Artificial Gravity is Critical for Mars Exploration & Beyond - SpaceX Starship can make this happen!

[@MarcusHouse]

Have a great week everyone! For those interested in the presented Curiosity Stream episode, you can check it out at Curiosity Stream at curiositystream.com/marcushouse If you already have it, the direct link to the episode is curiositystream.com/video/2998

[@alontehaywood9612]

@macus house that's why alien spaceships always rotate 👽🤯

[@alontehaywood9612]

The solution to stop high energy particles is to put up your own magnetic shield around the starship just like the earth does

[@TheFirstBubbaBong]

Nuking our way across the universe. Sounds exactly like something dumb earthlings would do.

[@cameronidk2]

Gem-n-eye , not gem N ee

[@DigDougDig]

Be patient Marcus, the new all electric engine is being developed now.

[@bettywing52]

If astronauts are going to do any real long duration missions, some form of gravity is essential, not to mention shielded environmental areas where they could spend up to a year. Those "Transfer Vehicles" did look very exciting. At this point we seem to be playing catch-up with Willy Ley sometimes.

[@eaglestdogg]

Actually while radiation shielding is of course a necessity, gravity is not it turns out. At least not for a Mars trip. A study from ANU determined that with standard exercise astronauts should be fine functioning on Mars after a trip there in zero g.

[@n0madtv]

@@eaglestdogg That study only focused on cardiovascular function. The bigger problem is osteoporosis which begins developing within the first few weeks and is pretty severe after a year in orbit, even with daily exercise (which is about a round-trip). The only reason it's been acceptable risk so far is because osteoporosis is reversable once they get back to earth (with extensive therapy). But, there is no evidence (so far) to suggest the ~40% gravity on Mars is enough to induce the necessary recovery/reversal process. As far as the cardiovascular issues, the only thing that study proved was astronauts "probably" won't immediately faint upon arrival on the surface of mars, assuming a direct trip.

[@element5377]

@@n0madtv there are vision problems too

[@rolflandale2565]

For stationary base building, in a 3D micro gravity, requires a primary foundation, such in space means a *gyroscopitic & gimbler* CORE. CGI implements of project like Von Braun, *failed* to purpose it. When attempting travel, (Marcus mentioned 3:29) moment must be continuous, this mean NOT a chem-fuel power, but a non idle acceleration, which is feasable by *plasma, ion & angular* moment (gyro spin vessels), maintain ingredients of nuculear Amp power🔋& idle to recharge/preserve. Which requires added stage vessel.

[@rolflandale2565]

@eaglestdogg however it isn't necessary to be subjected to zero G. Leaner acceleration method is away to maintain gravity, just need a slow .5-1.5G thruster engines velocity NON Idle. To astronauts it might not feel of worry. But to potential *civilianaunt* candidates & other living organism plant/wild creatures, that *may* become a necessary. Feasible with a slow burn plasma, ion thrusters or angular moments gyroscopitic setups. Amped by nuclear (NOT safe/initiative with leaner, as chem-fuel method) in solar orbit travel. just needs the added stage nuclear vessel through solar orbit.

[@ionymous6733]

The Copernicus-B was shown as having an advantage that we could change the rotation speed to prepare astronauts for Mars or Earth gravity as they approached, so they are already used to their destination gravity before getting there. But that could be done with all other designs too, couldn't it?

[@andrewchandler1363]

I live in the UK and would love you to start doing more like this but not at the expense of your in-depth what's happened in the world of space this week as you're a very reliable source of info at this time of fakery keep up the great work m8.

[@MarcusHouse]

Cheers Andrew!

[@jameswilksey]

Yes. A lot of spammy bot-spoken space nonsense out there. Hooray for Marcus. Love the weekly news. Good on ya, ya little rippa. JW (Pom)

[@kennethc2466]

...and no one is more fake than Elon Musk. It's amazing ANYONE believes what Musk says. "I believe Starship will go to the moon by 2021" -Elon Musk, in 2019 "I oppose government subsidies" -Musk, who has received $4.9BILLION in US tax subsidiaries "I'm a free speech absolutist" -Musk, who has sued multiple people, including a youtuber giving a GOOD REVIEW to his Telsa, while regulating employee's social media speech.

[@BackYardScience2000]

@@kennethc2466 ah, we found the hater who loves to talk about others. I find it hilarious how you keep up with what Musk says so much that you can quote him. Almost seems like you have a secret crush on him by the way that you talk about him and keep up with what he says. 🤣

[@kennethc2466]

@@BackYardScience2000 Found the sycophant who hates people over FACTS being presented about his IDOL. I find it hilarious that your fight for a lying clown, for free, on your own time. It seem like you have a PUBLIC crush on him, and proved it all by yourself.🤣🤣

[@jcrochford]

Love the deep dives, great video this week. Though it's always a highlight of my week watching your update video, bummed but looking forward to it returning next week!

[@quinto190]

Love the Copernicus-B concept!! Especially, that it's able to switch between Mars and Earth gravity.

[@stainlesssteelfox1]

It's known as a 'tumbling pigeon' design, and like all these ideas has been around for a lot longer time.

[@buzzsaw838]

All the designs shown are capable of switching between Mars an Earth gravity i.e. variable rotation speeds, it merely isn't part of the plan in all those others designs, for whatever reason.

