Mars is NOT the Best Choice! For Humanity's First Space Colony!

[@scottthomas3792]

I look at it as space stations first, lunar bases ( and manufacturing) next, then Mars and elsewhere. Robots could be the first wave, setting up a basic infrastructure before people get there. In the NextStar fusion reactor, if it misfires, wouldn't the pellet blow a hole in the other side of the reactor?

[@terranspaceacademy]

There are a lot of issues with NextStar... Just making sure we all know what's out there. :-)

[@Smiles10130]

I've watched videos about VERA stations that make sense with starship. Essentially build a large space station with an automated construction robots by using standaized panels. Fascinating concept. Incredibly more difficult than the company says it is. But interesting nonetheless. The company doesn't want orbital construction yards though, which I think is the wrong way.

[@rubikmonat6589]

That organisation doesn't have the technical abilities to do it. It's one guy with a dream and a PO box. They are fun animations but he puts more effort into cool names than nuts and bolts. Inspiring, but catastrophically naiive.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Automation and remote control are the way to go until we have true robotic AI. That means Moon, L4, L5 etc for the next couple decades I think :-)

[@TheWadetube]

At 2:14 it mentions the pressure inside the habitats at 0.7 bar which is 10.15 psi, not 14.5 as implied. Consider this, 13.888 psi cabin pressure is one ton per square foot of explosive pressure , so when designing any kind of habitat it is going to have tremendous pressure on any surface and flat surfaces will all bulge out, domes are out of the question, they would take off like a rocket. Artists often use architectual designs that work on earth but will not work in a near vacuum of Mars.

[@terranspaceacademy]

You are correct! And you get the hidden error I put in on purpose (not really but work with me here) award!!!

[@sdebeaubien]

My personal take is that we should be doing both a Moon Base and a Mars Colony. The moon is loaded with cheap resources, as you point out, and getting them back to LEO from the moon would be relatively simple. The problem is, as always, fuel, and time. Time makes the human required resources during the journey (to Mars primarily) quite extensive (and expensive). The ISS may have a remarkable water recycling plant, but that adds weight to any such vehicle that is destined for Mars or the Moon. It's more conceivable to send such ahead of time to either location, as well as sending 3D printers for making parts for any such equipment sent to either site. Raw materials on both Mars and Moon should be readily available and (somewhat) easily accessible. The real requirements are to continue sending autonomous mineral samplers, and return missions so we scout out good colony locations on both before committing to some location on the basis of theories about there being water there and so on, with no mineral resources to speak of. We also will need some powerful automated mining equipment, capable of getting to the ore, extracting it, refining it and processing it into some usable form. I believe modern 3D printers are capable of using various for building both complex metal objects as well as concrete structures (among many applications). The first is a finished "Product" suitable for building more spaceships or other machinery, and the latter is for building habitats that can shield occupants from both space and meteorites. We're probably still at least a decade out before we see any of this in action. However, I was very intrigued by the NearStar Fusion reactor. I was unaware of the progress in this field until I saw this video, and then went to their web site and viewed some of their material. That's exciting stuff!

[@terranspaceacademy]

I agree. Moon colony and Mars base :-)

[@BartJBols]

The candidates were young because they knew they weren't gonna launch in at least 10, perhaps 20 years. By the time the first launch was gonna happen, they would have been 40-50. If they chose candidates that were 50+, they would have been 70 at the time of launch...

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's a good point but the ads for Mars One were saying by 2025 the outpost would be there.

[@TheWadetube]

I have two heavy cruiser designs and they each have large gravity rotation rings. The whole ship does not spin, just an inside component and this provides triple shielding for occupants, and .6 to .9 G for travel time gravity. It also allows for regular showers, cooking, eating and drinking and toilets that work in the traditional means. A large ship can be a home and a refuge, a small ship is a death trap, ... or like you said a Volkswagon.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Artificial gravity is the only way to go.

[@TheWadetube]

@@terranspaceacademy yes, and how has weighed on my mind these many years but now I have cracked it, but it requires a large ring or disc shaped ship or station.

[@chadjensenster]

Missed this one and just barely caught up with it now. Great video as always doc.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you Chad!

[@NeilABliss]

I'd like to see the math on a reasonable sized vessel. I agree it needs to be much bigger than a dragon, even bigger than Starship. I'm thinking around the size of a typical modern Frigate , crew size of 150- 200 . I wonder what the dry weight would be of a frigate if you stripped it of the unnecessary weight. And then put that in terms of raptor engines etc.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's a good question but let's go submarine since it is nuclear powered and is designed perfectly for the task.

[@danwhiffen9235]

As a practicing structural engineer for the past 20 odd years, I hope everyone appreciates these videos and “assignments”. Very much the kind of practical figuring one might do, albeit more of a back-of-the-cigarette-package type. Only true engineers with the love of physics & math would intrinsically champ at the bit for the challenge. Although I still think a spaceship “ship-shape” is more interesting. Perhaps a future assignment for crude design of a 100-person vehicle…

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's a great idea... Usually they all end up spheres like in 2001 :-). Optimal volume for materials.

[@velisvideos6208]

The logical site for the first space colony is - Earth. There is a huge amount of stuff to develop and test. Energy. Closed environmental systems. Excavation of underground habitats for radiation protection. Advanced robotic construction. Etc etc etc... Best to start where it is cheapest and most effective. Moon will be next, around 2090's. Perhaps. And while we are at it, try to find a commercial basis for the space colonies (the hardest challenge of them all...)

