How SpaceX Will Land On Mars

[@muzzyali8011]

It would be an amazing engineering feat to successfully complete this but I can't stop imagining a scenario where one mistake happens and you have potentially hundreds of people lost in deep space. That is terrifying.

[@canbest7668]

Me too. I’m ignorant to this stuff but very interested. I thought Mars had violent dust storms. Wouldn’t that topple an upright Starship?

[@ThinkViralShorts]

I'm pretty sure SpaceX would have landing pads installed that could secure starships. Anyways even if that wasn't the case Starships are huge and pretty heavy even without the fuel@@canbest7668

[@Little908]

Yeah, but its not like humans haven’t taken risks like that before. And you’ll have to take that risk if you want to get anywhere.

[@_Teo_Dor]

Starship trajectory is constantly monitored an adjusted in calculated steps. You cannot start/stop large engines too frequently like small thrusters.

[@canbest7668]

@@Little908 true. They originally had no idea on all that was involved in getting to the moon. Yet, they did it. Gus Grissom said: “If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us, it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life”

[@TomUlcak]

Around 15:00. You are missing the most obvious thing. Starship tankers can fly with manned ships and cargo ships. Starship doesn't need to bring everything in one rocket. The Starship is designed for fleets not a single shot - eggs in one basket. The tankers would have to deal with evaporation of fuel just as all the Starships will.

[@3gunslingers]

The most obvious thing missing in the video is that Starship will NOT slow down prior to slamming into the martian atmopshere. It's sad to see that such a well meaning video gets this so horribly wrong. Non of the old and new rowers on Mars slowed down prior to atmospheric entry. They only used their heatshields and then parachutes/engines once they slowed down enough.

[@databaseerror-223]

this is the only time I've seen the actualy problem with starship landing on mars brought up: after months of direct sun exposure any and all fuel will be gone

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

​@@databaseerror-223well that is because it's only a problem if you think you need to slow down prior to entry. Which is NOT the case. The fuel nessesarry for the landings is kept in the header tanks, small cylindrical tanks placed separately from the main tanks and isolated from the skin. Therefore keeping those cooled is comparatively trivial. These tanks are also nessesarry because they allow for startup in the dive configuration which otherwise could not be done with the main tanks. The video maker went on an incorrect first assumption that starship needed to perform a breaking burn at the destination which is not correct.

[@databaseerror-223]

@@mobiuscoreindustries very good point altough that would require heavy modifications Like the enormous radiators on blue Origins moon lander design and even those can only reduce losses not eliminate them which over months would still be substatial. I'll damit thought that i hadnt thought of that

[@_RandomPea]

​@@mobiuscoreindustrieswhy exactly would you not need to slow down? Of course you do... It's not KSP 😂

[@FerociousPancake888]

Ugh that starship with all 33 engines lit looks sooo good. Just like when the RS-25s first light up on the shuttle. Super satisfying.

[@nabilbelauinate43]

زراعة اشجار الزيتون على سطح المريخ

[@edmax1864]

Mars or bust

[@MangoIite]

@@edmax1864 😟

[@WilfordNusser-z3n]

​@@nabilbelauinate43 Fall Out Shelter

[@williamhoward7121]

Your explanations of how Delta V is used is very well explained compared to most videos that I see. Anyone starting into this has a hard time understanding that the rocket is not just shooting straight up or down but gaining velocity and therefore a higher orbit. This would be a good primer for Kerbal space program!

[@sakarrc5001]

Kidding right?

[@jasontoddsprecher]

​@sakarrc5001 you keep saying it's not good. comment after comment. WHAT IS A BETTER EXAMPLE!

[@sakarrc5001]

@@jasontoddsprecher Check Scott Manley, Curious Droid, Everyday astronaut or even better play KSP :) You'll see what I've meant with all comments.

[@richardpoynton4026]

Fascinating video, absolutely fascinating. After absorbing the information contained, I now unfortunately have doubts about a successful Mars mission. It seems both incredibly difficult and incredibly expensive.😢

[@wxb200]

"Logistically Insane" is an Understatement...

[@jcdisci]

Once fuel production begins on Mars, could we possibly place an orbital fuel tank in orbit around Mars? This would help resolve the fuel issue for landing once a vehicle gets there.

[@jackprier7727]

sounds pretty easy!

[@Jack-The-Gamer-]

This is actually one of the big goals. If you start making your fuel off-planet, you beat the rocket equation simply due to the fact leaving moon or mars requires significantly less fuel.

[@jackprier7727]

@@Jack-The-Gamer- cool fantasies! Nearly zero-atmosphere of CO2 and water {for the hydrogen} being frozen at the poles {where the sun never hits and it's 150 below zero} makes this so easy! They should try it at antarctica for a decade, where there is actual air to breathe and it's way warmer-just to prove the technology-

[@nigelhungerford-symes5059]

Just deploy some Tesla Optimus robots on the surface to help.

[@jackprier7727]

@@nigelhungerford-symes5059 the initial protype, a skinny guy clumsily dancing in a black n white leotard-

[@MRRookie232]

I’m an Aero engineer and this was honestly more technical than it needed to be. With that said, kudos to you on doing something different and delving into the maths of orbital mechanics.

[@sakarrc5001]

What kind of aero engineer are you, because it was the worst explanation I watched.

[@jasontoddsprecher]

So list a better explanation pls. ​@@sakarrc5001

[@Zilahi-Branyi_Laszlo]

More like it was more technical than what he was capable to do, that's why there are so many bullshits in the video.

[@jeffholverson8294]

One of the most cogent and complete descriptions of the problem as it actually exists in the physical world using algebra instead of calculus. I appreciate it and thank you for your insight

[@CYBRLFT]

Small point of correction towards the end. The force required from the engines is not likely more than earth due to the decreased gravitational acceleration. Terminal velocity can be higher but the counteracting gravitational force is much lower.