[@marrs3312]

But why would you even need to get used to it en route? The folks in ISS stay in freefall for many months. Why not keep them at 1G for as long as possible?

[@philipcorbett8671]

Great work Marcus. This kind of content is great! Would love a deep dive into the use of local materials eg lunar regolith to build habitats. Keep up the good work!

[@johnbeeck2540]

Use of existing lava tubes on both the Moon and Mars are already under consideration!

[@iandorge762]

Great video. You have provided a lot to consider and you question about surviving in reduced gravity is well thought out.

[@koubenakombi3066]

It is not gravity, dude... it's a differential density. The science could never explain what they call gravity... specially with the universal gravity formula saying bodies would attract themselves by the inverse distance square... you have been fooled. Not even a drone can fly with no fluid around it.

[@frankd9767]

By the way, the 2001 movie was released in 1968, 54 years ago and 33 years in advance of its “2001” title. Artificial gravity has been around a long time, and I’m sure there are many early sci-fi novels sprinkled with it as well.

[@ronschlorff7089]

yes, an amazing movie still. I saw it for the first time in 1968, in D.C. while I was stationed near there in the U.S. Army. It was shown in "Cinerama", a movie concept of the time; like an I-max precursor. And the sound was amazing as well, you could feel it "bounce off" of you, especially the totally iconic theme music. :D LOL

[@MikeJones-rk1un]

Humans will never be able to build that big in space. It isn't worth the cost.

[@airborneal2764]

Another great video, Marcus! Love the science deep dives.

[@pauldunlop1660]

A really informative and exciting video. With so many deepspace operations options becoming feasible with starship payload capacity, surely one will become viable.

[@MarcusHouse]

I sure hope so. Appreciate you watching Paul!

[@ronschlorff7089]

@@MarcusHouse yes, and what always gets me is how cheap-ish (millions and billions) these concepts are compared the trillions we waste on spending each year down here on earth on totally useless bills, like has happened in the past two years in the U.S., with this current insane democrat administration!

[@blhouston]

Nicely researched. Really enjoyed this one.

[@Norantio]

This was a fun episode! Do more concept idea videos please!

[@agustincastillo7599]

Loved the Gateway spaceport Star Wars-looking docking bay

[@whodom]

Great video. I’d LOVE to see you do a video on Nuclear Pulse Propulsion. George Dyson’s book “Project Orion” is a great read on the subject. They were ready to start building prototypes by ~1960 and the work they did on miniature nukes is still classified. Performance would have been astounding.

[@MarcusHouse]

These ideas involve tech that we already have so are very interesting. Problem is that the people really don't like the idea of nuclear stuff launching into space. I mean, I do get that. Haha. Will think about this as a video topic.

[@kingairmech7162]

People don't like knowing about nuclear power being launched into space. It's already being done. Don't some of those satellites or interplanetary probes get their electricity from nuclear reactors?

[@TheDerperado]

Artificial fravity has always been a sci-fi dream of mine, having gravity in space is something magical. Can't want until we have astronauts able to walk!

[@jugalpanchal9076]

*Artificial Gravity

[@solotron7390]

Gravity is merely acceleration due to the warping of space-time, indistinguishable from any other change in velocity.

[@michaelsommers2356]

The key words are 'fiction' and 'dream'.

[@ouknow1446]

@@solotron7390 Now explain its direction towards center mass of a sufficiently dense object.

[@ouknow1446]

Centripetal force used as gravity would make your head feel like a balloon tied to a brick on a conveyor belt.

[@acanuck1679]

What a terrific and helpful effort, Marcus House! You concluded with the right question (having underscored the damaging effects of microgravity early on), which is this: Why, after all the decades we've been travelling to space, have we not done experiments to see how well humans could withstand the lower gravitational force that they would find on the Moon and Mars (if they were on the surface months or years at a time). Once again, thank you.

[@TheWadetube]

Good Job Marcus House. The animation at 15:40 was so good it could fool almost anyone. There are better spinning designs in the works. I wish I could share it all with you but this is an exciting time.

[@annando]

Thanks for this deep dive into this topic! I really enjoy content like this.

[@elroySF]

Thanks for putting in the work on these Marcus. Really well done! I always look forward to watching them on Saturday morning (US West Coast time) with a good cup of coffee. I used to work for NASA and we had a very large "human centrifuge" onsite at Ames Research Center, but AFAIK, it wasn't being used. Other priorities maybe, and the fact that the Coriolis affect on our brain wiring is a really tough nut to crack. No sense in spinning the hab if everyone just starts puking everywhere.

[@imconsequetau5275]

Four RPM seems to be the maximum that most people can acclimate to. Therefore, you adjust the tether length to set the G force

[@davidmacphee3549]

Puking in Zero gravity is a real riot! Have you tried it yet?

[@naes6843]

Marcus, you do such a complete job of explanation I’ve gotten very used to your accent plus your breathless manner shows your explanations get you motivated as well. Anyway, great work, my friend. Dave in Phoenix Arizona

[@robfive2555]

Excellent video Gravity has always fascinated me.. Thank you MH + Team for explaining this so well

[@MarcusHouse]

Hey Rob! Hope you've had an awesome week mate!