[@treasurehunter3744]

There are many commercial opportunities for space based infrastructure. Fast internet was just the most recent venture. There are materials worth their weight in gold we could make in orbit, but can't now because microgravity manufacturing is non-existent. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_manufacturing On top of this, space based solar power offers 24/7 clean power at most places on earth, and can be scaled to any reasonable output with modular design and cheap access to space. Space based manufacturing, and access to the moon, also allows for much more material higher up in the gravity well, reducing the mass taken to orbit and cost of launch. Exotic materials from space, expensive materials from space and energy from space all would be worth building the infrastructure to get there cheaply.

[@rexmann1984]

Ghey

[@oberonpanopticon]

I think we’ll rush to the moon by the 30s or 40s. But we wouldn’t build anything self sustaining until several decades later. For a long time it’ll mostly be automated industry.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Satellite repair from the Moon! :-)

[@upthere5826]

Getting stuff into orbit for dirt cheap. The moon is made of spaceship and covered in rocket fuel.

[@IZ41X]

I couldn't help but notice the Fhloston Paradise in the lesson. The Fifth Element is in my top five all time scifi greats.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It was fantastic. I still don't think for space comedy anyone has come close.

[@yootoober2009]

So, which one is the best First choice as our first second home planet?

[@terranspaceacademy]

Planet would be Mars then Mercury. Home would be the Moon :-)

[@jamesowens7176]

You had me wondering where my math was off on the MPD fuel calc. I knew there was something up! ;-) Nice concept and great food for thought as always! Amusingly, YT chose to give me an ad for Holland America after the video LOL

[@terranspaceacademy]

Hey! The Alaska Cruises have the highest satisfaction rate! :-)

[@YellowRambler]

For me I see tug and barge system like on the Mississippi, but instead a large nuclear powered tug made up of Specially made starships for building material to make the nuclear tug, barges will be Starships themselves. The fusion reactor mentioned seems Impractical for zero gravity operations, a aneutronic fusion reactor I think would be preferably, and a reactor that the fuel is more easily accessible would definitely be a plus.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed. I like TAE and other similar technology. But we need to be aware of the others.

[@YellowRambler]

Curious where could they find tritium in space? Would this type of reactor be able to generate its own tritium kinda like a thorium’s molten salt reactor makes its own uranium out of thorium. You would need 86,400 tritium Capsules a day to keep the light on💡, how much Mass and storage would those capsules take up for the trip. Just a few questions that make me ponder the viability of such a fusion technology for this application.

[@YellowRambler]

Curious where could they find tritium in space? Would this type of reactor be able to generate its own tritium kinda like a thorium’s molten salt reactor makes its own uranium out of thorium. You would need 86,400 tritium Capsules a day to keep the light on💡, how much Mass and storage would those capsules take up for the trip. Just a few questions that make me ponder the viability of such a fusion technology for this application.

[@YellowRambler]

Curious where could they find tritium in space? Would this type of reactor be able to generate its own tritium kinda like a thorium’s molten salt reactor makes its own uranium out of thorium. You would need 86,400 tritium Capsules a day to keep the light on💡, how much Mass and storage would those capsules take up for the trip. Just a few questions that make me ponder the viability of such a fusion technology for this application.

[@dukenukem001]

Cruise ship to Mars?? I'm in !! ... as long as i get a balcony !!!

[@terranspaceacademy]

With sealed glass we hope :-)

[@nicosmind3]

Your "launch a crusis ship" example reminds me i used to advocate a "launch a Project Orion" from the moon. But only a crusie ship is a lot more style and luxury

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed! Just don't call it the White Star Line... :-)

[@thedamnedatheist]

Take enough inflatable modules & connect them in a circle & rotate , or attach them at the end of spokes to spin. Put it in orbit around the Moon & let astronauts live there while operating robots on the lunar surface. You could probably even anchor it at the pole with a steel cable & run an elevator.Use it as a construction base to build a larger, permanent base in orbit. Then build another one, pack it full of supplies & launch it in a Hohman Transfer to Mars. When it arrives, then send your manned ship, also with a rotating habitat section. Use the planets as raw materials & build O'Neil Cylinders, or Stanford Tori.

[@terranspaceacademy]

We can operate Robots on the Moon from Earth :-) The Soviets did it. Use them to start producing the raw materials for orbital habitats...

[@BBBrasil]

Finally! FINALLY!!! I've been saying that for years! And people talk about the richesses of mining asteroids, forgetting that the moon has millions of asteroid impacts, all waiting for us to mine them.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Very true. The Moon is the key to real space colonization. The difference between De Soto and Plymouth Rock.

[@AAABTonto]

Absolutely ! The Moon is our doorway to the solar system ... All of the pieces of this and any puzzle we might want to build out there can be built [ perhaps 3d printed ] in segments, assembled in orbit and launched as described, except that I think most of it could be done with automation, and or remotely, so things could be fully assembled and operational before humans arrived. It would also give us experience with living in low and zero G environs ... What good is the long journey to Mars if you don't have the bone mass in your legs to stand & walk when you finally arrive ? Outstanding ! tyvm

[@replica1052]

(a 9m diameter obstacle/slalom course for eletric scooters give you all the g-forces you need )

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you!

[@AAABTonto]

@@terranspaceacademy you are most welcome. I am kinda new to your channel, enjoy it very much ^5

[@StringfellowHawke197]

In my opinion, we need to focus solely on developing large long range space cruisers that can bring asteroid ore back to Earth orbit for processing. Forget about colinization. The first Corporation to pull this off will become the most wealthy of all time.

[@StringfellowHawke197]

These ships can be powered by AI and only are manned when they get back to Earth.

[@rexmann1984]

​@@StringfellowHawke197material processing is a lot easy in gravity. Processing on the moon requires mirrors. That's it. In LEO you'd have to separate chemically or use a centrifuge.