[@miege90]

At 7:20 the orbital mechanics is starting to get incorrect. Starship is actually moving in a slower orbit than mars when it arrives at mars and with no maneuver would continue to fall back towards earths orbit. In practice it makes no big difference since you still have a huge velocity difference which you need to bleed of when you want to land at mars. If you're interested, look up Hohmann Transfer on Wikipedia :)

[@theOrionsarms]

Exactly, that guy doesn't know anything about orbital mechanics, also didn't mentioned the Oberth effect, deltaV for martian transfer orbit is with no more than 1 km/s higher than minimum escape velocity from the earth gravity, but actual velocity of the ship when escape earth gravity is with 3,6 km/s higher relative to the earth motion around sun.

[@johnkean6852]

AND you know this how? Did daddy tell you or did your teacher tell you? Have they been in "Space." Spouting accepted knowledge unproven is deemed as lying or in scientific terms: _theorising._

[@miege90]

@@johnkean6852 no, i have been to mars myself. Granted, only in Kerbal Space Program, but it's a PHYSICS simulation, maybe you should read a bit more about that topic...

[@miege90]

@@johnkean6852 what you call accepted knowledge is actually *proven* knowledge, but I guess it's not worth arguing until you take off your tinfoil hat.

[@theOrionsarms]

@@johnkean6852 everyone knows this (well anyone who learn basic things about orbital mechanics), and NOT isn't only a theory is the single theory that is used and the correct one. And is tested every time when a spacecraft is sended to another planet.

[@stevenmitchell6347]

The extremely thin Martian atmosphere will require larger flaps on Starship to enable proper functioning in the landing process. Even a deceleration burn to reduce atmospheric entry speed is likely necessary due to the reduced aerobraking of the Martian atmosphere. I fully expect the first few Starships that attempt Martian landing to crash in the attempts. Landing legs are also indicated for the same reasons as on the HLS Starship... uneven terrain, unprepared landing surface, surface erosion from engines, etc. Even the landing thrusters of HLS Starship could be needed for Martian Starships to address some of these issues. I expect the Martian Starship to have more in common with Lunar HLS than not. This would also indicate the need for an orbital tanker above Mars to ensure enough fuel for a successful landing. It's going to be interesting to see how SpaceX addresses these issues.

[@Impractical_Engineering]

Just imagine all the new craters we are going to add to mars just try to land starship.

[@thomasdickson35]

I'm glad someone finally thought of that! 😂

[@TomUlcak]

Not true. The flaps will work fine on entry into the Mars atmosphere. Reducing delta V has always been a concern with inserting into Mars orbit. As well as the evaporation of fuel for any Starship... or any mission to Mars. This has to be solved. Eventually, fuel will be refined on the Mars surface and lifted into orbit by Starship tankers. BTW, flaps aren't necessary for Starships going to the moon or Starships that remain in orbit around Mars or the Earth.

[@JustinKrux]

flaps likely wont change, the landing profile will, we will likely see the flip maneuver waaay earlier on a mars landing to start shedding velocity far sooner....the harder part of it all is making sure you have the fuel for it, which is something im sure they are thinking about and working on already....boil off is the biggest concern.

[@mateussenhaga216]

I believe we're not going to see much of a change on the flaps matter, besides what SpaceX has already announced with the upper flaps.

[@bunlessness]

keep the videos coming, you are one of the best space channels. great content.

[@jakob9911]

7:23 but the starship will have decelerated alot on its way to mars. Which means depending on how aggressive the aggressive the burn was the ship could actually be traveling slower than mars. An aggressive burn could also make it faster than mars.

[@walshmjs]

The preparation work required before any landing is paramount. The base , support infrastructure, everything. Without this there is no landing

[@KevinVenturePhilippines]

Nah, we can land directly on the surface to start.

[@Rocketfist-g7o]

We have to build base on moon before trying to build on on mats that’s the business

[@1moredayof]

KZbin does allow you to correct writing errors.

[@jasontoddsprecher]

I understood what you meant, then again I don't claim too be smart.

[@keithmcknight7646]

❤ the orbital mechanics lesson 👏👏👏👏 You have to be CRAZY to want to be the FIRST humans to make this trip. X will have to make MANY landings on earth with well TESTED landing legs to get me to go 😂😂😂

[@williamgist4287]

Eject before landing with drone ai back pack capsule ... just in case of Star ship mishap.

[@EaglePicking]

The same was said about flying airplanes, once.

[@ddouglas3687]

I'd go in a heart beat even if given 90% chance of failure. F*ck Earth.

[@sjsomething4936]

My concern isn’t as much with landing as taking off again. The vacuum Raptor engines will throw a lot of debris much like SuperHeavy did at Boca Chica, especially since it’ll be landing on sand and loose strata. Or maybe the plan is similar to the Apollo missions where there’s another shuttle in the nose fairing of StarShip that will return the Mars explorers back to orbit.

[@arnelilleseter4755]

Don't worry they will. Of course they will. And they will also send unmanned starships to Mars before they send humans.

[@evertonporter7887]

One thing for sure though: going to Mars will be the greatest engineering and logistical challenge ever faced. It will carry great risks, but the rewards for success will be also be great.

[@kolopius]

Going there is the only way to improve our technology. We cannot improve until we find out what works first!

[@travisjazzbo3490]

I admit. I struggle to understand how landing and living on Mars, and environment we can't freely walk around in without various protections, it is hard for me to understand what we are doing. I always feel like I am missing something on this point

[@godparticle3833]

Conquering the god of war

[@uuzd4s]

So, you never did explain how StarShip is going to LAND on Mars. You gave a crude explanation on the Orbital Mechanics required to get there and slow down through the Martian Atmosphere but left it there ? ? ? So, just how Does StarShip Land on Mars without Landing Legs, an Orbital Launch Tower or a Launch Integration Tower or a Landing Pad of ANY sort ? ? ? I'm still waiting to hear someone explain that trick. 🤔

[@FerociousPancake888]

Musk did touch on this during his recent presentation. You’re right though the video is more about the approach than the landing. The real answer according to musk is that the first ships will have landing legs, be left on mars, and will have their materials repurposed. Down the line ships will have the capability to return to earth and there will be landing infrastructure on mars, but not sure if that will be the catch towers we have on earth or just regular landing platforms. By the time we’re sending ships BACK to earth, the spaceflight industry in it’s entirety will be very different so it’s hard to predict.