[@Malryth]

Great video Marcus!! Oh and to hone in at the end of your video talking about "why we haven't researched living in low gravity" as well as your comment about "cosmic radiation". I truly believe "money" has always been used as the excuse as to why the "space race" seemed to end in the 90's. With all the stunning video footage thus far, it will truly be interesting to see near real time video from the Moon...as long as they say it's too expensive to go there "again" (ahem...).

[@TechNextLetsGo]

I agree that we should be at least experimenting with this. I sent an email to NASA in 2010 asking them why they haven't and they never responded.

[@RicksPoker]

Let us say that you have two SpaceX starships heading to Mars. You join them at the front with a strong cable that is 1,000 meters long, and spin them slowly. The living quarters at the nose will have Earth gravity, which can gradually be reduced to Mars' gravity towards the end of the flight. When the pair reaches Mars, they detach, and land separately. This is the cheapest of any 'gravity to Mars' plans which I've seen. Good work on a really well done video. Warm regards, Rick.

[@franksolario1842]

No need to simulate Earth's gravity. The Mars astronauts will be gone for 2-3 years, so might as well simulate Mars gravity. The two Starship approach is the best one. The second Starship would be loaded with cargo and also act as a lifeboat.

[@Mackampackam]

Nice video! Interesting to see these concept designs. I prefer the term "spin gravity" over "artificial gravity" because it is more technically descriptive and has less magic sci-fi connotation.

[@ronschlorff7089]

I get it, but still prefer "artificial" as the word "spin" seems to invoke the thought of vomiting, as in some amusement park rides I've been on. Recall the spun ride called "tilt a whirl"? We kids used to call it "tilt and barf"!! LOL ;D

[@StingerNSW]

Loved the deep dive, you and the team have a knack when it comes to explaining the challenges we are faced with now and into the future. Excellent video as always 👍

[@timlizaverbunt-littlefield1134]

Another brilliant video Marcus. You’re getting seriously good at these mate. I’m from Western Australia but living in the US. Cool that you’re from Tassie, I spent many happy school holidays there with my family. Animations are incredible as always and it’s amazing that artificial gravity hasn’t been tested more, I agree! Thanks for continuing to make quality education and entertainment 🙏

[@MarcusHouse]

Hey thanks Tim and Liza. Glad you enjoy them.

[@JayPatel-ug1nh]

Wow! Really well put together video! Thank you Marcus!!

[@matthodel946]

Love your show Marcus and Crew!!!!

[@MarcusHouse]

Cheers Matt!

[@ed.puckett]

Thank you for your hard work to make these super informative videos. The content and your cheerful attitude make them a pleasure to watch!

[@sum_rye_hash_321]

@Marcus House So the gateway foundation split up into 2 companies, some kind of internal issues i guess. There is now Orbital Assembly Corporation, and Gateway Spaceport LLC. I would look into Orbital Assembly Corporation, they have a lot more detail on the plan than you went into in the video. They have even had a truss assembly demonstration, and have plans to launch a small prototype to space in the near future. They also seem to have better funding and partners than the old gateway foundation did. I feel like you really left a lot unsaid about the work these companies are doing to advance the research and interest in rotating space habitats.

[@rlarno]

I agree, Orbital Assembly Corporation seems to be a lot more pragmatic and real. They have agreements with other real players, yet there is still a lot of it hinging on the cost to orbit (I.e. Starship)

[@WilliamSurles]

Prop to all the animators that turn these designs into beautiful visual examples. Great videos like these would be impossible without those.

[@clivemitchell3229]

Great video Marcus! Two minor points: Starships tethered nose to nose would produce substantially different gravities between the low-g top deck and the high-g bottom deck. Also, all of the heavy stuff (engines, fuel, etc.) would experience the highest g putting great strain on the structure - better to tether the tails and have the living quarters upside-down. To appear flat, the floors would have to be curved. Stopping rotation would not be necessary to steer the ship. If the ship is rotating clockwise and you want to steer to the right, use thrusters that would make a stationary ship point upwards. Precession will make the rotating ship appear to turn 90 degrees later in its rotation, so it will turn to the right. Keep it up!

[@longboardfella5306]

Excellent points! The knowledge of people posting is wonderful. Thank you

[@absalomdraconis]

It also worth noting that "the right way" to get spin gravity with Starship vehicles is to use long cables to connect them together instead of sticking them nose-to-nose: the gravity differential between the top & bottom of the vehicle will be much lower that way.

[@alfredotto7525]

I think gaining knowledge should be fun and entertaining. You cover these bases quite well. Thank you and your team great work.

[@MerrickKing]

This is one of the reasons I think it's so so important for us to be going to the moon for long-duration missions. As well as working as a testing bed for Mars-colonisation technologies, we'd also start to understand how low - but not micro - gravity affects humans. If we found that a human can, for example, survive living in Lunar gravity for many years with no permanent damage to their health, that suddenly opens up a totally new way of looking at things. No need for such huge space stations if you only need 0.2g.

[@aldunlop4622]

Very true, not enough research has been done in low G environments. Lots has been done in micro G on the ISS, but 0.3G like Mars is a bit unknown.

[@stateofopportunity1286]

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. No need to put either Mars or the Moon on the back-burner. Both simultaneously.