[@oberonpanopticon]

Why go millions of miles to mine asteroids without gravity and in a purely automated fashion when you could mine the moon only semi-autonomously

[@StringfellowHawke197]

Millions of miles is easy with momentum. Plus, you don't have to dig. Plus, one asteroid is worth trillions with a T! @@oberonpanopticon

[@terranspaceacademy]

Why not L4? Much closer. Large asteroid there (~300m)

[@raybod1775]

It’s more sensible to send robots to Mars to set up a well supplied underground base camp to protect astronauts from cosmic radiation and radiation from the sun. There are caves and lava tubes.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I would agree. The depths of Valles Marinaris interest me! Must be some caves there.

[@phineasphogg2125]

I have a question regarding DRA 5 payload mass (63 mT), What is the split for the payload mass, and is that lander wet mass or delivered mass? The DRA 5 exec summary shows 3 landings (1 crew + 2 cargo,) w/ crew lander wet mass 76.5mT and cargo lander wet mass 54.2mT. Their calcs indicate ISRU cargo power needs ~25kWe. Using Kilopower project data , 10kWe:1.5mT (extrapolating 25kWe:4mT) kzbin.info/www/bejne/hH2oZox8qqigntk 2 cargo landers x 11.3mT cargo = 22.6mT ISRU & power material delivered.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I'll see what I can find...

[@TheWadetube]

You don't need 750 kilograms of water per person. Water is recycled through various means and re-used and filtered. For a heavy cruiser 700 to 1000 feet long it would make sense to have a ton of water per person but that must be shared with the same plants and animals that will feed that person . On a dragon capsule it would be a deal breaker. Many waste water systems could use electrolysis to draw out oxygen and hydrogen and then recombine them in a fuel cell to produce clean water, this will give some energy back and produce clean water with just one filter cycle after formed.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Water is not recycled on the Dragon. The equipment would take up far too much space.

[@TheWadetube]

@@terranspaceacademy more than half a cubic meter for the 500 kilos it would save? As I mentioned a simple electrolysis could do the job, but it would be doing it for four to 8 people so the savings would add up. My real concern is how to keep people from farting. I don't believe we should send people on these early missions but robots and heavy equipment like cranes, diggers, and welders and send all the provisions ahead of time so that only two years worth would be sent with the crew on a much bigger ship, 225 feet in diameter and about 750 feet long, with two nuclear power plants powering four long magneto plasma drives. I would hope to be able to run these for weeks at a time, then coast for a few weeks and flip the ship backward for the retro burn. I will happily work with you on space station designs and ship designs. It is far easier to build in space in zero G than to go to the moon or Mars and try to assemble huge torroid structures to augment gravity . Consider how many launches it would take to get 300 tons plus the starship body to the moon and how many of those landing would be needed to set up a metal factory in air tight tank buildings to make rolled sheet metal out of steel, aluminum or magnesium for yet another launch into space. That is a lot of infra-structure and fuel and time and labor. For 30 launches at 22 million each I could build a 500 foot diameter space station with 18 to 20 rotating systems for artificial gravity and gardens and parks with animals and trees . With Space X I could build this small city in space for about three quarters of a billion dollars. Now consider the price of setting up an industry on the moon to do the same job. This starship itself, not the existing iteration but a modified cylinder would be the second stage and be left in orbit to link to the next and the next, side by side and so on until we start the torroid rings that would enclose the border. It would assemble quick, as fast as we could launch them and the crew would grow about 4 to 8 people with each launch until the luxury rooms were ready. They would be self sufficient in food production, water production and oxygen production. If you've made it to here, thanks for your attention and any input or critical thinking.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Electrolysis on the way to Mars is an issue with the reduction in solar power... But if it could be done it would indeed be best.

[@TheWadetube]

@@terranspaceacademy I advocate for large ships to go to mars, not single tubes like Star ship. However if that was the first sort of Taxi to get a dozen , maybe 20 people there for at least a two year stint, like in the military, then I would expect there to be some kind of nuclear power module, perhaps less than a megawatt, but it can be done but will likely require a lot of water for it's own use. This ship also needs water for radiation shielding so it would be beneficial to have a metric ton per person for long term use and hopefully more can be mined from the soil of Mars and especially from the soil of the Moon should we go there first as a pathfinder.

[@astroevada]

As a member of the "Moon first" crowd, I emphatically agree

[@replica1052]

moon is not similar to mars - mars is similar to earth (where moon does not regenerate mars belongs to life )

[@PanzerBuyer]

Mars is colder, Dimmer and farther away. It will not be a paradise. @@replica1052

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you!

[@terranspaceacademy]

We'll all wear those Apple goggles to brighten things up :-)

[@replica1052]

where solar wind follows the suns magnetic fieldlines planets occur as in mars receives more mass than it looses (the sun has magnetic fieldlines and solar wind consists of charged particles -objects/particles are at their slowest/spend most time at apogee ) melt large amounts of ice with reflectors for greenhouse insulation and atmospheric pressure -once it rains fish can survive mars nature (we only need enough atmospheric pressure for water to stay liquid in the deepest valleys ) to surrect planets is how to live in a universe (life as center of the universe )

[@oberonpanopticon]

What about all the deadly toxic perchlorates

[@replica1052]

@@oberonpanopticon perchlorates are not very toxic and wash away easy

[@terranspaceacademy]

There are organisms on Earth today that could live on Mars at the equator. Just not many.

[@TheWadetube]

I believe I heard that Perchlorates can be processed to release huge amounts of oxygen into the environment and habitat, so it could be a life saver. Take your own soil to Mars, it is critical to have good soil.

