How The SpaceX Starship Will Bring People To Mars!

Go to: drinktrade.com/teslaspace for a free bag of coffee with select subscription plans!
Last video: Why The Tesla Bot Will Take Over In 2024!
• Why The Tesla Bot Will...
► Support the channel by becoming a member: / @theteslaspace
►The Tesla Space Merch Store Is Live! Shop our first release while quantities last: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / @thespaceraceyt
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
► Use my referral link to purchase a Tesla product and get up to $1,300 off and other exclusive benefits. ts.la/trevor61038
Subscribe: / @theteslaspace
Welcome to the Tesla Space, where we share the latest news, rumors, and insights into all things Tesla, Space X, Elon Musk, and the future! We'll be showing you all of the new details around the Tesla Model 3 2023, Tesla Model Y 2023, along with the Tesla Cybertruck when it finally arrives, it's already ordered!
Instagram: / theteslaspace
Twitter: / theteslaspace
Business Email: [e-mail]
#Tesla #TheTeslaSpace #Elon

[@TheTeslaSpace]

Go to: drinktrade.com/teslaspace for a free bag of coffee with select subscription plans!

[@michaelshort7297]

So, how can you project what SpaceX can or can not handle? They've impressed me greatly so far.

[@PruneHub]

@@michaelshort7297 I'm more interested in their ideas on how to protect the astronauts from cosmic rays. Making it to Mars is awesome, unless the crew is dead.

[@Procommand]

how about lazer propulsion

[@andrewwalters1735]

@@PruneHub...The only current practical way to protect against cosmic radiation, namely Gamma Rays, is to line the inner walls of the ship with 15.6 inches of Lead, and they've made no mention of whether they'll be doing this. But the even bigger threat to the astronauts is the lack of Earth like gravity for the whole duration. See my comment regarding this.

[@gatman743]

Lqqqq qq++​@@michaelshort7297

[@petera6984]

I'm 70, and yes... I've seen it all when it comes to NASA spaceflight. A wise man told my younger engineer self "No project was ever on time or in budget, and yours won't be the first" 😎

[@DaveBuildsThings]

I'm 65, a retired project planner/leader and approve of this post. 👍

[@grimmertwin2148]

I'm a 60 year old legend and would have told him to fark off firstly. Secondly how cynics like him were responsible for low moral. And thirdly his wife agrees with me😮😂

[@joeywilliams6842]

Elon said he's sending 5 ships with cargo only 2026 and 10-20 ppl in 2028 with 10 ships in 2032 will be the first big crossing.

[@michaelsanchez3659]

I'm an optimist, but if you believe that timeline, you will be sorely disappointed.

[@oliver9465]

As far as I remember the first landing was supposed to be in 2024. 😂

[@rickb.4168]

Well if the worlds biggest snake oil salesman said it, then it must be true!

[@coolman3074]

@@rickb.4168Wow, haters gonna hate. But besides that I think it’s a leading idealistic but not too far off.

[@oliver9465]

@@coolman3074 and believers gonna believe.

[@itsmesharath8086]

It is doubtful whether we will be able to see this in our lifetime great fan from India

[@jaiminpatel4398]

Next 30 years of my life are going to be very crazyyyy!!!!! What a time to live....

[@PhillipDavisMarketingSolutions]

In this day and age, initially sending humans to Mars seems quite primitive. Robots and AI should be the first to go there and get things started. That’s a no-brainer.

[@TheLastStarfighter77]

Totally agree! This will not only give us a big head start with an outpost or small colony and will also save unnecessary loss of human lives.

[@johnfry]

Sounds good in theory, but I dont think that will be feasible. If humans are to control the robots, the latency would make it near impossible to get anything done. The tech for ai just isnt there as of yet, and Elon knows that the first people to mars and the man who made it happen will be immortalized in history, and the research humans would be able to do there would rake in money hand over fist. First movers within an industry have the biggest advantage.

[@replica1052]

(to surrect planets is how to live in a universe - life as center of the universe )

[@Jeremy9697]

How many rovers have we sent to mars?

[@PhillipDavisMarketingSolutions]

@@Jeremy9697 I don’t know, but I’m sure there are a few, and they’re not just sitting there. Imagine much info those things have gathered by now.

[@waskus]

I have seen enough sci-fi movies to know that one person will go crazy and kill everyone😂

[@user-fd6rr4iz9m]

🤣

[@Starship007]

Russia, China, India and others have awaken the thought of space travel. Exciting times

[@terryharris1291]

Space X and America have.