[@Instantpower332]

I couldn’t agree more. The moon is roughly 240,000 Mars a whole lot more. Like you wrote living on the moon would give let us learn long duration how to survive and it’s a lot closer if problems happens. And with Space X costing a fraction of what NASA has been paying it’s really the best choice..

[@nemanjap8768]

You guys are imagining too much . Without warp drive there won't be space exploration . I won't even begin on how humans can't live in space and how little weight we can actually launch

[@Ryan-eu3kp]

@@nemanjap8768 Sorry bro but you don't know what you are talking about, do more research yeh.

[@richardherndon1541]

I come to really appreciate your weekly videos summing up the progress in the world of space. They are easy to consume while still providing great detail. This was my first of your deep dive videos that I've watch (so far) and it was excellent! Thank you for doing such a fine job. I'm looking forward to looking at your other deep dive videos.

[@richardherndon1541]

@@Mr-Wallstr. Thank you. I don't respond to these kind of things for that very reason.

[@g.f.martianshipyards9328]

One of the design problems with AG is that it is antithetical to radiation protection. For protection against cosmic radiation it makes sense to bunch all the parts of a spaceship as close together as possible, while in order to generate meaningful AG it is necessary to put the habitat sections far away from the rest of the ship. That means that these habitation sections are going to need substantial radiation shielding of their own which requires extra mass. But that problem can be overcome. Btw, a ship that wanted to generate 1G while avoiding all negative side effects would have to have a radius of about 240 metres, which means a diameter of roughly 500 metres. Big, but not impossible.

[@BillyOrBobbyOrSomething]

Why does it need to be 500m? Couldn’t a smaller ring just spin faster?

[@g.f.martianshipyards9328]

@@BillyOrBobbyOrSomething It could, but then the Coriolis forces would be too great, which could lead to the crew feeling nauseous and unwell. At least, that is what we currently think, but due to the fact that not a lot of science has been done in this regard, it could be entirely untrue. Maybe a crew would be able to adapt to a smaller radius without much difficulty, but that is pure speculation at the moment.

[@BillyOrBobbyOrSomething]

@@g.f.martianshipyards9328 that makes sense, to be fair they also explained that in the video but my impatient 4ss commented before that part. Thanks for the response!

[@alexbaty1814]

Great video Marcus ! Should do a video about Starship 2.0 and the potential stations for LEO and beyond ! 4x the room seems quite a lot more practical and exciting!!

[@dondywondy]

This is a great video exploring artificial gravity ideas! The simple tubular spacecraft, variably rotating about the length's center, causing 1g to ~0,4g seems the best idea to me. The passengers becoming accustomed to the new gravity during the trip seems like a great way to do it! Unfortunately we will probably only learn what effect Mars' low g has on humans AFTER they live there. We can hope it won't be too bad but our bodies evolved in 1 g so they may depend on it more than we imagine. Ah, explorers, they take all the risks! And YES, I would love to see a deep dive into cosmic radiation hazards and practical mitigations (if any).

[@MarcusHouse]

Totally agree. Thanks Don.

[@SuperChuckRaney]

Gravity isn't "generated" by a rotating structure, pure science fiction. AS There is no mass (weight) in space. The zero weight spacecraft doesn't/can't/won't "generate/create/facilitate" an inductive gravity. Ask yourself ..... WHERE are you being PULLED TO? Gravity PULLS. The only reason you have a body weight is the eearth PULLING you. Rotating/spinning doesn't make anything PULL. You can be literally moving at 400,000 miles per hour in a tumbling/spinning craft THAT is tumbling about 5 axis all at once.

[@johnbeeck2540]

Thanks Marcus! I always thought a variable g-force strategy - high near Earth and lower to match the destination over the transport time and vice versa made sense - you're the first to mention that it is actually being considered!

[@Shattered3582]

i love your content dude, keep it up, a while ago i also draw and even animated a few designs for space stations with artificial gravity, even how to launch them. i published a video on that on my channel about a year ago, but looking back at it now i think it was quite flawed. but i am excited to see the manny designs to make this a reality.

[@bernieschiff5919]

Space X Starship is probably going to be available first as a long-range transport and shuttle, to the moon and surface of Mars. Think of using Starship components built on earth and assembled in orbit as custom manufactured elements for these vehicles. I agree, a partial G environment might be essential for long trips in space by astronauts and tourists. There has not been enough research in this area.

[@dlewis8405]

Lots of great concepts. I figure these would make sense for a longer journey than Mars. The six month outbound journey is less than ISS rotations now, so manageable. Once on Mars the crew would have about 40 percent gravity for the year and a half they would spend on the planet. After that another six month journey returns them to earth gravity.

[@billmee4628]

I would like to see more on Cosmic Radiation.

[@seewind]

Wonderful video on an important subject for long duration deep space missions. Love to see a similar deep dive video on the radiation questions including designs to mitigate the risks.

[@samsleeman479]

Yes, the cosmic radiation question would be a great topic. I remember a sci-fi book where rocks and dirt were attached to outer hulls by static charge to protect against radiation. Hmm? I think it was about asteroid mining plenty of rocks there.

[@absalomdraconis]

In the real world, any "shielding rock" would probably be melted and formed into panels, since static can disipate.

[@kenhazelbaker4952]

Wow, what an info packed segment - a marvelous job of gathering everyone's 'stuff together and then crafting fast paced, info loaded narrative!! Masterfull job, you do it better than anyone else in the industry!