[@replica1052]

@@TheWadetube life started in the oceans, start out with hydroponics and you will get organic soil quickly (earth's surface is mostly water so should a mars habitat )

[@phineasphogg2125]

Per their vid, the nearStar fusion chamber contains the reaction with a cylindrical waterfall of molten salt that does not touch the chamber wall, designed for a heavy-G environment (gradient perpendicular to the railgun,) so it would need to be re-engineered for a zero-G/micro-G environment.

[@bmobert]

The waterfall can be injected under pressure. Gravitational pooling effects at the "base" can be emulated topologically with high-surface-area porous construct that can be 3d printed; basically a wick that is specifically designed to grab onto the moten salt via viscosity, allowing it to then be pumped back into the loop. This would have to be engineered, it's true, but the engineering knowledge is already extent. That part of the design can be modified for any gravitational gradient, including free-fall. Honestly, I don't buy the target apparatus, which was completely ignored in the presentation, or that there's enough momentum in the projectile to cause fusion in the fuel. Not to mention containment while the fusion process is ongoing. I don't think the engineers in this project have gotten far enough in their analysis to know if they can or can not pull this design off.

[@mr.ackermann807]

​@bmobert Thanks for going over that, but I'm still confused as to how the magnetic field would be activated in the presentation little alone how the whole fuel capsule would be compressed. Also please correct me on this cause this confuses me the most, the projectile, how it it supposed to work? All I saw was contact and it being pulled into the compression phase of fusion. I'll watch it again carefully, but they seem to be leaving out details in this.

[@mr.ackermann807]

​@@bmobert I understand better now, but still need more details left out to make more sense.

[@bmobert]

@@mr.ackermann807 Yes. You have some of the same questions I do. I've could wave it all away, "A robotic arm pick up the fuel pellets and places them it he right place and orientation." And, "The fuel capsule is shaped so that the momentum of the metal disk is focused into the collapse the deuterium gas to achieve a high-yield fusion event." Sure, all that is possible. But, easy? Far from it. An enormous amount of research would have to go into the engineering minutia before this became a product, or even just a prototype. And, who knows! Maybe I'm completely full of it. Maybe all the research has already been done and all that is required is implementation. But I am dubious.

[@mr.ackermann807]

@@bmobert thank you. But also now that I think of it, if it really is proven math then to protect their design it would be best to leave out details to avoid others from stealing. As I said before (don't remember the channel) I will remain skeptical untill it is put online and doing work.

[@phineasphogg2125]

You lost me on the Red Dragon landing prop. dV~2400 m/s. If Isp.vac=300, Vex.vac~2942 m/s. Prop =m.f * [e ^ (dV/Vex) - 1], Prop ~ m.f * 1.261 Even if m.f is as low as 10 mT, landing prop is 12.6 mT. If m.f=12 mT, need slightly over 15 mT landing prop.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Atmospheric braking absorbs the difference I assume. That's why it takes almost as much propellant to land on the Moon as Mars. I was using SpaceX numbers and they were probably planning to come back in lighter. Much lighter. Also if you are ejecting waste mass enroute there goes over half a tonne!

[@owenwilson25]

Your "Mission Architecture Goals" proposes "NO pre-deployed assets" - But that ship has ALREADY sailed, we have robotic landers and rovers that have ben scouting the planet, they and their discoveries are pre-deployed assets, and I suggest outside of science-fiction Juoiter-2 style spaceships no human missions should ever be attempted without deploying scouting and other assets first. Space-stations are also not necessary for planetary expansion but have proven good for experiments and may provide zero-g goods & services that are issues independent of planetary expansion. What is needed is the deployment of robotic avatars to build robotic habitats first, then an industrial base from which they can then construct human habitats - we are not designed for vacuum and hard radiation , we need to drop our egos and make use of robotic extensions to prepare suitable habitats for later human consideration and/or rejection.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Those aren't assets for people trying to stay alive :-) Unless they find water! Or a nice Mars citrus tree.

[@mrfusioneng]

My opinion is for any of this stuff to succeed, they will need space stations in orbit around both the moon and mars, ( artificial gravity is a must), equipped with of course regular space station crew, but also temporary personnel who can operate heavy equipment on the ground via remote control, using a starlink type network of orbiting satellites so the response time between commands, and execution is instant, ( even when they are on the opposite side of the planet). With cameras mounted on the equipment as well as full control of say an excavator, ( heavy equipment). Fully autonomous equipment is just too complex and would take generations to develop, along with human like carpenters, ( as a crude example), that are fully autonomous, to be able to construct habitats, run drilling rigs, run heavy equipment, and all the things that need to be done on the surface. However remote control with a real human in control is all available now, ( technology wise). For example a human like form, with articulating fingers and hands, ability to walk, and actually work,( example climb into an excavator, get into the seat and turn the key on to start, then operate the controls, can all be designed and built with current technology. Think of a scenario where a construction crew of say six guys, ( who are trained in construction), fly to a large orbiting station, ( relatively safe, since they are not landing). They go to work, wearing a full body suit, where any movement they make is replicated on the ground by the robot on the ground. They can walk, grab nails and hammers, ( just simple examples obviously), and work just as if they were there themselves. With 4 k stereo vision articulating cameras that follow the operators head movement, it would be just like being there. The workers would do maybe a 3 month stint, then fly back home and be replaced with another crew. The reason they can’t do this from earth is the lag time between making the command and doing the command, for example with first person gamers they need about a 50 mb per second bandwidth and 20-30 millisecond lag time to be able to even play the games. With a starlink type network orbiting the moon or mars, they should be able to get 200mb per second with around 20 millisecond back and forth to the orbiting station with currently available technology). By the time this gets done, tech will be ten to 20 fold that bandwidth. Actually I think Nicola Tesla proved all this out around 1910 with his radio controlled boat, and remote control was used in WWII quite a bit I believe, ( and any current drone). I have tried to write ai software, it takes man years of programming just to do one simple task, just try to get your ai robot to grab a nail, put it on a board to begin nailing, but accidentally drop the nail and try to pic it up to go back to nailing, ( that’s like 10 man yrs of programming just to do that, ( just a super simplified example). Plus the processing power to do this is AI way out there in the future, and that’s just one task. The remote control concepts I outlined can be done now with current technology. Of course it will likely end up with 3 guys watching one worker doing the work, just like here on earth, ( just a joke). The human like robots would likely need plug in battery modules, ( like they use on battery powered electric drills), that need to be replaced every few hours, with the depleted batteries returned to a solar charging station, ( they can walk to the station, switch out the battery pack with their articulating hands, switch out the battery pack, then resume work, ( they only need a remote battery monitor to do this, no fancy AI). Obviously everyone has got lost in the totally autonomous robot gig, where they can do everything like flipping and running and think for themselves to do most anything, that’s many decades away, but what I’m describing can be done now with current tech, ( lol, but I can guarantee nobody is going to do it), they would rather spend many decades programming a robot to do what an licensed electrician can do with a couple years of training, do I cut the red wire or the blue wire, training AI to know that would be a monumental task, ( just a simple example). Your a very bright guy, and I enjoy your content very much, but there aren’t many common sense solutions these days.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Excellent points and description. The great thing about the Moon is that remote control is possible.