[@williamhoward7121]

We need this competition to wake the United States up otherwise no one will ever make it to deep space.

[@korana6308]

I wouldn't say so much for India at least at the moment, right now the 2 competing sides are the US and Russia + China. And everyone else at the moment joins one or the other camp going to Mars, Moon and beyond... India is in the US camp at the moment, but they might switch eventually...

[@zmblion]

Living on Mars has got to be better than living in what's going on these days

[@TheMMAHawk]

i'd gladly buy an acre on mars

[@gilbertozuniga8063]

You are totally discombobulated- average temperatures can be -150 to -100 Fahrenheit, no atmosphere, no water, radiation thru the roof- who would want to live there

[@TheMMAHawk]

who said it would be my only property🤣@@gilbertozuniga8063

[@Slynell1]

nah, its humans... we'll just take our shitty mindsets there

[@averagejoe8255]

Great video. Thank you. 🤔🧐

[@seanmcpherson5595]

Thank you very much for your channel, and for the excellent information you provide. The quality of the videos, photographs, and graphics accompany the narrative of the video very well. I really appreciate your work. I am 63 years old. Throughout my life, I followed aerospace advances. I have to recognize that we are advancing in the development of technology, like I have never seen in my life. I am fortunate to see the presentation of the procedure to follow to extend humanity to other planets. We are living in a beautiful time.

[@paulmurgatroyd6372]

I hope no one has an emergency that needs an operating theatre or an ICU. It's going to be like the wild west frontier out there.

[@nstyproductions]

First human on mars.

[@DoEverything0]

Is it you?

[@DaveBuildsThings]

@@Smallpie_guy We mean the human that actually makes it back home from Mars. There's more to being first ya know. 😏

[@leonardgibney2997]

Mars missions have been dreamt about since forever.

[@Martocciaweb]

And they will forever remain a dream because humans are not going to Mars, ever. The cost is spectacularly high and it's too long and too risky a journey.

[@tonynoaa3950]

It definitely won't happen in are life time we don't have the technology to go into deep space.

[@ethan44866]

@Martocciaweb when has danger and money ever stopped the spirit of exploration in humans? Money isn’t as big of a problem as you might think, especially when government agencies are involved, and with enough time it will become possible. We did it with the moon landing, we’ll do it again with a mars landing

[@alexhawkins1795]

I like eternal optimism.

[@peterclarke3020]

Going from the moon to Mars is forgetting that it has to come from the Earth to the Moon - factor that in and it’s clear that Earth to Mars is easier.

[@rjm7151]

No need to see the moon as only a stepping stone to Mars. Colonize the moon to gain experience setting up a colony in your own neighborhood, then expand outward. Doesn't neccesarily imply that any mission to Mars must start from the moon.

[@leesargent8205]

Let me offer another scenario, the Artemis project slowly dies over the next several years because of ever increasing costs. SpaceX starts parking some Starships in orbit and includes a few tanking depot ships for intermediate fueling. If supplies develop in a reasonable time frame to provide fuel on the moon, then Starship will use the Moon as the source of fuel and oxygen for transit. If not, Starships will be loaded with fuel around Earth from the depot ships. A few or more of the Starships will be sent to Mars with fuel, robots, starlink satellites, basic building structures, solar panels and electric supply infrastructure, raw material building supplies, human tools, basic construction materials and supplies for future and current use. A couple of Starships will land and start building the needed infrastructures for future flights inbound via the Starship will be able to leave successfully. These robots will also setup a Starlink hub to support the training of robots via Dojo for tasks that had not been considered. There will be some robots that will be using the provided research equipment for local weather operations, water and mineral research and regolith stabilization for further building. In orbit a Starship will launch Starlink satellites to improve the communication from/to Mars to current standards. There will be other need support actions to assure more options for efforts on Mars. Why do I think this? Look at what NASA has been able to do with funding constantly in doubt. They think small because they can count on small commitment. Other national type space ventures are into being the first and not thinking of developing a new world of people. Look at SpaceX. They are building Falcon 9's as quick as they need to and are still building Starships and Boosters at an incredible rate and they haven't even put one into orbit. I know they will shortly because they did it with Falcon rockets. Does SpaceX have do only one thing at a time? Does SpaceX lack funds to do what they set out to do? Will they adapt rapidly to meet new challenges? Their goal isn't money, fame or power. Their goal is to make mankind multiplanetary. And they don't go halfway. Elon keeps the focus and Shotwell keeps the practical costs before Elon's eyes. I am not against NASA but the use of commercial rockets was the best thing that they did because it moved the costs away from a cost plus system to a responsible costing of projects. Eating costs makes commercial production be more realistic and not depend on political motivations. NASA has very good people but the motivation is not in a focused manner. SpaceX has a dream and this cause inspiration that is catching on to people like happened with the Apollo mission but not depending on political whims as much.

