Onboard the SpaceX Starship 2.0 in Detail - What it takes to go to Mars | Detailed Breakdown

[@oO0Xenos0Oo]

I am pretty sure they will not build a one-fits-all solution. Cargo will be send to mars ahead of time. The human transport configuration will only hold the supplies that are needed for the transfer. Also i do not expect to have a full flight control deck for all crew members. I imagine something similar in size to an airplane cockpit. Why would the system do need a lot of human interaction, if the starship is designed to fly without crew and carry cargo on its own anyway?

[@nulled7888]

Agreed ;)

[@BobbyJamesCote333]

This makes sense to me... 💯

[@nulled7888]

Actually 2 ppl should really be enough.. or maybe even one

[@keithscommunityanddomestic9513]

If something goes wrong, it's generally a good idea to have backup systems. Also they will need to be monitoring all kinds of different things on the screens and different pilots will probably have different controls.

[@nulled7888]

@@keithscommunityanddomestic9513 maybe until spacex is ready for mars we already have neuralink up and running, so u can do that from all around the ship.. im just kiddin obv, but still fun to think about

[@LaserGuidedLoogie]

Nuclear power for the win. Thanks for making this, I love it when airy speculation gets broken down into details that make sense.

[@sgtsan6976]

I was under the impression that the supply ships would be sent first, so the starship carrying the astronauts would not need everything for the full 5-year mission. Just for the journey to get them to Mars lightening the load.

[@trygswyrmwoodside3229]

And even after that, when they are sending multiple ships per window, entire ships can be supply ships that are unmanned.

[@danielbuggie591]

That's the plan. Especially since the expectation is it would need to generate fuel on Mars to get back to Earth, there is no way they'd send people that way unless they were sure they could top off the tanks to get home.

[@worldcomicsreview354]

unmanned supply ships landing first and sending back telemetry will also be good data so the manned landing goes perfectly

[@trygswyrmwoodside3229]

@@worldcomicsreview354 Yes. I think some people don't understand the 2 year transfer window thing, and it's throwing them off. There's going to be many starships in orbit, and they are all going to go at once every 2 years. Less than half will be manned I would assume.

[@stellaoh9217]

You were under the impression Musk is actually going to Mars? LOL. Sucker....

[@themercer4972]

This was fantastic. It is exactly the sort of info a sci-fi writer wants to have.

[@human_shaped]

Fiction, indeed.

[@ACF1901]

Exactly.... not going to happen

[@psdaengr911]

You need more imagination than this video based in fact and evolving reality to be a good "hard" sci-fi writer today.

[@NaturallyFitNow82]

Because it's still Sci fi. Wake up.

[@holgicg]

@@NaturallyFitNow82 Wake up there's not much time left to wait)

[@andymanaus1077]

I was thinking, "They're going to need nuclear power", all the way through the second half of the video. Hydrogen cells, solar and batteries are never going to work on such a lengthy mission. Over time, hydrogen leaks through of all known materials. I would be very nervous about hydrogen tanks that were meant to last five years, or even six months, without serious leakage problems. With nuclear, there will enough power to spare to split CO² back into carbon and oxygen. This means far less oxygen will need to be transported since it can be recycled from CO². With sufficient energy available, water can also be split into hydrogen and oxygen. In this scenario, the hydrogen doesn't need to be stored for long periods, minimising the leakage losses. Recycling everything combined with utilisation of resources found on Mars will be the key to manned journeys to Mars.

[@VitVoz]

The downside is the weight of nuclear reactors though

[@JohnnyWednesday]

@@VitVoz - check out NASA's "kilopower" reactor

[@A_piece_of_broccoli]

@@Freja_Solstheim those are micro reactors and do not provide anywhere near enough power for an entire space ship. a probe yes, a space ship that utilizes over a thousand times as much energy? nope. there is no nuclear power station light enough to provide enough energy that can be added to the ship, period.

[@freedomhq4075]

Hydrogen can be contained entirely in graphene I heard

[@error200http]

Submarines are nuclear already kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqSwnWmVoriGl5o

[@krishnachandradas8386]

Crew can also workout in gym room to create energy, in other word turning foods into storage energy, for various electric necessity in the ship.

[@LordMoriancumer]

You can reclaim oxygen, recovering 75% of it, and reduce the O2 requirements by several factors. Also, you can achieve over 90% water reclemation reducing the water requirements by 8-10x. this reduces the consuables of O2 to just 250gms / day / person, and water to less then a liter / day / person. even with a water budjet of 20L / day, 1 cubic meter of water / person would be enough water for 18months. 1 cubic meter of liquid O2 would be enough for 1 person for 12 years. The rest of your numbers seem to be close to the mark, and the production quality is realy spot on! good work

[@ReveredDead]

You hit it on the nail. Only big issue will be food, power and fuel use.

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

It's like nobody knows this has been under study since 1970.

[@LordMoriancumer]

@@ReveredDead I don't see power as an issue, with a few kilopower reactors from NASA or a small 1MW SMR can easily fit within the mass savings from O2 and Water recycling.

[@ReveredDead]

@@LordMoriancumer True enough and thus the fuel tank itself can be smaller as the only fuel needed will be to achieve escape velocity, corrective maneuvers, entry burn and landing. The remaining power could be from the reactors for the 6-7 month trip. Lift off from Mars is another topic but Mars atmosphere is thinner so they could make escape velocity on far less fuel. Smaller fuel tank means more cargo space and more living quarters for more people. Nuclear really is the way to go like you said.

[@ReveredDead]

@@RideAcrossTheRiver You'd think after so long we would have this down. However up until private industry got a hold of the space industry. The industry was stagnant. The "magic" was gone after Apollo. Glad to see it's being revolutionized. SpaceX isn't bound by government budgets, committees and politics. It's why Musk keeps SpaceX private and not public cause he does not want investors or external interests interfering.

[@sunburst6598]

Fascinating yet so scary, I cant imagine living in a pod for 7 months, weightless, and with very risky components and possibilities. Much respect to the brave astronauts

[@gfopt]

One small thing I noticed- the chairs on the flight deck are oriented poorly for bellyflop reentry.

[@AdrieKooijman]

The ship will probably reconfigure itself. 🙄

[@veergauba]

Bellyflop won't be possible with any system like this. Imagine all those tons of water sloshing around...

[@psdaengr911]

@@veergauba Water won't be carried down o earth and belly flop landings aren't feasible for a Mars landing.

[@Humtog]

If we really really want to travel all the way to Mars on a starship, then I think it is going to be multiple starships going at the same time. At least five starships. Some of them will just carry cargo. And atleast two will be crewed. This will give massive redundancy incase something goes wrong. Also this will drastically reduce the weight in carrying too many redundancy stuff in each starship as there is always another starship nearby. Also, since we can travel to mars only once in 2 years, it would make sense to send maximum stuff in one go. But a more optimal idea would be to create a "Mothership" in space whose only purpose is to travel between Earth orbit and Mars orbit. Think of it similar to ISS. This way, we wouldn't have to unnecessarily carry landing-systems on each starship which reduces weight massively. And also, we can give much more space to the passengers as we won't be limited by single cylindrical shape. Also, it would make it possible to give artificial gravity. Great high effort video by the way. Best on this topic!

[@hillbillyintheasia6122]

all lestin too elon musk one ship cargo, transport , refueling . 3 different variables . aka transport ship need carry food water for 7 months the cargo ship carry extra needs for the transport ship and refuel ship used refill starship before it lands. hint why musk said 100 ppl . all need read what musk said send 100 starships same time. send cargo ships ahead too mars have 5 years of food , water ,oxygen other supplies before one human starship leaves for mars. used tesla human robots too build mars colony.

