we should be setting up a moon base and making that viable first. If we can fix radiation exposure on a almost null atmosphere, Mars should be a piece of cake. Not to mention launching space crafts off a light gravity of the moon appose to our system would be more ideal.
***** Oh, ok. I didn't know the Earth's magnetic field stretched out past the moon. I was under the impression that the peak radiation passing through the belts on the way to the moon has been shown to be lethal in minutes even with todays equipment. We all thought the landings where faked but we never really think about it so it doesn't really matter ether way.
You would still have to send all the parts and fuel to the moon, probably taking multiple trips. Then, you would have to build a functional launch pad. Also, you would have to get the people to the moon in the first place. I doubt that anybody wants to take 2 different flights.
actually i don't do many things though they are easy... it's not because it's bad or anything(in fact most of those cases it's essential) but i just... don't
Just to be clear I mean that as a joke due to the fact that those are the coincidentally the exact words my friend said as a joke once when I was talking to him about the subject, I just didn't want to call him a cancerous junkie because I don't want to lose a friend so if I can take advantage of a coincidence to get satisfaction then I will do it
Can we use something similar to the shielding that will be on the new Space telescope, to block the radiation en route, at least. And maybe deploy a secondary one once they land?
+Maja Vincent no I mean the entire process over 2000 years where it will be made safe enough on the red planet so that we could walk around on it without any oxygen tanks aka I want to see the ENTIRE thing not the entire very beginning of the process
Colonizing Mars is not only a good idea, it is necessary to assure that humanity has a long-term future. Currently, the only way governments know how to deal with the ever-expanding population is war, disease and sterility. Those are not ethical means of dealing with over-population. Also, there is always that possibility that some day the Earth might AGAIN be struck by a giant asteroid and most (if not all) of human life exterminated from the event. I think it is IMPERATIVE that we keep moving forwards as a human race, and doing everything we can do to expand beyond this planet.
Although being able to colonize other planets is a huge advantage (and probably a necessity), it still does not solve the "problem" of us humans not knowing how to deal with our ever more expanding and consuming species. Colonizing another planet does seem like running away from the problem. But the idea of colonizing planets does not deserve any negativity, it's a must for our species if we want to reach higher levels of civilization. I don't know why I just wrote this.
Whoa whoa whoa... Colonizing Mars? That's not going to happen for many centuries if at all. To make it even habitable, for something to stay there for multiple generations, you're going to need to work out problems with the lack of atmosphere, lack of ability to hold on to an atmosphere, and lack of a magnetosphere. An colonies on Mars will be 100% dependent on supplies from Earth... nothing can grow there. A Mars base might be feasible by the end of the century, but making that planet self-sustinaing is going to remain science fiction until those DNA killing problems are addressed.
There are a lot of ideas that could be workable soon, and many of them are old ideas. The planet can feasibly be terraformed, though that process would take thousands of years. So in the mean time, the primary challenges have to do with setting up workable biospheres, or independently habitable cities, homes, hotels, etc. There are challenges associated with those concepts, but I don't believe any of them are far beyond the scope of our current technology and knowledge. Each individual problem has to be examined by itself, rather than looking at all of the problems as a whole, which would lead us to believe it's an impossibility.
I can't wait for humans to reach Mars. It's going to happen, likely within my lifetime, and I know I'll be tuned in to whoever is broadcasting the event. Myself? There's no way I'd leave Earth. I'm too reliant on the internet. Due to the speed of light being slow as hell in a cosmic context, internet speeds in space are really bad.
Manabender you might be happy to know that if you took a trip to the moon, you would still have internet. Yep the internet is available on the moon. Of course why in the world would you need the internet if you could bounce around on the lunar surface? that just seems like more fun to me.
A major company is doing it. 2 people will arrive on Mars between 2016 and 2022. After that, more will come. And then more. And then more. We choose to go to Mars, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Daan Dekker An independent company, privately funded, that has a lot of money. If I remember what the mission is called, I'd tell you the company name.
Daan Dekker en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One Pretty sure kumquat is referring to this. I'm not sure if it is going to happen but apparently they want to make it a reality show..
Then in a few decades we realize that Mars simply isn't a planet that is worthwhile inhabiting. People will have died trying to inhabit mars though, and masses of people will go and rise up declaring that their deaths mustn't have been in vain and will thus desperately end up struggling to inhabit mars. Someone make that a movie
I would like to volunteer my girlfriend for the one-way mission to Mars. Is there any chance someone can invented a voice-powered engine system - her incessant talking would easily get the spacecraft (and all her shoes) to Mars....and probably beyond.
+Adam Chmielowiec well his shirt is about sub atomic particles found in protons and neutrons called quarks and for some reason the names of different types of quarks are called up, down... etc. which explains the arrows and other symbols
"Once all the rage in the 1950s and '60s, medical research has now shown that direct exposure to radiation is not a particularly good way to gain superpowers. If you won't take our word for it, just ask the superheroes who have used this method in the past: Captain Leukemia, The Meltdown Man, Mr. Low Sperm Count, Ms. Low Sperm Count, The Inside-Out Man, The Incredible Cancer Victim, or The Portentous Blotch..." --How To Be A Superhero by Mark Leigh & Mike Lepine
We've been there before. Mars is an entirely different environment (with an atmosphere, no less) and it's a way longer trip. Not to mention, you need to bring far more return fuel to escape Mars's much greater gravitational pull (compared to the moon's). And we have to think about bringing food, more radiation protection, entirely new and different HEV suits and an effective water filtration system, whereas a trip to the moon is only about 3 earth days round trip, a trip to Mars would take 3 months with our fastest propulsion system, one way. So six months at the very least, even if they only spend a day there.
Brian Hanson well, if we could make REALLY BIG magnets or somthin and pull a planet closer to us, and then revers the magnet things and just do that forever we could get a planet closer untill the magets stop working and the two planets get blown up.... sounds like fun ;)
I believe the best way to shield against the high-speed energetic particles and radiation would be with a primary magnetic shield. Propulsion is another matter. I like Dombowerphoto's suggestion of using Thorium as a fuel. Perhaps a way can be found to make the magnetic shield as a by-product of the Thorium Propulsion Device? I'm thinking....perhaps a Reverse Tokomax Reactor with the central core "funneling" the reactants and the outer portion generating the magnetic shielding....just a thought.
For an unconventional propulsion method, why not build a long maglev rail on the Moon and bring the craft bound to Mars up to a higher speed then launch it from the rail like a railgun? Then you could adjust the trajectory with TIE or SEP engines as it transits so you wouldn't need to pack all that fuel because a majority of the energy to get there was given to it by the launch. Thoughts on this, Hank?
Jordan De Knikker That's doable, but building a rail on the moon might get spendy, then you need some sort of large power source too. You could use a space elevator to launch missions though. Building a space elevator on the Moon is already possible with today's materials and technology. You would need a power source still to lift the payload to geosync, but after that, you would let the payload continue along the elevator, higher and higher, using the kinetic energy of the Moon's rotation to sling it away when it reaches the end of the elevator, which you would have to time correctly in order to end up where you want to go.
The earth's magnetic field protects us from cosmic radiation. Is it really not that feasible to generate a large field circling a ship? Magnetic fields are already standard usage in modern technology (i.e. electric generators).
The problem is, would it work? Another way could be to have an electrically charged end of the craft to attract (by static electricity) radiation. EDIT: That probably has less chance of succeeding. Although. x-rays and gamma rays couldn't be stopped, except by some dark paint, maybe.
+Tamal Paul I'm pretty sure it just couldn't really be powerful enough, if you think about the absolutely monolithic process that gives the planet a magnetic field and that magnetic field reaches out like thousands of KM from the edge of the atmosphere and that only just about protects us a bit. So I think one that we could generate around a spacecraft would have to be powerful enough to at least reach a few KM out just to give you the same amount of protection, which would take a generator the size of a building and the power of like a town to maintain.
+Tamal Paul We have some problems with that: a) Those magnetic field projectors take a lot of electrical energy. We need to produce that. b) The machines needed to project a strong magnetic field, most times a huge electromagnet, are big and heavy. We have to move them to space. c) You would need a big AC generator, because a DC current on an electromagnet basically leadsto the magnetic field inducing electrical currents into all machines it can.
we went to the Joseph Roche's talk during the Researchers Night festival a couple years ago. He was so driven, so sparkling with enthusiasm, that my then 5 y.o. kid didn't really grasp the idea of the finality of the definition of 'one-way mission'. When it dawned on him, how immensely massive are the problems of travel, fuel and health, he went and hugged J. Roche and promiced to invent a TARDIS when he grows up to sometimes sneak some guests to them.
We have to duplicate the natural magnetic field of the earth in order to venture into space. Propulsion will take a long while to solve but we already have the means and understanding of creating manmade magnetic fields. Not only would this benifit interplanitary trips but orbital ones as well including much needed shielding for the iss and a step towards making space truly "hospitable" to our species.
It would be cool to step on the surface of Mars, but I think it would be even cooler to see planets like Jupiter and Saturn in person like in 2001 A Space Odyssey and maybe even step foot on one of the moons. Imagine standing on the surface of a world and looking up into the sky just to see a massive gas planet. I think that would be much cooler than going to a planet that is just a red desert.
Syphist Prime One of the coolest things I can think of would be standing on the likes of Europa and having almost your entire sky filled with Jupiter. One of the oddest things about the movie 'Europa' is that they never thought to have a scene like that.