[@mcsmith7606]

There will be a MarsLink like StarLink. It will be one of the first things built. StarLink and Tesla Cellphone on earth will provide significant funding for the SpaceX Mars Project.

[@user-fd6rr4iz9m]

I am against privatized company's building these things as they take short cuts, space needs a large regulatory structured safe system's with beyond aircraft quality assurance. Take SLS it worked the first time and orbits around the moon, take Starship we are still waiting to go beyond a hundred miles to reach orbit. What would you rather fly in? a SLS or Starship, and if you say Starship, your just a Musk fan boy.

[@rjm7151]

It's makes no sense to pursue a Mars colony when they haven't even been able to do so on the moon.

[@user-fd6rr4iz9m]

👍

[@masteroutlaw100]

Easier to access hydrocarbons and metal ore on mars

[@bredemeijer9648]

I don't get why they don't build a space cruiser. 50 x the current size of the biggest rocket. All countries and private companies can bring cargo and they can fly the cruiser to Mars. Assemble the cruiser in space from empty Starships.

[@DaveBuildsThings]

Great idea! You should send a letter to those stupid science people at NASA and SpaceX so they know! 😏

[@peterclarke3020]

They could, and it would be ready by year 2350. Or alternately they could use Starship by 2030…

[@ciorchinos]

not the hunger for exploration drives the humanity, but the hunger for profits by using new resources, and finding new places to loot 🤣🤣

[@mpdunner3698]

Is there a video on the long duration life support systems for these flights?

[@jameshathaway5117]

Look up ISS... It's really not much different floating in space for years vs living on Mars.

[@mpdunner3698]

@@jameshathaway5117 I'm very familiar with the ISS life support system. Read Scott Kelly's book "Endurance" on his time in the ISS. The CO2 scrubber was a real problem and would not work for long duration flight. The ISS has the big advantage of resupply with parts and taking the trash back. Long duration transits doesn't have that advantage. What is problematic is there isn't a big effort to prove this kind of system. If you are going to Mars I would think you would want to have a 6+ month flight test going around the moon and back with a bunch of people. As my old boss said "convince me" that is works.

[@salomesidiropoulos8343]

The best of luck.❤

[@zmblion]

Im all for starship its one hell of an idea and i want it to work out. The number one downfall i see is landing. Without a pad i would say labding on any celestial body is going to be so hard not to mention they srent even working on landing it right now they want to catch it which is cool too but idk. We all seen the concrete tornado

[@stanmarsh3716]

saw*

[@jameshathaway5117]

They have already landed a Starship...

[@zmblion]

@@jameshathaway5117 look I'm a SpaceX fan boy but I can say that 15k landing isn't anything. I know priority is getting to orbit after is refueling after should be figuring out how to land with no pad. Do you think the moon and Mars have a flat surface without tons of loose debris?

[@jameshathaway5117]

@@zmblion technically landing on the moon is a whole different ball game than Mars. The moon has a very soft surface allowing something this big to quite litteraly "stick" the landing. Mars on the other hand depends on where you land. Some places on Mars have quite flat rock surfaces with little debris. Others would require significant cleanup to be a viable landing zone.

[@filonin2]

So you missed the years-old plan to put the engines near the top and angled out? You also need WAY less thrust on these bodies.

[@frankmcgowan9457]

I fully expect Artemis-V to be the last launch of SLS if it lasts even that long. By then, Starship will either be man-rated for all phases of the flight or relegated to cargo and replaced by something else for transporting people. The disparity of launch cost between SLS and SH/SS on an "Earth gravity well departure" basis will require SLS be phased out ASAP. None of that addresses the cost per ton delivered to the surface of Mars. Those costs will favor Starship even more steeply. In short, NASA cannot afford SLS.

[@LordZontar]

Yeah, keep dreaming.