[@jerryham5659]

You also have to consider the EVA suits of each astronaut, if you plan on them going outside on Mars

[@ispartacus1337]

Probably wont be necessary to go outside. A modern drone would be sufficient for just about anything that could happen on the outside of the life supporting areas.

[@karspostema2762]

@@ispartacus1337 people need to go outside tho, touch grass, be alive! Although, there is not much grass on Mars

[@darrennew8211]

@@ispartacus1337 Why send humans to mars if they're not going outside?

[@ispartacus1337]

@@karspostema2762 then those people shouldn't go to mars... there is no grass and there is no "alive" outside. They're going there to survive. Survival depends on keeping the outside OUT

[@ispartacus1337]

@@darrennew8211 Because everything outside is literally trying to kill you. The rocks, the sand, the wind, the weather literally everything not inside your small capsule you'll be living in is a potential death sentence. There is no hospital. The question is why WOULD you go outside?? Theres literally nothing out there. Everything in that type of environment is a risk vs reward situation. Except for the sheer amazement of walking on Mars it affords no beneficial purpose on the contrary it's dangerous everytime they open the door because there is NOTHING out there.

[@MichaelKubler-kublermdk]

This is awesome and very much what I've been thinking about. I've written 100+ pages of content about going to Mars and living there and just some of the technical challenges. The getting there bit is a big one that I don't think enough people have thought about. This is the greatest detail I've seen on the topic

[@erictesch]

Elon stated with a slide back in September 2016 that mars missions should take 2024: 140 days 2027: 150 days 2029: 140 days 2031: 110 days 2033 90 days NASA has shown 30 days on Mars is possible to return before the planets are out of alignment meaning a full mission could be 330 days long instead of 5 years That’s 5.53x shorter of a mission Daily ration 2.5kg Food 3kg water 1kg oxygen CO2 and hydrogen can be converted to Methane and water using the Sabatier reaction and H2O can be converted to hydrogen and oxygen using electrolysis so this can mostly solve water, fuel, and waste issues meaning roughly 2.24x less mass per astronaut. This can effectively bring the mass requirement down to 825kg per astronaut (+ 75 kg astronaut + 75kg water) At ~1000kg per astronaut, 10 astronauts would only need 10,000kg for a return mission instead of 118,625kg

[@emma-ns6fj]

do you know what type of power would fuel the inside? for example nuclear or solar or both?

[@beyondplanesight]

@@emma-ns6fj nuclear wouldn't be feasible as it's large, heavy, and highly complex. Nuclear power just boils water to turn a turbine to generate electricity. Solar would be the most beneficial as the ship would have 24/7 solar radiation. There could be a heat exchanger that could help save energy by utilizing the light below UVB that solar uses to generate additional electricity.

[@emma-ns6fj]

@@beyondplanesight interesting 🤔 but wouldn’t the solar power get weaker as the ship moved further from the sun?

[@beyondplanesight]

@@secretname4190 you are correct that nuclear submarines have small reactors. The submarine costs $3.45 billion with the reactor costing $200 million or more, aside from cost, spent steam at low pressure runs through a condenser cooled by seawater and returns to liquid form. The water is pumped back to the steam generator and continues the cycle. Any water lost in the process can be made up by desalinated sea water added to the steam generator feed water. There is no seawater in space to cool the steam so it would not work. Solar arrays are much cheaper and simpler to install and can be pointed at the sun for 24/7 energy. If we could develop an energy source alternative that does not require heating steam to turn a turbine, then that could be used but there is little out there that has been proven to work at a commercial or industrial level.

[@jamespayne8252]

Hey brother love your videos and I'm always excited every time I see a notification from you. Thank you for all you do and you keep making these videos and I'll keep watching!!!!

[@RofelRolf]

As a 3d and Render Artist I´m thrilled by this dramatic illumination. Man, good job!

[@SuperJompaVideos]

I love your space videos! Please make more of them!

[@tonywilson4713]

Sorry to all but, this is disgraceful idiocy masquerading as engineering and scientific fact. FYI - I am an aerospace engineer and I'd love it if we had a spaceship that could go between the earth and the moon or Earth and Mars, *BUT this is NOT THAT.* This is idiotic science fiction masquerading as scientific fact. Point 1) There is no space to waste on any space craft - period. Go look at any of the footage from the ISS, Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Mir and there was/is no wasted space for anything. Point 2) While we are still using chemical based rocket motors there is allowance for wasted mass. Nobody is going to waste mass on anything that is not necessary and the only things that will have multiples will be critical systems like Oxygen systems, CO2 recycling, power systems, communications systems and water reclamation. Look at 30seconds for the gym area and then the detailed view at 3:30. There's 4 treadmills, 3 showers and 3 toilets and most stupidly of all 3 weights benches which wont work in free fall. *This's not even good enough for science fiction, it's ignorant science fantasy.*

[@DivineHillz]

No

[@tonywilson4713]

@Science Revolution *IF YOU THINK SCIENCE IS FAKE THEN STOP USING COMPUTERS*

[@tonywilson4713]

@Science Revolution In answer to you ignorant garbage and this is more for others than you. 1) They can measure spacecraft speed and location through several techniques. One of the most common is with gyroscopes as part of inertial navigations systems. Also they use the locations and angles of stars the same way sailors have for generations to get their position. 2) We know how long it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun. We know the distance and its pretty simple calculation to get the earths average speed around the sun. 3) The ISS like most satellites needs orbital boosting. Space is not the pure vacuum many think there's just very little of anything. There's still some drag just as there is for a car or airplane. Over time orbits degrade which is why you need boosting. Most satellites have small rocket motors to do the same thing the ISS does. Those that don't eventually fall out of orbit. 4) So what about the burn time of those rockets. You clearly don't understand the difference between a rocket that flies a ballistic trajectory and one that flies into orbit. What's important is how high those first stages boost the upper stages and how fast those stages are going when the booster runs out. Ballistic rockets only have to get up high. Orbital rockets have to get up high and go fast when they are high. Please don't embarrass yourself any further.

[@SuperJompaVideos]

@Science Revolution Tell me you know nothing about spacetravel without telling me you know nothing avout spacetravel. Usually satellites have ion-engines to boost their orbit and keep it from decaying. The ISP of an ion-engine is much higher than a lower stage of for example Saturn V, which you used for your example. Secondly you don't understand relativity, because you feel to think that space is a stream of water or some shit. Please for god's sake study the subject before thinking you know more than actual rocket engineers.

[@will2see]

11:23 - "However, solar isn't consistent." - No! Solar is very consistent!

[@Steven_Edwards]

Especially in space where there is no cloud cover...

[@MysterCannabis]

That was absolutely fascinating to watch!

[@tonywilson4713]

Sorry to all but, this is disgraceful idiocy masquerading as engineering and scientific fact. FYI - I am an aerospace engineer and I'd love it if we had a spaceship that could go between the earth and the moon or Earth and Mars, *BUT this is NOT THAT.* This is idiotic science fiction masquerading as scientific fact. Point 1) There is no space to waste on any space craft - period. Go look at any of the footage from the ISS, Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Mir and there was/is no wasted space for anything. Point 2) While we are still using chemical based rocket motors there is allowance for wasted mass. Nobody is going to waste mass on anything that is not necessary and the only things that will have multiples will be critical systems like Oxygen systems, CO2 recycling, power systems, communications systems and water reclamation. Look at 30seconds for the gym area and then the detailed view at 3:30. There's 4 treadmills, 3 showers and 3 toilets and most stupidly of all 3 weights benches which wont work in free fall. *This's not even good enough for science fiction, it's ignorant science fantasy.*

[@gordonbyron5145]

Yeah, too bad its never gonna happen LOL

[@tonywilson4713]

@@gordonbyron5145 Unfortunately the Musk Rats and Elon fanbots don't care about reality let alone real engineering.