Syphist Prime - And how many years would you be willing to spend of your life on the way and would you be will to die there for the privilege of standing on a moon to look at Jupiter. It took Voyager 2 years to reach Jupiter. Have you given this much thought? yes it would be cool for a few hours, but then...........
Jupiter would probably pull you off Europa and gobble you Alive, i coulnd't think of anything scarier than having the largest ball of maelstromic death in our solar system in my close vision. I'll stick to looking at it through a telescope in my garden :p
I still dont get why we're focusing on sending people and establishing a colony on Mars when we haven't even gotten some sort of colony on the moon. Wouldn't a moon colony be much easier and safer and perhaps train us for having a colony on another terrestrial planet like Mars. Just sayin mars one, get ur priorities in order.
JoshDoesEverything Also a colony on the Moon would pay for itself in the first year because we would be able to send back shipments of Helium3 which is worth several million dollars per gram.
Oh totally! Sign me up. I'd love to contribute to the evolution of the species. After all we're doing a fine job here ensuring that Earth goes to s***t !
Sorry SciShow, I think you're completely wrong on this one. There's one case where 4 astronauts were exposed to cosmic rays in space, and when they came back, they had super powers. One of them turned into a rock. They formed a group and fought crime.
Adam Schneider Pretty sure that one of the minimum requirement for being accepted as an astronaut is being able to distinguish "they're" from "there", and finishing your sentences, my ambitious friend.
I'm guessing that what protects us from this cosmic radiation is earth's magnetosphere. If so, maybe we could work on some kind of magnetic shielding for interplanetary spacecraft. Would it be possible at all?
Sunil Jain Ozone protects us from UV light. Magnetosphere is the Earth's magnetic field which protects Earth from solar wind and other charged particles. I don't know exactly if it also protects us against other cosmic radiations but I think it does. So my question is can we build that kind of shielding for spacecraft.
Odin029 Umm that's the Earth we stand on. Something in the core of the Earth makes compasses point north. Unless that is called the magnetosphere and if so yeah I didn't know that.
Sunil Jain Yes, the rotating liquid core generates magnetic fields. And those fields protect us from cosmic radiation. Of course, these fields are huge, so I don't know if we can generate enough power to use this concept.
Okay, I'm a physics expert so I totally got this. Everyone knows that centrifugal force is counteracted by the air pressure of the atmosphere, if we tethered a spacecraft to the ground while it is high in the atmosphere the air pressure would be UNDER it, pushing it outward, and the centrifugal force would add to that, as long as it cut the tether at the right time it could be slingshoted into orbit around Mars. That or we could just use magnets.
Whelp judging by my experience in the Kerbal Space Program getting to Mars can be done in about 9 months with a 3 man crew using an ungodly number of solid rocket boosters to get a 300 ton liquid fuel tank array into space, whereupon a shuttle can dock with it, attach to the tanks, then an unmanned craft is sent up to attach a massive chemical rocket array to the fuel tanks, the entire thing accelerates a total of 4 times, once to punch free of earth gravity during the launch window, once to match planes with the target, once to shed the Delta V to get into a Marshian orbit, whereupon the shuttle dedocks from the tank array and can land. This process can move up to 800 tons with no problem and better yet has the fuel to get back to Earth given the proper launch window. So the real problem is the crew. Time to get out led panels.
1) use multiple rocketss, one containing people, one containing lots of fuel, one containing supplies. Put one at a time into earth orbit, connect in orbit, and slingshot to mars. 2) immediately establish water mining colonies and huge solar arrays for power. Plants for oxygen, bring animals too. 3) keep multiple emergency pods in mars orbit in case of emergency. 4) establish underground facilities to remove as much radiation exposure as possible from colonists. 5) sattelite arrays orbit mars for communication with home.
MicrowavableToast The problem is step (1). It's not that nearly that easy to solve. It really doesn't matter how many rockets you use; the energy required is a given, regardless of how you split it, and it's awful large. For a reliable mission from low Earth orbit to low Mars orbit, with return, and some margin for failure, you're going to need around 12 km/s of delta V. Using the most efficient chemical rockets we've come up with (say ISP of 450 s, quite better than, say, Space X's Merlins on the Falcon 9), and assuming your spaceship is light (say 30 t, which really sounds quite tight if you intend to carry crew and some sort of colony equipment and supplies, and radiation shielding), you're going to need in the ballpark of 450 tons of fuel in low Earth orbit. To put this in perspective: the heaviest launcher currently in service, the Delta-4 Heavy, can take 28 tons of cargo to LEO. So we're talking 16 launches of the biggest rocket we have, just to put the fuel you need in orbit. And this quick and dirty calculation doesn't even include a way to actually land on Mars, and then relaunch from there; that surely will more than double the requirements. Because, as you know, in rocketry, a tiny increment in payload mass forces a very large increase in fuel required. And then this 12 km/s Δv figure is for close to optimal Hohmann transfers, an efficient "route" to Mars and back, which, as this video establishes, has the problem of taking too much time, exposing the astronauts to radiation for very long. If you want to reach Mars quicker, you need to take a less efficient route, which means more Δv (likely quite a bit more), which in turns means even more fuel (a LOT more). So this is the problem with chemical rockets. The key is that ISP figure (btw that's the engines' "specific impulse," and if you're curious about the maths, look up the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation). For a manned mission to Mars we need engines of much higher ISP, and this is not feasible by burning fuel. You need to use ion thrust, as mentioned in the video, or some sort of nuclear engine, or whatever technology we haven't yet invented, to get more energy out the fuel. So that's the first problem to solve. And, to be honest, to me, all the remaining ones seem rather minor by comparison :S
MicrowavableToast "Bring animals too." Do you have any idea how expensive it is to shoot as much as a cheeseburger into space? Look it up, the math's been done. But in theory: not impossible ^^.
In my opinion, it seems that those costs are mostly unnecessary, a cheeseburger doesn't even weigh that much, nor does it take up much space -little pun- I don't see how the costs would be necessary. I would understand that it would be expensive to fling three rockets into the cosmos at a time, but if they want to survive and establish a colony on the red rock, then they had better do what is needed to survive. After all, the people going there are a lot more valuable than saving money. Human lives. Who can put a price on that?
It's not like that, mate. It's not "cost" as in money, it's cost in energy. We know _exactly_ how much is needed, and we can't haggle with the laws of Physics just because we need this very much. We need to come up with a realistic way to pay the cost; the Universe is not going to give us a discount. With our current technology, sending a manned expedition to Mars in such a way that travel time is short and radiation damage manageable, would require not three, but dozens of launches, to build a massive spaceship in low Earth orbit: we need to put up there whatever we'll need in Mars, plus many times that mass in fuel. This is an endeavour that would dwarf the International Space Station. And if _anything_ goes wrong, which happens all the time, that'd be a decade of effort lost, not to mention the lives of the crew and all. And sure, it would cost an insane amount of money, too. But that's not even the main problem, I don't think. Now don't think I disagree with you in that humanity _needs_ this, it has to be done. But if we're going to spend the next 20 years working to get to Mars, I think it makes a lot more sense to spend most of that here on Earth, developing technology. At the rate we're advancing, it seems wiser to just wait a little longer. We just need a better engine. In a nutshell: we need to come up with a way to expel fuel out the back end of a spaceship faster than it goes when we simply burn it, so that we don't need this bloody much fuel. That's all there is to it. Solve that problem, and we're on Mars.
correction: "Solve that problem," and we're in space. The challenge of being on Mars structurally is more than just the travel in terms of time and fuel efficiency. You're essentially booting a new world, with its own morals, its own laws, its own problems to solve. Not to mention the dangers lurking ever step of the way, and the long term issues that will develop. I'm not saying it's impossible at all, in fact I think it's not that long at all before we're there, but I am saying there's more to it than just the journey.
Proposition: develop a radiation detector and distributor (RAD) that would encapsulate the spacecraft en route detecting, containing and delegating this radiation to be used to propel/accelerate the engines in a manner similar to ion propelled engines but with more demanding efficiency. Would this not attack both issues? Shielding astronauts from, and utilizing both types of hazardous radiation accordingly, toward the acceleration and completion of the mission. Or is this idea just essentially a highly efficient/advanced ion propulsion system?
If a smoker went on a mission to Mars it would actually decrease their risk of cancer, due to a lack of cigarettes. Radiation isn't that big of a deal.
That is a very optimistic statement, we got on the average 0,6 mSv on Mars, the highest peaks will be much more for sure, so it will get very complicated even on a short trip, you have protect everything, food, equipment, life support systems ... A longterm stay will for sure lead to contamination, yea maybe will not get cancer even when get exposed to that level of 1 mSv, to drive without a seatbelt is also by chance very save, but to take the risk and then to be unlucky is not much worth in the end.
This solution would require a more efficient method of getting from earth to space but what about a large magnet? How big would a magnet have to be to generate a magnetic field large enough to protect the spacecraft? Also, do extremely powerful magnets create a larger magnetic field or simply a stronger one?
