should be a one way trip to make a little base.
nitroxide2011 5 months ago
im so glad we may land on mars in my lifetime.
MrJaysChannel 6 months ago
"we'll try", that is all we need for future human explorations.
asutn 6 months ago
Musk and and Robert Zubrin should team up and do the mars direct project through SpaceX. We could easily be there by 2020 or earlier! I know its not that simple but Musk and Zubrin seem to have the same vision and passion about exploration and who knows maybe they could make it that simple. I just hope that we get there soon!
ChrisJS1987 6 months ago
Optimistic but impossible giving its 9 years from now!!
mysticarabknight 6 months ago
@mysticarabknight thats what every one said when kennedy told em to go to the moon X) 9 years later ... moon moon ! XD
KingWilliamMB 6 months ago
maybe they should ask to borrow luke skywalkers ship
4LeafCloverSa 6 months ago
I FUCKING LOVE CAPITALISM!!!!!
BrettDunbar 6 months ago
2037 we should see men on mars
95Arsenalgunners 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Saturn V was a great rocket, but its success rate was pretty bad....
LegosPL0X 7 months ago
Comment removed
LegosPL0X 7 months ago
A vehicle that could land humans on Mars, a far deeper gravity well than the moon, and return them to orbit would have to be massive just to carry the fuel needed. It would have to soft land without damage and launch without the assistance of a launch pad or Fed-Ex for overnight parts delivery (Try that with a space shuttle-not). Since the Millennium Falcon is pure fantasy, NO WAY this happens by 2020. A one way trip? Might as well just swap out a rover with a corpse and get it over with.
321RCHeli 7 months ago
@321RCHeli These are all problems that coul be solved with extra fuel tanks launched into martian orbit, a dedicated return vehical with redundency and built in launch pad (really? The LEM fixed that almost 50 years ago), and less than one year's worth of the Afghan war budget. If we really want to do it, I think we certainly could.
monokhem 7 months ago
@321RCHeli We should go to Mars. But not to research, but to stay.
LesPaul2006 7 months ago
@321RCHeli "A vehicle that could land humans on Mars, a far deeper gravity well than the moon, and return them to orbit would have to be massive just to carry the fuel needed"
It's probably technically feasible (ignoring cost) with current technologies.
To get there with a sensible budget and time frame I agree the fuel is the limiting factor.
Is it too soon to suggest a high temperature gas cooled thorium fission reactor? Could weigh less than fuel tanks.
ImMichaelTaylor 7 months ago
@ImMichaelTaylor
VASMIR powed rocket the way to go. earth to mars in 40 days. currently scheduled to test at ISS on 2014
mysticarabknight 6 months ago
@mysticarabknight "VASMIR" is more efficient, but doesn't have anything like the power to lift off from earth.
The one they're testing on ISS uses only a fraction of the reaction mass of a normal rocket, but it also produces only a fraction of the thrust per kg of engine. The ISS test will be 300kg and produce about 5 N of thrust from 200Kw of power. 5 N is enough to lift about two ounces against earth gravity.
Useful once in space, but needs a different rocket to get 'up' there.
ImMichaelTaylor 6 months ago
@ImMichaelTaylor Yeah your right. the vasmir rocket only works in the vacuum of space. so it can only be used to get to mars and not to takeoff from earth. they can use a heavy duty rocket for that like the Russian soyez. although maybe they can attached a scram-jet engine to escape earths atmosphere? Although the scram-jet needs air so it wont wont once they are in space. but perhaps they can then switch a vehicle with the Vasmir rocket.
mysticarabknight 6 months ago
@mysticarabknight If a manned mars mission started today I think it would be something like that.
They'd use a rocket burning about a thousand tonnes of oxygen/kerosene in a couple of minutes to reach orbit, then use a very efficient one (like a vasmir type) to burn for a month or so on a small amount of fuel to accelerate to mars.
Using air breathing engines for the first part only saves a bit (with current designs). You save oxygen but need extra hardware, so still pretty heavy.
ImMichaelTaylor 6 months ago
@mysticarabknight Soyuz rockets are not even close to the capacity required for a Mars mission. A scramjet attached to a rocket that produces no aerodynamic lift and cannot maintain a less inclined flight path would do essentially nothing good, just add weight. Scramjets are INCREDIBLY difficult to develop and work with- many programs have been cancelled because of them. Nuclear thermal rockets or advanced chemical rockets are best suited for conventional rockets.