[@gordonbyron5145]

@Science Revolution Wow, you are certifiably insane. I sure hope you don't own a gun.

[@doctorPaule]

You worked out many constraints. Very good! The "belly flop" reentry phase means that seats need to swivel from down-toward-the-bottom-of-starship to down-toward-the-belly and back in a few seconds. This constrains the configuration of landing seats.

[@allangibson2408]

Or you spilt the difference and have the seats at 45 degrees to the engines or bottom of the ship…

[@bernieschiff5919]

The interior seating or couches might be reconfigured and repositioned for departure, zero g coast phase, and landing. Not really needed in zero G. Design for multiple use of major components are essential.

[@eatonkuntz]

If all the seats face away from the belly it wouldn't be too bad. You would be comfortably reclined during the belly flop and upright during launch.

[@bernieschiff5919]

@@eatonkuntz An airline row seating configuration is probably a realistic solution, there may be others. The couches would need to rotate up around their midpoint about 30 degrees for the decent and then quickly pivot back to horizontal for launch/landing. Space X will probably adapt existing seats they use now for the Dragon capsule.

[@mrsupremegascon]

Is that really necessary ? Why do they need to rotate just for the few seconds of belly flop ? Geniune question.

[@runningray]

Really enjoyed your video. Pretty thought out. There is a couple of items that are usually ignored that bothers me. 1) Starship when vertical has an up and down, but Starship when horizontal also has a up and down. When it's landing you want the people in the bridge of the ship to be upright. So the op's deck of the starship will probably look like the Dragon capsule. With 4-5 chairs sitting "upright" when the ship is doing it's flip maneuver to land. 2) The center of Starship will not be a "tunnel", but a "column". The main ship plumbing will be in the central column running down the ship, top to bottom (which will include the downcomer). That column should have hand rails / steps so people can climb up and or down the ship. Also, you wouldn't have a long tunnel running top to bottom. You will have a ladder going down only one floor at a time, with a slight off center look to the next ladder going down to the next floor. Like this, nobody will every fall more than one floor on Earth or Mars gravity and not 5-6 stories down. 3) I feel people that do these designs need to add water tanks between every floor, not to mention all sorts of wiring. So the in between the floors need to be much thicker, not just one level on top of the next. Because of this, I don't think Starship will have as many levels as people think it will.

[@shoobidoobi1993]

Great comment on the middle column and the offset of level entries

[@andrewreynolds912]

It's possible it could be a 100 percent for water reclamation

[@brandonberchtold9484]

Great video! They likely would be able to tap oxygen directly from the main oxygen propellant tank though, so that would save a lot of mass from the oxygen tanks you factored in.

[@sewi014]

Similar with water as you can use the waste water from the hydrogen fuel cells to supply the crew. Shielding is another point, if 2mm of shielding is enough there is no way 5cm wouldbe used throughoutthe whole ship. That would mean a safty factor of 50x which i way overengeniered even if we arent talking about mass critical applications like space travel, and as mentioned a segnificant ammount of shielding could be provided by water tanks and other storrage as well as the structure itself with some areas havong more shielding to serve as shelter during solar storms or while travenling through the van allen belts for example where you have to factor in increased radiation levels.

[@cheesesvideosstorage8070]

I love this! Especially the final point at the end of the video. Sums it up nicely.

[@solifugus]

Very happy to see someone else doing this. However that said, I'd like to give some constructive criticism. (1) Don't do zero-G all the way to Mars--at a minimum connect two starships by the nose and rotate; (2) Don't need that much exercise equipment--they will share; (3) The flight deck could be reconfigurable for multiple uses--I suggest a classroom, lots to study en route; (4) Forget dehydrated food--use MREs + hydroponics; 1 MRE is 3-4K calories so one per person per day; (5) Obviously, you are going to recycle air and water--Mars has at least 1 liters of water ice per 1 cubic meter of regolith; (6) 600 grams of algae can exchange enough CO2 to Oxygen for an average adult, it can also clean ammonia and metals, a moss wall can do similar but directly from air as where algae will require spraying through air to capture it in water; (7) I don't think its going to need nearly as much electricity as the ISS, unless it's conducting numerous experiments and such; (8) water and plastics are great radiation insulators, yes. Also, foam the plastic and use as insulation. I suggest PVC, which will give similar radiation shielding and better insulation. Metals help block radiation but release secondary particles even more dangerous. That said, the plastic and water will block it.

[@dackel4253]

I love these kinds of theory crafting and technology/number comparison! Paired with great graphics and voice over, this video really was absolutely incredible!

[@darrennew8211]

You should look at Thunderf00t and Kurzgesagt for more info about traveling to and colonizing mars.

[@dackel4253]

@@darrennew8211 I already know Kurzgesagt, but Thunderf00t is new! Thanks for the suggestion!

[@darrennew8211]

@@dackel4253 Oh, and there's also Common Sense Skeptic, who debunks all things Musk. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mXW8pWCmnbp0rrs

[@stevenhoman2253]

Despite claims to the contrary, the astronaut who went to the ISS for 12 months, while his twin brother remained on earth. It was discovered that significant damage was suffered by the twin who went to space, and also by his own statements (he felt very sick in a general way with a malaise, perhaps a debilitating depression? It would take him a very long time to return to 80% of his former self, by his own admission.) Were this to occur on a Mars journey (and the likelihood would be increased due to the ISS being in LOE,)and still marginally within our planet's magnetosphere. What and how would we react/deal with a crew that could not function upon landing on Mars? Not enough resources are being put into this, as basic facts of space travel. 12 months on the ISS, or 6 months on the way to Mars, or the round trip to the moon and back. These all have differing timelines with their own hazards. Nobody is realistically dealing with any of the hazards that I am aware of. Psychological, social and physiological factors need to be taken into account before we start venturing into the unknown with humans, I would suggest. Cheers 🤔🤔🤔🤔

[@DistinctiveBlend]

That's because a lot of people are caught up in the sci-fi fantasy (plus Musk worship) and so don't want reality raining on their dreams.

[@hyfy-tr2jy]

Your point is quite valid and essentially makes a 5-year mission to Mars a one-way trip for those who go. I continue to say this every time something "Elon" comes up be it SpaceX, Tesla, The Boring Company or Hyperloop (among others)....Elon Musk will, someday, go down as the greatest conman in the history of the world.

[@sewi014]

Despite your argument being valid in the sense that psychological as well as physiological issues will arrise you faild to mention the name of the astrounout you are refearing to but i assume its Scot Kelly, in which case both him and his twin brother mark were diagnosed with prostate cancer arroud a similiar time. If you are refearing to the canges in genetic activity thats somethig that happens in everyone in response to the environement and has an entire field of study called epigenetics dedicated to it. Something also missing in your argument that reaserarching the long there effects of living in space was kind of the point of the iss. After 20 years of reaserch we know a lot more about the dangers and how to prevent them and likely we'll get another 10-20 years of reasearch in before we ca consider trips to mars. The argument that nobody is dealing withnthe human factor is simply falls. Astronouts that travel to the iss undergo segnificant psychological evaluation and traing before missons to ensure they can work as a team and NASA conducted multiple studes on the psychological and physical effects of long tearm space habitation. Your argument makes it sound like astrounouts comming back from the iss are in a vegetative state unable to do anything which is frankly not the case, while also dissmissing the reasearch and brakethroughts thousends of scientists have achived in the last decades. Im not saying spaceX will be the ones to reach mars with the timeline they suggested, that is a PR stunt with an unachivable goals in that timeframe, but arrguing that no reaserch is done on the human factor is ignoring the work of a lot of people who have dedicated ther laifs to this cause.