Oh snap, would the magnet on the spacecraft be affected by earth's magnetic field ( get pulled back in) if so then of course you would have to use an electro-magnet. And if you do that, could you then line up the the electro-magnet opposite of earth's magnetic field turn on the electro-magnet and be given a boost out of earth's low orbit by the force of the opposing fields?
s0medudeonline I have a better Idea. Just send a another unmanned space ship with a magnet on it to mars, then make a magnet on earth and the two planets will just snap together
1- Is there any medication that they could take to help them reduce the effects/remove some of the contamination from their bodies? 2- They could try to develop a shielding that is light and stop some of the radiation. (witch is unlikely since more dense and heavy material like lead is the only thing used to block radiations as far as i know). 3- An electromagnetic shield around the ship strong enough to help is impossible. 4- They really need to find new propulsion techniques or new fuels. 5- OR they could just accept that going to mars is dangerous and go there even if it may cost their lives. A lot of the first marines that travelled the sea to find the new continent died in the process, that didn't stop them from reaching the new world.
grizzlewolf brown I wonder if they could actually ingest those medecines over a long period of time, it might do more harm to their bodies if there are dangerous long-term side effects. But i don't have enough knowledge in that field to know. Lets not forget the astronauts will have to live in a pod for months without gravity witch can be hard psychologically. Also, i know that Graphene as many use and will become a material used for a lot of new applications in biology and computing to creating carbon nano-tubes i beleive. But that it can actually stop radiations i didn't heard about it. I don't think that graphite and charcoal is expensive, but transforming it to one-layer of carbon atoms and stack probably thousands of layers to create shield must be near-impossible or very costly wiyh our current technology. Thanks for your input :-) Sorry for my bad English, still think in French while trying to write in English hehe.
I have an idea, if we build a lunar base then we could assemble larger more powerful spaceships and launch them with a whole lot less gravity to battle against. Maybe even launch them with some sort of kick ass rail gun? Thoughts?
If you could point a satellite at mars for internet connection latency would be 7 min. I could imagine playing Halo and in 14 minutes after pulling the trigger I would shoot. (14 min because it's a round trip)
JP Aerospace has some of the answers. Float to the edge of the atmosphere and then just launch from there to low or high orbit and assemble your inter solar ship in a modular fashion and bring up fuel in small packs. you could get a very large ship built and fueled in 5 years at 100th the cost of a government space agency program You could even get water and lead diffraction shielding for the radiation as the weight to space load can be spread out over many cheap trips.
One thing that this approach really needs is a returning spacecraft to deliver those "tiny packages". Because building a new ascend stage over and over would suck... money literally. All engines are expensive and letting ascend boosters just crash and burn is innefficient. US Shuttle is brobably the best option awailable ATM (though it really is a big-assed option, with this huge orbitter insertino into orbit, and then deorbiting, just for a sake of deploying a small cargo). I have heard of some rumors about Russian project of ascend stage that can deploy winglets and parashutes on it's way back to earth, so it can be recovered in one piece and re-used, but this project is still on paper waiting for funds to be allocated. And now that I think about it... a good option would also be having insertion stage hanging in orbit. So we don't have to launch a new one each time. Like you put a module into orbit. with some stashed fuel in it. And when you need to launch some usefull cargo you just use the ascend stage, and cargo. You launch it when your insertion module is about to come close. Then, as your cargo gets to altitude, your insertion module decelerates to match speed with it, dock, and then perform the insertion. You'll have to launch new fuel for insertion stage though.. but saving mass for insertion engines and control units is significant too. And if you still have your returning ascend stage attached while your inserter is docking, you can have some items returned relatively safely to earth for maintenance... Hm... Probably those ideas are worth mentioning somwhere else...
Павел Жданов Already done by JP Aerospace the tiny cheap boosters taking payloads into orbit from high altitude are completely recoverable as well as the vehicle that takes them to high altitude near space and they haven't spent billions of dollars to figure it out or make and run the prototypes they also have planed a permanent high altitude transfer station.
That's cool.. On another note...wouldn't a space elevator have to be on the equator? (I know your talking about a baloon) But I mean a space elevator.. If so... where? Africa... Brazil in the amazon? or Singapor.. yeah not with tyfoons. Geographically Africa is probably the best optoin.. but politically... Probably the worst of the three.. LOL You'd have to build it in Congo.. Yeah.. that's really going to work.. LOL killed before you can break ground.. LOL Space elevator is doomed.. not because it's impossible.. but because of people.
Ken Hnyla Well I was thinking the Galapagos islands or the island Soa Tome and Principe could host a space elevator build up in the waters near them. Government politics just kills anything good.
I would go for sure. Maybe you could talk about Bussard collectors in one of your shows, I always thought using magnetic fields to scoop up interstellar hydrogen as you go along was a great way to solve the fuel problem. Also I wondered about sending robotic boosters ahead of the main expedition to rendezvous in space partway to refuel or temporarily attach and provide a delta-v boost allowing the passenger module to carry less fuel.
What's the obsession with Mars? Go to Venus. A gas mixture of 70% N[2] and 30% O[2] at 1 atm and 30° C is a very powerful lifting gas on Venus, a rigid airframe made of closed cell expanded polystyrene and borosilicate glass and filled with Earth atmosphere at STP will float up high enough in the Venusian atmosphere that the outside air would be around 20° C and the wind carries you around the planet roughly every 24 hours. Make hexagonal interlocking cells, say 30 m between parallel faces and and 60 m tall; use interlocking cells rather than a single monolithic structure so that a single hull failure can be isolated, also it might make expanding easier. And in there you build your colony. Use robots to mine the surface, and seed the mountain tops and atmosphere with extremophiles...... As insanely inhospitable as Venuses atmosphere is, the heat and acidity should make some minerals easier to extract from ore, while the acidity will also help in making minerals biologically available to extremophiles and the extremely dense atmosphere should make it easier to find bacteria and fungi capable of floating in the atmosphere.... microorganisms that don't float here might float there.
Innoculate what's the point of going to Mars? The cost of sending a person to Mars, Venus or even just Luna is insane compared to the cost of sending robots and spending billions of dollars so a couple dozen people can say "I touched Martian/Venusian/Lunar "soil" (lacks microbial activity, as much it's actually dirt not soil) is nuts, the only reason to send people anywhere is so they can do what robots can't. One of the few reason to send people off Earth is to perpetuate the human race, aka permanently settle and populate other worlds. Settling Venus might require more material imports than settling Mars, but it's also much cheaper to get a ton of material to Venus than Mars so that's ohkay. Though we might be able to send robots to Venus to fabricate a living space in the Venusian atmosphere before sending people, and that would dramatically lower the need to import material to Venus. Venus has a mineral composition much more similar to Earth than Mars does, and since we already know that Earth's mineral composition supports Earth life, it is a much better bet that Venusian dirt will be able to turned into people, which is one of the requirements for a permanent settlement that won't be permanently dependent on imports. A solar panel on Earth that is 25% efficient produces about 110 W/m^2, the same panel on Mars would produce a meager 44 W/m^2, but will produce 176 W/m^2 on Venus. This isn't just relevant to solar panels, but growing food and producing vitamin D in our skin. It'd be much cheaper and easier to use either tinted or polarized glass (or semi transparent solar panels) to reduce the amount of sun light that our skin and plants get to Earth levels than to use a 2.5 acre magnifying glass to light 1 acre of Mars to Earth levels. Finally, Venus is a stepping stone to Mercury and there isn't a better place in the Solar System for launching solar sails than Mercury and solar sails are the ticket to getting into deep space. We could do it with rockets, but that'd make wherever we launched the rockets from even less habitable.
the hydrogen fuel problem and much of the cost can be solved by building the bloody thing on the moon. The moon has ice, thus hydrogen. A small lunar base could be used to test radiation protective measures in deeper space and all the other equipment (the dust issue) as well. Step 1: Build a moon base with space and Mars stuff Step 2: Get your ass to Mars!
The tech and experience gained would outweigh any cost monetarily in lives potentially saved. Sure, its the long road approach but shouldn't we take control of our little bubble of space before leaping to Mars? Not only are lives protected, our pocket books would be spared an undue weight as fuel is no long being launched into orbit. It protects not only our astronauts, it protects us here on Earth. Sending a huge tank of hydrogen fuel attached to another huge tank of hydrogen fuel to yet another even larger tank of hydrogen fuel in orbit around a planet with 7 billion people on it that could fall on anywhere in the world from said orbit sounds kind of... well, it'd be really bad. run on, but you get my point.
Sounds nice, and is entirely possible, unfortunately, politics will prevent us from ever doing that. Literally there will NEVER be a permanent, or semi permanent settlement on the moon, thanks to treaties
GO CURIOSITY!!! I LOVE CURIOSITY I DID EXPOSITION AND I DID S RESEATCH PROJECT ON HIM AND MADE A MODEL OUT OF CARDBOARD ITS AWESOME WOOHOOO GO CURIOISITY
yeah obviously but with the advancement of robots where probably going to put it off ass long as possible. So we can build a safer mission in which people can come back from mars.
I think that going to another world is not only possible, but doable. It really involves the right technology. Personally, I would love to step foot on other planets, not just on all seven continents here. That's a small stepping stone for me. However, I'm not sure I'd want to have a one way trip. I'd like to be able to come home when ever possible.
I just thought of this, it's probably super expensive, but what if we used traditional chemical rockets, but minimised the amount of fuel required on the craft carrying humans by sending out multiple refuelling drones in advance, lying in wait along the path? This would allow for maximum acceleration and deceleration (obviously). The drones would need to perform docking procedures that would require them to accelerate to match the speed of the human craft, so they would have to carry enough fuel to get them in place (stage 1), accelerate to docking speed (stage 2) and refuel the human craft. (stage 3) Also, a drone craft could accelerate much faster than a human craft, since it's not subject to the same g-force limitations as humans, so it could match the speed of the human craft while burning less fuel.