AurorusTech 6 months ago
@mysticarabknight VASIMR requires an ENORMOUS power source (BIG nuclear reactor) to achieve a 39-day earth-mars transit. It is still under development as well. While it shows great potential, a nuclear thermal rocket engine would be best suited for the interplanetary transit vehicle in the near future because it would be somewhat easier to develop (Project NERVA already did a lot of the work) and would require no enormous power source without precedent.
AurorusTech 6 months ago
@ImMichaelTaylor The ISS unit is not installed yet. It will be a few more years. Currently, a different engine is being tested in a vacuum chamber.
AurorusTech 6 months ago
@mysticarabknight VASIMR requires an enormous nuclear reactor to get there that quickly. With current technology, a reactor of necessary power output would be so heavy that it would eliminate any performance gains over lower power operations, while increasing cost and reducing payload. VASIMR is a wonderful engine, but 39 day transits between Earth and Mars will not be feasible for quite some time.
AurorusTech 6 months ago
I'm really excited by this and deeply inspired by musk. He's a really great example of a way for someone to spend their billions and use their brains. I hope one day i get to meet him.
jimfoshea 6 months ago
Some centurys from now - possibly . . .
(An average family house)
"Honey, do u want to go to mars for this year's family holiday?"
"Again?"
Nanotech92 7 months ago 24
@Nanotech92 A very rich family, maybe.
rocaho001 4 months ago
@rocaho001 Yer, probably. but we've already got space hotels thats like 4 million to go there, so the prices for that are bowing to reduce a lot in the next 50, 100, or a few hundred years to suit average people range. an if we ever do go back to the moon we porbably cud go there for a holiday, but mars won't be for another 6 hundred years, or even longer
Nanotech92 4 months ago
@Nanotech92 In 50 years not much will change. Look at the last 10 years, did much change? Technology wise on earth it'll change, space is a lot more complicated.
rocaho001 4 months ago
@rocaho001 I know space is complicated. Which is whyy I'm sayin it will take hundreds or years, at this rate, But too be honest, need to sort out our own planet before we bugger off to another 1
Nanotech92 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear mister Elon,just say how to do it. I would like to know.
Darko2625 7 months ago
Dear mister Elon,just say how you think tobdoni
Darko2625 7 months ago
Not that i think it's a bad idea wouldn't we need to create a atmosphere on mars before people can walk the red planet. The only way i can see that happening is if we able to melt there polar ice caps with nuclear bombs and still thats very limited what about plants animals to live on the planet what i'm saying is you need to be able to make it worth humankinds worth to go there.
SteveAust9 7 months ago
@SteveAust9
The atmosphere on mars will be blown away by cosmic and solar rays over time. You cant balance a atmosphere on mars. I simply know that, but perhaps it is possible to manufacture plants that turns nitrogen into oxygen of carbon dioxide into oxygen.
Maybe you can create a pure oxygen atmosphere which balance of the atmosphere is supported by the plants. But a atmosphere on mars can never be naturally stable. With pure oxygen, you might create a dense enough atmosphere.
Armigo91 7 months ago
@Armigo91 And earth will die in time too... doesnt stop us living here in the mean time.. its a question of how fast mars would loose its atmosphere...humans could live there a lng time before that needs to be a worry... and in time new technology might solve that problem
OtagoMark 7 months ago
pure oxygen is not hazardous. As long as its density equals the density of oxygen in out atmosphere. which is about 21% and if pure oxygen its rougly 1/5th the atmospheric pressure. Of which percentage humans can take even less oxygen just to survive. Humans can survive and do labor if conditioned at altitudes of 10.000feet. Which equals 7.2kpa. Meaning theres 3times less oxygen compared to the 21% at sea level. meaning that humans could survive with a pure oxygen atmosphere at roughly 7% earths
Armigo91 7 months ago
@Armigo91 Would I be able to light up a cigarette in a pure oxygen atmosphere without blowing up?
LesPaul2006 7 months ago
atmosphere.
Completely terraforming of mars cant be dont. unless you supply the planets core with iron, as much matter of it compared to the mass of a planet like mercury.
Only then mars will meet the requirements to creates its own natural balance. And its impossible to supply mars with these resources unless we have the power to pull planets asteroids and moons out of orbit. And we can barely send a washing machine to the lunar surface, let alone rocketing a planet into a preferred orbit.