[@darrennew8211]

I'll believe we have a hope in hell of colonizing Mars when we put a town in the middle of the Sahara or on Antarctica and don't resupply it for three years.

[@charbax]

Polyakov's 678 days in Space, Avdeyev's 747 days in Space, and they're fine. At least the Mars mission has a purpose, unlike those Astronauts who just orbit earth for months and months without any real destination in sight. Also Starship is way way bigger than Soyuz capsules, bigger than ISS and etc etc, plenty ways for the Mars astronauts to stay in shape.

[@AnonymousAnonymous-gh5fs]

Ok I know other people are already talking about this but I really think its an important idea that needs to be put out there more: Long distance space ships are only going to become really effective (large number of people, fairly comfortable, etc) if they are built in space and aren't designed to exist anywhere but space. If there ever comes a time when a fleet of starships head to mars, it would be (in my opinion) idiotic not to create some sort of mothership that accompanies, and even combines with them. When this 'mothership' reaches wherever its goin, mars for example, the landing ships (starships), the crew (all, or most, or maybe only some of the crew) will leave the mothership in orbit while they board the starships, undock from the mothership, and land on mars. To me, this is the only reasonable or even feasible way to transport colonists. There is far too much room taken up by launch and landing capabilities on a single starship, and there will simply not be enough room for the number of people that SpaceX envisions living on a Starship. Istg if anybody tries to put 100 people on a single starship heading to mars they're more braindead than a rock that was diagnosed braindead by 9/10 dentists.

[@ClockMaster_3100]

I came up with this idea. Basically in orbit there could be a massive station designed to act as a hub for starships. Basically, starships can be refueled, Built, and repaired up on the station

[@AnonymousAnonymous-gh5fs]

@@ClockMaster_3100 I like that idea, but my idea is more inline with having that space station actually go to mars, and stay in mars orbit

[@shrin210]

Problem is nobody is going invest such amount of money. If its possible then they will build small mothership with similar to size of starship to act like centripetal force for living purpose and stationing in space only and around orbit .

[@ClockMaster_3100]

@@AnonymousAnonymous-gh5fs True. It would be nice to have one around earth though

[@AnonymousAnonymous-gh5fs]

@@shrin210 If the plan is to send a fleet of starships then I think a mothership the size of 2-3 starships is reasonable, and I like the idea of centripetal force. As I said, I see absolutely no feasibly way to to send that many people to mars without something like that. Elon may be ballsy but I dont think he's stupid. Any sane person could see that undershooting an investment like this and not providing a mothership of sorts would lead to nothing but disaster. So while I agree that nobody would be willing to spend that kind of money, somebody better step up soon and be willing, otherwise we will never be multiplanetary. I have hope that elon will.

[@averagejoe8255]

Looking forward to your next video. A nuclear propulsion solution has always been the best method to reach Mars. Let’s hope they develop one.

[@LG-qz8om]

Best technical details I've ever seen. Very informative.

[@NominalSpaceflight]

Video idea: make a similar video with an in depth dive on what it takes to go to mars with the upcoming block 2 and block 3 of Starship

[@AuntySlayer3000]

it's gonna take a fleet of about 5-7 ships to do the trip. some will be for cargo only, and controlled from earth/computers. i also think they should be coming up with a docking/connection port that they can link the ships together, and make the trip as one bigger starship.

[@kapytanhook]

Seems smart, keep all the shielding in 1, power in the other. Only 1 ship would ever have to land or reenter earth rest can just shuttle back and forth on a free return trajectory.

[@alconway8515]

Indeed, I can imagine a connector/docking terminal for 6 Starships, rotating to produce artificial gravity and heading to Mars. Each Starship containing cargo, life support & crew or 4 containing cargo and 2 supporting crew comfortably. A number of configurations to consider for sure if multiple Starships are mated together before the journey and all able to land or only the crew Starships land once at Mars.

[@Yrouel86]

Overall this is a good initial breakdown of the challenges of such mission, however I'm hoping a future video will take in consideration not just nuclear energy but also multiple ship arriving at the same time and/or multiple cargo ship already there waiting.

[@yashaswikulshreshtha1588]

Well why should we even colonize mars? There's literally no way to be independently surviving there. We can't gather resources, it's not sustainable at all!

[@ashemgold]

I would think your reasoning would be the only way they will survive. Surely they will have thought this through and have multiple redundancies available at all times. I wouldn't get on one of those boats unless I was travelling with at LEAST two other fully loaded, non-crewed, back up ships and heading to a landing zone with a number of other ships already parked and robots actively building habitation and storage on the surface. Yes that was one long sentence.

[@brandonfigueroa7399]

Great video. I don't think the sections of the ship would be only dedicated to one thing. it is likely that there would be all elements included in each section. if they lost one section they would loose a percentage of all systems instead of loosing an entire system. if for some reason they couldn't enter the bathroom section for a week there are going to be problems. Amazing video

[@mrsupremegascon]

It's not a sub tho, I don't think that losing a section is something that they are supposed to survive.

[@12_gageshotgun90]

Though the mission to mars will likely consist of multiple starships to fix the wieght problem it is fascinating to see that it is theoretically possible to do the full 5-year mission with a single starship.

[@johntheux9238]

Starship's payload capacity is 100 tons to an useful high inclination orbit (starlink). For refilling they will use an equatorial orbit so 150 tons for the V1 ship and 200 tons for the stretched ship with 6 vacuum engines.

[@tepidtuna7450]

Agree on the nuclear energy option. Can't wait for your topic on that.

[@Utubedarr]

Why not send multiple ships at once? The ships could combine after lift off for the majority of the trip and separate again for landing. From the calculations of this video much of the supplies and equipment needed for "living" conditions could be spread out. Spreading the resources, weight and power could make the trip doable and with less constraints. Please do a video on how resources, supplies and power could be separated and combined to accomplish this. Elon Musk has all ready proposed that multiple ships are needed. Why not send them at the exact same time??

[@maxthegermanshepherd8942]

I think that it's because they want to be sure that the supply ships are safely on Mars before sending the crew. Imagine if one of the supply ships failed and the crew would be stranded or would starve -- it would be a disaster.

[@Dysputant]

Even 3 will make such mission WAAAY easier. 1 for crew , 1 for backup to leave in mars orbit as return emergency , 1 with spare parts.

[@LaserGuidedLoogie]

One thing that gets left out is repair and replacement of damaged components. Things WILL break down and need repair, There needs to be an allowance for this.

[@mikecyanide7492]

Yeah thank God this suicide mission won't happen. Current tech is abysmal. Anyone with even basic reason would opt for lunar missions and development a lunar launch facility utilizing diminished gravity, atmosphere orbital velocity and much more. Further more nuclear battles and reactors would be crucial. In short Lunar development and nuclear power.

[@psdaengr911]

That's why it's unlikely there will be only one Starship launched from Earth and landing on Mars at a time. Private industry doing colonization doesn't think like NASA with just test pilots, volunteers prepared to die in all or nothing missions. , AKA Expendable astronauts. Multiple ships could be conjoined , docked, acts as lifeboats. SpaceX isn't building one friggin' Starship at a time, launching it and waiting to see what happens. Look at Falcon 9 and scale it up.