As far as I know it's not possible to turn radiation into energy especially not alpha and beta particles however if you could find a way to redshift gamma rays enough you could turn it into Infrared radiation then use the heat to boil water through a turbine and create electricity but the only way I know you can redshift waves is by using a black hole so that would be difficult (likely impossible ) to do
+Elaa Hilou I would think that it should be possible to use ionizing radiation as a source of electric energy since it is similar to the photovoltaic effect that is used in solar panels. Perhaps different materials could be used in place of silicon for the higher energies of gamma rays, x-rays, alpha and beta particles, etc. when they knock electrons out of atoms of the material and thereby induce an electric current in it if the material is a conductor.
karebu2 You can't treat a damaged cell in any simple manner. Our tissue is not capable of withstanding this. It is purely a physical limitation, and the best you can do is prevent it.
I have also heard Abstergo industries is working on a device that will let us relive the memories of our ancestors. Its amazing how far science has come.
Well it won't work. First we'd still have to physically send someone to Mars to put a large patch of moon gel there. Then we could portal to it as we pleased......
I'm writing a paper and probably moving into experimental phase relatively soon for an active radiation countermeasure system that mimics a planetary magnetic field.
mostly you need fuel and air/water from the moon. Robots could mine these things. Vehicle assembly could be done in moon orbit and fueling. It,s a question of making 1 trip to mars or being able to make repeat trips. the mars window is only 1 time every 2 years so mining time shouldn't be a issue.
taiming71 There are two issues with this plan. 1) The equipment to mine and refine lunar materials into usable ones (water and air as you suggest) is really heavy. To this day the Saturn V rocket still holds the record for largest payloads sent to Low Earth Orbit and Trans Lunar Injection (Atlas V beats it's Geostationary Orbit Record, but has never made a TLI) and only ~1.6% of it's mass went to the Moon. Now, as a long investment, it's feasible to launch Saturn-esque missions to achieve this, but no government seems willing to fund such a venture at the moment> 2) The Moon (in fact all of other space) is defined under the Outer Space Treaty as part of the common heritage of mankind as is to be protected from exploitation by nations or corperations. Landing/building stuff there is fine but mining it would require the permission of the international community (good luck with that), unless there's a major change to international law on this subject.
As far as I understand the issues a big problem is the travel speed of the spaceship. Presume we seperate it into two units. One is leaving earth orbit, waiting a bit and then shoot ahead by earth in the direction of Mars. The second unit actually containing the human crew would leave later and their smaller (chemical) ship would dock up with the bigger ship on its run passing earth at almost full speed.
I'd rather be one of the first humans ever to set my feet on mars, etching my name into the annuals of human history, than waste my life as a basement dweller. Also, i do not want to live on this planet anymore, but i am somewhat stuck here, in this prison of ours, like the rest of my over 7 billion bipedal mates.
Of the two radiation detectors, The first, the Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer, and the second, the Radiation Assessment Detector, neither was "shielded". The Alpha detector was to be used to bombard Martian materials & detect the resultant emissions. The second Assessment detector was to be energized when landed on Mars.
Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus EVERY knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Philippians 2:11 And that EVERY tongue should CONFESS that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Send robots you fools. Until we can overcome our social/political problems, we have no business colonizing other planets. Mag Lev technology needs to be fully developed for space travel also.
What's the point? There's nothing there. You go there for a few minutes and go back. Seems like a massive waste of time to me. We already got all the data we need from the rover. What would bringing humans there accomplish? Take dirt as souvenir?
Tibiafreeeeak then turn into War of the Planets Mars vs Earth because eventually they will want independents from Earth and we all know how governments on earth are like and they wont like that.
One simple reason as outlined by others..The survival of the species. If you haven't noticed Earth is becoming less and less hospitable to human life. We need to figure out how to get off this rock before we all die on it.
I'm didn't say anything about going to space, just why do we need to go to Mars? We should make sure the place actually has something for us to do before making the trip. You know, something other than just wandering around for a few minutes before going back home. A trip like that wastes fuel, resources and money. I don't think it's necessary to "test" whether we could make it there. We KNOW we have capable technology because we successfully sent a rover there. Again, not worth the trip.
So we know how hard this is gonna be. And we also know how fast computer science is going. So instead of us wasting this planet in hopes of spreading throughout the universe maybe, just maybe, we need to seriously take care for our home, then send robots to VR the whole thing for us until we master space travel. Just a thought, made sense in my head.
Mark Zubrin suggests that building an interior room to escape the radiation events, sheltered only by mission supplies, will be enough to prevent harmful radiation. However, I think this is a little bit optimistic to say the least. And beefing up the shielding around said room suddenly makes the mission less feasible due to launch thrust requirements. Cost will suddenly skyrocket requiring orbital builds.
I'm talking about colonizing the atmosphere above the violence. There are a number of videos describing how much easier it would be to conquer those problems than holding the impossible dream about Mars.
It seems the curse of space travel is that we can't get most people interested unless we send people...But sending people then becomes the hardest part of space travel, next to fuel weight. The smart thing would be to send other lifeforms & more robots, ideally combining the 2, but people just won't have as much interest.
Of the two possible methods discussed to produce energy for a Mars trip, Solar and nuclear, nuclear would be the most viable IF we get away from the traditional Uranium/Plutonium fission reactor and adopt the Liquid Florine Thorium Reactor aka LFTR. It could be built in orbit above Earth and then used for the trip. Since LFTRs are smaller, lighter, and uses a recyclable fuel source, it would make a better choice for energy generation. That said, there is still the necessity to colonize the Moon first for a possible jumping off point to Mars. it would seem to be a logical step.
maybe a idea to reduce radiation exposure during transit is to try to create a magnetic field around the vehicle like the way the earth has a magnetic field to deflect the radiation
Question: Why does a trip to Mars require more fuel? With inertia, one initial velocity should be enough to get you all the way there, with maybe a little bit of thrusts for adjusting course and landing. But this happens on all missions.
Here's a question: If we do "beat cancer" (or become good enough at treating it that it is no longer a major concern) will we still have any reason to fear radiation?
Hello, I have two things to say. First off, I would not go to mars if I couldn't come back. Also, I have an idea on shielding. We genetically modify the cells of fungi that live in nuclear reactors and use radiation for energy, and we coat the astronauts in them. Plants constantly are damaged by solar radiation and yet they survive. Use biomimicry to create a fabric that does the same thing. Thanks for reading my humble suggestions.
I've looked it up and while the Mars One thing sounds like it would make an excellent sci-fi horror, It's a terrifying concept in reality. These people are crazy lol :D but I do admire their scientific drive. Maybe humanity can learn more about Mars and space in general from their efforts and research. However, I will most definitely watch whatever they broadcast cuz that sounds intriguing!
it's been revealed that if we made two buildings the height of the empire estate building either side of a ship and use elastic (a lot) to tie it down and then cut it, the resulting propulsion, put with the current fuel, would make it faster and more efficient.
An idea could be setting up several unmanned stations between the Earth and Mars, then use a slingshot effect coupled with solar sails and nuclear fission reactors on the stations. The interplanetary stations could also server as a means of communication relay.
I think the best possible way to do it would be to construct a colony/dry dock on the moon and launch a mars mission from there. You wouldn't need as much fuel to get off of the moon, so you could put more of that fuel to use actually going through space.
Interesting that we're looking for physical shielding against the radiation. I would think that a magnetic shield would work well against charged particles.
I would absolutely sign up to go on a one-way trip to the Red Planet if I felt that said one-way trip wouldn't result in my sooner-than-preferable death. I don't know if I would want to be out there on that first trip, perhaps a couple of years later after the colony was established and people were officially not dying agonizing deaths...
Is... Is that a shirt with the Konami Code represented via quark flavours? I think that's single handedly the most awesome nerdiest shirt I have ever seen.
we should be setting up a moon base and making that viable first. If we can fix radiation exposure on a almost null atmosphere, Mars should be a piece of cake. Not to mention launching space crafts off a light gravity of the moon appose to our system would be more ideal.
exactly, we need that,...
We can't send people to the moon, listen to what he is saying . The numbers are very optimistic but what he is saying is about right.
***** Does that fit in with the facts this video has just stated?
***** Oh, ok. I didn't know the Earth's magnetic field stretched out past the moon. I was under the impression that the peak radiation passing through the belts on the way to the moon has been shown to be lethal in minutes even with todays equipment. We all thought the landings where faked but we never really think about it so it doesn't really matter ether way.
You would still have to send all the parts and fuel to the moon, probably taking multiple trips. Then, you would have to build a functional launch pad. Also, you would have to get the people to the moon in the first place. I doubt that anybody wants to take 2 different flights.
"We do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard" - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
YOLO
Annnndd killed it
actually i don't do many things though they are easy... it's not because it's bad or anything(in fact most of those cases it's essential) but i just... don't
Man!! Your videos are so full of knowledge!
Indeed!
Could we just send 4 people part way and hope they will develop super powers like the Fantastic Four?
If we can't get to Mars faster, let's make Mars come to us.
Shut the fuck up you cancerous junkie dipshit
Just to be clear I mean that as a joke due to the fact that those are the coincidentally the exact words my friend said as a joke once when I was talking to him about the subject, I just didn't want to call him a cancerous junkie because I don't want to lose a friend so if I can take advantage of a coincidence to get satisfaction then I will do it
No offense taken, but it is weird for someone to tell an inside joke only one person understand.
I know but as I said it was for my satisfaction and I have mental issues with closure
Calm down there Ken M.
I know what I would do. And it involves warp, and drive.