[@uuzd4s]

@@FerociousPancake888 I've asked this question before, since there Has to be a First Moon & Mars landing eventually. What I've been told before is that because of the reduced gravity of Mars, that a booster won't be needed to get back to Earth. This may simplify a Mars Landing and Takeoff (for the Moon as well), there may still be a need for orbital refueling for a StarShip only departure from Mars. I saw EM's little Starbase Presentation the other day where he just came out and said that Landing Gear will be needed for the first Mars & Moon landings. He also went on to say how eventually there will be StarShip's returning to Earth, but didn't give detail. Maybe the Larger iterations of future StarShips will have the Delta V to make it back to Earth. Al that said, it's the Landings that will be the hard part from what this vid is showing here.

[@Stretch-xd3ed]

@@uuzd4s I think the first few star ships will be repurposed (homes, storage, production of all things) after time setting up infostructure (landing pads towers fuel production) then we will get travel mars to Earth. To start with it will be all be 1 way. Also no mention of refuelling at the moon.

[@petersteinmeijer519]

I still think Starship is going to tip over. No amount of top thruster power is going to stop that. Just hope I'm wrong. And they've done it successfully only once. On earth. Isn't that something you should be able to do routinely before you move on to the next stage ? I know that SpaceX doesn't tinker endlessly like NASA ( and NASA still get it wrong ) but landing seems somewhat important.

[@IanCthrwd]

Need to make a landing pad first…how the hell are you going to make that with the natural resources on Mars? First by moving rocks and leveling the ground..then compacting it. Next, are you making or importing Portland cement? Where are you going to find water to mix it? Rebar?

[@williamcashion5262]

I've never said this about a KZbin video: BRAVO. This explained it - answered many questions.

[@Dead_Kerbal]

You need to play some Kerbal, dude...

[@Andre_tc]

Stopped at around 10:00... So, in your scenario you can't get back home?... bs

[@CarlLjungquist]

In the time it will take to leave for Mars, I think Elon will see the advantage of sending robots in place of humans on the early missions. Humans can follow in future years when it will be much safer.

[@Spacewalker1870]

Also, starship uses mars atmosphere to slow down from interplanetary intercept, like straight from earth-mars trajectory it slows down aerodynamically, and does belly-flop manuver and then lands.

[@grilledsausage5236]

did.. you watch the video? it literally covers all of this..

[@SpaceAdvocate]

@@grilledsausage5236 The video covers a capture burn, which won't normally happen. Normally, Starship won't even enter orbit, it will enter the Martian atmosphere directly and land.

[@grilledsausage5236]

@SpaceAdvocate my point is that the video covers issues with doing that.. the starship will be traveling to fast to do a straight to Mars atmosphere from interplanetary speed. It won't slow down enough to then land. At best they could use the atmosphere to slow down enough to stay in orbit and then repeat that a few times once in orbit, without doing a capture burn.

[@jakob9911]

​@@grilledsausage5236the video is actualy wrong about this. Star ship will properbly be traveling slower than mars

[@trequor]

Mars atmosphere is very thin.

[@FatRace]

I think one of the biggest problem is not how to get a spaceship on Mars, but how to escape Mars after you landed. If they can figure that out they can do anything.

[@robb1324]

One of the main reasons Starship's Raptor engines uses the type of fuel it uses, is because it is plentiful and possible to manufacture on Mars

[@palfers1]

The colonisation of Mars is not yet a ripe concept. In order of readiness we currently expect 1. Fleets of crewed and cargo ships 2. Advanced robotics/AI 3. Fusion power. Unfortunately, it's precisely the reverse order that will optimally get the job done.

[@elessartelcontar9415]

Fyi, The Artemis 3 is expected to launch in September 2026 as the first crewed landing on the Moon since Apollo 17. Artemis I already went to the moon and returned with no issues. NASA is now targeting September 2025 for Artemis II, the first crewed Artemis mission around the Moon, and September 2026 for Artemis III, which is planned to land the first astronauts near the lunar South Pole. Artemis IV, the first mission to the Gateway lunar space station, remains on track for 2028.

[@SeptemberMeadows]

So several fuel ships need to be sent before people to orbit mars and wait. A few fuel ships need to land near where the desired landing point for people will be. Expensive but necessary for safety and peace of mind.

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

Serval ships would need to be sent anyways before and during. The core element of any mars mission with a minimum of safety in mind is that all the infrastructure nessesarry will already be there before the crew even departs. Habitats, the on site refinery and extractor robots for the fuel, the powerplant of the colony, and the robots to construct the hardenned landing pads, as well as the return vehicle or vehicles. Said return vehicles will be already prepped and their fuel supply generated by the time the humans arrive for the simple reason that you want to be SURE that humans can both live, and leave, whenever they need. But that really is the only way. You can't make anything happen on the red planet with just one ship, especially not sustainably. In a way the colony will already be in a ready to use state before humans arrive and all they will need is settle in really.

[@SeptemberMeadows]

@@mobiuscoreindustries A truism of greatest apparency. 🫡

[@amosbatto3051]

I have read that they will probably need to sent 10 equipment flights for every 1 crewed flight to provide enough equipment for the colony to become self sustaining. One of the first things they will do is send solar panels and machines to dig up ice on the poles to make water, and they will also need equipment to do electrolysis of the water to create hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen will be mixed with CO2 from the atmosphere to make methane (CH4). By manufacturing methane and oxygen on Mars, they can fuel the rockets to return back to the Earth.

[@emmanuelmahuni8163]

This was by far the best Mars landing video I've seen so far, well done.🎉

[@Ron-sp7lw]

Hmm.. What came first, the chicken or the eg dont you need.. like a starbase on mars, ala boca chicha for landing and take off..

[@Poeples]

@@Ron-sp7lwthey just have to land once on rough terrain and then theyll build it. so dont worry.

[@Ron-sp7lw]

@@Poeples "dont worry" now thats like.. ultra hilarious mate

[@Poeples]

@@Ron-sp7lwey theyll send test rockets first, then robots. those robots will set up the necessary stations to keep them selfs alive. then theyll build landing pads so

[@AndrewLoguercio]

1 ft​@@Ron-sp7lw

[@DOOM70670]

They need an orbital booster. It can serve similar function to a gateway giving more fuel for landing while also allowing for travel to more distant worlds aswell.