Armigo91 7 months ago
@Armigo91 Ok thanks i know mars har polar ice caps what does that mean in the future for creating sutainable life on mars i personally think if you want to get humans intrested in space exploration they need to belive it's possible to live on another planet, otherwise the big money of the world will not put money into a project this big.
SteveAust9 7 months ago
@Armigo91 Ok thanks i know mars har polar ice caps what does that mean in the future for creating sutainable life on mars i personally think if you want to get humans intrested in space exploration they need to belive it's possible to live on another planet, otherwise the big money of the world will not put money into a project this big. would it be possible to create a genisis probe somthing when it hits the atmosphere will start generating new life it could just be some kind of bacteria.
SteveAust9 7 months ago
I wouldn't go to mars in a box that didn't have an engine that can run anytime you want for as long as you want!! Plus who says you will B allowed if you get my drift?
Too many electric vehicles running around to bother with that nonsense!!
theantiredneck 8 months ago
You can see human debit and footprints left behind on the moon from Earth bound telescopes. Google it.
repfreedomforce 9 months ago
an inspiring person, thank you
RayDandy 9 months ago
Feast your eyes as we witness the next type of industrial revolution. More than even the technological revolution. No more common place thinking after we colonize the moon!!!
marcusmars5000 9 months ago
There will never be any space travel beyond LEO by privatized American space companies. Space will be reduced to a shameful joy ride for billionaires and spectacular feats of space-based advertising. The glory of discovery and national pride will be replaced by the filthy feel of commerce. A money-grubbing venture full of unsavory characters.
Only government can acquire the capital to go to the moon again. Unfortunately, the global debt pyramid scheme to finance such a venture is exhausted.
InfiniteMushroom 9 months ago
@InfiniteMushroom I'm sure int the 20's and 30's people said similar things about flying in those airplanes and zeppelins. Sure only the reasonably wealthy can afford to own these aircraft but the use of them has come down in price over the decades.
It's a defeatist mentality that leads to comments like yours.
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 I don't think you realize what you just said. Private aircraft is EVEN MORE SO a rich man's toy! It used to be that private aircraft was within reach of the middle class 40+ years ago, thanks to FAA support in those days.
The Think Tanks decided it was time to get the Little People out of the air. A class war was waged on General Aviation via product liability lawsuits. Baseless charges that shut down private aviation and priced the American People out of the air.
InfiniteMushroom 9 months ago
@InfiniteMushroom you're missing my point. back then most of the people flying around in the skies were either really rich or worked for some government or other. Note i'm talking about the 20's and 30's not the 60's and 70's btw.
and i wasn't talking about owning the aircraft personally. I could book a seat on a plane from Edinburgh to Brussels tonight and be there by tomorrow evening if i was willing to wait a week i could get a cheaper seat. The point i'm making is that in the 20's... (cont.)
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
(Cont.) ...some doomsayer like yourself was likely telling everyone who'd listen how only the super rich would be able to travel across the continent because they'd push the prices up so that the poor can't travel.
there is no reason to think that 90 years from now we can't have seen a shift in that someone could afford to visit the moon as I can visit Brussels.
Simply put your comment that space will become a "joy ride for billionaires" has no backing other than your assertion.
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 Wow, you REALLY don't understand how the macro-economy works. By the art of mystification and lies, we are taught to glorify forces we don't understand.
Air travel became "cheap" by Carter's deregulation fiasco, which led to financial debt games, degraded service quality, and rape of labor in the airline industry. Not by any wonderful manifestation of technology or "magic of the marketplace."
The current paradigm of privatization WILL give us Joy Rides For Billionaires in LEO
InfiniteMushroom 9 months ago
@InfiniteMushroom seriously mate, what's your obsession with USA politics? believe it or not, it's NOT all about you guys.
Regardless, the mechanism by which air travel became affordable is irrelevant. The fact is that it DID become affordable in under 90 years. You simply come across as arrogant asserting that there's no way a similar shift could occur simply because you cannot conceive how one might occur.
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 If you knew how things worked, you would not be so glib about the criminal malfeasance that accompanied all these ostensible blessings! When given a choice between the sanctity of the social contract and a short-sighted benefit, like cheap air travel, the social contract must ALWAYS be first. Maybe after you've lived a while and seen enough, you'd understand.
U.S. politics matter because WE are the NWO. Space WILL be reserved for Big Brother and Billionaire Joy Rides
InfiniteMushroom 9 months ago
@InfiniteMushroom While some of your comments are hyperbole, it is true that this society's penchant for litigation has made aviation crazy expensive, unless you can build your own.
psycotria 8 months ago
@psycotria I love hyperbole and epic metaphors! They are very effective at saying the most with the fewest words. An important quality in a forum where one is only allowed 500 characters to comment.