Thats great except that involves the words Doesn't and Exist
Can we use something similar to the shielding that will be on the new Space telescope, to block the radiation en route, at least. And maybe deploy a secondary one once they land?
@@TheEscora yet...
I hate this time in human history because I want to live through the entire colonisation process not just the beginning
And then with that colonization process, we don't know what will happen if we're going to a star.
really ? I would rather exprience the process of how we developed our tech over the time. just my opinion tho.
+Tuber that's not what I would be hyped about but I can understand your point
you'll live for it! it's in 2020-2035!
+Maja Vincent no I mean the entire process over 2000 years where it will be made safe enough on the red planet so that we could walk around on it without any oxygen tanks aka I want to see the ENTIRE thing not the entire very beginning of the process
Colonizing Mars is not only a good idea, it is necessary to assure that humanity has a long-term future. Currently, the only way governments know how to deal with the ever-expanding population is war, disease and sterility. Those are not ethical means of dealing with over-population. Also, there is always that possibility that some day the Earth might AGAIN be struck by a giant asteroid and most (if not all) of human life exterminated from the event. I think it is IMPERATIVE that we keep moving forwards as a human race, and doing everything we can do to expand beyond this planet.
Governments and religions are just superstitions invented to gain power over others.
Although being able to colonize other planets is a huge advantage (and probably a necessity), it still does not solve the "problem" of us humans not knowing how to deal with our ever more expanding and consuming species.
Colonizing another planet does seem like running away from the problem. But the idea of colonizing planets does not deserve any negativity, it's a must for our species if we want to reach higher levels of civilization.
I don't know why I just wrote this.
Whoa whoa whoa... Colonizing Mars? That's not going to happen for many centuries if at all. To make it even habitable, for something to stay there for multiple generations, you're going to need to work out problems with the lack of atmosphere, lack of ability to hold on to an atmosphere, and lack of a magnetosphere. An colonies on Mars will be 100% dependent on supplies from Earth... nothing can grow there. A Mars base might be feasible by the end of the century, but making that planet self-sustinaing is going to remain science fiction until those DNA killing problems are addressed.
There are a lot of ideas that could be workable soon, and many of them are old ideas. The planet can feasibly be terraformed, though that process would take thousands of years. So in the mean time, the primary challenges have to do with setting up workable biospheres, or independently habitable cities, homes, hotels, etc. There are challenges associated with those concepts, but I don't believe any of them are far beyond the scope of our current technology and knowledge. Each individual problem has to be examined by itself, rather than looking at all of the problems as a whole, which would lead us to believe it's an impossibility.
Well D Mac has a point, but that should not prevent us from dreaming and working towards that great goal. Why wait?
Since they are already using the "R.A.D" Why worry. Whenever the astronauts would get high doses of radiation they only need to use "RAD-Away" ;-)
The great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest...
was asked why did he want to climb it.
He said, "Because it is there."
I can't wait for humans to reach Mars. It's going to happen, likely within my lifetime, and I know I'll be tuned in to whoever is broadcasting the event.
Myself? There's no way I'd leave Earth. I'm too reliant on the internet. Due to the speed of light being slow as hell in a cosmic context, internet speeds in space are really bad.
Me too
Manabender Me too, I am too reliant on the internet...and also water, food, air. Yea, but internet is the dealbraker.
Manabender I don't want to go to anothere planet (or moon) but the ISS has computers and that's how they upload videos meaning they have internet. YAY
Manabender you might be happy to know that if you took a trip to the moon, you would still have internet. Yep the internet is available on the moon. Of course why in the world would you need the internet if you could bounce around on the lunar surface? that just seems like more fun to me.
ikr
Please please please in my lifetime please
A major company is doing it. 2 people will arrive on Mars between 2016 and 2022. After that, more will come. And then more. And then more.
We choose to go to Mars, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Daan Dekker An independent company, privately funded, that has a lot of money. If I remember what the mission is called, I'd tell you the company name.
Daan Dekker en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One
Pretty sure kumquat is referring to this. I'm not sure if it is going to happen but apparently they want to make it a reality show..
***** 2018? is that for certain?
it will be no doubt, 2035-2040
Dad: Do you wish you could go to Mars?
Me: Yeah, that's cool.
Dad: What if I told you it was a one-way trip
Me: *boy these people be crazy*
you: dad y u tell me
Correction.
Dad: Do you wish you could go to Mars?
Me: Yeah, that would be cool but it's a one way trip
Dad: How quickly can you go?
- Russians have gone to space !!
- What ? All of them ?!
- No, just one.
- Stop wasting my time.
Then in a few decades we realize that Mars simply isn't a planet that is worthwhile inhabiting. People will have died trying to inhabit mars though, and masses of people will go and rise up declaring that their deaths mustn't have been in vain and will thus desperately end up struggling to inhabit mars.
Someone make that a movie
YES
they already did. its called The Martian.
I would like to volunteer my girlfriend for the one-way mission to Mars. Is there any chance someone can invented a voice-powered engine system - her incessant talking would easily get the spacecraft (and all her shoes) to Mars....and probably beyond.
+Adam Chmielowiec well his shirt is about sub atomic particles found in protons and neutrons called quarks and for some reason the names of different types of quarks are called up, down... etc. which explains the arrows and other symbols
It's ok all that cosmic radiation would give birth to a lot of super powered people
Oh yeah superheroes such as leukimiaman
Nonoun holy shit I just died
+Nonoun xD
"Once all the rage in the 1950s and '60s, medical research has now shown that direct exposure to radiation is not a particularly good way to gain superpowers. If you won't take our word for it, just ask the superheroes who have used this method in the past: Captain Leukemia, The Meltdown Man, Mr. Low Sperm Count, Ms. Low Sperm Count, The Inside-Out Man, The Incredible Cancer Victim, or The Portentous Blotch..." --How To Be A Superhero by Mark Leigh & Mike Lepine
Daniel Singery lll
Maybe we should start with the moon and then when we have that down think about expanding out.
Fuck the moon, it's all gray and shit, Mars is all red.... and shit.
+Tyler Polk Moon is Yellow ffs all the cheese makes it yellow
We've been there before. Mars is an entirely different environment (with an atmosphere, no less) and it's a way longer trip. Not to mention, you need to bring far more return fuel to escape Mars's much greater gravitational pull (compared to the moon's). And we have to think about bringing food, more radiation protection, entirely new and different HEV suits and an effective water filtration system, whereas a trip to the moon is only about 3 earth days round trip, a trip to Mars would take 3 months with our fastest propulsion system, one way. So six months at the very least, even if they only spend a day there.
+Tetrachromia no we haven't nasa executed the biggest hoax in history.
EmzgamesHD nice b8 m8 i r8 it 8/8
we should just bring the planets closer to Earth.
Sure but if we crash I'm throwing the blame on you, aight? ;p
Elias Ednie We probably won't do that for 300+ years it just won't work.
Elias Ednie Yeah...... no.
Elias Ednie like patrick star once said "WE SHOULD TAKE OUR PROBLEMS, AND PUSH THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE" apply that to the planets and PUSH IT to earth
Brian Hanson well, if we could make REALLY BIG magnets or somthin and pull a planet closer to us, and then revers the magnet things and just do that forever we could get a planet closer untill the magets stop working and the two planets get blown up.... sounds like fun ;)
I believe the best way to shield against the high-speed energetic particles and radiation would be with a primary magnetic shield. Propulsion is another matter. I like Dombowerphoto's suggestion of using Thorium as a fuel. Perhaps a way can be found to make the magnetic shield as a by-product of the Thorium Propulsion Device? I'm thinking....perhaps a Reverse Tokomax Reactor with the central core "funneling" the reactants and the outer portion generating the magnetic shielding....just a thought.
For an unconventional propulsion method, why not build a long maglev rail on the Moon and bring the craft bound to Mars up to a higher speed then launch it from the rail like a railgun? Then you could adjust the trajectory with TIE or SEP engines as it transits so you wouldn't need to pack all that fuel because a majority of the energy to get there was given to it by the launch.
Thoughts on this, Hank?
Jordan De Knikker That's doable, but building a rail on the moon might get spendy, then you need some sort of large power source too. You could use a space elevator to launch missions though. Building a space elevator on the Moon is already possible with today's materials and technology. You would need a power source still to lift the payload to geosync, but after that, you would let the payload continue along the elevator, higher and higher, using the kinetic energy of the Moon's rotation to sling it away when it reaches the end of the elevator, which you would have to time correctly in order to end up where you want to go.
The earth's magnetic field protects us from cosmic radiation. Is it really not that feasible to generate a large field circling a ship? Magnetic fields are already standard usage in modern technology (i.e. electric generators).
The problem is, would it work? Another way could be to have an electrically charged end of the craft to attract (by static electricity) radiation. EDIT: That probably has less chance of succeeding.
Although. x-rays and gamma rays couldn't be stopped, except by some dark paint, maybe.
+Tamal Paul My guess would be that we would need a lot of energy, and therefore giant solar panels to do so, but I like the idea.
+Tamal Paul I would imagine that either A. it would take an insane amount of energy or B. would mess with the stuff on the craft
+Tamal Paul I'm pretty sure it just couldn't really be powerful enough, if you think about the absolutely monolithic process that gives the planet a magnetic field and that magnetic field reaches out like thousands of KM from the edge of the atmosphere and that only just about protects us a bit. So I think one that we could generate around a spacecraft would have to be powerful enough to at least reach a few KM out just to give you the same amount of protection, which would take a generator the size of a building and the power of like a town to maintain.