[@frankmcgowan9457]

@@LordZontar SLS costs $4.2B to launch *_once._* Musk says the per launch cost of Starship will be in the $2M - $5M range. Let's say he has he is way low, wrong by $95M - $98M and it costs $100M to get *_each_* Starship to LEO. Further, let's say it takes the payload launch plus 20 refueling launches at $100M per launch for a total of $2.1B. Those are the worst numbers I have recently seen online. Using those numbers, Starship will cost *_half_* what SLS costs to send a payload and crew to the moon. Looking at the SLS and Orion system specifications, the SLS Block 1B can boost the Orion capsule (crew of 4), its Service Module and about 9,000 pounds *_almost_* to the moon because it has no lander. Starship HLS *_is_* the lander and it can deliver 4 or more crew members *_and_* 100,000 kg *_to the lunar surface._* NASA cannot afford SLS *_nor_* can SLS lift enough freight to establish the permanent base that is alleged to be the object of the exercise. Starship costs *_half_* as much and *_can_* deliver enough people and freight to actually establish that lunar base we all want to see built. Let SpaceX build Starship and cut SLS completely as soon as possible.

[@LordZontar]

@@frankmcgowan9457 The funny thing about selling vapourware, Frank, is that you can claim anything you like, use any numbers that sound good, and gullible sucks like you will buy it without even a first thought. Musk's pretend numbers mean absofuckingloutely NOTHING because he has not delivered a remotely functional rocket as yet, nor does he have the launch infrastructure to support putting 20 tanker rockets into space on the schedule he's outlined either. You might notice he has a history of making grandiose promises and not delivering on them: two Starships on Mars by 2022, Hyperloop, Neuralink, FSD, etc. Here's a clue for you, Frank: just because Elon the Great says it, that does not make it so.

[@johnrday2023]

NASA will always have a place in space ; however, it will have to receive additional funding by a factor of about 20 if it is to keep its same philosophy. Otherwise it can be involved with one off deep space missions like James B Webb, etc.

[@divedevil985]

Artemis V production and beyond is already in production. And for good reason. You have no idea what is required to transport humans to Mars. Starship can't even launch with humans onboard.

[@Starship007]

Moonbase will be nice but Mars has atmosphere and more gravity than moon

[@castheeuwes1085]

The atmosphere on Mars is nearly nothing. You still need to go outside in a Apollo type spacesuit, not just a overall and snorkel mask. If you go to Mars, you soon die; everything can and will break down, while nobody can come to save you.

[@rickb.4168]

Just

[@LordZontar]

The Martian atmosphere is negligible and the planet has no magnetic field, which means extended stays on the surface are impossible due to constant cosmic radiation bombardment. Life, if you can call it that, will be possible only in deep underground bunkers and that's not going to be very good for mental health long-term. Especially as once you get to Mars you're pretty much stuck there, underground, for good. And if anything goes wrong, there will be no possibility of rescue or escape. This is assuming a manned expedition will even survive the transit to the Red Planet. In short, a Mars base or colony is a death sentence.

[@ilijadurdevic3135]

If we dile down those flights on 40 days to get there and 40 to get back. I'm very positive that in that case we would have to wait for mars and earth to be in positive position. I know there is always the possibility to power it trough but can we chase the earth. Is it worth doing such a thing would even that new nucleary powerd ship will have enough space for that much space to over power all that.... So Many unknowns ro discussions at this moment 6:55

[@nightnotes3122]

Спасибо большое!

[@Malcolm2054]

I wonder if a thermo nuclear rocket would be capable of linear acceleration and give the crew gravity.

[@Baerchenization]

Or you could use your brain... in which case you would find that after a day of accelerating, you would travel at a speed of 1000 klometers per second.

[@paulsleczka195]

I can never understand why we don't put communication satellites around the moon and then Mars before they land on either given the contact disruption when behind the moon and presumably Mars.

[@rjm7151]

Nobodies going to Mars they can't even set up a colony on the moon.

[@allgood6760]

Interesting times 👍🚀

[@pplusbthrust]

So if there were to be an object traveling from zero speed on Earth to a velocity that would reach Mars in 45 days, what would be the G-forces encountered during acceleration and deceleration on the voyage?

[@Coyote27981]

It depends on how much time you can hold the acceleration. If you can hold it during the whole trip, very little acceleration can get you there very fast. Of course half way you turn around and start slowing down. Now if you are going to burn fast... It needs to be higher.