[@richardknapp570]

Isn't Mercury too close to the Sun? Radiation levels would be extremely high. Wouldn't one or more space stations and/or a moon base greatly help extending our reach?

[@terranspaceacademy]

Nothing a little iron won't cure :-)

[@jeffrogers210]

Thank You! I am an advocate of "Moon first" myself.

[@PanzerBuyer]

I think it will very comforting to be able to see the Earth so clearly from the Moon. And you can return super quick if you want to!

[@terranspaceacademy]

That is a huge plus.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you Jeff!

[@LuciFeric137]

Correct. Luna has to be colonized first. Then the NEO asteroids

[@terranspaceacademy]

I agree completely Luci!

[@theOrionsarms]

Your math is flawed, if you want to fly from moon orbit to the Mars with chemical propulsion you need first to slingshot to the earth and use the Oberth effect for interplanetary injection, all the numbers used currently in the charts for Mars injection includes the Oberth effect from low earth orbit position.

[@terranspaceacademy]

There is no Oberth from LEO unless you move out and fall back... from the Moon's orbit it would be easy to "fall" toward the Earth and get that kick, but I don't think it's critical.

[@theOrionsarms]

@@terranspaceacademy it's critical because the gain from Oberth effect depends on the square of escape velocity of the celestial body you use at the point where you make that maneuver , escape velocity from the earth surface is 11.2 km/s(the square of this number is 125,44), from the moon surface is only 2.4 km/s(for this the square is 5,76), if you use the Oberth effect from earth lower orbital position indeed you need only 600 m/s deltaV more than that escape velocity for a martian transfer , but if you use moon gravity you need at least 1.9 km/s more than moon escape velocity for the same gain of 3.6km/s necessary for a transfer orbit to Mars. Also are some practical problems with slingshot from moon to earth because moon isn't always in alignment with common orbital plane of the planets, and if you launch at a different angle from it you need a velocity significantly higher to compensate for that misalignment.

[@theOrionsarms]

@@terranspaceacademy also your idea of using low thrust maneuvers don't go well with the Oberth maneuver, practically you need to change your velocity with more than one km/s in 100 seconds, for that you need 1g or more acceleration not 0,25.

[@markmelcon9484]

These two papers consider the gravity well maneuver, and hwen it works. Robert B. Adams “A New Maneuver For Escape Trajectories” transcript of 2008 talk, with transcription errors. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090009147/downloads/20090009147.pdf Robert B. Adams “Using Two-Burn Escape Maneuver for Fast Transfers ….” Formal paper 2010 chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100033146/downloads/20100033146.pdf

[@markmelcon9484]

These two papers cover the gravity well maneuver, and hwen it works. Robert B. Adams “A New Maneuver For Escape Trajectories” transcript of 2008 talk, with transcription errors. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090009147/downloads/20090009147.pdf Robert B. Adams “Using Two-Burn Escape Maneuver for Fast Transfers ….” Formal paper 2010 chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100033146/downloads/20100033146.pdf

[@roydiehl]

Always appreciate the serious use of math to develop analysis -- just a couple of irrelevant nits to pick (for quality control purposes only!) -- Icon of the Seas has a mass of about 100,000 tons, the 300,000 "net ton" measure is of the ship's volume (at 100 cubic feet per 'ton'). Has no impact on your math, which is what you're using the ship as a comparison for. Also, for the mass of water, did you consider recycling/purifying liquid waste when developing your numbers? Again, no impact on the math, more of a potential rounding error than anything since the example relates more to the magnitude of the numbers in the problem set and thus on the potential solutions than on a few hundred kg of mass per person one way or another. Again, marvelous work you're doing, most sincerely hope you continue to stimulate thought and study!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you! I'm not much of a sailor and did not know they gave tonnes displacement instead. I did think about recycling the water but the machine that does so is really big... Probably could be done with a smaller device but right now it would take up a lot of space.

[@gravityawsome]

Moon, then Venus.