[@GinoACosta]

The best solution, as was mentioned, is to have unmanned construction machines go to Mars, have them build a base, preferably carved inside a rock cliff of a lava tube, and have multiple ships, each carrying a small number of people. Also, an amazing amount of materials could be gotten in-situ on Mars, oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc., and water could be made from those, assuming lots and lots of frozen water doesn't already exist there

[@HDnatureTV]

I love the fold out beach chairs for the flight deck! I hope they ad some mood lighting for day, dusk, and night operations.

[@davidwefler5716]

Lol I hope your joking about the "day, dusk and night operations" since there isn't really a dawn, day, dusk, night cycle in space ...but that has always been a problem with being in space for astronauts the human body does depend on something called Circadian rhythms though....

[@michaelmoore1403]

Great video. I don't understand why you would need the oxygen bottles when you have a hundreds of tonnes of Oxygen sitting in the propellant tanks? Additionally why would you use Hydrogen fuel cells when you have a giant tank of methane? Why would you not use Methane fuel cells? The other point that may be lost on some is that the hundreds of tonnes of Methane and Oxygen in the propellant tanks as well as the tank bulkheads would provide an enormous amount of protection if the ship is kept in an orientation pointing away from the sun. Why not create additional radiation and thermal protection by putting in blanket shields of similar but lighter construction as the ITER, as you demonstrated in your last video? These are suggestions not criticisms, thank you for such thought provoking material.

[@12345maxx]

100% agree, methane fuel cells.

[@acasualviewer5861]

makes sense.. SpaceX chose methane for a reason.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

Because there is no access to the content of those tanks outside of the gravity well.

[@michaelmoore1403]

@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 pumps

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

@@michaelmoore1403 pumps don't work where there is no pressure gradient, and that depends on gravity.

[@philliplevine9167]

By biggest criticism for most these designs are they all have a ladder or elevator, ladders suck for carrying supplies up and down and elevators are heavy and complicated and have the change of breaking but allow moving supplies easier. i always though a spiral staircase either in the center or along the outer wall makes the most sense, it can be compact in the center and is the steps fold up or down it can be easily used in 0G. no moving parts to break and can be made of extremely light weight material. easier to carry supplies up and down in gravity and much easier than a ladder for every day use.

[@Cup815]

I saw that the trip (to mars I think) would be 5 months, this is a lot like the first trip to America, it's really amazing. Based on another video I saw, it seems like the interior of the ship will be awesome. (apart from the fact that there's no gravity, but its depicted amazingly.)

[@richard--s]

Your rendering shows 4 or 5m diameter rooms (15 feet), but Starship has a diameter of 9 meters! (about 30 feet!) That's huge! It will fit much more.

[@Sims64340]

The Model 3 is under 5 m long and there was still space available behind

[@richard--s]

@@Sims64340 but the crew quarters sre very small in diameter. And the model 3 is very impractical because of the small trunk opening, a bad decision.

[@kyneticist]

Diagrams from SpaceX show a tunnel with ladders through the middle of the ship - so that the crew can move between floors, potentially with an elevator (for those who can't just Musk-magic themselves around). The full 9 meters by most accounts is measured from the outside to the centre.

[@jakobmax3299]

The orientation of the seats on the flight deck could do some improvement, as the gforces during reentry should optimaly push you into the seat, with the ring config that would only be the case for a few of the astronauts so a more rektangular layout would be more comfortable. Anyway nice video in general with amazing graphics

[@no4h1453]

Good point. Although this ring config looks impressive, it is not practical and makes no sense. It would probably work well for launch but Starship is designed for reentry with the belly. Astronauts will need to have sturdy front facing sitting position during reentry.

[@jakobmax3299]

@@no4h1453 I actually really like the topic of reentry vehicles, and i think the main problem of the starship is gonna be reentry safety. Just think about it like you dont know anything about spaceflight. Would you rather sit on the tip of a skyscaper going mach 20 in the upper atmosphere, or a small metal box that is aerodynamicaly stable and always points right side down? Maybe starship is safer than space shuttle, but the fact you cant do preflight testfires because the tiles fall of seems kinda sketchy.

[@psdaengr911]

What G forces during reentry? Anything that falls, falls at that same speed. Until belly flop g force would be one G minus drag. The belly flop is to limit terminal velocity by increasing drag. If the seats were mounted "bottom down" relative to the rockets and the backs aligned with the "belly" during falls in the direction of the backs, the net drag and would be perfectly aligned for those seats. Once vertical the rockets' thrust would be opposing the seat bottoms

[@jakobmax3299]

@@psdaengr911 when tje rocket reenters it doest feel the one g of gravity because its still fslling, but in the deceleration of the rocket is felt by the crew.This is why crews in ballistic emergency reentries fell a lot of gforces, the sttep entry int the atmosfere creates a lot of drag and thus gforce.

[@jakobmax3299]

@Andrew Well im not riding on something that doesnt have a launch abort system.

[@assarstromblad3280]

I saw one concept about having a 30m or so long truss and attaching one starship to each end, and spinning it up to like 3 rpm would generate 1G of spin gravity in the starships, thart way you could get around the bone degradation issues. Also, 1g isnt even necessary, martian gravity would be good, getting the crew to adjust to that gravity for months before even getting there.

[@Rick-vm8bl]

The bone deg isn't really a problem if you've got adiquate exercise facilities. Astronaughts spend way longer than 6 months on the ISS and they're fine.

[@assarstromblad3280]

@@Rick-vm8bl But they have problems walking etc even though they exercise a lot, so With spin gravity that problem is completely solved, and it doesn't really require much more fuel. It would also make way longer missions possible.

[@Jowbaka]

Why not just use a cable?

[@assarstromblad3280]

@@Jowbaka Probably would work well when it is spinning but starting / slowing the spin might be a problem with a cable I guess. If the ships are not 100% synced in the breaking they wouldbprobably get tangled etc

[@allangibson2408]

@@assarstromblad3280 Cable release was a problem that air launched gliders have solved since 1920 (for exactly the same reasons). The angular velocity at release is a bigger problem.

[@saquist]

wow THAT WAS AWESOME. You found all the information I found and more! I concluded a crew of 15. 3 pilots, 3 Rocket/Mechanical Engineers for maintenance and setting up solar arrays on the surface. 3 Geologist , 2 Evolutionary Biologist, 2 surgeons and 2 nurses. To that effect my only criticisms, is there there is no dedicated sick bay or Sterile Clean Room for surgery, experiments and computer repair. I concluded that the water in the floors is not optimal since the engines and fuel tanks will block nearly all that direction. The cargo bay walls could be used for water storage and that irradiated water could be used for power in fuel cells. The rest of the ship could use the Polyethylene barriers and a whipple shield for micro meteoroids and I think there should be 3 air tight compartments , Command Deck, Crew Deck and Cargo Deck. Most Mass Concerns with supplies can be alleviated by sending two additional Starships sent before the crew just as in the the Mars Express by Robert Zubrin

[@jazzmusiccontinues1134]

Water does not become radioactive when irradiated. So using it in the walls as a shield in most normal space radiation absorption scenarios would have no effect on its potability. One issue would be that if layers of insulation were used as further radiation protection on the inside of the spacecraft, and few between the water and the outer skin of the spacecraft, it could freeze and rupture whatever container it was stored in.