[@MarcusHouse]

Thanks Ken!

[@SpaceXvision]

Love the video. I absolutely promise that there will be awesome artificial gravity animation material coming from me in the future.

[@donjones4719]

Please do the alternative dorsal-to-dorsal design of two Starships, not nose-to-nose. It makes a lot more sense. That's the only way the aft end of the ships can be oriented to the sun to ameliorate the everyday radiation and the solar flare radiation. The current zero-g plans call for that to be done, have ever since Elon presented his Mars plan for the first time, as the ITS. It allows the stowage of supplies and the mass of the engines to act as shielding. Hopefully the methane tank can be placed back there also. This design would incorporate 3 living space decks instead of the multiple decks of the nose-to-nose design. That means only 3 gravity gradients instead of multiple ones. Yes, it will take some clever engineering of the design so the living space can be reconfigured 90 degrees for the stay on Mars but I don't doubt it can be done. The ships can separate and go to zero-g for the last 2-3 weeks while they're prepared for landing. The radiation shielding makes it totally worth it.

[@Scanner9631]

@@donjones4719 Nose to Nose for Starships used as manned landers make more sense. Once you are on Mars the gravity will be vertical. If all your equipment is set up sideways for your dorsal to dorsal simulated gravity it will be unusable. Your doors will go from being in walls to being in floors for example. Ladders become horizontal.

[@donjones4719]

@@Scanner9631 That's why I included that clever design work will be needed so the orientation of the living areas can be switched. The ships can separate a few weeks before arrival at Mars so this can be done in zero-g. This is complicated but worth it for the huge benefit of the radiation shielding.

[@Scanner9631]

@@donjones4719 Wasting mass that would be better in payload.

[@donjones4719]

@@Scanner9631 The trade-off for radiation shielding will have to be figured in. IMHO it's well worth it.

[@ecrowder9757]

I would really like to see something about the damaging radiation in space please consider that one some day. Thanks.

[@ti994apc]

For the Shuttle just the stacking and rollout costs were $450 million. The true cost of the Shuttle was $1.5 billion per flight.

[@craigmackay4909]

The Soyuz made the best bang for buck taxi.

[@BoycottChinaa]

That eventual shuttle launch price was because no one wanted to pay for the assembly line that was supposed to make shuttle reuse efficient, and it was hampered by disposable design from the beginning for the same pathetic reason. Sad!

[@rolflandale2565]

The shuttle dwelled on chem-fuel, aside from not being reusable nor attributes like a Artimus1 + Dream Chaser/Shuttle on top, having *epstien drive* of boosters instead. Would've been a feasable Mars travel. NO chem-fuel, as solar orbit nuclear *amp* Ion/Plasma or Spinwheel angular momentum (pulse) Drives. Not just storage power running on a flash 🔦. Regenerating *&* momentum/engine thust. (🛸/♨️) Not that attempting full zenith vertical Idiocracy beuracarcy faster then zombie mob apocalypse chasing them on the launch platform. Like most "broomstick" required size crafts.

[@leroywarner7354]

@@BoycottChinaa 😂❤❤bu 😮😢😢

[@leroywarner7354]

@@FredPlanatia ggu😂😂❤

[@grlcowan]

Yes. It is also possible for thrusters to be mounted on gimbals; indeed they usually are. So mounted, a thruster could be automatically kept pointed in a fixed celestial direction, the gimbals compensating both for the rotation of the system and its response when the motor starts pushing. (So if the motor were hanging centrifugally out at right angles to the desired direction of acceleration, not thrusting, there it would hang. But when you turned it on, it would pull forward, and now the angle between the direction at which it hung, and the way you want to go, would be diminished; maybe now only 87 degrees. So you gimbal it three degrees and are off to the races.)

[@johnholleran]

We love comparing Starship (10mil) to SLS (2bil) in many ways. But SLS was originally estimated at 500 mil- shouldn't we set the floor on starship prices at 40 mil? Seems like people who really study starship don't expect it to be so cheap yet we all use the number

[@michaelsommers2356]

Why should you put any credence in any claim Musk makes? Does the Las Vegas loop use fully autonomous 16-passenger pods going 150 miles per hour, as Musk promised? And why in the world would a "Starship" launch cost a fraction of what a Falcon 9 launch costs?

[@johnholleran]

@@michaelsommers2356 sometimes we have to use Musk's numbers as a starting point if we have nothing else to go on, but why do we talk about "musk time" and not "musk money"? Personally, I think Starship will be more than falcon 9, perhaps in the 100-200 mil range, if only because it has no competition at that size yet

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@johnholleran There is no point in using Musk's numbers if they are patently pure fantasy. And what Musk money? He has said more than once that SpaceX was on the verge of bankruptcy. Tesla stock is absurdly high, and will crash, sooner or later. He apparently is having trouble coming up with the money to buy Twitter.

[@ronschlorff7089]

For perspective, all these launch figures have to be in the context of what we waste on useless government spending in the USA each year on things like social welfare and food stamps, money thrown down a rat hole with nothing useful to society at large coming of it. No matter what it costs, space research pays dividends in the form maybe saving this species, perhaps by making colonies in the future, to "simple things" like the "small onboard computer" that Apollo needed to make the moon missions practical over 50 yrs. ago. Small computers! Does that sound familiar? And for the same past 50 years, we've spent untold trillions on social welfare programs, and what have we done to improve lives of the poor? Nothing!