[@danwhiffen9235]

I also agree that Venus doesn’t get enough love…

[@PanzerBuyer]

I like that too. Venus has roughly the same gravity and all the solar you want. Altering the atmosphere is a challenge, but it can be done.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Mercury! We've got water and awesome solar power available! Crater view lots are still available!

[@orbitaljellyfish808]

As a person with a brain I agree

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you immortal one!

[@StringfellowHawke197]

Breathing pure oxygen is not wise for many reasons in the long run. Not a good idea.

[@oberonpanopticon]

Elaborate?

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's true. At high pressure... If the pressure is low enough to be the equivalent of 21% its all the same...

[@StringfellowHawke197]

Nope, still dangerous. Pure oxygen will cause blindness in infants. It also creates a nasty fire if there is EVER a spark. It also is very corrosive.@@terranspaceacademy

[@maq6144]

First thing to say is that humanity is nowhere near being able to do heavy industries on the moon. The case for launching from earth is that it is so much simpler in terms of building a spacecraft. Certainly for cargo, starship seems adequate. Human presence on mars could be very limited for a long time, say of the order of 100 People with increasing sophisticated robots to provide labour and expertise. For example I can imagine with the development of AI that a standardized human form robot could quickly be turned to any number of skilled tasks such as a medical doctor or an electrician etc. that would limit the number of vulnerable fleshy humans needed to be on mars. I suspect that we will have to go smart rather than brute force initially at least.

[@bmobert]

Automated regolith separation and 3d printing remove most of the hurdles. 3d printing can be accomplished in the short term with mirrors and regolith. That's not going to.gwt you off the moon but it will give you infrastructure. You can accomplish regolith separation with thermal distillate franking, especially if you comnone that with even rudimentary h2 and o2 reaction chambers, with the heat, again, coming from mirror concentration of solar light. It might take as much a decade to get to the point where rocket tanks and engines can be 3d printed, Relativity style. But I'd be surprised if it took much longer. By that standard, we are very close to having industrial manufacturing on the moon.

[@maq6144]

@@bmobert not sure I believe in the ease of all this heavy industries on the moon. I mean on Earth machines break down all the time. They need constant maintenance and spares. Supply chains have to be maintained. But on the moon the same are magnified with many components having to be sourced expensively from earth. I'm convinced that humans will not be able to perform well in spacesuits so we are going to have to depend on better more intelligent robots. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'm saying the technology is not mature enough yet and it's going to be so costly that government is going to ball at paying the costs.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I would disagree. We have been easily capable since the early 70s. We just didn't bother. And the MD will be a good electrician also on these early voyages :-)

[@TheWadetube]

@@terranspaceacademy A great android or just droid, would be a boon for Mars, especial since it could recieve two or three upgrades from Space X during the ride out there, I only hope it doesn't become sentient and kill everyone.

[@tonyhaley7946]

How long will take to produce Hydrogen on the Moon and what infrastructure would be needed? Lets just go to Mars

[@terranspaceacademy]

It can quickly be done by using solar electric power to electrolyze water...

[@MarsMatters]

Great video! I obviously have to weight in here though :p You mentioned that multiple Starship resupply launches per human mission to Mars could be technologically feasible to supply human Mars explorers with all that they would need, but wrote off this option. The only reasons I can see to write this option off would be A: cost, or B: risk. The alternative proposed was to build much larger colony ships that could carry everything needed in one shot, constructed on the Moon using lunar resources. You say in the video that this alternative option “would require a large colony on the Moon first”. The cost of building a large colony on the Moon would be very significant (and would likely still require the use of Starship). Propulsive Delta-V is the primary factor in determining the cost of transporting supplies between locations in space, and the Propulsive Delta-V required to land cargo on the Moon is very similar to the Propulsive Delta-V required to land cargo on Mars. So all of the cargo that would be needed to develop a large colony on the Moon first could simply be sent to Mars instead for a similar cost. There are Delta-V advantages of launching a mission to Mars from the Moon if you assume everything you want to send to Mars is already on the Moon ready to go, but in reality most of the supplies (and all of the people) that will be going to Mars will need to be sent from Earth. (High tech equipment, food, anything carbon based, and even water and oxygen unless you want to build significant additional infrastructure on the Moon first to extract enough water and oxygen from the lunar surface to support both the large lunar colony AND exports to Mars.) A large colony ship built on the Moon could come to LEO to pick up supplies and people from Earth before heading off to Mars, but then you still have to use rockets to get those supplies out of the Earth’s gravity well (and getting out of the Earth’s gravity well accounts for the majority of the Delta-V budget when sending things to the Moon or Mars) and the larger ship would have the extra Delta-V burden of getting into LEO as well as departing from LEO to Mars (instead of from Lunar orbit). Instead, it is likely that anything sourced from Earth would have to make the trip from Earth to lunar orbit first to rendezvous with the larger ship, which requires basically the same amount of propulsion as just sending it directly to Mars in the first place. It seems clear that building a large base on the Moon first so that larger colony ships could be launched to Mars is not more cost effective than sending multiple Starship launches to Mars per human mission. So what about risk? It is true that the most luxurious human mission to Mars would be on a large colonial transporter, hopefully with artificial gravity from spinning compartments as well as large spaces for entertainment and significant radiation shielding. Such a ship would be very heavy, and would require in orbit assembly. It is of course most efficient to build such a ship using lunar resources and a lunar railgun system as you described. Such a ship could be positioned in an elliptical orbit around the Sun such that it routinely intersects with Earth’s and Mars’ orbits with little need for propulsion. These cycler spacecraft will be the ideal form of transportation between the Earth and Mars. Cyclers would, however, be limited to a 9 month Hohmann transfer for each leg of the journey. Faster transits would require a much greater Delta-V, and for such a heavy ship this would require a very significant amount of propulsion. But is such luxurious transportation to Mars necessary? And is it worth the additional costs (and risks) associated with building an entire Lunar colony first? If the sole purpose is setting up a Mars colony, then the answer in my mind is definitely not. There are obviously many other reasons that developing a large colony on the Moon would be beneficial, and we should do so for those reasons in and of themselves, but a Lunar colony with in orbit assembly is simply not required to build a colony on Mars. It would not reduce the cost, nor would it reduce the total risk, since you would have to add to the calculation all of the costs and risks associated with building a Lunar colony first, which are in many ways analogous to the costs and (to a lesser extent) risks of building a Mars colony.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Very good points. :-) I would still argue that building those bigger colony ships in lunar orbit with lunar resources would work better!