[@doctorPaule]

Sick bay or sterile room for surgery may not be needed. On U.S. nuclear submarines, emergency surgery is done in the mess hall, see Dustin's SmarterEveryDay series on nuclear submarines. On Starship, it could be done in the social area.

[@LuisCorro-qy1sf]

I think they, like Cristobal Colon, should send 3 ships at once. One with all they will need to builds a lasting "house" in Mars, another with food, water, medicines, etc, and the 3 with 6 astronauts. The fist and second with 3 astronauts each. They will need a doctor, a food grower, a mechanic expert to be able to repair the ship, the house and all they need, and other experts.

[@theinterfaithshepherd9075]

This was a great video to watch and very thought provoking. My thoughts at the end are that the trip to Mars needs to be a flotilla (maybe 3) vs one ship. This would have many benefits. The multiple ships could be used, for example, one to carry people, one to carry supplies, 3rd for fuel. The ships could be arranged during travel to provide shielding when necessary. Finally, the ships could be used as backup vehicles - should something go wrong in one or the other.

[@darrennew8211]

You can't have three ships doing three different jobs and then use them as backup vehicles.

[@theinterfaithshepherd9075]

@@darrennew8211 Yes...better to have all equipped!

[@manifestmars]

Loved the vid! I'm working on a huge simulation for getting to mars and having an ongoing station there and have come to a pretty similar conclusion. Without nuclear the amount of solar you would need starts to get crazy.

[@jaylewis9876]

What tool are you using fir the simulation?

[@gholamrezaamin9746]

با سلام : من طرحی برای تولید انرژی الکتریکی بصورت نامحدود وبدون مصرف سوخت دارم ( انرژی پاک ) که میتوان از آن بر روی زمین وسایر سیارات وایستگاه فضا یی استفاده کرد ، بدون نیاز از انرژی هسته ای یا انرژی خورشیدی .

[@manifestmars]

@@jaylewis9876 Its just a numerical sim, its all running out of a spreadsheet right now but the plan is to move it to python so I can do some kind of visualization.

[@hillbillyintheasia6122]

@@manifestmars human in 2028 are 2030 . tesla bots on first launch .2026 and 2028

[@deniswilloughby2662]

That's really a good try at estimation, it highlights how difficult space can be, great insight. Looking forward to seeing the following episodes.. Thanks.

[@adriank8792]

The world is so much better with SpaceX around

[@gabedude68]

Great video concept! Was actually trying to model my own version over the last month - just sharing my thoughts to some of it and some comments: They can send at least a pair of Cargo ships 2 years before the Crew mission, to have some certainties. Can also send ships in groups of 2 or more, to dock and share space, rec.facilities, expand crew social/sanity options, and even rig a simple spin-g to have modest gravity for part of the trip, and share redundancy of equipment and resources, or even emergency befalling one ship.. 6 bathrooms and 6 gym machines, for 10 crew? at that rate, might as well have en-suite bathroom and gym, just saying. Really want to see this fast tracked so I get to see us on Mars in my lifetime. Thanks!

[@tonywilson4713]

Sorry to all but, this is disgraceful idiocy masquerading as engineering and scientific fact. FYI - I am an aerospace engineer and I'd love it if we had a spaceship that could go between the earth and the moon or Earth and Mars, *BUT this is NOT THAT.* This is idiotic science fiction masquerading as scientific fact. Point 1) There is no space to waste on any space craft - period. Go look at any of the footage from the ISS, Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Mir and there was/is no wasted space for anything. Point 2) While we are still using chemical based rocket motors there is allowance for wasted mass. Nobody is going to waste mass on anything that is not necessary and the only things that will have multiples will be critical systems like Oxygen systems, CO2 recycling, power systems, communications systems and water reclamation. Look at 30seconds for the gym area and then the detailed view at 3:30. There's 4 treadmills, 3 showers and 3 toilets and most stupidly of all 3 weights benches which wont work in free fall. *This's not even good enough for science fiction, it's ignorant science fantasy.*

[@conradokonig7383]

First to the Moon and then to Mars. It is easier to assembling a bigger Starship and liftoff from the Moon or assembling like a space station directly in space...what a milestone!!

[@agmuntianu]

As far as I know there is a maximum height for fighter pilots, I think such rules will be applied to astronauts as well. Astronauts that are under 170 cm for example would: require less calories daily, less space ( for example the floors height could be reduced increasing storage space ), better health ( men under 170 cm in height live on average 7 years more than men 182cm in height ) .

[@melikby]

And for this reason, caring cost of men is more than women, because of this womens can sent to mars or anywhere, ı read a essay about this. Womens consumes less than men and appropriate for long term missions.

[@jathalan]

Excellent - but, the flight deck is set up for under gravity, micro gravity, or launch only. It would be very bad for a belly flop during landing. Gimballed seats needed.

[@starshipcaptain4753]

Great video diving into Starship going to Mars. I like the idea of keep crew complement to 4 on 4 Starships. 2 Starships will be configured with a small space station to launch maybe for enough for 8 and up to 4 Starships can dock to it to provide more cargo and living area. The other two Starships can land on Mars and off load the first popup dwelling.

[@naga7647]

I'm so glad you used SI measures. thanks from S.Korea!

[@AnupomAG]

There will be several starship involved in one mission and possibly a few at the same time. There would be countless problems if you imagine just one starship carrying astronauts to mars. They will be designing the space craft in way so that docking is possible in deep space. One for crew and another one for cargo. Also there'd already be a starship on mars with necessary cargo equipments. Also each starship has to refuel in orbit to reach mars. It's not easy and never will be but fitting everything in one go or a new concept will make unnecessary problems.

[@-JustHuman-]

Or simply ignore the lunch mass, as each spaceship is going to be refueled in space anyway, why not make it so they lunch with empty water and gas tanks and those also get filled during the refueling process, as the mass would mean less when landing on Mars anyway it should mean they can go there with more cargo in total. You could also make a station that the ships link to in space and push towards Mars, so the spaceships are the engines and the space station can be filled with the things needed during the trip and more cargo, as it wouldn't need to land the mass is again ignored. It would also make the refueling easier as now a few tankers can go to and from the station, while the manned ships wait on the ground until the last minut, making it easier for the crew and cheaper overall. The station idea would also mean more room for solar panels and for the crew to help each other and have more social contact.

[@danielpalmer8324]

The other option is to have other ships carrying cargo and supplies for the ship's that are carrying people. 5 ships with 4 being just cargo. No need for life support systems just maximize room for cargo and supplies.

[@Kintabl]

They will 100% go with that.

[@technotoaster]

Appreciate the work that went into making this video

[@TomCourtney]

Well done, this was an excellent break down. I loved the simple to understand presentation and ways that you discussed overcoming the problems and requirements. I'm looking forward to your next video.

[@joeybulford5266]

I’ll start pondering what the interior will look like when the damn thing actually makes it into orbit. If this interests anyone, you should check out Blue Origin’s lunar lander. They have a mock-up rn.