[@RyanFranny-xb4uq]

The g forces would be no worse than at the rockets lightest fuel load after launch. And I doubt you could build a ship to to do the trip in 45 days that would be a shit ton of deltav. I'm by far not an expert on Mars orbit though.

[@Cafaura]

The answer depends on 1 major thing, time. It’s not about how fast or slow, it’s about how much time you want to take. Say for example it takes 1000 delta V units to speed up enough in orbit to have an encounter with Mars, you would then have to slow yourself down enough to transition into 1. Mars Sphere of influence 2. Achieve a stable orbit. You could A. Use 100 percent of available throttle or B. 50 percent of available throttle. Either way, the same amount of delta V or (change in velocity) has to be expended. The burn would have to start at different times to be efficient, however both achieve the same results at almost the same efficiency. Therefore, Gs could be altered.

[@Cafaura]

@@RyanFranny-xb4uqit could be altered by the engines ISP Unfortunately we do not have the means right now to make hyper efficient engines, so to reach those speeds and slow down again to do it in that time, would take plenty of fuel

[@leonardgibney2997]

You only experience g-forces in a gravitational field.

[@regolith1350]

4:43 Holy... you merged the NASA worm AND meatball logos together! What kind of monster are you? I'm calling the graphic design police!!

[@faithannryan9083]

Like the gateway system

[@rickcilo7567]

Remember Moon to Mars involves first doing Earth to Orbit to Moon the to Mars. The advantage is that the program can't be cancelled once we're in it too deep unlike Mars direct.

[@not2busy]

I think you've missed the most important factor. Optimus robots. Something that can better survive the different harsh environments, (Moon, Mars, in orbit) yet perform many of the tasks needed to construct various structures. So far, these robots have only been thought of as working purely on Earth. Imagine a fleet of them that can work as a team, or swarm, anywhere. All you need is for Optimus to be able to perform maintenance on other robots and a communications network for them. You showed a robotic rover landing on the surface. I imagine a similar hybrid vehicle with perhaps a couple of Optimus torsos on top.

[@playinghardball]

Hi, nice videos on Tesla Space. Is this an official channel or a fan thing, some dude (with a team) providing info about Elon & Co.?

[@richiexp2]

I really don't see a reliable 🌍 to Mars journey without the use of nuclear propulsion.

[@essentialworker3438]

i like how the landing pad is there. if one were to make a map of mars or if there is one already, wheres the landing pad?

[@jebes909090]

in the middle

[@christophersplitt1772]

Invention of autonomous robots with a.i. command center is a must in space exploration. Humans cannot survive in space without robotics for quick reasoning and critical decisions.

[@MoeFokah]

So stArship is too big for a chute braking system?

[@MatthewSmith001]

It felt beyond weird to get a Trade Coffee ad in the middle of a Tesla video.

[@michaeldibiagio4311]

Can’t wait until they show us that old moon buggy they used on moon 😂😂😂😂, let me know when they find that

[@scottramson4591]

Could the landing legs not be made from Carbon Fibers that act as the drag fins do? These would be much larger and should help guide and slow the Rocket exponentially!!!

[@user-fd6rr4iz9m]

Dam things looks like its going to topple over on the moon surface and kill all the astronaut's.

[@EddyKorgo]

Earth>Moon>Mars- 100+ years program (no longer even a project, but an ongoing parliament program syphoning tax money) Earth>Mars- 20+ year project (privately funded with government bonuses)

[@filonin2]

Gibberish

[@jameslindley1564]

Amzing 😂

[@barracuda861]

Why cant they bring an extra container with spare fuel. Once there they can reuse it and fill with fuel made at the site. Also you show the craft landing on a pad. The first one will not have that luxury unless you send robots to build one by using 3D printing from the Martian soil. Also by the time the moon is a base we will have advanced enough to have a different vehicle and fuel for the Mars trip. Maybe even a newer faster type of engine. I have confidence it will happen just when is the big question.

[@faithannryan9083]

Wow! Long time on Mars!

[@mrzoinky5999]

There is still a gap between having Starships land on Mars, and using it's rinky dink elevator to somehow put large items on the surface. To get significant heavy duty construction equipment on Mars (Excavator, Dump truck, Crane and a tunnel-boring machine.) they will have to somehow land horizontally.

[@user-fd6rr4iz9m]

Mars is dreaming, do it on the moon first and so far that's in the too hard basket for Starship.