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

A refueled starship can already fling itself to the outer reaches of our solar system from earth. Most of the needed velocity is just getting away from earth, the rest is comparatively similar. Moreover the rocket equation is a bitch and slowing down at your destination is incredibly expensive. It's why one point that is wrong about this video is that starship will NOT slow down at it's destination. It will directly enter the martian atmosphere at interplanetary speeds like all the other lander missions.

[@richdobbs6595]

@@mobiuscoreindustries It still seems viable to have boosters, so that the landing Starship can leave earth's orbit with more mass. The boosters could be additional Starships, so they could still be reusable by aerobraking in Earth's atmosphere to get back to low earth orbit. This will allow additional cargo to reach the surface for a given flight. Quite useful to be able transport water or ammonia to Mars prior to development of a full fuel production cycle on Mars.

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

@@richdobbs6595 currently the payload is 150 tons and with the V-2 of starship you are looking at upward of 200 tons. That is a mind boggling amount of payload to have, not even counting the payload conversion you can get it you are doing a deep space mission which very much isn't coming back to earth (so you can remove all of the re-entry equipement and save more mass. At this point you are going to run out of space before you run out of mass to throw. And even with initial boosters you will still need orbital refueling. You are making your launch and recovery system considerably more complicated (imagine having to stack OLMs and catch arms for all your returning boosters next to each other) and you are losing your rapid-re use capabilities. And that rapid re-use is the entire point of starship. Even if you need like 16 ships to fully fuel your outer space mission, that becomes surprisingly more manageable once you can use only 2/3 ships/boosters multiple times to do laps fueling your mission. Meanwhile by stacking a ultra booster you may only need like 6 launches which are all individually way more complex to make and can't be put back to back because your assembly is more complicated than "check then put ship on booster". In short, it is far easier with a fully re-usable system to just launch more starships on a given mission than launch a singlular, bigger ship directly from earth. Also, mars colony won't ever see humans before water and fuel production is set. It's a given. Without water your colony dies. And without fuel your humans will never make it home. The entire point of a mars direct kind of mission is to be 100% sure your crew is safe before they ever step into your rocket.

[@93_LXcpe]

Some sort of nuclear powered tug that can be attached to Starship while in orbit would be ideal. Leaving Starship with plenty of fuel for its landing burn when it reaches Mars

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

@@93_LXcpe it already has more than enough in the header tanks. It's going to be considerably easier to keep those cool for months compared to anything on the main tanks. If you go the space tug approach you are far better just transporting raw freight instead of lugging a vehicle already capable of making the trip itself with all of its weight of engines and tanks. Instead far better then to collect raw payload off LEO packaged onto a big re-entry box, shoot to mars, dump the cargo for a landing while flying past mars and going on a long return trajectory to earth.

[@aromrell]

I stumbled onto this channel and I'm already hooked. Nice work explaining complex processes in a way that common muggles like myself can understand.

[@jbrcich709]

I was disappointed that you didn't discuss landing on rough terrain or soft sandy soil. Excellent job on the issues you did discuss. Especially, the refueling station on phobos.

[@Thomas-y5m]

You didn't mention using the moon as a gravity assistance to save fuel. This will give more fuel to adjust for a Mars encounter.

[@judithespadilla5195]

Moon as a gravity assist is negotiable, also staying inside earth's gravity well for longer just to get a gravity assist is wasteful 😊

[@jean-marcsalotti999]

No, if you make calculations there is no gain to go through the Moon. Or perhaps in very specific circumstances, but it would be marginal.

[@bobbart4198]

@@jean-marcsalotti999... Don't you think going " through the Moon " will slow things down a tad bit ? ...

[@y2k4ed]

They did not want to distort the truth with facts.

[@jennyanydots2389]

Why not just build a moon base first and launch from there eventually down the road? Why waste all that fuel escaping Earth's atmosphere and gravity? Oh right... that would make sense. I keep forgetting Elund stans aren't interested in reality... just fantasy land stan non sense. Colonizing mars with people is a giant waste of time and resources. It is a dead planet, beyond scientific study it doesn't make sense to inhabit. Robots can do more now anyway.

[@P.Galore]

Perhaps a video about how SpaceX might land on EARTH would be appropriate?

[@Nick-Stewbreeze]

Very well-made video and narration, the delicious part was your information ❤

[@TheRubyKnite]

This was the best video I’ve seen that boils down into words that even I could understand. I never understand DeltaV and other mechanics of escaping Earths gravity. Thanks.

[@TrustGodsLove2024]

A Geostationary weather satellite orbiting Mars would help in the landing formula But the math on that one would be interesting

[@curioussoul5151]

Thank you so much for providing this much knowledge!

[@Blackbird58]

Wouldn't it make sense to send a refuelling spacecraft to wait in orbit for the Spacex lander?-it could carry other supplies too-perhaps if it could be landed after it had passed on its supply of fuel, it could possibly be repurposed for accomodation? I am sure that there are plenty of young, agile minds at Spacex who would love to design such a craft-they may be working on it right now and it makes so much sense to me, think also of the great psychological boost it would bring to the extremely valiant crew to know that there'd be plenty of fuel for a safe landing and maybe other things to make the unimaginable challenge a bit more comfortable. Having written all of that though, the whole thing does seem unlikely, the tech and logistics are frightening, zero room for error at any stage...wow!

[@theamericanjoeshow]

Definitely makes sense to first establish a base on one of Mar's moons first... kind of like a space station in orbit around Mars that doesn't need to ever be refueled. So this way if anything bad happens on Mars there is a safe place to escape to.

[@thelonelyrogue3727]

What do you think is going to happen on Mars that will both make it necessary to leave the whole planet, but still leaves whoever is there with the CAPABILITY of leaving the planet?

[@theamericanjoeshow]

@thelonelyrogue3727 well I'm sure Nasa will want a space station orbiting Mars before we send people down on the surface... kind of like they want a spacestation orbiting the moon before we land people on the moon. So logically it would make sense to make a space station on one of Mars moons because there would be no need to have to constantly boost its orbit and there will be plenty of space to build on the mars moon. And having the people be able to escape to a mars moon will make it much easier to get back to Earth. There could even be a craft on the moon ready for them in such an event. So we don't have to send a special rescue craft all the way from earth to pick them up and bring them back.