[@fbiagentmiyakohoshino8223]

i honestly expected this channel to have at least a few million subs but 340k? for this quality content? smh. this type of content is the stuff i see with big tubers that got millions

[@error200http]

Because this channel is spreading misinformation kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIjIq6luZdF_gKc kzbin.info/www/bejne/pH7Vc6qeo5qVhpI

[@SDRIFTERAbdlmounaim]

now i know what to expect next Sunday when i get into one of these ! thanks 😊

[@stevej7139]

I would expect an RTG or similar power supply for use not only during the trip to Mars but as a power source for the base on Mars . The base will of course need multiple sources of power but an RTG unit works continuously for several years and only requires a way to dissipate heat which is also useful on Mars . As for food , I would actually expect that among other things would have been sent ahead in a previous window so the only food needed to be brought with a crew is what they will eat on the way to Mars and any less long term storable foods . Pemmican is a food that would be good to have as opposed to only eating freeze dried and it keeps for years , depending on the recipe it can actually be pretty good along with much needed calories . I know from personal experience that eating freeze dried food gets old pretty fast without adding spices and even at that the caloric intake is pretty low per meal and not what I would call sustainable by itself . As a backpacker I understand the problems with going lean on weight , some sacrifices have to be made or you will suffer far worse things than carrying some extra weight .

[@MrSlartyb]

Fine for on the surface where it can be buried some way off or screened, but on board ship it would create a radiation hazard for the crew. This could be mitigated with a lot of heavy shielding but that defeats the point.

[@erictesch]

I would be very interested to see this with different mission lengths. Elon stated with a slide back in September 2016 that Mars missions should take 2024: 140 days 2027: 150 days 2029: 140 days 2031: 110 days 2033 90 days NASA has shown 30 days on Mars is possible to return before the planets are out of alignment meaning a full mission could be 330 days long instead of 5 years That’s a 5.53x shorter mission Daily ration 2.5kg Food 3kg water 1kg oxygen Water can be continually reused so is almost negligible per astronaut and the oxygen can be used from the main fuel tank instead of separate tanks, meaning roughly 2.24x less mass per astronaut CO2 and hydrogen can be converted to Methane and water using the Sabatier reaction and H2O can be converted to Hydrogen and Oxygen using electrolysis so this can mostly solve water, fuel, and waste issues. This can effectively bring the mass requirement down to 825kg per astronaut (+ 75 kg astronaut + 75kg water) At ~1000kg per astronaut, 10 astronauts would only need 10,000kg for a return mission instead of 118,625kg

[@davidnagore725]

I've often wondered something about using water as a radiation shield: How will that much radiation absorption/shielding affect it's potability?

[@markoa1310]

Radiation does not effect potability. Radiation are just high energy rays that can damage molecules like DNK. In case of water in worst case radiation just heats up the water but not by measurable amount. It would be different if the water would be contaminated with radioactive material like uranium. In that case water itself would contain radioative material and be radioactive.

[@theq68]

Radiation and radio activity particles are different, you can bombard almost everything with radiation and nothing else change, radioactive particles are a different story because they are small and if you ingest or get them in your longs you will be constantly getting that radiation and probably dye.

[@pipedreamsz]

Only neutron radiation would have any significant effect on this and even then it would need to happen over a very long time. Most other forms of radiation such as high energy protons, and alpha particles will be stopped dead by even a sheet of paper. High energy electrons are stopped fairly easily by metals and gamma radiation passes through most things and so is difficult to prepare for.

[@nagualdesign]

In the event of solar storm or cosmic ray storm the transmutation of the water may induce super powers if ingested.

[@pipedreamsz]

@@nagualdesign absolutely. We only want 4 passengers on board in this case. Just to make sure we can call them fantastic four

[@ryanthompson7884]

Great video, however, it will not be a single launch for a trip to mars. There will be many cargo ships sent beforehand to bring extra food, fuel, water, storage, materials, parts, end everything needed to live on mars. With that in mind, the crew ship would only need to bring the equipment for the trip, not the stay.

[@genxlife]

Finally! Somebody mentions that it's not impossible to protect interplanetary astronauts from cosmic radiation!

[@2ebarman]

Of course it's possible to protect astronauts against radiation. It is impossible to protect astronauts from cosmic rays though. This term actually refers to high energy radiation from extrasolar sources, and it cant be stopped. Lower energy radiation, protons with energies under few MEV for example, can be stopped. And stopping low energy radiation of course reduces astronauts exposure to radiation in space quite a lot. But if you attempt to block the cosmic rays, the high energy radiation, then that will actually increase astronauts exposure, because shielding will start to "glow" in secondary radiation. I've read a study which concluded that optimal shielding for low solar activity time is about 20 g/cm2 and for high solar activity time it's about 30 g/cm2. More shielding mass protects against solar radiation, but it also starts to "glow" more because of cosmic rays. So astronauts most definitely will get a rather high dose of radiation if they travel outside of Earths magnetic field, in a spaceship. But it's not really lethal if missions are carefully thought out.

[@kapytanhook]

Well.. it's not as straight forward. Some Cosmic radiation is too high energy to stop, rates of cancer will be higher for astronauts and shielding has a non linear effect. High energy radiation will interact with shielding to form prays of lower energy radiation that will interact with our tissue more. Solar storms can be weird too and should be accounted for when hanging out for 6 months. People going to mars will have to accept the risks

[@sprtplt]

There is no known way to do this that is remotely workable, the same goes for any Moon trip, cannot be done.

[@kapytanhook]

@@sprtplt yeah, workable is the key word. Possible sure if you don't mind lugging around many many extra tons of material. Not something humans can sent to mars any time in the near future. So much better just to not send humans , deal with the cancer or mitigate the cancer risk medically

[@thestudentofficial5483]

Best idea is definitely to use starship as a ferry to build an Earth-Mars transporter in orbit. But i guess winging it all in one ship is cooler. Basically Apollo 2.0 where you go there, plant a flag, confirm some hypotheses and then back home.

[@nekomakhea9440]

One big problem: no exterior ladders. The elevator crane is the only way into the ship when landed, and elevators break down a lot. "always have exterior ladders from ground level back to the airlock" is something I learned the hard way playing KSP. Also, the crew quarters don't need as many beds as the animation shows, if they hot-rack like they do on subs. That's more space for storing food and air.

[@Avaruusmurkku]

Problem with hot-racking is that its a severe hit to morale. You're going to need every single bit of morale you can get when stuffed into a relatively tiny space for half a year, being surrounded by absolute nothingness outside of the tiny bubble of life. No human has ever been as separated from the rest of the universe as Mars travelers will be during the voyage.

[@moskito5864]

we should try fixing 4-5 spaceships together in Orbit and disconnect them in Mars Orbit again. The medium ship could be the Center for maneuvring, this would also protect the astronauts in the middle ship from space rays, not completely but for sure more as in a solo ship. We will see. Furthermore it would be a good idea to put always 8ppl of the crew in some kind of stasis, and keeping two up per 1 or 2 month shift, it would safe food, oxygene, water and other things ♥ IN MUSK I TRUST ♥

[@roberttherrien352]

High quality. Very well done. As for the Oxygen requirement. Part of the Starship tank could be tap for crew and fuel cells needs in case of emergency or calculate from the start for the basic needs.

[@tonywilson4713]

Sorry to all but, this is disgraceful idiocy masquerading as engineering and scientific fact. FYI - I am an aerospace engineer and I'd love it if we had a spaceship that could go between the earth and the moon or Earth and Mars, *BUT this is NOT THAT.* This is idiotic science fiction masquerading as scientific fact. Point 1) There is no space to waste on any space craft - period. Go look at any of the footage from the ISS, Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Mir and there was/is no wasted space for anything. Point 2) While we are still using chemical based rocket motors there is allowance for wasted mass. Nobody is going to waste mass on anything that is not necessary and the only things that will have multiples will be critical systems like Oxygen systems, CO2 recycling, power systems, communications systems and water reclamation. Look at 30seconds for the gym area and then the detailed view at 3:30. There's 4 treadmills, 3 showers and 3 toilets and most stupidly of all 3 weights benches which wont work in free fall. *This's not even good enough for science fiction, it's ignorant science fantasy.*

[@VoltCruelerz]

Solar panels don't have to fold out straight like the ISS ones did. They can unfold radially as well to get more collection area. It introduces more folding complexity, but I can't imagine it exceeds the complexity of adding in such a massive fuel cell system. Hydrogen loves to leak too, which will complicate things further.