[@brandonmusser3119]

3:43 I don't believe that one bit Space x is the one who is the backbone in this

[@brandonmusser3119]

Space x is just barely started and look where they're at like twenty times faster than nasa

[@LoganRaspa]

lets go!!!!

[@KiloBravo69]

Great video, but did I miss a memo? I thought this is the "Tesla Space", not the "Space Race"?

[@filonin2]

He posted to the wrong channel lol.

[@davewbaldwin3369]

Everyone wants the quick/simple. Makes more sense to get the launching points orbiting our Moon simultaneously enabling the rudimentaries of orbiters around Mars, which that configuration would be able to grow as the tech improves. NMW, the 1% air is a 1,000% problem trying to go naked from here/there/here. Bots are what we need to dive into first/foremost.

[@thomascorbett2936]

Sounds very complicated what could possibly go wrong .

[@AvyScottandFlower]

WHY do I feel like I already heard this same video, But with other images?

[@irishauldfella]

I was hoping to see humans on mars in my lifetime but I very much doubt it now

[@theshimario253]

what do you mean? We're going to mars in the 2030s

[@SirBv8]

Nah thats way to early, I think we won't land a human in mars before 2045 @@theshimario253

[@theshimario253]

@@SirBv8 no its not too early. I think your overestimating. The only way we'll land in 2045 if there are lots of delays. 2035-2040 seems like a reasonable time frame.

[@mathieuSScote]

First 3 missions will be 100% robots so setup infrastructure and reduce risks for the first human mission

[@theshimario253]

@@mathieuSScote well yeah obviously

[@JonnoPlays]

NASA can't get there without SpaceX. SpaceX can't get there without NASA.

[@SigmaFridge]

Couldnt have said it better!

[@amcadam26]

That balance is changing towards spaceX going out alone more and more each day. They have their own space suits in development, so already have most of the resources required for a crewed mars mission.

[@my2cents395]

Why not just send Tesla Bots to Mars.

[@theremoteanater]

That actually is a well rounded solution send the first ship full of Tesla bot drones to set up the 3d printer to set up the first habitat

[@JessiBear]

There are plenty of able people willing to make the one way trip

[@RyanFranny-xb4uq]

I bet they will take both but wouldn't be surprised for the bots to go first. Optimus is making crazy progress I bet it would be extremely easy and cheap to make a special robot that only would install infrastructure to land on first and start mining operations. With ai and remote control even though leggy it wouldn't have to be fast. Plus there will likely be quite a satellite constellation in orbit of Mars like starlink so no communication issues

[@jamolamo999]

too cold

[@jameshathaway5117]

Robots won't make humanity multi planetary. SpaceX's whole plan is set around humans being sustainable on more than one planet. Tesla bots will no doubt be part of the plan. Regardless of what this video may say I continue to believe that SpaceX will take people to Mars before NASA even has the budget worked out. No other space company is accelerating space hardware at the rate of SpaceX. They are more or less the new kid on the block yet lift over 80% of the world's weight to space.

[@Ponk_80]

Spa cex sounds like a dirty activity.

[@JerryDLTN]

How much to build and launch an "International Space Station" to orbit Mars?

[@Persian-Soldier]

14:07 I think this is the Ion propulsion engine، Not a nuclear thermal engine. Isn't? 🤔

[@user-er5qu6wq5f]

They need to send all the necessary supplies ahead of time including inflatable habitats... We're at least 30-50 years away from being ready...

[@user-pe5uk2zf4o]

Alles Phantasie.Utopie

[@user-rp4hk6ps3e]

why not attach fuel tanks to the ship?? Attach them on earth orbit side by side on the ship?

[@jameslindley1564]

We have to get peeps on the ground and. Get them back x

[@beibei93]

Yeah that landing method is bat shit crazy.

[@sharonlewis705]

I'm so glad they will work on the moon. We need lots of space stations all the way to Mars

[@Ayo22210]

We need to make some helium-3 fusion rocket engines

[@stevemickler452]

Solar thermal/electric rockets can beat nuclear thermal because they can use electric propulsion which is hard for nuclear thermal

[@user-rp4hk6ps3e]

Or build a docking platform with fuel tanks. Star ship dock with it and when arriving mars undock and land on mars. coming back do the same.

[@ryanhou162]

They have to send material and robots to build the colony from the first mission

[@sharonlewis705]

Elon love how are we going to keep our bones in our body strong.