[@MarsMatters]

​@@terranspaceacademy Why?

[@thestrangecrisismalachi4121]

Im super excited to see humanity from a single planetary species to become a multiplanetary species, or eventually interstellar species, which that won't happen anytime soon, Space sure brought us all together. ❤️ "OH YEAH," what if we land the dragon crew capsule on the Moon, could that work?

[@oberonpanopticon]

I think there was a plan called grey dragon which was a lot like a smaller scale dearmoon

[@terranspaceacademy]

They should just send something to the Moon and to Mars with really good cameras and some instruments and land them to make a point. Dragon would be fine for that.

[@TheBuilder311]

One shot per second? how on earth are they going to cool the gun firing at 6km/sec? Didn't the US Navy pretty much give up on the rail gun idea because the shoe would melt when they really tried to crank the velocity? Now they can fire it every second?? ;) Good luck to them.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Depends on the mass of what's being fired etc. The Navy wants a big shell sent downrange. Right now they use controlled explosions. Rail guns are possible just not practical.

[@zhchbob]

Why do we want to colonize the other planets or moons? Answer: To expand the human civilization into the space. Can we build an independent civilization on the moon? Answer: No. Can we build an independent civilization on the Mars? Answer: Yes. The atmosphere, the gravity, the water resources on the Mars is more suitable for human colonization than on the moon. More importantly, the Mars is far from the earth, thus any colony on the Mars has to be independent from the very beginning. In my opinion, the long distance from the earth is an advantage that will stimulate the Mars colony to mature more quickly than the moon bases. The moon base projects will fail, because it is very expansive to maintain these bases on the moon from the earth, and human cannot get economic return from these moon bases. In contrast, the Mars colonization is likely to success, because the people landing on the Mars will not expect to receive long-term supports from the earth. Most of them will not even plan to go back to the earth. It's just too expansive for them to rely on the oxygen, the food, and the water brought from the earth. They can generate all these resources on the Mars more easily.

[@oberonpanopticon]

You don’t really have much of an argument for why mars would be better than the moon. It has almost all the problems of the moon but even worse. At least there’s a slim chance of lunar industry being profitable.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I would disagree. With recycling and enough starting materials we can build a completely independent civilization on the Moon more easily than on Mars.

[@zhchbob]

@@terranspaceacademy Of course, you can build a moon base more easily than a Mars base. The point is that neither a moon base nor a Mars base is sustainable. In the eyes of an earthling, both bases waste a lot of money to maintain, without reasonable economic returns. However, the human base on Mars will be a start point to a Mars colony in the eyes of a Martian. In contrast, human will hardly colonize the moon, because of its harsh environment and (probably more importantly) because of its closeness to the earth.

[@zhchbob]

@@oberonpanopticon The environment on the Mars is much better than the moons because of its atmosphere that is filled with CO2, and because of its abundant water resources. The air temperature close to the Mars' equator will feel warmer than that of the northern Canada because of the extremely low wind speed on the Mars. Neither the lunar industry nor the industry on the Mars will be profitable to the earth. In my opinion, no deep space project will be profitable to the people living on the earth in the foreseeable future. Colonizing the Mars, however, will be very meaningful to those (e.g., Elon Musk and Dr. Zubrin) who determine to make human a multiplanetary species.

[@Spherical_Cow]

I have some bones to pick with your numbers for the mass of food and water required per day, per person. Firstly, one has to assume that water will not be expended: it will be continuously recycled with only minimal losses. So instead of 2 kg (or 2 liters) per day, each person might require perhaps 0.1 kg/day of extra water (lost to recycling inefficiencies). Secondly, one assumes the food will be sent and stored in a dehydrated state, to be rehydrated just prior to eating. Since food, like us, is maybe 70% water by mass and volume, instead of 0.85 kg/day per person, you'd end up with just 0.26 kg. Recycling won't be limited to water. You mention CO2 scrubbers, for instance. A Mars transport might use solar power to drive chemical reactions that reduce CO2 directly back to C and O2, with the latter recycled for breathing. The same sort of reactors might be used on Mars to produce additional O2 directly from the atmosphere; this should greatly reduce the need to send extra O2 as cargo for the colony. In general, ISRU and efficient recycling of nearly everything will have to feature very prominently in any Mars colonization scheme.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Can't recycle in the Dragon. Those devices take up far too much volume though with effort they could be reduced possibly. This exercise was not using anything that does not exist.

[@fanOmry]

For myself, I prefer a Cycler between Earth, Moon and Venus.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I like it!

[@fanOmry]

@@terranspaceacademy The Reason I think that, is because that untill Venus is Teraformed, it has an easily accessed power source(the heat deferencial between the ground and the sky. And using that power will just make accelarate teraforming. Also, when we develp easy and cheap 3d printing, I mean at the point printing ¹Graphene sheets out of flash graphene. All the CO2 in the air will be enough for us. At which point, Venus becomes a huge resource. Or ¹better, Print alloys with flash graphene that are better than current Rocket hulls. Same difference.