[@davidrediger6407]

I served as an Electronics Technician on a US Naval Submarine in the 1970's and I maintained a Inertial Navigation System. In order to measure acceleration we had to maintain a stable platform perpendicular to the earth's surface. Which ment that we had to torque our gyros as a function of latitude to compensate for the earth's rotation under the stable platform. Using the same process as turning a bicycle without touching the handlebars can be used to make course changes of a rotating space ship traveling to point 'B' without stopping the rotation.

[@Fannystark007]

Hey Marcus, have you ever made a video about the GERT (a suit that simulates old age by applying additional forces on hands, legs and so on...) and its possible application for simulating muscle stimulating forces in micro G? Or do you know when NASA or the russians tried something like that?

[@MarcusHouse]

Although these can help with pressure related problems with fluids, it doesn't stop bone loss and muscle issues.

[@hcmassey2]

Good show. Can't wait for a deeper dive into some of the other issues you mentioned.

[@TheosEpicVideos]

Great video mate!! Nice to see some rendered concept designs and see how close we are to those dodgy space books I had as a kid.

[@RogerM88]

Artificial Gravity at Space with current centrifugal technology available, isn't suitable yet for Humans because they induce vertigo. As also possible issues with trajectory or even safety, if the system gets unbalanced.

[@MarcusHouse]

Needs to be a long radius for sure.

[@jonbong98]

There's lots of actual test data available. 2 to 3 rpm is ideal but full acclimatisation up to 8 rpm takes only a few days.

[@louislesch3878]

@@MarcusHouse astronauts would get used to a small radius high g centrifuge used for only a few hours a day pretty quickly. You just need to trick the body to accept that it needs to preserve good bone density etc. The human body does an amazing job of adapting. Just look into what happens when an athlete gets an injury to say one arm. If they exercise just the good arm, the body will build and preserve muscle mass on the injured arm to preserve symmetry. This is well documented and pretty amazing when you think about it.

[@TraditionalAnglican]

Linking 2 starships together and spinning them around a common axis would do the trick - You only need Martian gravity to deal with Mars, and you only need a 900-1000 meter tether & 1 RPM.

[@ReggieArford]

And the *tensile strength* of this tether? Its attachment to the ends?

[@wadewilson524]

Hi Marcus…. I think radiation, both cosmic and solar, is probably our biggest hurdle for long duration space flight. That would be a great subject for your next deep dive…

[@darkwinter6028]

Yeah… I’m thinking we perhaps ought to capture an asteroid to use it as shielding mass…

[@MarcusHouse]

@@darkwinter6028 Problem is that cosmic radiation is that it is coming at you from every direction at once. Much easier to protect from the suns solar radiation.

[@jonbong98]

7cm of water cuts radiation levels by 50%

[@jonbong98]

@@MarcusHouse but nearly half of that is blocked by the vehicle behind / in front of you.

[@Scanner9631]

@@filonin2 How do you propel the asteroid without astronomical amounts of fuel?

[@MelindaGreen]

I was gladdened to hear you mention the seriousness of galactic cosmic rays. GCRs are pretty much a showstopper for humans on Mars. When space fans hear about it, they usually say something like "People are smart and creative so they'll figure something out". Except unlike the problems of low gravity, this one doesn't have creative solutions. The physics is quite well understood, and it's foolhardy to make plans that assume it will be solved in the meantime. It won't.

[@chrisglen-smith7662]

Would simply connecting 2 Spacex Starships with a simple 100 meter + long tether system be a simpler option. I think you could make small course corrections without needing to despin them

[@MarcusHouse]

Would really need to be a solid truss. A cable type system will just not be stable enough.

[@chrisglen-smith7662]

@@MarcusHouse I'm honoured! But why? The early 0.001g test you mentioned was a flexible tether. Whatever it is might need a damping element to counter any instability.

[@chrisglen-smith7662]

For course corrections I'm thinking very low power thrusters timed to rotation of system over multiple rotations

[@Mrvanish93]

@@chrisglen-smith7662 I believe basic cable would be enough if those rotating blocks were symmetrical in every way, but when you try to use them as storage or living space, there is always difference in mass or where that mass is in relation to center point between rotaing blocks. So to keep it steady, you need solid truss.

[@chrisglen-smith7662]

@@Mrvanish93 A solid truss would be put under strain by an imbalance but a flexible tether would always be pulled into a straight line through the center of mass of both ships. I don't think the center of mass would move around enough to be a problem.

[@c00l_n00dles]

love waking up to a marcus house video i think a solar radiation video would be great

[@AAABTonto]

Would counterrotating 2 habitat rings help to negate the "corkscrewing" effects that cause navigation difficulties ? Similar to counterrotating props on twin engine aircraft ? Thank you Marcus, always a enjoy your presentations with my Sat. morning coffee ! All good things to all of you and all of yours :)

[@marxug1]

Yes!! Although very few concepts include counterrotation, because it requires double construction. But for large steerable spacecraft, it will be mandatory. Constantly spinning and de-spinning the habitat will use up a lot of propellant. The downside is that the bearing at the center will need to be built extremely strong, as it is absorbing all the gyroscopic precessional forces that would otherwise be “corkscrewing” the ship.