[@christopherfelker5524]

Private space exploration no matter how big/far/and amazing will accomplish it WAY WAY before any Government program (and I love NASA BTW)

[@J.D.Mc.]

Elon should design space Tugs and have them do and tow asteroids from the belt that are raw ore. They could build everything they need for mass space travel. Tow them to lunar orbit and break them up and refine them. One station in earth's lunar orbit, one in mars lunar orbit. I'll bet he already has plans for this.

[@ufo2go]

Dont forget the large refining facility in the asteroid belt.

[@davidlang4442]

I stated this same idea 4 years ago and still maintain that's Musk's real goal. He will become the first trillionare. Able to buy whole planets. The city on Mars will be a mining town peopled with his robots.

[@J.D.Mc.]

@@ufo2go i think eventually they would put one there. However first we need one at the moon, then Martian lunar orbit. From there create a refinery close to the asteroid belt and start building ships and materials there too. Eventually they will have multiple for sure. It's way more easier to build ships in space and it would be easier to refine the ores there as well. No need to fight planetary gravity. 💪🏼😎👍🏻

[@tomdumb6937]

Do that and forget the mars idiocy

[@replica1052]

to collect asteroids before they vanish into the sun is a mission - send solar sails to alter asteroids orbits little by little for a bigger and bigger mars moon for stronger and stronger tidal forces

[@Galbex21]

Im starting to feel this wont happen in my lifetime. Seems so hard! And progress is so slow😢

[@shawns0762]

The future of space travel is fission rockets. If a ship travels at a constant 1g acceleration rate it would get to Alpha Centauri in 3.6 years (7.3 years would pass on Earth) and this includes turning the ship around halfway to decelerate. It would achieve about 95% light speed in 1 year. A 10 ton ship would need 10 tons of continuous thrust. This is by far the fastest way we can get to other worlds and the ship would have gravity the whole way. All that is needed for this is a fission rocket that consumes uranium or plutonium only. They are both jittery atoms that are on the verge of fissioning all by themselves. There should be a way to get them to fission in a linear fashion. What's needed is a controlled, time released nuclear explosion. 1kg of uranium contains the same energy as 120,000 tons of coal and plutonium contains even more energy, not much would be needed so the mass of the ship will not change significantly during the trip. In an atomic bomb fission occurs when neutrons hit uranium or plutonium nuclei. This is because they will not tolerate an increase in mass. Due to the equivalence of mass and energy, the same should be true if you infuse them with energy. This might be as simple as having negatively charged uranium or plutonium atoms coming into contact with positively charged uranium or plutonium atoms. Or perhaps with laser or electromagnetic forces. A true fission rocket should not be more complicated than a chemical rocket. With the constant acceleration/deceleration method a ship can span the entire diameter of our galaxy in 24 ship/113,000 Earth years. Systems with stars similar to our sun can be reached in under 10 ship years.

[@stewiesaidthat]

You really don't understand physics do you. Nothing can travel faster than light. Everything gets converted to radiant energy with acceleration. Constant acceleration requires constant mass ejection. Where are you going to get the mass/energy from for constant acceleration? Finally, a second is a second. Whether stationary or in motion. There is no such thing as ship years. Thats flat earth physics being promoted by uneducated religious fundamentalists that are selling you the fountain of youth and eternal life BS.

[@filonin2]

Too many misunderstandings to address.

[@shawns0762]

@@filonin2 Sweet mother of stupid

[@mswarrior932]

Send three ships! One just for extra fuel!!! 🚀🚀🚀

[@leotka]

I prefer to go for Ve us before Mars. Closer, cheaper and lot of carbon dioxide for making oxygen and methane.

[@williamhoward7121]

Excellent video, just subscribed!

[@kastenolsen9577]

A good book on how to frugally colonize our solar system is Second Exodus Colony. Located at the Internet Archives. Read and learn. Free to pass along.

[@timma0066]

Why a space station at Mars, why not a space port on Phobos or Deimos? No need to sustain orbit around mars, saves on propulsion systems.

[@StevenTtan-vh3ec]

Why don’t they land on mar horizontally instead of vertical. It is safer and easier for personal to get in and out space ships.

[@timmccrory7630]

We need a gas station in space by the Earth and the gas station in space by Mars.

[@innermist]

It kinda blows your mind, don't it ?

[@pauldannelachica2388]

❤❤❤❤❤

[@user-er5qu6wq5f]

Artimus 10,11, etc. all within a 2 year launch window and we haven't even completed Artimus 2?! It's gonna be DECADES before we get there!