InfiniteMushroom 8 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 I'll take U.K. politics more seriously when you guys elect Nigel Farage of the UKIP to be prime minister and give him a big fat majority in both houses of Parliament!
InfiniteMushroom 9 months ago
@InfiniteMushroom Politics has NOTHING to do with it. I'm not asking you to respect UK politics. I love the hypocrisy though, UKIP is against the EU but you seem quite happy to have a NWO so long as the USA is in charge. You wouldn't want Europe being a rival now would you.
But back to the topic of conversation, aircraft aren't the only examples. Cars, TV, phones and computes all started as necessities for governments and/or novelties for the wealthy but look at them now... (cont.)
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
(Cont.) I am a fairly poor student yet I own a car, a TV (although no license), a mobile phone and a laptop that would put any computer from the 60's to shame.
Technology advances regardless of the politics of any nation (no matter how self important they feel) and with these advances come inevitable changes to how we perceive/use the technology. I don't pretend to know how the future of space travel will unfold but i'll gladly point out that your defeatism has no solid foundation.
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 My parody of a U.S.-led NWO somehow didn't come across. I am AGAINST anything that weakens nation-state sovereignty and all the hard won economic rights of the early-mid 20th century.
That said, consumer products operate under different economic forces than space. Computers did go from an institutional application to a consumer one BUT, behind the falling prices are gargantuan negative social costs that computers have enabled i.e. offshoring of our industrial and textile base.
InfiniteMushroom 9 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 As for the EU being a competitor, our Power Elites were trying very hard to teach the EU how to collaborate on an imperial exercise in Libya! Trying to get the U.K., France, Germany, and Italy to coordinate their respective political and military forces towards one goal is like trying to herd cats together
The U.S. is dying from many political and economic cancers. Our elites are trying to get the EU to be the new imperial power that will defend their criminal enterprises
InfiniteMushroom 9 months ago
@InfiniteMushroom what part of my having no interest in discussing politics with you aren't you getting?
Also your utterly unclear 'parody' either shows you to be incredibly inept at conversing in a text format or dishonestly backpedalling, either way you're not helping your point. Neither does changing the subject btw.
You brushed over the cause of the shift making computers a consumer product, advancing technology. The various social implications are irrelevant for gauging if such a... (cont.)
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
(Cont.) ...shift might occur in the space industry. The chief cost in breaking orbit is the energy required, if in the coming decades a fusion reactor is made workable we should see a significant rise in our energy potential lowering the cost for achieving orbit.
There might be other avenues by which space flight could be made cheaper, many never considered. If such a shift happens it would likely bring with it its own social shifts which could be positive or negative depending on perspective.
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 "... There might be other avenues by which space flight could be made cheaper, many never considered. ..."
Building a space elevator, which is technologically on the horizon, is the only environmentally viable way of enabling space access for the masses. It all depends on civilization's continued balancing on the knife edge. Some would have us retreat into the Dark Ages through idiotic faith-based belief and dogma, however.
psycotria 8 months ago
@psycotria reaching orbit isn't the only place where costs of space travel could be reduced, it's just the main one.
i agree the a Space Elevator could allow for large scale transit to orbit but it isn't the only way. We have no way of knowing what advances might occur over the next 90 years. some form of teleporter would make the SE look like a joke.
As for those who'd wish to regress, leave them to it, so long as they don't try to seize power they're not really a threat.
BlueGlowingLight4 8 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 Very well, then. If you're satisfied with the popular understanding of progress, then so be it
As time goes on, what is technically feasible will fail to materialize and you'll always wonder why. Based on the technical curve established in the early 1970's, we should have manned Moon colonies and manmade structures on Mars by now.
You will never understand why it never happened UNTIL you explore the dark side of politics and the black evil of finance capital.
InfiniteMushroom 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There will never be any space travel beyond LEO by privatized American space companies. Space will be reduced to a shameful joy ride for billionaires and spectacular feats of space-based advertising. The glory of discovery and national pride will be replaced by the filthy feel of commerce. A money-grubbing venture full of unsavory characters.
Only government can acquire the capital to go to the moon again. Unfortunately, the global debt pyramid scheme to finance such a venture is exhausted.