+Tamal Paul We have some problems with that:
a) Those magnetic field projectors take a lot of electrical energy. We need to produce that.
b) The machines needed to project a strong magnetic field, most times a huge electromagnet, are big and heavy. We have to move them to space.
c) You would need a big AC generator, because a DC current on an electromagnet basically leadsto the magnetic field inducing electrical currents into all machines it can.
I would apply to go to mars in a second if I could. That would be the ultimate legacy.
we went to the Joseph Roche's talk during the Researchers Night festival a couple years ago. He was so driven, so sparkling with enthusiasm, that my then 5 y.o. kid didn't really grasp the idea of the finality of the definition of 'one-way mission'. When it dawned on him, how immensely massive are the problems of travel, fuel and health, he went and hugged J. Roche and promiced to invent a TARDIS when he grows up to sometimes sneak some guests to them.
We have to duplicate the natural magnetic field of the earth in order to venture into space. Propulsion will take a long while to solve but we already have the means and understanding of creating manmade magnetic fields. Not only would this benifit interplanitary trips but orbital ones as well including much needed shielding for the iss and a step towards making space truly "hospitable" to our species.
It would be cool to step on the surface of Mars, but I think it would be even cooler to see planets like Jupiter and Saturn in person like in 2001 A Space Odyssey and maybe even step foot on one of the moons. Imagine standing on the surface of a world and looking up into the sky just to see a massive gas planet. I think that would be much cooler than going to a planet that is just a red desert.
Yeah but Dave from 2001 ended up being monolithed and messed up. We don't want to go through that.
Syphist Prime One of the coolest things I can think of would be standing on the likes of Europa and having almost your entire sky filled with Jupiter. One of the oddest things about the movie 'Europa' is that they never thought to have a scene like that.
Syphist Prime Nowhere near half as cool as walking on a planet largely covered in plants and water and with life in every corner of it :-)
Syphist Prime - And how many years would you be willing to spend of your life on the way and would you be will to die there for the privilege of standing on a moon to look at Jupiter. It took Voyager 2 years to reach Jupiter. Have you given this much thought? yes it would be cool for a few hours, but then...........
Jupiter would probably pull you off Europa and gobble you Alive, i coulnd't think of anything scarier than having the largest ball of maelstromic death in our solar system in my close vision. I'll stick to looking at it through a telescope in my garden :p
Love your videos! Especially the ones about space exploration :)
We should build a huuuuge cannon in space and shoot spaceships at mars!! >_
Mass Effect??
King Khelz
Never played it :p
I still dont get why we're focusing on sending people and establishing a colony on Mars when we haven't even gotten some sort of colony on the moon. Wouldn't a moon colony be much easier and safer and perhaps train us for having a colony on another terrestrial planet like Mars. Just sayin mars one, get ur priorities in order.
JoshDoesEverything Also a colony on the Moon would pay for itself in the first year because we would be able to send back shipments of Helium3 which is worth several million dollars per gram.
The Moon should be a "stepping stone" to the rest of the solar system - just as depicted in the motion picture {and novel} 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY.
Oh totally! Sign me up. I'd love to contribute to the evolution of the species. After all we're doing a fine job here ensuring that Earth goes to s***t !
Sorry SciShow, I think you're completely wrong on this one.
There's one case where 4 astronauts were exposed to cosmic rays in space, and when they came back, they had super powers. One of them turned into a rock. They formed a group and fought crime.
Just bring a log of RadAway, even I can think of that
power armor
I signed up for the Mars One Expedition. There gonna need one hell of a Computer Scientist out there. Mission Critical equipment is Mission Critical
good luck!
Adam Schneider Pretty sure that one of the minimum requirement for being accepted as an astronaut is being able to distinguish "they're" from "there", and finishing your sentences, my ambitious friend.
Victor Kyrg OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH!!!! THAT'S A RADIATION BURN!!!!!!!!!!
Victor Kyrg daaaaaaaamnnn
Victor Kyrg yeah they've already picked their people, they chose people who can actually do things.
I'm guessing that what protects us from this cosmic radiation is earth's magnetosphere. If so, maybe we could work on some kind of magnetic shielding for interplanetary spacecraft. Would it be possible at all?
More like the ozone...wth is a magnetosphere?
Sunil Jain Ozone protects us from UV light. Magnetosphere is the Earth's magnetic field which protects Earth from solar wind and other charged particles. I don't know exactly if it also protects us against other cosmic radiations but I think it does. So my question is can we build that kind of shielding for spacecraft.
Sunil Jain
Yeah the magnetosphere is what makes your compass point north...
Odin029 Umm that's the Earth we stand on. Something in the core of the Earth makes compasses point north. Unless that is called the magnetosphere and if so yeah I didn't know that.
Sunil Jain Yes, the rotating liquid core generates magnetic fields. And those fields protect us from cosmic radiation. Of course, these fields are huge, so I don't know if we can generate enough power to use this concept.
Okay, I'm a physics expert so I totally got this. Everyone knows that centrifugal force is counteracted by the air pressure of the atmosphere, if we tethered a spacecraft to the ground while it is high in the atmosphere the air pressure would be UNDER it, pushing it outward, and the centrifugal force would add to that, as long as it cut the tether at the right time it could be slingshoted into orbit around Mars. That or we could just use magnets.
Whelp judging by my experience in the Kerbal Space Program getting to Mars can be done in about 9 months with a 3 man crew using an ungodly number of solid rocket boosters to get a 300 ton liquid fuel tank array into space, whereupon a shuttle can dock with it, attach to the tanks, then an unmanned craft is sent up to attach a massive chemical rocket array to the fuel tanks, the entire thing accelerates a total of 4 times, once to punch free of earth gravity during the launch window, once to match planes with the target, once to shed the Delta V to get into a Marshian orbit, whereupon the shuttle dedocks from the tank array and can land. This process can move up to 800 tons with no problem and better yet has the fuel to get back to Earth given the proper launch window. So the real problem is the crew. Time to get out led panels.
If you use the Oberth Effect with mün you can lessen your Δv to get there.
byars h Crowe Why not just do an Oberth Kuiper Maneuver?
Adam N. Webber why not just teleport there, humans can do that, right?
byars h Crowe
I didnt know that. Thanks dude!
Nicholas Cox are you an dumbfuck or a troll?
Smells like...THE BEGINNING OF MASS EFFECT
hopefully we can find Prothean ruins on mars when we can send people there lol
Me too! I always thought I'd be long dead before intergalactic travel was possible. Maybe I was wrong...
Same here but maybe its possible!!
xMckingwill All we can do is hope! lol
Muajyeej Xiong You likely will be. A journey to Mars would be intrasolar/interplanetary travel. Going to another galaxy would be intergalactic.
1) use multiple rocketss, one containing people, one containing lots of fuel, one containing supplies. Put one at a time into earth orbit, connect in orbit, and slingshot to mars.
2) immediately establish water mining colonies and huge solar arrays for power. Plants for oxygen, bring animals too.
3) keep multiple emergency pods in mars orbit in case of emergency.
4) establish underground facilities to remove as much radiation exposure as possible from colonists.
5) sattelite arrays orbit mars for communication with home.
MicrowavableToast The problem is step (1). It's not that nearly that easy to solve. It really doesn't matter how many rockets you use; the energy required is a given, regardless of how you split it, and it's awful large.
For a reliable mission from low Earth orbit to low Mars orbit, with return, and some margin for failure, you're going to need around 12 km/s of delta V. Using the most efficient chemical rockets we've come up with (say ISP of 450 s, quite better than, say, Space X's Merlins on the Falcon 9), and assuming your spaceship is light (say 30 t, which really sounds quite tight if you intend to carry crew and some sort of colony equipment and supplies, and radiation shielding), you're going to need in the ballpark of 450 tons of fuel in low Earth orbit. To put this in perspective: the heaviest launcher currently in service, the Delta-4 Heavy, can take 28 tons of cargo to LEO. So we're talking 16 launches of the biggest rocket we have, just to put the fuel you need in orbit.
And this quick and dirty calculation doesn't even include a way to actually land on Mars, and then relaunch from there; that surely will more than double the requirements. Because, as you know, in rocketry, a tiny increment in payload mass forces a very large increase in fuel required.
And then this 12 km/s Δv figure is for close to optimal Hohmann transfers, an efficient "route" to Mars and back, which, as this video establishes, has the problem of taking too much time, exposing the astronauts to radiation for very long. If you want to reach Mars quicker, you need to take a less efficient route, which means more Δv (likely quite a bit more), which in turns means even more fuel (a LOT more).
So this is the problem with chemical rockets.
The key is that ISP figure (btw that's the engines' "specific impulse," and if you're curious about the maths, look up the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation). For a manned mission to Mars we need engines of much higher ISP, and this is not feasible by burning fuel. You need to use ion thrust, as mentioned in the video, or some sort of nuclear engine, or whatever technology we haven't yet invented, to get more energy out the fuel.
So that's the first problem to solve. And, to be honest, to me, all the remaining ones seem rather minor by comparison :S
MicrowavableToast "Bring animals too." Do you have any idea how expensive it is to shoot as much as a cheeseburger into space? Look it up, the math's been done.
But in theory: not impossible ^^.
In my opinion, it seems that those costs are mostly unnecessary, a cheeseburger doesn't even weigh that much, nor does it take up much space -little pun- I don't see how the costs would be necessary. I would understand that it would be expensive to fling three rockets into the cosmos at a time, but if they want to survive and establish a colony on the red rock, then they had better do what is needed to survive. After all, the people going there are a lot more valuable than saving money. Human lives. Who can put a price on that?