[@theamericanjoeshow]

@thelonelyrogue3727 what do i think will happen on Mars that would make people have to leave in a hurry? Well thats a good question. The answer is most likely a giant dust storm that could cover everything in a foot of dust. Or some sort of power failure. Or some sort of solar flare that could knock out communications. There really are many ways things can go sideways on Mars. And having a space station of some sort just makes sense. Whether it is just freely orbiting Mars or if it is on one of Mars moons.

[@Picteon]

​​@@thelonelyrogue3727the same thing that happened in the movie Europa Report

[@thelonelyrogue3727]

@@theamericanjoeshow Mars doesn't have the atmosphere for that scale of storm. A power failure would lead to a lack of ability to launch from the surface to the space station. There's just not a situation where the super complicated launch into space option is going to be more feasible than just having a backup location on the surface or spare equipment.

[@SulacoUSCM-dw6vx]

Fantastic video. Thanks for the hard work obviously put into it. New sub and like. Hi from the UK.

[@KonradTamas]

This was the Best explanation i ever encountered. Well Done !!

[@markryne1934]

Apogee & perigee only refer to Earth orbits. The generic terms that are commonly used for orbits around the Sun or Mars are apoapsis & periapsis. Otherwise, a very informative video.

[@dmitrygusev6940]

Or apocenter and pericenter

[@3gunslingers]

The video actually gets the part about slowing down at MARS completely wrong. Starship will not use its engines to decelerate before hitting the atmosphere. I have no idea how one can get this so wrong.

[@BobHutton]

For Mars orbits specifically, the terms are apoareion and periareion (even though the spellchecker doesn't seem to like them).

[@nicolaskrinis7614]

@@BobHutton Correct, from the Greek, Ares.

[@Spacewalker1870]

3:16 if your velocity is 30 km/s and you change it (either to 29 km/s or 31km/s), delta v would be one, but more spesifically your delta v, or change in velocity, would be 1 km/s. sometimes its measured in m/s, and if for this purposes you measure it in m/s, in that context with those units, your delta v from that manuver would be 1000 m/s.

[@GeneralSulla]

Potāto, potáto. 😂

[@staszekgobi]

yes, thx

[@wmffmw]

My father brought home a 1,500 page printout of the Apollo Preparation Check List and time line for me to read. In 1967 when I was a freshman at Cocoa Beach High School. Printouts of this size and type were rare then. It gave me a real appreciation of what it took to launch a rocket to the moon.

[@robertmillar2774]

Slow down please

[@hgm8337]

you should forward it to those clowns at SpaceX, before the money runs out

[@slow-mo_moonbuggy]

Nobody and nothing can travel into a Second Law of Thermodynamics violation called outer space. The grift is ending.

[@c.raysporleder648]

Year I got out of Navy and nuclear submarines 7 years service. Still a space nut and love what Musk is accomplishing.

[@brittjuergens2660]

@@hgm8337yeah they’re sure a bunch of clowns huh?! They’ve never accomplished anything impressive. Wait…

[@Bailee-le2uu]

the creativity in your videos is beyond amazing!

[@johnnyfive1412]

I wonder how they deal with the heat shields if they get damaged when entering mars. How do you repair them before coming back to earth.

[@AsteroSSB]

I am a first commer to this channel and i can say i am impressed with this video. It is top notch quality. Subscribing and looking forward to the next one

[@_Teo_Dor]

How do you account for the increased potential energy of the ship transferring from earth orbit to mars orbit? In fact , orbital speed at apogee in a transfer orbit is smaller the the circular speed at that distance from the sun. So the starship arriving on mars orbit using a transfer orbit will be slower than mars speed on its orbit. Can you explain this? also is it possible to adjust the apogee point so the ship encounters Mars orbit at he same speed as the planet ( just different direction that can be adjusted by Mars gravity ) ?

[@Fantasy_Room]

I had the same thought.

[@richardbloemenkamp8532]

You could arrive at Mars with the same velocity as Mars, but the velocity directions will be different between your ship and Mars. Orbital mech says that is you have the same position as Mars w.r.t the Sun, and have the same velocity vector as Mars w.r.t the Sun, then you will be in the same orbit. Thus it is not possible to have a trajectory from Earth to Mars that will end at Mars with negligible velocity w.r.t. Mars. Instead you will need aerobraking of a burning maneuver at Mars to capture in some orbit around Mars or land on it.

[@ericblanchard5873]

Glad your finally getting at least a bit of the views and likes you deserve. It will only go up from here. I appreciate your effort. Can't wait for the next videos you create.

[@1moredayof]

KZbin does allow you to correct writing errors.

[@nt7604]

Wow, it is my first time on this channel, but listening to the explanation is fascinating.

[@chris2236]

Just watched this as the boster was caught in the chopsticks was a great thing to see, we are getting that much closer.

[@merion297]

Perfectly coreographed and performed presentation. Thank you. :)

[@patricaomas8750]

Perhaps first getting into low earth orbit might help.

[@timmonahan-mitchell9125]

I'm surprised you didn't mention the very long cycle times required to test prototypes. SpaceX has it easy so far here on earth lining up starships to shoot off every few months. But with the optimal launch window to Mars coming only every 2 years, how will they handle that? Maybe launch a different prototype towards Mars every few weeks, which gives them time to figure out what went wrong to then send software updates to the next starship that is a couple weeks behind the previous crash landing? Or maybe plan on parking them in orbit between each landing attempt?

[@julianfp1952]

I think they're going to have to launch multiple test articles during each launch window to have any chance of getting humans to Mars in the next 20 years let alone 10 years (which I'm not convinced will be possible). This video does a great job of demonstrating just how difficult and potentially risky the landing will be so I would expect SpaceX to want to have made multiple successful test landings and then actual cargo landings before risking a crewed landing and one attempt per transit window just isn't going to rack up enough successes in any reasonable amount of time.