InfiniteMushroom 9 months ago
I guarantee our world will come to an end before we ever set foot on mars... my belief and please dont hate on it, is that the government and nasa have already been preparing the moon for colonization for years now. And its the ultimate back up plan for them for when shit hits the fan on earth. They have the money and the power to outlive us all. AND, the world will be out of resources by 2020 without a doubt...so maybe they will eat eachother. Definately will be eating nitrates for sure.
iLLUMiNATiONRECORDz 9 months ago
Go for it man, you're my hero!
MrBranboom 9 months ago
i dont get how you can lose the blue prints for something as monumental as the Saturn V. its baffling.
detibry 10 months ago
@detibry
The Saturn V blueprints have NOT been lost.
They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm.
The lost blueprints crap is just another urban myth. Please don't be mislead. =)
KKM121 10 months ago
I went to Europe and some people thinks that America hasn't even gone to the moon yet... It's really annoying >.>'
Kanoki989 10 months ago
@Kanoki989 Well when we haven't gone back in nearly 40 years, can you blame them?
techweenie1 10 months ago
@techweenie1 Yes, because they seem to be unaware that America actually did go back, about 9 times...
We haven't gone back in decades, but that means we didn't go? That's just stupidity.... Why exactly would we go back, what was our incentive suppose to be?
Kanoki989 9 months ago
@Kanoki989 Mate, they're called conspiracy nuts and they crop up everywhere.
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 But in Europe it's far more than a rare minority, it's a big part of the populations >.>'
Kanoki989 9 months ago
@Kanoki989 nice generalization, so how many of the 500 million or so Europeans did you talk to in order to work out that it's more than a rare minority?
I mean really, heck I know a few guys who'd pretend to be nut's just to wind you up.
Incidentally where about in Europe were you? Each country has it's own unique national identity and some will probably have higher numbers of conspiracy nuts than others.
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
@BlueGlowingLight4 I worked out it's a more than a rare minority because that was based off of poll numbers you moron... Where are people like you speaking out against the generalization or America that is done by some Europeans? Oh yeah, there not referring to you so you don't give a shit. Pretend to be dumb for a poll, they're not faking, they're genuinely retarded...
Kanoki989 9 months ago
@Kanoki989 ok, so it was a poll. That's not what you'd said but ok, i like how my few comments (and maybe my channel) has led you to conclusively conclude that I've never denounced generalization of groups other than my own.
So where was this poll taken? how many people were polled? who did the polling? was it an honest poll? was there a similar poll of the USA pop relating to the USSR being the first in space? (people are more prone to believing things that make them feel better after all.)
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
Elton Musk although clearly a very shrewd and intelligent man is way off the mark if he thinks humans are gonna be setting fooot on Mars by 2020 ?
Hope he is right as I'd love to see it but, he is highly optimistic to think he can fix it for 2020.
DeejayDREAM 10 months ago
At the rate goverments go with it, I'd be more willing to bet an X-prize foundation gets to mars first.
luketorpedo 10 months ago
I think to have permanent present in space in low earth orbit is already fantastic achievement. Then, next step should be doing the same but on the moon. Then going on Mars. The further you go, more you need to be independant of the Earth supply! Currently ISS crew depends soo much on Earth supply!
fcycles 11 months ago
and there are still idiots who think that we havent gone to the moon yet.....
castronm69 11 months ago 75
@castronm69
And once we get to Mars, there will be idiots who'll believe THAT'S fake.
DemoticVEVO 9 months ago
@castronm69
those idiots after 2020 will be claiming that Mars landing also is fake
mrdexter86 9 months ago
@castronm69 haha i know
Topaz997235 7 months ago
@castronm69 What they think is that....HAY i did not see any stars WE DID NOT GO TO THE MOON!
what they don't know is that the cam they had could not show stars. they where not powerful to show them.
mattstorm360 6 months ago
@castronm69 I believe we have been to the moon. Its mainly because we have not been back in 40 years. Therefore, its imperative we go deeper and farther into space to shut up those conspiracy theotrists.
They make a mockery of the sacrifice of the Apollo astronauts.
pluto4847 5 months ago
That host is so fucking annoying.
jack10133 1 year ago
Here's the facts: NASA launched ten Saturn V's and NONE failed. Every single one successfully completed its mission. The shuttle has completely failed twice, killing the crew both times. No asrronaut has died in a capsule/vertical stack launch. No cosmonaut either. The Russians had a luncher with Cosmonauts blow up, but the escape system worked and the crew survived.
amparion1 1 year ago
@amparion1 except apollo 1
12345678994776 11 months ago
@amparion1
The Russians could have easy covered up a launch disaster in the communist days though, but yeah rockets are waaaaay safer than the shuttle, which really was a deathtrap.