[@absalomdraconis]

@@marxug1 : Counter-rotation provides passive compensation to precessional effects, but it isn't required. Most helicopters experience the same problem with their main rotors, but they just compensate by applying forces 90 degrees before they're "intended" to show themselves. It's a known problem with a known solution.

[@absalomdraconis]

And that solution doesn't involve any de-spinning!

[@marxug1]

@@absalomdraconis Well that’s very interesting. If that’s possible, then there will be a whole extra black art to space navigation.

[@ellieinspace]

Great information, thanks Marcus!

[@solotron7390]

The simplest solution may be a long tether between to starships, rather than a rigid frame, as they pirouette around each other.

[@ffsireallydontcare]

Space clackers! I love it!

[@bruceyoung1343]

Marcus. Thank You for a very informative video. A lot to consider

[@Edino_Chattino]

Untill we discover some sort of magical shield, Star Trek style, the only way to protect against radiation is mass. Having dense metal shielding, filled with liquid between the plates, may be the only current solution. But that brings two problems. First, the amount of material needed for the craft. Second, it forces the habitat to the center of the ship, which is the last place you want to be to simulate gravity. So we basically need some breakthrough in technology against cosmic rays or just a big enough ship to protect us.

[@Coocoocachoo809]

Fantastic video as always, Marcus. These deep dives, even into conceptual designs, are exactly why I subscribe to this channel.

[@Reyajh]

Really liking these deep dives. The thing I'd love to see discussed for radiation shielding is water... A lot are touting it but, intuitively it seems kinda moot to irradiate your water vs yourself. We gotta consume that water...

[@jonbong98]

It does not work like that, fortunately. Ps 7cm water = 50% less radiation

[@Reyajh]

@@jonbong98 Awesome! I'd imagine then that the water molecules are reflecting it or something... Still would love to see it explained.

[@jonbong98]

@@Reyajh NASA's public database has loads of information available. It's the hydrogen that's important, wonder if 'heavy' water would be even better?

[@racookster]

Pure water can't become radioactive, but impurities dissolved in water can. Fortunately, the purification system that the ISS uses is already incredibly good. Our astronauts recycle their urine, and yet they say it's the best water they've ever tasted. We could probably purify it and store it in a space between inner and outer hulls.

[@ReddwarfIV]

Just because something receives radiation, doesn't mean it becomes radioactive. The water would be fine to drink.

[@Astras-Stargate]

Fabulous video, Marcus! TNX

[@kilozulu9990]

I was told Epstein drive is best for travelling to remote islands...

[@marsstarlink3235]

The phrase ‘orders of magnitude' is reserved for Elon only.

[@plainText384]

literally not true - not a word, three words, maybe a phrase - not something Musk came up with - not something exclusive to Musk - not even something famous for being used by musk

[@plainText384]

That's like saying "bruh" is a number exclusively used by the Hulk.

[@SerPapus]

@@plainText384 only musk can say it gtfo

[@SocksWithSandals]

It would be a great name for a rotating orbital Space Station, "Several Orders of Magnitude", consistent with Elon's love of the Culture novels.

[@Fanny-Fanny]

Elon? Is that the 'BS used car salesman' type fella who's genius idea will be ready in 2 years, and always has been, for the past decade and beyond? That guy? Lol 😆

[@flitevice7035]

Danke Marcus! Love your trusty weekly updates, but also your deep dives. Spares me a lot of clicking all about the internet.

[@MarcusHouse]

I appreciate that! Thanks very much!

[@steveaustin2686]

1:28 The 9m figure is the outside diameter of Starship. The payload area is 8 meters in diameter per the Starship Users Guide put out by SpaceX (pg 2, fig 4). That 8m diameter runs for 8m, before it tapers down to 1.8m at the 17.24m length. An extended fairing is available that is 22m long, so presumably the 8m diameter section stretches to almost 13 meters.

[@andyo5220]

Great video. Love these deep dives.

[@demultiplexdfunc177]

It is much more simple than most of us make it out to be. Pooping through suction tube gets old quick. Never mind all the irritations, health issues and inconveniences that arise in near zero G.

[@nicosmind3]

I love Project Orion, on paper with 1970s tech it could get to a few % the speed of light

[@marspp]

Those spinning elements impart a rotational force back on the main spacecraft. Via the drive obviously but also by friction on the bearings so it would take intermittent thrust on the main craft to keep it from eventually spinning itself.

[@AffectiveApe]

Lovely video as always Marcus, thank you for all that you do! Keep going!

[@AffectiveApe]

@@Mr-Wallstr. haha I think its nice that you took the time to provide a warning! Hopefully folks on youtube have seen these enough to know that by now, but if not, you are doing a great service. Hopefully YT can start cracking down on this shit, this is the most widespread scam/virus/hack on the platform I've ever seen.

[@tekish7682]

Haven't commented in awhile but wanted to let you know how much I appreciate all your hard work. TY!!

[@JackdeDuCoeur]

Very nice work (as is usual for your products.) Thanks for this.