[@snakevenom4954]

My best guess is they will use robots to make the basic infrastructure, and when humans arrive, they'll build and activate the various systems. On Mars humans will need shelter, oxygen, food and water. Shelter and oxygen seem pretty simple to me. It's the food and water that makes me iffy. Maybe send some food and water on previous starships? Or send three starships. Two entirely full of supplies (some built in redundancy incase one gets destroyed), and one to bring the astronauts there. Bring a nuclear reactor and they'll have 20 years of worry free power. It's certainly possible. It just takes a lot of planning, practice, and tons of guts to those astronauts

[@julianfp1952]

@@snakevenom4954 in line with my previous comment I think they will pretty much be forced to do what you suggest - stage multiple cargo-only landings before attempting the first crewed landings - because the dive-straight-into-atmosphere landing procedure will need to have been seen to be successful multiple times before risking crew and once they’ve got past the debug-the-failure-and-try-again phase and are getting uncrewed test vessels down to the surface successfully it no longer makes sense to not put cargo on the subsequent vessels that are landing in order to validate the procedure prior to a crewed mission (in fact not putting cargo onboard, or at least a mass simulator, would to some extent invalidate a test flight because it wouldn’t be at actual expected landing mass).

[@Ron-sp7lw]

Hmm.. What came first, the chicken or the eg dont you need.. like a starbase on mars, ala boca chicha for landing and take off..

[@VisionCommunications]

Without starship attempted landings every two years when the launch window is ideal, a manned mission to Mars is essentially a suicide mission.

[@frankiemiles-d7e]

You need to build and prep multiple landing and relaunch sites before ever sending a live crew. Robots can do that. When the base is up to 100 percent, and only then, do you send a live crew

[@peterclarke3020]

A reasonable explanation, even if it does contain a few minor errors. Considering the landing animation, we can be pretty sure that SpaceX would not try to land a Starship right next to a large comms dish !

[@gergelytolgyesi7326]

The journey as far as i know will be multiple months at best. If they could add some higher efficiency engines to the ship (eg more developed ion thrusters) they could optimise the whole flight, and maybe add some room for error. One big chemical push at the Earth and multiple longtime adjustments on the way. Going with a big groups of ships would be also a good idea (there are plans for this if I'm not mistaken) on the other hand this would be a huge management and controll engineering challenge. But... Writing this whole thing down... I think we could make it. There are plenty of talented folks round the world. We could figure this out.

[@jesss7438]

Is there no plans of emergency recovery? What if a starship's engines malfunctions mid flight or is completely cut off from Earth in terms of communications?

[@kamronmartinez487]

There’s tons of redundancies, especially for communication systems and life support. And exactly why starship has so many engines so that if one or even two go out it won’t be a catastrophic failure. However that’s Spaceflight for ya, high risk, high reward.

[@brendanpells912]

'A whole bunch of people are probably going to die' as quoted by a certain E. Musk.

[@Picteon]

Planes still crash. It will be as rare with Starship. There will first be countless uncrewed flights before humans are sent

[@ElJasperino]

I’m especially interested how they’re going to land the first few times on the possibly soft, or even worse, partially soft soil of mars. Especially when one of the legs (?) sink into the sand.

[@Ron-sp7lw]

Hmm.. What came first, the chicken or the eg dont you need.. like a starbase on mars, ala boca chicha for landing and take off..

[@schrodingerscat1863]

@@Ron-sp7lw The first ships to land with be one way only to set up refuelling on mars. Then there will be robotic infrastructure builders to create landing pads for future ships. Taking off from mars is very easy compared to earth so you don't need launch towers and boosters.

[@Ron-sp7lw]

@@schrodingerscat1863 ok, what about landing on mars, compare with landing on earth

[@schrodingerscat1863]

@@Ron-sp7lw It's totally different, landing on Mars there is less gravity but terminal velocity is very high therefore the flip manoeuvre seen so far will be very different for a Mars landing and it will need less thrust when actually touching down. Will also need to have self leveling legs which it would extend like a Falcon booster though a very different design of legs.

[@GordyJosie]

Great video! What about the rocky terrain on landing? There is no concrete pad on Mars and nearly all pictures of Mars I have seen show a very uneven rocky surface.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Do you sense, Gordy, a "Odysseus"-style mishap for Starship on Mars? HLS Lunar Starship will topple if leaning past 15-20° off center.

[@IanCthrwd]

Nevermind the orbital physics. Other KZbinrs discussed this…. How is SpaceX going to manufacture that landing pad? Need to clear as space first with electric bulldozers, reinforce the landing space by compacting the ground and laying a concrete pad on top. Very little or No water on Mars for compacting and mixing raw materials of Mars. Let figure this out FIRST before landing on an uneven surface and Starship as top heavy as it is..with hopefully nobody on board, topples over and have another yard sale.

[@nicolejones3612]

Selfie in Roman is five so Delta V Delta five

[@Wargunsfan]

I suggest putting a second starship in orbit around the earth. The Mars bound starship would first refuel with starship a then dock with starship b and take it along for most of the trip. When approaching Mars starship b would refuel the lander for the second time providing enough fuel for a safe landing.

[@Blindbrick2]

I will make the prediction that during this century, SpaceX will not land people on Mars.

[@leeharris8102]

all i want is to see someone stand on Mars before i die. i am willing to go a 1 way trip just send me.. agree with you though..

[@kooshanjazayeri]

🤣 this century? i think you meant decade,

[@leeharris8102]

@@kooshanjazayeri i dunno, i really do not care who is first to step foot on the Moon and especially Mars. yes it would be nice if it was us in the West but, if China wants to do it then i aam ok with that. we stepped foot on the moon 10 years before i was born. yet all thru the 80s and 90s, we thought we would have people living on the Moon by the 2000s. flying cars ect. i suppose we have got close in a way just not like the Jetsons yet.. if the millitary industrial complex put its money in to making ships we could live on in space. we all know the fuel it takes to get us off the planet, if we use these like Elon said and fueled a ship up in space, we could travel round our few planets. like how they do cruises on earth. even if we do not land on them, it would soon get us moving towards living on Mars ect.. like i say, i am 43 now, i am willing to go to Mars even one way. just send me x amount of food and beer lol..