DeejayDREAM 10 months ago
that guy is fucking retarded, to say that the saturn v was better than the shuttle is honestly sad. go learn your shit
SuperPHAG 1 year ago
@SuperPHAG when he says Saturn V was better than the shuttle I think he refers to efficiency, not technological advance. Saturn V was a very efficient way to get there, a simple system (simple for a rocket) but only with one use. The Shuttle was a system that was partially recovered, leading of being used multiple times, but in terms of power or getting payload from A to B was inferior. Basically it traded off simplicity and efficiency for multiple use. Do i make any sense?
Zamolxes77 1 year ago
@Zamolxes77 because the shuttle can be reused over and over and carry payloads into low earth orbit which was what it was designed to do. also 1 in every 5 saturn v's failed. without the shuttle we wouldnt be where we are today with the iss and hubble etc. they couldnt have been achieved with a saturn design. the space transportation system (sts) for the noobs was not designed to take shit to the moon or mars, but it has been one of the most greatest technological thing ever made.
SuperPHAG 1 year ago
@SuperPHAG Both Saturn 5 and the shuttle were build with similar technology, like 5 years apart? My point was: Saturn 5 peak thrust 34 MN and 118 tones lift capacity to LEO. Shuttle peak thrust at 30 MN of thrust and 28 tonnes payload capacity, 25% of the Saturn 5. Saturn 5 wins, by a large margin in payload delivery. That's what this guy is trying to say when he mentions that Saturn 5 was so much better than Shuttle.
Zamolxes77 1 year ago
@SuperPHAG
You are going to say this to the guy that just got the first commercial rocket into space.
Please explain why you think hes wrong?
The shuttle has many flaws. He explains this in the full interview. this is only part of the interview. The full interview is here in youtube. its about hour and thirty minutes long.
trats20050 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trats20050 because the shuttle can be reused over and over and carry payloads into low earth orbit which was what it was designed to do. also 1 in every 5 saturn v's failed. without the shuttle we wouldnt be where we are today with the iss and hubble etc. they couldnt have been achieved with a saturn design. the space transportation system (sts) for the noobs was not designed to take shit to the moon or mars, but it has been one of the most greatest technological thing ever made.
SuperPHAG 1 year ago
Manned mission to Mars by 2020? It's near the end of 2010 and they've only just got a capsule to orbit earth and re-enter succesfully. Not that that isn't anything... just, it's following in the footsteps of what was done 50 years ago. Getting a man to Mars and back is new pioneer territory in terms of science... and then you have to factor in MONEY as well. This is a tall order. The US isn't interested; Russia is broke; China might pull something off but they haven't had a man on the moon yet.
tom77092 1 year ago
@tom77092 technically he didn't say "...and back"
just sayin'
BlueGlowingLight4 9 months ago
first man on mars: ME =D
mattstorm360 1 year ago
Well that doesn't matter so much, when you realize it's possible to send a small amount up at a time, keep them at the ISS, then send up the reactor and fill it with the material.
I can imagine designing a reactor that could do that would be quiet a challange.
But the effects of a nuclear-powered VASIMR engine are AMAZING! It would make a lunar colony look like kids play, access to space would quickly become so easy.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 Yes, it would be nice, but I think nuclear-powered rockets are politically impossible. At least for the moment. Did You know that Soviet planned to build nuclear-engined rockets and testfire them by letting them fall in big waterponds at the target? Sounds a bit risky...
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES Sadly I'll have to agree on the first point.
Lol, kinda funny about the Russians. NASA has always been more sort of "elite" and such, but you gotta appreciate the Russian approach of just doing what works - like using a pencil in space instead of a super pen (Heard that story?).
Another thing about the Russians is they aren't so nuclear-phobic like the US is. A small nuke would solve our oil spill, nuclear power will solve our porblems, but our current legislation thinks Nukes are evil...
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 Yes, that NASA space-pen was in those days when money was flowing...
The soviets have been a little too frivolous about nuclear things. Their old nuclear submarines lying rusting in the open and so on. I don't think I would have liked them flying nuclear rockets or aeroplanes around the planet...