[@curebores646]

You could probably stick something like the reactors they have in nuclear submarines into a big enough rocket. Those things could run a small city, and you could have more than one.

[@pinheirokde]

No, the ones on subs can use the sea water to cool down the reactor, in space you would cook everything in minutes over the heat generated.

[@doctorthee]

@@pinheirokde Water is not the coolant but heat transfer to power turbines. In case of space travel, the heat will be captured by thermocouple metal plates just like the nuclear battery on the mars rover. Nuclear power has been a thing in space since the 60s, we dont want to cool the reactor, we want to capture the heat.

[@pinheirokde]

@@doctorthee see water is definitely the coolant in nuclear subs. Or else the nuclear reactor would cook people in the sub

[@doctorthee]

@@pinheirokde I think you misunderstood, we want reactors to "cook" because we can use heat to extract energy. In case of submarines we turn water into steam to run steamturbines. Nuclear fission doesn't need water as there are other ways to capture heat and turn it into energy, however water is deffinity the most efficient. Using it as coolant happens as well, but the main purpose isn't cooling, its turning water into an extractable source of energy a.k.a steam.

[@pinheirokde]

@@doctorthee heat by itself does not generate energy, you need heat transfer, cmon guys it's basic thermodynamics

[@andrewchin-aleong2877]

Thanks for all your Expertise on SpaceX Rocket. I Love it!!

[@jamesharvey3993]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Starship is a very promising system for shorter trips from Earth to the Moon, but using it as a vehicle to reach Mars is a terrible idea. Subjecting your astronauts to 6 months of zero gravity when you don't have to isn't smart, especially when Mars itself only has about a third of Earth's gravity, so they would atrophy even more. A solution that utilizes spin-gravity like in 'The Martian', 'Stowaway', or 'For All Mankind' may be more complex, but it is the only good option we have until continuous thrust technology is achieved.

[@shanenelson3825]

Lunar habitat next? or Mars Habitat? road's and bridges and light railway? Telascope base, Communication towers and open pit mining. Heavy Equipment, Landing pads.

[@emmanuelmahuni8163]

I love how you did this, it's food for thought. You see where you said hydrogen... Actually, why not carry some of the water as hydrogen and oxygen, such that the power requirements of the ship don't become a distinct mass for it's own purposes. ie convert hydrogen and oxygen into water thru fuel cells, which produces the required power and boom you solve many problems at once. Remember, the ship has a huge tank of oxygen already, the only missing piece here is hydrogen, which again goes to my poop 💩 comment below. 😂 Hydrogen can be obtained from human poop, we can actually scrap carrying hydrogen in large quantities and commend the crew to pooping, tell them their business means life and a safe return 🥴. So don't waste that poop, seriously. So yeah, we can obtain the ship's power from human poop and a bit of the propellant. Obviously batteries are needed and I bet they will be structurally built into the ship, just like 4680 cells in the newer Tesla Model Y, serving a dual purpose for energy storage and radiation shielding. Not sure if it will be safe or whether batteries are affected by cosmic radiation, but it makes sense to do it that way.

[@psycronizer]

obviously the concept of Molarity is new to you.

[@leonardgibney2997]

You mention cosmic radiation, but there's also the problem of Solar radiation. There's a constant Solar wind which is problematic in itself, but the main danger is CMEs. If the mission is hit by one, goodbye. I would also fear the unknown. Personally l don't believe in manned space flight. I think we're too puny as a species and evolved for life on Earth we can't really leave. At the time of Apollo science pundits predicted we would be shuttling tourists to and from the moon routinely by the year 2000.

[@psycronizer]

@@leonardgibney2997 whaaaat? "too puny as a species??!!" ah, dude, look around you ! we, as a species, have engineered our way to live right around the entire planet, and increasingly beyond it. The radiation issue is not a show stopper, because it is manageable, as are all other things, we engineer our way around the problems, just like we have always done, from the very start after we put on our animal skins and left Africa to colonize the world.

[@waynzignordics]

Excellent work. Don't forget the sequence of events: the Moon lander Starship version will be the first prototype of the Mars lander, and be used to test out some this technology.

[@jacquesquipere]

Very nice conclusion at 15:41 !

[@VolksTrieb]

Up to 100kWh and you say 100kWatts. Energy output or Power output? What now? Dream on. This thing will first of all blow up several times. Let alone your livingroom fantasies of the interior lol

[@magnvss]

All horror science fiction movies have the same premise: "We only carry just the exact amount of... whatever, so when things go wrong (and there is ALWAYS something that goes wrong), we are all screwed". Yeah, that is this video, essentially.

[@philipbaker8707]

This is forward planning in detail Whatever you do, this type of thinking is a mind exerciser and useful in your private and business life. Project , financial, critical path, safety, environmental, and many more plans benefit from forward looking. The main weaknesses of your forward plans will be the failure to identify all the affecting factors and this is when ingenuity and determination of those involved is required at the highest level .... Good luck with you planning .....

[@bitcoinzoomer9994]

Love the Cave Johnson outtro

[@yosefthamrin9110]

this is why you need a lange wa sahlan watch in order to survice in space!

[@Cythiamam]

Eternally grateful

[@ggCA07]

The best option to counter the weight issue would be space stations. The Starship can launch into orbit with the passengers and some supplies. Then a space station or another starship that was already in space, could dock and supply the ship for the journey. Once the starship arrives at Mars, a maned of unmanned space station or craft can be docked. The crew and supplies can then be halved. 5 crew and the necessary supplies go the surface. Once they land safely, the rest can come after.

[@allanchurm]

this is brilliant ..subscribed..

[@TheGolfdaily]

EXCELLENT analysis!

[@ajmalstanikzai4066]

They will be generating a lot of electricity exercising. If all ten of them exercise for an hour a day the electricity generated by them will significantly cut the battery backup system. Also it would be more efficient to discard CO2 out into space instead of recycling it. This will save us the weight of recycling machines some of which we can offset with more O2.

[@MestreDentistaGUC]

Makes my day, when you drop a video.

[@ROT8TED]

A fusion powered starship fantasize about that!

[@repalmore]

Something that most people don't understand. Very nearly ALL water can be recycled. Using very low pressure to extract water from food and poop waste you can recover the water then use various reclamation techniques to get rid of the stuff you don't want. Use RO for drinking and cooking water and other filtration, purification techniques for other uses like washing.

[@russchadwell]

I wonder about dedicated decks in the final design. Just the way a hide-a-bed does double duty as both couch and bed, I think these floors will have design such that they each offer several functions.

[@everettyou9155]

Cool stuff!!

[@snafu6548]

My first question is "Why would we store Co2 rather than simply venting it overboard? Does it have a value later in the mission? Secondly, even though it would be technically a zero gee environment, the addition of a modest Ion engine would still provide enough force to keep loose items bound (eventually) towards the floor. The thought of setting a cup or a tool down and it remaining "down" seems it wold have practical benefits, even psychologically speaking.

[@mikecyanide7492]

Oh boy... I'm tellin! Tunderf00t!!!

[@5K00O]

one of the best designs for a crew starship

[@brianheise]

The Starship 2.0 flight deck would be perfect for a LAN party