[@kooshanjazayeri]

@@leeharris8102 i'm sure it would happen in the next twenty years, just make money and keep your health and if God is willing we will see each other there 😄 i wish U.s wasn't so much focus on policing the globe and making imaginary enemies and fighting them, but space travel is really really hard and time consuming, it's not like a program which you run and you know if it works or not... i mean we probably have much of Jetsons technologies and sciences but in the lab, to take it out in the world and make its mechanics takes huge amount of will, effort and money

[@majokuntzen5631]

​@@kooshanjazayerii am with you...the Apollo mission(s) were a wonder, agreed, but going to mars is something way different. the moon is ~400.000km away from earth. Mars is 54-400 MILLION kilometers away. Thats a big, big difference. Thats 100-1000x further away then moon. Thats like compareing you getting up and walking 10 meters (maybe to the fridge) which will take you maybe 5-15 seconds or you walking 10km to the next town which will take you over 2 hours. Big, big difference. Also, many more variables on this route then if we went to the moon. Artemis in 2026 will fly to the moon, and after a bit fly back. It wont even be weeks until they are back, and not that long of a distance. A mission to mars would practically be a one way ticket, it would take nearly a whole year to get there, imagine you are flying for a whole year and even if you made it and the navigation was a huge success, the most difficult part to land safely is the hardest one. And then, even if you land safely and everything worked out as planned, then you are on a uninhabitable planet, constantly needing a spacesuit, oxygen, you cant just walk outside, and you are stranded on a non human friendly planet with nothing then the load of 1 rocket until the next ships come to your help, and they wont send the next ship before the first safely landed. This is a much more complicated mission then going to the Moon, and even though i believe musk is a genius and the progress he made is unbeliavable, him saying humans will land on mars before 2030 is impossible. I wish i will live to see it (im 26), but i really dont think i will. Maybe if they continue the testing with starship like they do, in 2050~ they will be able to send the first test rockets to mars, but you also cant forget that they first for sure will send unmanned missions, and just imagine they send 3 before it works, thats like just 3-5 years AFTER they have everything Figured out. The last starship launch was just a couple weeks ago, and even though it was a success, still not everythin worked out like it should...going from rockets that still dont work properly while just sending them into Orbit and back to sending rockets on a 260 day mission and landing safely on another planet will take decades if not centurys

[@the496elcamino]

Everyone on board will need to be MacGyver certified.

[@Robsav-yx6vi]

Truer words never spoken

[@peterp7009]

Loved this video! - really explained the physics well.👏👏👏

[@3gunslingers]

Sadly the video gets a major part _completely wrong._ Just like any rover that ever landed on Mars Starship will NOT use its engines for slowing down before diving into the martian atmosphere for aerobraking. The martian atmosphere is thick enough to slow any spacecraft down to a slow landing velocity.

[@cyotedude]

We are so eager to watch this, failure or success, it is a great ride.

[@bgreen2266]

Unless this a cargo drop, Don't forget Mars lift off and return to Earth.

[@gregddd1]

This is one of the best docos I've seen on landing on Mars. Keep up the excellent work!

[@thomasmount7388]

One option to (eventually) make the journey cheaper is a 13,000Km orbital lift to Martian geostationary orbit. You just need to put an asteroid there to tether it to. (the asteroid sits slightly beyond geostationary orbit, but travels at the speed of geostationary orbit, making it want to pull away from Mars constantly - this would carry the weight of the cable, keeping it taut for free.) Mars gravity is about 40% of Earth gravity. You can jump 2.5 times higher with the same effort. A Martian day is about 24 hours 40 minutes, so you can easily adapt. The daytime temperature at the equator is about 20 degrees Celcius, a nice room temperature, but it gets slightly colder than Siberia at night. There is only 1% atmosphere. You need some kind of suit to protect you from Cosmic Rays (gamma radiation from the sun). It would need a decent temperature regulator and a full air supply, but it would not have to be quite as tough/bulky as an EVA spacesuit. A few feet underground you could live safely and normally. Your house just needs an airlock.

[@mrbaab5932]

When has tethers like you describe ever worked? No current technology tether is strong enough.

[@wings3Dstudio]

Love your videos Keep up the good work. This is really interesting first time going into a bit more detail about mars landing. If this happens in my lifetime I would like to be one the passengers

[@MikBT]

Beautiful video man! Human do amazing things so what's one more? I liked that 👌 thank you for the video, great to be able to understand 👍👍

[@lizmramsey6852]

This is sooo amazingly beautiful!! Thank you for sharing this beautiful video

[@SpacePulse42]

Can't wait for the first Martian vlog: "10 Things I Wish I Knew Before Moving to Mars" 😂

[@ericmichalk8022]

You do such great work on these videos! Keep up the great content!

[@corey2232]

I don't forsee SpaceX landing on Mars at any point in my lifetime, and I'm 36. They MIGHT land Starship on the moon eventually, but I'm not convinced it'll be any time in the next decade. They're doing a lot of great things, but landing the giant Starship on the moon will be a massive undertaking. We're getting to see the improvements with each failure & iteration, but it'll be a long & expensive process to ever make it to Mars.

[@arnelilleseter4755]

It will be a massive undertaking. But that doesn't mean they can't do it. They are planning to land on the Moon at the end of 2025 as part of the Artemis program. Though it's likely it will be no sooner than 2027 due to delays in the development of both Starship and the lunar spacesuits. I'm in my fifties and I'm still hopefull I will get to see humans landing on Mars. But I will probably be pretty old by then.

[@corey2232]

@arnelilleseter4755 Wasn't the original stated goal to land Starship on the moon by 2024 & Mars by 2030?

[@arnelilleseter4755]

@@corey2232 I can't remember but that sounds about right. These things have a tendency to get delayed for all sorts of reasons from political (especially when NASA is involved) to technical difficulties. I do believe Starship will land on Mars in the near future, but the first missions will be unmanned. There is a lot of problems with sending people that far into space and living on Mars that we haven't solved yet.

[@carerforever2118]

Revelation 11:12 (In the future)...And they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they ascended to heaven. And so, they (the rich) all ascended to heaven, and lived on the moon, and on mars, and they lived happily ever after 😂 The End.

[@ralphturney2125]

Whoever wrote this needs to explain everything about everything!!! So clear!

[@petertuckergoettler5720]

Interesting To Note, merci.