YDDES 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 that space-pen story is an urban legend
Hairysteed 1 year ago
To me, this unites humanity with a single goal. The costs are great, but not so difficult if everyone on earth donates 25 cents. And with the internet these days and how campaigns can raise money, huge money, we can raise the money. To me, and I am 33 years old, this is the only donation that I could make that I could see tangible results from. And you don't know what it might yield. Mars may hold new materials and unlimited resources. I say we make a website and donate.
Saligubung 1 year ago
@Saligubung you are typical leftie ... obsessed with other peoples money
ww2footage 1 year ago
@ww2footage
How else would you propose funding a mission like this
Saligubung 1 year ago
A manned mission to Mars would be the ultimate waste of money.
For that kind of money you could:
* Fund development of new propulsion technologies.
* Send construction robots to the Moon to build a base for future astronauts.
* Send drill robots to the surface of Europa.
* Send more Mars exploration rovers.
* Explore the composition of an asteroid.
* Perform some vital scientific experiments in space
...and still have spare change for some more stuff!
unapologeticmind 1 year ago
@unapologeticmind yeah but if you see it from another perspective. Instead of sending some more probes to Mars we could send a crew. Instead of building a base on our doorstep we could build on on Mars! We could find cures to diseases on Mars! More experiments are waiting on Mars!
hawkmoth11 1 year ago
Go on a mission to the asteroid belt and find the platinum asteroid worth trillions of dollars before China does it for laughing rights.
mergeform 1 year ago
@mergeform What would You do with all that platinum, if You found any? It would just make platinum cheaper than iron.
YDDES 1 year ago
Build a Saturn V with a 3rd stage using nuclear thermal propulsion. We could of done this 40 years ago before Elon was even born. World politics wasted our time.
mergeform 1 year ago 45
@mergeform And, what if the rocket failed, and the nuclear stage fell down somewhere? Heard about the Soviet satellite with a nuclear reactor that crashed in Canada some decades ago? Luckily it fell in wasteland, but it took a long, hard work to find and pick up the deadliest pieces.
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES Satillites carry nuclear material more than you'd think. In fact, all of the outer planetary probes had nuclear powerplants in the form of RTG's - Radioisotope Generators.
As for platinum, it would be a bit before the price fell - long enough to make a LOT of money selling the first batch or two.
Eagle1Division2 1 year ago
@Eagle1Division2 Yes, nuclear isotopes are carried by probes and even the Lunar landers had them on board. But a whole nuclear reactor, capable to propel a spaceship, is a different thing. That's why both USA and Soviet terminated their nuclear rocketengine programs before actual flights.
It would never be profitable to bring back an asteroid in a manner it could be mined. It would cost trillions.
YDDES 1 year ago
@mergeform We couldn't realistically have done it in the 70's. Had Von Braun had his way we would have done it in the 80's. The technology for a precision landing on mars was not available during the 70's. But that's the Apollo mindset that you have: we'll find a way. You are correct in saying that it was possible. It was possible in the 80's, it was possible in the 90's, it was possible during the 00's, and it is possible now. We just need someone commit.
tlages 7 months ago
@mergeform Poeple are passive creatures. Only when pressed with certain death do some of us start to use our brains extensively with most creative and logical vigor.
sourmanofcoal 7 months ago
@mergeform ...and then how do they get back? The saturn V was never designed to go to mars. Not to mention, it is old out of date technology.
aliciafb 6 months ago
@aliciafb In some ways yes when elon said update it he ment it. The saturn V had and is the basis of a truely awesome launch vehicle. Its what everyone who wants a heavy lift emulates. An upgrades saturn V could put almost 300,000lbs into LEO or almost 6 times that of the orbiter (Space shuttle).
Consider the russians have basicly just updated their launchers. THAT is intelligent instead of trying to Jump 20yrs every decade and then canceling like we do.
valcan321 6 months ago
@valcan321 The Russians have VERY limited payload capabilities- essentially nothing more massive than a soyuz spacecraft. Saturn V's were incredibly expensive and a launch vehicle made using some of the technologies developed for the space shuttle combined with technologies from the Saturn V (like the Jupiter Direct launch vehicle- look it up) would be much more cost effective and capable. That would not use technology 20 years ahead of us, and that is what NASA is doing.
AurorusTech 6 months ago
@AurorusTech You mean direct? So your telling me your gonna use the same tech SRB, etc that helped make the shuttle a nightmare and force that as a launcher.
Remember part of the reason the shuttle was so expensive was the enourmous amount of people required to launch her 50k per launch. The huge boosters required a huge vehicle to carry them and cant be shut off.