It's not like that, mate. It's not "cost" as in money, it's cost in energy. We know _exactly_ how much is needed, and we can't haggle with the laws of Physics just because we need this very much. We need to come up with a realistic way to pay the cost; the Universe is not going to give us a discount.
With our current technology, sending a manned expedition to Mars in such a way that travel time is short and radiation damage manageable, would require not three, but dozens of launches, to build a massive spaceship in low Earth orbit: we need to put up there whatever we'll need in Mars, plus many times that mass in fuel. This is an endeavour that would dwarf the International Space Station. And if _anything_ goes wrong, which happens all the time, that'd be a decade of effort lost, not to mention the lives of the crew and all.
And sure, it would cost an insane amount of money, too. But that's not even the main problem, I don't think.
Now don't think I disagree with you in that humanity _needs_ this, it has to be done. But if we're going to spend the next 20 years working to get to Mars, I think it makes a lot more sense to spend most of that here on Earth, developing technology. At the rate we're advancing, it seems wiser to just wait a little longer. We just need a better engine.
In a nutshell: we need to come up with a way to expel fuel out the back end of a spaceship faster than it goes when we simply burn it, so that we don't need this bloody much fuel. That's all there is to it. Solve that problem, and we're on Mars.
correction: "Solve that problem," and we're in space. The challenge of being on Mars structurally is more than just the travel in terms of time and fuel efficiency.
You're essentially booting a new world, with its own morals, its own laws, its own problems to solve. Not to mention the dangers lurking ever step of the way, and the long term issues that will develop.
I'm not saying it's impossible at all, in fact I think it's not that long at all before we're there, but I am saying there's more to it than just the journey.
Proposition: develop a radiation detector and distributor (RAD) that would encapsulate the spacecraft en route detecting, containing and delegating this radiation to be used to propel/accelerate the engines in a manner similar to ion propelled engines but with more demanding efficiency. Would this not attack both issues? Shielding astronauts from, and utilizing both types of hazardous radiation accordingly, toward the acceleration and completion of the mission.
Or is this idea just essentially a highly efficient/advanced ion propulsion system?
If a smoker went on a mission to Mars it would actually decrease their risk of cancer, due to a lack of cigarettes. Radiation isn't that big of a deal.
That is a very optimistic statement, we got on the average 0,6 mSv on Mars, the highest peaks will be much more for sure, so it will get very complicated even on a short trip, you have protect everything, food, equipment, life support systems ...
A longterm stay will for sure lead to contamination, yea maybe will not get cancer even when get exposed to that level of 1 mSv, to drive without a seatbelt is also by chance very save, but to take the risk and then to be unlucky is not much worth in the end.
This solution would require a more efficient method of getting from earth to space but what about a large magnet? How big would a magnet have to be to generate a magnetic field large enough to protect the spacecraft? Also, do extremely powerful magnets create a larger magnetic field or simply a stronger one?
Oh snap, would the magnet on the spacecraft be affected by earth's magnetic field ( get pulled back in) if so then of course you would have to use an electro-magnet. And if you do that, could you then line up the the electro-magnet opposite of earth's magnetic field turn on the electro-magnet and be given a boost out of earth's low orbit by the force of the opposing fields?
s0medudeonline Epiphany seizures are fantastic.
s0medudeonline I have a better Idea. Just send a another unmanned space ship with a magnet on it to mars, then make a magnet on earth and the two planets will just snap together
Daniel Doyle hardy har
Daniel Doyle Wow your a genius! Man NASA is so stupid! Why don't they do that?
*Incoming call from NASA* uhhhh buddy, they wanna talk to you....
1- Is there any medication that they could take to help them reduce the effects/remove some of the contamination from their bodies?
2- They could try to develop a shielding that is light and stop some of the radiation. (witch is unlikely since more dense and heavy material like lead is the only thing used to block radiations as far as i know).
3- An electromagnetic shield around the ship strong enough to help is impossible.
4- They really need to find new propulsion techniques or new fuels.
5- OR they could just accept that going to mars is dangerous and go there even if it may cost their lives. A lot of the first marines that travelled the sea to find the new continent died in the process, that didn't stop them from reaching the new world.
1. Yes, there are expensive medicines.
2. Yes, graphene, or ceramics exist which could do better for shielding. Also expensive.
grizzlewolf brown I wonder if they could actually ingest those medecines over a long period of time, it might do more harm to their bodies if there are dangerous long-term side effects. But i don't have enough knowledge in that field to know. Lets not forget the astronauts will have to live in a pod for months without gravity witch can be hard psychologically.
Also, i know that Graphene as many use and will become a material used for a lot of new applications in biology and computing to creating carbon nano-tubes i beleive. But that it can actually stop radiations i didn't heard about it. I don't think that graphite and charcoal is expensive, but transforming it to one-layer of carbon atoms and stack probably thousands of layers to create shield must be near-impossible or very costly wiyh our current technology.
Thanks for your input :-)
Sorry for my bad English, still think in French while trying to write in English hehe.
The poetry of Tennyson come to mind when I think of Mars exploration--
"To seek, to strive, to find, and not to yield."
I have an idea, if we build a lunar base then we could assemble larger more powerful spaceships and launch them with a whole lot less gravity to battle against. Maybe even launch them with some sort of kick ass rail gun? Thoughts?
The latency for internet on mars is terrible. why go there?
Suraj Yadav yes but, the internet there isnt worth shiet . why go there?
Yeah isnt there an app for that or something anyway? ;)
whynatbmx i am pretty sure theres a Mars app which just takes shows u the easiest and clearest way to get to your mars destination.
If you could point a satellite at mars for internet connection latency would be 7 min. I could imagine playing Halo and in 14 minutes after pulling the trigger I would shoot. (14 min because it's a round trip)
Mike Sico maybe they could put sattelise midway or something to enhance the connection?
JP Aerospace has some of the answers. Float to the edge of the atmosphere and then just launch from there to low or high orbit and assemble your inter solar ship in a modular fashion and bring up fuel in small packs. you could get a very large ship built and fueled in 5 years at 100th the cost of a government space agency program You could even get water and lead diffraction shielding for the radiation as the weight to space load can be spread out over many cheap trips.
One thing that this approach really needs is a returning spacecraft to deliver those "tiny packages". Because building a new ascend stage over and over would suck... money literally. All engines are expensive and letting ascend boosters just crash and burn is innefficient.
US Shuttle is brobably the best option awailable ATM (though it really is a big-assed option, with this huge orbitter insertino into orbit, and then deorbiting, just for a sake of deploying a small cargo).
I have heard of some rumors about Russian project of ascend stage that can deploy winglets and parashutes on it's way back to earth, so it can be recovered in one piece and re-used, but this project is still on paper waiting for funds to be allocated.
And now that I think about it... a good option would also be having insertion stage hanging in orbit. So we don't have to launch a new one each time.
Like you put a module into orbit. with some stashed fuel in it. And when you need to launch some usefull cargo you just use the ascend stage, and cargo. You launch it when your insertion module is about to come close. Then, as your cargo gets to altitude, your insertion module decelerates to match speed with it, dock, and then perform the insertion.
You'll have to launch new fuel for insertion stage though.. but saving mass for insertion engines and control units is significant too.
And if you still have your returning ascend stage attached while your inserter is docking, you can have some items returned relatively safely to earth for maintenance...
Hm...
Probably those ideas are worth mentioning somwhere else...
Павел Жданов Already done by JP Aerospace the tiny cheap boosters taking payloads into orbit from high altitude are completely recoverable as well as the vehicle that takes them to high altitude near space and they haven't spent billions of dollars to figure it out or make and run the prototypes they also have planed a permanent high altitude transfer station.
That's cool..
On another note...wouldn't a space elevator have to be on the equator? (I know your talking about a baloon) But I mean a space elevator..
If so... where? Africa... Brazil in the amazon? or Singapor.. yeah not with tyfoons. Geographically Africa is probably the best optoin.. but politically... Probably the worst of the three.. LOL You'd have to build it in Congo.. Yeah.. that's really going to work.. LOL killed before you can break ground.. LOL
Space elevator is doomed.. not because it's impossible.. but because of people.
Ken Hnyla Well I was thinking the Galapagos islands or the island Soa Tome and Principe could host a space elevator build up in the waters near them. Government politics just kills anything good.
I would go for sure.
Maybe you could talk about Bussard collectors in one of your shows, I always thought using magnetic fields to scoop up interstellar hydrogen as you go along was a great way to solve the fuel problem.
Also I wondered about sending robotic boosters ahead of the main expedition to rendezvous in space partway to refuel or temporarily attach and provide a delta-v boost allowing the passenger module to carry less fuel.
What's the obsession with Mars? Go to Venus.
A gas mixture of 70% N[2] and 30% O[2] at 1 atm and 30° C is a very powerful lifting gas on Venus, a rigid airframe made of closed cell expanded polystyrene and borosilicate glass and filled with Earth atmosphere at STP will float up high enough in the Venusian atmosphere that the outside air would be around 20° C and the wind carries you around the planet roughly every 24 hours.
Make hexagonal interlocking cells, say 30 m between parallel faces and and 60 m tall; use interlocking cells rather than a single monolithic structure so that a single hull failure can be isolated, also it might make expanding easier. And in there you build your colony. Use robots to mine the surface, and seed the mountain tops and atmosphere with extremophiles...... As insanely inhospitable as Venuses atmosphere is, the heat and acidity should make some minerals easier to extract from ore, while the acidity will also help in making minerals biologically available to extremophiles and the extremely dense atmosphere should make it easier to find bacteria and fungi capable of floating in the atmosphere.... microorganisms that don't float here might float there.