[@seditt5146]

Considering the moon is largely Aluminum oxide and the fact there is no atmospheric oxygen why don't they use ultra fine powered Aluminum and the oxygen they took out of it to produce rocket fuel? If taking off from the moon it seems like it would be a great rocket to use. One could use electricity to split the regolith, make the aluminum so fine it behaves like a power while being extremely reactive and when the two recombine you have a very powerful rocket engine with easy to get and dirt cheap.

[@peterclarke3020]

But that would clog up the engines - it would also be less controllable - basically a solid rocket motor.

[@williamburych2136]

A safe landing may not be all that simple. They would have to ensure that the spot must be firm and perfectly level. You don't want it to tip over because one fin is higher than the others. It could cost lives, or , at least, severe injuries. Then, how would it take off again ? Perhaps, robots should build a platform, first.

[@user-ei6tt6er1p]

Build a colony under water first and I’d be impressed. It has same challenges. There’s plenty of pressure and no oxygen

[@thomascorbett2936]

How will the DARPA nuclear rocked engine work

[@ajs747]

Will they be building a hyperloop there? Or dig some tunnels?

[@patrickfox-roberts7528]

🤣🤣 yeah just like the hyperloop down here on Earth.

[@paulchoudhury2573]

Optimism is always welcome, just don't use it as a substitute for actual knowledge and experience. Just look at Challenger '86 for an example when wishful thinking got a bunch of good people killed: "gradatim ferociter".

[@lukewilliams1667]

NASA pulled a kerbal space program with the nuclear engine

[@johnc4876]

How the hell did this video turn into a coffee commercial?

[@theshimario253]

They just need to build a spacecraft that has an artificial gravity wheel so that way they have gravity while they're traveling to mars

[@bendobbing7015]

A lot easier said than done, you'd need a considerable amount of power to keep a constant rotation for the full trip and you'd also need to be rotating around something which means an even larger spacecraft

[@theshimario253]

@@bendobbing7015 well we could build something like the heremes from the movie The Martian. It's def doable with today's tech. The heremes was basically just a spacestation that had rocket boosters on it and a rotating gravity wheel.

[@bendobbing7015]

@@theshimario253 possible yes but currently it would cost hundreds of billions to construct, it would take years and hundreds of launches just to build it and then you would need some way to power it and the only way to do that would be with a nuclear reactor as solar panels wouldn't cut it. I'm optimistic that we'll have a spacecraft with similar properties in the future, possibly in the next 100 years or so, but currently it wouldn't be feasible at all

[@anthonyshiels9273]

​@@bendobbing7015Because Space is a very good vacuum a spinning system will maintain its rotation indefinitely. There is no air resistance to slow it down. A quick blast from the attitude control system is all that is required.

[@theshimario253]

@@bendobbing7015 i mean they're already building the lunar gateway station, which is similar to the ISS and that has taken around 10 years to build and isnt as expensive as the iss was. The lunar gateway station is said to cost 7 billion. So i doubt it would take hundred of billions. Billions yes, hundreds of billions? no. Making space stations has gotten a lot cheaper, as have rocket launches. Hell private companies are even making space stations now. Also nasas is working on building a nuclear thermal rocket. So it could be powered with that.

[@hannible1002]

Mars? Can't even get back to the moon!

[@kabobmeinhaddi5591]

Unless we get extract resources from the moon, it doesn't make any sense to go to mars via the moon. If all the resources needed to go to mars are going to be transported from earth, just cut out the extra step as you need more fuel to escape from both earth and again from the moon.

[@asha.of.antares]

The days spent on Mars: are these Martian days or Earth Days. Tell Elon to put that Mars city under a transparent dome or energy force field. Some versions would have an entry to the dome for flying craft to enter/exit. Asha A.

[@tonyhaley7946]

How long will it take to produce rocket fuel on the moon? Too long so what's the point

[@BrightMinty]

nope a week of fuel production will fufill 10~ ships

[@anthonyshiels9273]

Rocket fuel can be obtained from on-site water by electrolysis in a matter of days.

[@world_still_spins]

Send me to Mars. (With supplies, and stuff).

[@integrity11]

IMO humans have no business setting up shop on Mars with the current level of technology. But striving for it increases said level thus making life on Earth better.

[@Jeremy9697]

Striving to do things beyond our technology level is literally how technology get innovative.