I hope you can do it but i also hope you dont drive the COTS people away. Hopefully its not robbing peter to pay paul so to speak.
valcan321 6 months ago
@valcan321 I know what you mean when you say that SRBs have their issues, but for a heavy lift launch vehicle that can launch over 100 tons of payload using existing technology and not cost too much to develop or use, SRBs, combined with SSMEs and J-2Xs provide the best option. The heavy lift vehicle wouldn't even carry humans, only cargo. The issues that caused the SRBs to explode in the Challenger incident have been corrected.
AurorusTech 5 months ago
@valcan321 Also, the COTS companies are only developing smaller capacity vehicles for orbital resupply and manned transport. The Falcon 9 series does have a few possible heavy lift configurations that would make it pretty close to Direct in terms of payload capacity, but it will be a while before the Falcon series is that developed. Direct is more capable than any of the projected Falcon configurations (for super-heavy lift operations in the near future- Falcons are great for lighter payloads)
AurorusTech 5 months ago
@valcan321 Sorry, but one last thing, by allowing NASA to develop it's own heavy lift vehicle, we allow it to push the boundaries of space exploration. NASA's entire budget should not be devoted to helping private companies develop orbital transports. Those companies are capable of handling almost all of their own funding needs- they are PRIVATE after all. SpaceX is already well on its way to providing orbital transportation. NASA needs it's funds to carry out the more difficult work.
AurorusTech 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Energy sources without the need for fuel or energy input exist ,But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
jjerkings2890 1 year ago
Saying the Shuttle was a mistake is kinda...lacking an understanding of history. The Shuttle was build for low-orbit to transport AND RETRIEVE space weapons up there.
The UDSSR did the same with the Buran.
It was crucial to be able to retrieve nuclear weapons and not let them burn up in the atmosphere, something the rocket design wasn't able to do.
Today, yea, we don't need that anymore, and so, in retrospective, we can say it was a mistake. But in historical context, it was not.
TNM001 1 year ago
@TNM001 Y'know, I'd usually dismiss that as a conspiracy theory, but that *would* make sense....
rybuger1 1 year ago
I bet years from now there will be people who claim that we never went to mars EITHER!
LouistheHedgehog 1 year ago
Sign me up for first mission to Mars! I'm in.
jtack19791 1 year ago
I don't think people put enough thought into how amazing it was to get to the Moon way back in '69. That was the biggest engineering push in history, and not a single man died on any of those missions. If I were to write a book counting down reasons to be proud of being human, that would be #1. Mars should be easy by now.
jag9998 1 year ago
Wait, WE LOST THE SATURN V?!?!?!?!?! Those meatheads.
vidgami46 1 year ago
Comment removed
vidgami46 1 year ago
Pre-launch SpaceX Mission 2020
www41WorldUSAcom 1 year ago
im from the future and im so offended
deadliestsoulja 1 year ago
i think earth is not the right place to make very long distance travel shuttles but if we could make one in space we could make it huge and able to carry enough air food and water to go to mars its very possible and stuff to do
boringcabbage 1 year ago
2020...? Why such a long time frame...
peterxxmeme 1 year ago
@peterxxmeme
The funds required for a mission need to be acquired. Whether a private company or an agency like NASA do it, there will always be a 10-year window. It's just a deadline.
Also, in order for there to be a manned mission, you need a few missions prior to that to take place. for a safe journey.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@peterxxmeme 2020 is really close com oared to the governments timeframe. And B there's alit that goes into such a project ten years isnthe minimum.
TheFluffyDuck 1 year ago
we gotta mine that helium 3 on the moon =]
sinblesser 1 year ago
@sinblesser
Go to Mars first, by the time you have a colony there, you could then send a mission to the Moon and mine the resources there.
smartwarlord 1 year ago
im going to be working for nasa of bieng a astronaut and the reason to work is to be the first person to mars no matter what
905SONICking 1 year ago
@905SONICking
Hopefully you live to 2045 then
smartwarlord 1 year ago
@905SONICking To be honest I don't care if I'm the 93rd
TheFluffyDuck 1 year ago
Elon Musk should talk to Dr. Robert Zubrin !! And make this happen !! Yes get to Mars by 2020 !! Alas you will need a Ares V to get the rocket to low Earth orbit. Read "The case for Mars" ! And Constellation has been cancelled !! So wrong !
davisgreen2020 1 year ago