[@tonymcflattie2450]

Today we probe the moon, tomorrow Uranus!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Too far away! (Fast runner)

[@WWeronko]

I have always been in the camp where industrialization of the Moon made the most logical progressive sense rather than Mars direct. Space liners going to-and-fro from Earth’s orbit to Mars in comfort and safety has its attractions. In that Elon Musk doesn't overtly embrace the plan I think is not because he doesn't see the logic of the method, but rather he believes it will take too long to progress to that level of development before it is practical. I don't speak for Mr. Musk, but I share the rationale that to save humanity from potential extinction it needs to be interplanetary. It takes no genius watching the news to conclude that humanity has entered a precarious phase where global conflict has an increasing potentiality. Technology, both biological and nuclear, to destroy ourselves is rapidly progressing beyond our ability to control societal impulses. I am not sure we can wait for the optimal method of safe and efficient colonization of off world locations. The moon is a bit too close to act as a humanity life boat.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I think we could build something at L4 or L5 that would be big enough for ten thousand withing a few years if we set our mind to it.

[@TiberiusMaximus]

I knew mars one was a joke from the start

[@terranspaceacademy]

I was curious about the transportation issue...

[@TiberiusMaximus]

well done, can you do a vid about VASIMER and if we'll see the thing actually fly? I know Zubrin is highly critical of Chang-Diaz and all the time and funding thats gone into it with little result@@terranspaceacademy

[@clytle374]

I keep asking myself why Musk is so bent on skipping the moon. I have to believe that Musk isn't being completely illogical all of the sudden, not saying he's correct, just usually has a reason for his actions. Is it too close to earth? Too close to the sun? Too close to governments?

[@terranspaceacademy]

I think he's afraid we'll stop there if he doesn't create a system capable of going to Mars.

[@theayeguy5226]

"... and EQUITABLE clean energy" Get TF out of here with that woke BS

[@terranspaceacademy]

Now, now... the opposite of woke is comatose. A happy medium is always the best option. Eyes open and reasonable.

[@FreeSpeechWarrior]

Did you send this information to Elon Musk?

[@terranspaceacademy]

He's aware I'm sure :-) Moon First requires patience... Explorers on Mars, even an outpost of hundreds, is a fine goal. Just no young people until the infrastructure is in place and that will require lunar resources.

[@TheWadetube]

We don't weight objects in newtons. There is no point. It takes , what,.. 4.4 newtons to equal a pound. Everyone is familiar with pounds or kilograms so why jump over to a scale that few people are familiar with? Like pascals instead of pounds per square inch, or bar instead of psi or Mach instead of miles per hour . Bar and Mach are not fixed numbers and the others add complexity to a problem. I am reporting that this is exlusivism and unnecessary . If you are going to say that pounds are different on the moon or in space the metric you use to translate that into Newtons would also be different, you are still using an earth metric for mass whether in space , on the moon, Mars or on earth the mass remains the same 4.4 newtons to a pound.

[@terranspaceacademy]

We do weigh things in Newtons Wade. If we want to catch up with the rest of the world. It's better than pounds, which is a measure of weight. The imperial measure of mass is the slug. Come on now. Who wants to deal with slugs?

[@TheWadetube]

@@terranspaceacademy Newton was British, we are Americans, we weigh in Franklins. 5 to a pound, it's really easy . No one has explained why newtons is better than pounds, they are both fixed measurements in relation to each other. Mack and Bar are the really illogical metrics as they are NOT fixed, and man can jump from a high balloon and pass Mach one until he hits the Bar. Slugs? It was difficult in antiquity to find anything that was always the same size, length or weight to keep the same metric all over the world. Feet is a good example. Cubic? Span? Stone? really....There has to be a nut or bean or rice that never changes and I don't know of anything to begin to generate a common metric. I have dwelt on this for 40+years.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Metric is better because all measures are relatable to each other.

[@TheWadetube]

@@terranspaceacademy I agree, there is a harmony between weights and volumes and so forth than ounces and pounds and gallons can never have, and that it is a multiple of 10. Easy peasy, even for Brits and Americans but it is not familiar when most bathrooms scales are in pounds , but 80 kilos does sound better than 176 lbs. So this isn't even an issue with me, it's mostly joules, pascals, bar, mach, and newtons, that trouble us to do math back to the original metric to know what they are talking about, it is unfamiliar . Why do they insist on more complication and exlusivity?

[@NeroDefogger]

im falling asleep

[@terranspaceacademy]

Get some caffeine and get back to studying! :-)

[@NeroDefogger]

@@terranspaceacademy coffee is awful, both in taste and most importantly in health, why don't you study why it is an awful substance and learn to stop drinking it like an addict? and I can't study anymore because I have literally all the knowledge, sadly there is nothing else for me to study, you see knowledge is also a curse... now you, you have a lot to study and learn still

[@terranspaceacademy]

Because coffee has many health benefits. Despite that I don't drink it for taste reasons. I like tea.

[@NeroDefogger]

@@terranspaceacademy coffee is not healthy even if you eat ROCKS LITERAL ROCKS they can HAVE BENEFITS but that is NOT HEALTHY

[@TiberiusMaximus]

Well done, can you do a vid about VASIMER and if we'll see the thing actually fly? I know Zubrin is highly critical of Chang-Diaz and all the time and funding that's gone into it with little result @terranspaceacademy

[@terranspaceacademy]

Watch the one on thermal propulsion. It covers it in depth. With enough energy it is completely possible but we would need nuclear or fusion.