[@CalamitousJonathan]

Fun Fact: There is a warp engine sitting in my spaceship in Pluto's core. Hell ship is waiting for reverse engineering of my warp engine. While using my warp engine, ice formed around the spaceshuttle and created Pluto from flying through space at warp speed.

[@urbansafari147]

keep taking your meds

[@robb1324]

This sounds like Scientology 🤣

[@hgm8337]

There's not a cat in hell's chance of this thing getting to Mars,...

[@BijanStewart]

I am sure folks with a mind like yours said the same thing when the Wright brothers tried to pitch their prototype Airplane.

[@robb1324]

Since the beginning people have been saying "There is no chance SpaceX will _____" and SpaceX does it. This is just one more to add to the list. Never doubt human ingenuity. ANY problem can be solved.

[@trequor]

In 1903 The New York Times printed an article detailing how heavier-than-air flight was impossible. Sixteen days later the Wright Brothers flew.

[@crazyobservations3080]

Given SpaceX track record so far, they will have to crash on the planet 50x until they figure it out.

[@robb1324]

and they will. The first humans will not be in the first 100 attempts at landing, I can promise you that.

[@marcosjohnson4496]

i think what most likely course of action, in my opinion, is to send a second starship carrying fuel, similar to what they intend to do in low earth orbit, and refill at Mars or shortly before, allowing them to descend more gradually and safely over the first few journeys until they establish a functional base capable of producing fuel on Mars.

[@Chromatic145]

Not enough fuel to launch and land and then launch and land again. Some People are not critical thinkers.

[@santturantanen8328]

That was a very misleading lesson on orbital mechanics…

[@mirarstudios]

How so

[@trevorterris7481]

Yeah, wouldn't Starship be moving *slower* than Mars at aphelion, relative to the Sun (contra the explanation at 7:25)? Also the video could probably use a brief mention of the Oberth effect, where the delta-v expenditure to get to MTO would happen in LEO. Pretty disappointing from an otherwise great channel.

[@sakarrc5001]

@@trevorterris7481 Like the worst I've watched. I agree with you a lot. Please check my comment for my 2 cents on this crap.

[@alfonsopayra]

and all this based on what?

[@erikpp8dr580]

mainly physics

[@NeilEvans-xq8ik]

LOL! 😂

[@JonnoPlays]

Space X public plans and public statements mostly.

[@jackprier7727]

Dreams. Dreams and egotistical mouth-spouting by musk. And ignoring of cosmic rays. And of how little solar energy or resources there is on Mars. Or by ignoring how much fuel it takes to even get any fuel into space. Or any food. Or any building materials. Or by ignoring that drinking water will come from sweat and urine and you get no say onwhose you're drinking.

[@3gunslingers]

It's so sad that such a well made and positive video is *so horribly WRONG* about the second part of the flight. Starship will slamm into the Martian atmosphere at full interplanetary velocity. It will NOT slow down via its engines before aerobraking. All rovers on Mars also didn't slow down using propellant. They used the atmosphere. @The space race you obviously made a huge effort to make this video visually appealing. But please take it down and don't spread this completely wrong idea any further.

[@adzbutler]

Such a simple explanation, well done.

[@DanH-u3f]

Starship should use parachutes to aid in landing. It will reduce the margin of error.

[@slayen909]

imagine it just fails lol

[@illo77da1]

Most likely if means everyone dies.😢

[@JonnoPlays]

The first 4 will if current launch trend continues 😅

[@Loboozer]

It will...

[@averagejoe8255]

⁠@@illo77da1I wouldn't worry about this too much. The first 50+ ships will likely be robotic automated one-way efforts with no people involved. They'll perfect the process of landing on Mars long before they send human beings. 🧐🤔

[@MaxKito2]

Either everyone is a space engineer here on the comments or there are gangs of wannabes Mr. know it all making fun of others asking the real questions. What a religious cult this has become.😂

[@antonlarsen6568]

I’m sorry but this video is littered with mistakes. You really need to make sure what you’re saying is correct

[@edbrackin]

It's been a while since I've seen a well-done KZbin video. I didn't realize how low the bar has been lowered until now.

[@acousticactivism2873]

First of all you need to prove there is a vacuum next to our air pressure without physical separation . Secondly prove gravity because it has always been a theory .

[@reubenwills9757]

First of all get a brain

[@bobmorr2892]

SpaceX is never going to land on Mars.

[@MaxWinterLeinweber]

I disagree!

[@rwilk68]

Thank you for not using AI generated voiceover. This video answers a lot of questions about how the Starship is going to land on Mars! A drogue chute system seems pretty reasonable vs landing without, btw 😮

[@transformlikeaphoenix]

Likely first steps could be to get Starship into Mars Orbit and open the hatch on the stainless steel side to drop smaller packages onto the planet. Starship can then attempt to land. In fact send 10 of them to try this out. 20 minute response time for comms makes it even more challenging. For refuelling, can SpaceX get down to 1 refuel in orbit before leaving Earth. Maybe with a bigger Rocket and Raptor 4 engines?

[@josephhurley6300]

There needs to be a space station (like a gas station) around Mars. Adequate fuel (for landing, etc.) can be transported ahead of time. When the space station has enough fuel, the star ship can refuel and land safely on Mars.

[@pedromartins3404]

Why not set multiple starships into Mars at the same time, and keep some in orbit to refuel the ones that need to go inside? Or even better, just build a tank satellite that holds fuel and send it to orbit Mars alongside the startship and when it gets there, use the tank to refuel the ship.

[@a-nus]

I feel like the obvious answer to the low fuel issue is to send an unmanned tanker ahead of the crewed flight and have it refuel in orbit of mars before attempting to land.

[@spacesciencelab]

Very interesting how the starship is planned to go in upside down and then flip to engines 11:52 - How will it flip like this anyways? Will it have RCS?

[@grayleighsilvers7519]

We made a large stride towards mars colonization last weekend

[@mylucksmiles]

The space station is coming to its life’s end soon . So why not send it to mars put it in orbit and test how well the technology holds up or if there are unforeseen problems on a longer trip ? It’s in space so a few boosters could be fitted after all it’s not got any use ?

[@Jack_The_Ripper_Here]

Nobody ever says, in any video, how do they know the location of a space craft in space? I don't think GPS works in space. How do you go to Mars and know where you are?