[@paulstevenconyngham7880]

Great documentary man- space news has been kinda vanilla for the last year and this was awesome

[@dog-loverjohn1379]

What a brilliant deep dive on this topic, Markus! Well done and thanks ever so much. John

[@autom7134]

+1 for the folks interested in seeing you do a vid on cosmic radiation. Thanks for the great content... you rock.

[@jacobtrepanier1955]

Great job in explaining the intricacies of artificial gravity in laymen's terms....very informative.

[@cyfskid]

Hi Marcus, long time watcher, first time commenter and also proud kiwi, i had to comment after i heard you say the word Gemini, i had a giggle to myself and had to replay a couple times, anyways love you're work and always look forward to watching on a sunday. Keep up the hard good work !

[@hawkeartist]

Sorry about the pay wall. Great article about the pronunciation of Gemini. Both ways are ok -final answer! 😀

[@peteregan3862]

Easiest way to create artificial gravity is to tie two spaceships together and use side-facing rockets to spin them. 1G requires a cable nearly 2km long rotating at 1 rpm. Higher rotation speed reduces cable length while retaining 1G force.

[@jimhowell7450]

Thanks!

[@MarcusHouse]

Cheers Jim! That is very nice of you mate.

[@fragomatik]

Another great video, Marcus! Many thanks for the shout-out, mate!🚀🚀🚀

[@MarcusHouse]

Thanks so much for your help and insight with this video. It is very much appreciated.

[@richardaitkenhead]

Love this channel doesn't just suck off elon or bash at him, just facts in a beautifully presented way ,thank you.

[@GregInHouston2]

You spoke of 2 technologies for simulating gravity: thrust and spin. There is a 3rd one that is in the reach of human science - air. To demonstrate, take the open end of a vacuum hose, place a mesh over the nozzle, and place a figure on the mesh. The figure will stick to the mesh. How well will it work? Hard to say without experimentation. I think it would work well for giving the human skeleton the stress it needs. But internal organs would still be in micro gravity. One could also argue that you are still spinning mass. But the air required has much less mass than metal. Moreover, you are already spinning the air; it is necessary to circulate the air in the ship for life support. Just design so that the air concentrated before being circulated.

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

Excellent video. I'm glad you pointed out some of the downsides to centrifugal artificial gravity.

[@NyxAxel]

This is the best content you make. So many sci fi concept to watch

[@willlockler9433]

Excellent as always. Thanks!

[@samson1200]

Marcus, I truly enjoy your analysis of different topics of everything space. I think it will be fascinating to experience all the space innovations over the next 50 years. Lucky you! haha. But we could have a space station very similar to the 2001 space Odessa movie and modify the center core with a exterior hub to be a receiving dock for space craft by having a smaller circle with receiving nodules for multiple craft. It could be rotating at the same speed as the rest of the station for gravity or it can be stationary when a ship is to dock. Not difficult. But this is just IMO . Keep up the great work.

[@DJBREIT]

You can make a simpler system. Use the station at 6:59. But instead of spinning the whole station you only need to spin the floors inside. Make them like a maglev train that rides around the inside circumference of the outer ring. This way all of your shielding can be placed on the outside shell of the station. This should be suitable for a hundred or more people.

[@laurencewhite7554]

Thanks Marcus for the great content as always. Perhaps a ball joint or flexible coupling could accommodate course corrections without the need to stop and start the rotation of the moving parts of a vehicle, within limits of course?

[@trevor7564]

Love your videos Marcus…. I’m a loyal viewer and fan. Cheers from the US!

[@BillySugger1965]

For a trip to Mars we don’t need 1.0g. Martian gravity is around 0.3g and if that’s suitable for human habitation then it’s more than enough for a 6 month transit. If we can get away with lunar gravity levels, we only need to rotate at 40% the rate we’d need to for 1.0g, and that would bring fewer disadvantages. We have experience of 1.0g on Earth and zero-g in low Earth orbit. We need more time at intermediate gravity levels to assess how much is needed to offset the majority of the harmful effects of zero-g. The old 80:20 rule here would pay huge dividends (do 20% of the work to get 80% of the benefit). Edit: okay, so Marcus covered these issues at the end of his video.

[@peterreimer2540]

Hi Marcus, As always Sat morning coffee watching your videos. One of the engineering challenges that needs to be overcome in the zero-g realm is cryro transfer. Apollo did some crude cryro tank distribution in the Saturn-V 3rd stage by using the main engines to force the cryro liquid to the bottom of the tank before doing a burn - the acceleration G model you mentioned. Dr Robert Zubrin in Mars Direct outlines a very simple technique of using the spent trans-mars booster stage and the hab using a 1-kilometer cable to spin both providing 1-G. I believe a slight modification to this technique could be used for fuel transfer. It requires the cryo tanker at the center slightly biased outside the CG attached to the fueling vehicle perhaps 175 meters. Offset on the opposite side of the CG is a 3rd vehicle, a station fuel control vehicle. The whole assembly is then spun at 3 rpm. As the fuel tanker loses its gravity fed cryro the station vehicle lengthens its lever arm to adjust for the decreasing mass of the tanker vehicle to maintain balance across the CG fulcrum. No pumps required. I'm thinking that there should be enough time to accomplish the refuel manuever during the shaded part of an orbital cycle to avoid the cryro line being heated by the sun. 13-months until A&P graduation, 4-months until SpaceX work - Mars!

[@GameplayReviewUK]

That's a great point :)