Surface is way too hot (800 degrees F)
Yoshi2132 thats why he is not talking about landing on the surface. read the whole comment.
phoenix What's the point in going to Venus if we can't land? We have satellites near Venus already.
Innoculate because the air is so dense that it is theoretically posible to construct floating cities. that is in the far future ofcourse
Innoculate what's the point of going to Mars?
The cost of sending a person to Mars, Venus or even just Luna is insane compared to the cost of sending robots and spending billions of dollars so a couple dozen people can say "I touched Martian/Venusian/Lunar "soil" (lacks microbial activity, as much it's actually dirt not soil) is nuts, the only reason to send people anywhere is so they can do what robots can't. One of the few reason to send people off Earth is to perpetuate the human race, aka permanently settle and populate other worlds.
Settling Venus might require more material imports than settling Mars, but it's also much cheaper to get a ton of material to Venus than Mars so that's ohkay. Though we might be able to send robots to Venus to fabricate a living space in the Venusian atmosphere before sending people, and that would dramatically lower the need to import material to Venus.
Venus has a mineral composition much more similar to Earth than Mars does, and since we already know that Earth's mineral composition supports Earth life, it is a much better bet that Venusian dirt will be able to turned into people, which is one of the requirements for a permanent settlement that won't be permanently dependent on imports.
A solar panel on Earth that is 25% efficient produces about 110 W/m^2, the same panel on Mars would produce a meager 44 W/m^2, but will produce 176 W/m^2 on Venus. This isn't just relevant to solar panels, but growing food and producing vitamin D in our skin. It'd be much cheaper and easier to use either tinted or polarized glass (or semi transparent solar panels) to reduce the amount of sun light that our skin and plants get to Earth levels than to use a 2.5 acre magnifying glass to light 1 acre of Mars to Earth levels.
Finally, Venus is a stepping stone to Mercury and there isn't a better place in the Solar System for launching solar sails than Mercury and solar sails are the ticket to getting into deep space. We could do it with rockets, but that'd make wherever we launched the rockets from even less habitable.
the hydrogen fuel problem and much of the cost can be solved by building the bloody thing on the moon. The moon has ice, thus hydrogen. A small lunar base could be used to test radiation protective measures in deeper space and all the other equipment (the dust issue) as well.
Step 1: Build a moon base with space and Mars stuff
Step 2: Get your ass to Mars!
The only problem with that is the cost but maybe one day
The tech and experience gained would outweigh any cost monetarily in lives potentially saved. Sure, its the long road approach but shouldn't we take control of our little bubble of space before leaping to Mars? Not only are lives protected, our pocket books would be spared an undue weight as fuel is no long being launched into orbit. It protects not only our astronauts, it protects us here on Earth. Sending a huge tank of hydrogen fuel attached to another huge tank of hydrogen fuel to yet another even larger tank of hydrogen fuel in orbit around a planet with 7 billion people on it that could fall on anywhere in the world from said orbit sounds kind of... well, it'd be really bad. run on, but you get my point.
Sounds nice, and is entirely possible, unfortunately, politics will prevent us from ever doing that. Literally there will NEVER be a permanent, or semi permanent settlement on the moon, thanks to treaties
ruclips.net/video/91dW9pUA1BI/видео.html
Triatomic AI
^^^^^^^^^ lmfao
GO CURIOSITY!!! I LOVE CURIOSITY I DID EXPOSITION AND I DID S RESEATCH PROJECT ON HIM AND MADE A MODEL OUT OF CARDBOARD ITS AWESOME WOOHOOO GO CURIOISITY
By the way wouldn’t are robots have advanced so much by 2030 that we can just send avatar robots to there that can explore the environment for us?
yeah obviously but with the advancement of robots where probably going to put it off ass long as possible. So we can build a safer mission in which people can come back from mars.
You watch too many movies. Humans will for at least the coming 100 years be more handy than robots when it comes to spaceflight.
No such thing as to many movies. And you may be right, but what is the 100 years based on?
Vinnie J too*
Thanks
just take alot of Radaway and RadX
i would totally go on a 1 way trip to mars
You're hired. Get on da rocket.
Gigabic YAY!!!!!
I think that going to another world is not only possible, but doable. It really involves the right technology. Personally, I would love to step foot on other planets, not just on all seven continents here. That's a small stepping stone for me. However, I'm not sure I'd want to have a one way trip. I'd like to be able to come home when ever possible.
You'll probably have to wait 30-40 ish years after the first humans set foot on Mars then :(
Ronnaug Skogly Not if I have my way. :)
Roger Hoyt Oh, I do hope you have it your way :) I'd like to join you.
Ronnaug Skogly Those who are awakening from the blind lies of the corrupt, will be allowed to join.
Roger Hoyt Pretty sure that description fits me well.
I just thought of this, it's probably super expensive, but what if we used traditional chemical rockets, but minimised the amount of fuel required on the craft carrying humans by sending out multiple refuelling drones in advance, lying in wait along the path? This would allow for maximum acceleration and deceleration (obviously). The drones would need to perform docking procedures that would require them to accelerate to match the speed of the human craft, so they would have to carry enough fuel to get them in place (stage 1), accelerate to docking speed (stage 2) and refuel the human craft. (stage 3) Also, a drone craft could accelerate much faster than a human craft, since it's not subject to the same g-force limitations as humans, so it could match the speed of the human craft while burning less fuel.
What about converting that bad radiation into energy?I heard it can be converted into electricity
+Elaa Hilou should've watched till the end before commenting lol
+Elaa Hilou I feel you mate XD
+Elaa Hilou if you want it's possible to edit or just delete a (typo in a) comment
As far as I know it's not possible to turn radiation into energy especially not alpha and beta particles however if you could find a way to redshift gamma rays enough you could turn it into Infrared radiation then use the heat to boil water through a turbine and create electricity but the only way I know you can redshift waves is by using a black hole so that would be difficult (likely impossible ) to do
+Elaa Hilou I would think that it should be possible to use ionizing radiation as a source of electric energy since it is similar to the photovoltaic effect that is used in solar panels. Perhaps different materials could be used in place of silicon for the higher energies of gamma rays, x-rays, alpha and beta particles, etc. when they knock electrons out of atoms of the material and thereby induce an electric current in it if the material is a conductor.
would it be easier to come up with treatments or cures for radiation related illnesses first? that way radiation wouldn't be of concern at all
karebu2 It has been proven that vodka reduces the amount of radiation in the body. So in theory, get messed up and stay messed up :p
karebu2 We're doing that now, trying to cure cancer :-)
Kyle Townsley The downside to that would be a whole lot of zero-gravity vomiting...
karebu2 You can't treat a damaged cell in any simple manner. Our tissue is not capable of withstanding this. It is purely a physical limitation, and the best you can do is prevent it.
Aperture Science Inc is working on a portal device.
I have also heard Abstergo industries is working on a device that will let us relive the memories of our ancestors. Its amazing how far science has come.
Do they have a name for it yet. I heard a person called Chell used it before
Well it won't work. First we'd still have to physically send someone to Mars to put a large patch of moon gel there. Then we could portal to it as we pleased......
I'm writing a paper and probably moving into experimental phase relatively soon for an active radiation countermeasure system that mimics a planetary magnetic field.
+SouthernBuddha Getting there. lit review takes time.
First earth to the moon then from the moon to mars. Lots of fuel and resources on the moon, cheaper than hauling it all off earth.
that would meaning building a entire base on the moon that'l take a lot of time,money and energy,but i believe we will do this before the year 3000
mostly you need fuel and air/water from the moon. Robots could mine these things. Vehicle assembly could be done in moon orbit and fueling. It,s a question of making 1 trip to mars or being able to make repeat trips. the mars window is only 1 time every 2 years so mining time shouldn't be a issue.
thats really smart
taiming71 There are two issues with this plan.
1) The equipment to mine and refine lunar materials into usable ones (water and air as you suggest) is really heavy. To this day the Saturn V rocket still holds the record for largest payloads sent to Low Earth Orbit and Trans Lunar Injection (Atlas V beats it's Geostationary Orbit Record, but has never made a TLI) and only ~1.6% of it's mass went to the Moon. Now, as a long investment, it's feasible to launch Saturn-esque missions to achieve this, but no government seems willing to fund such a venture at the moment>
2) The Moon (in fact all of other space) is defined under the Outer Space Treaty as part of the common heritage of mankind as is to be protected from exploitation by nations or corperations. Landing/building stuff there is fine but mining it would require the permission of the international community (good luck with that), unless there's a major change to international law on this subject.
CyanAngel wow... this is a million times more complicated than i thought. u sure are knowledgeable on this subject.
105 people will never go to mars
108...
Billbo Baggins 109
I think we can assume the majority of people won't be going to Mars. Like, the vast majority.
Kenny Duran either you dont get it or youre a buzzkill by nature
Or I just watched a video about how difficult traveling to mars is.
Thorium propulsion is needed
Don't forget the flux capacitor.
Orion Drive!!!!
***** Pure flash storage is faster. Though the fusion drive is better than a traditional hard drive.
M > bit > generator > M
Orion Project. Take a look...
As far as I understand the issues a big problem is the travel speed of the spaceship. Presume we seperate it into two units. One is leaving earth orbit, waiting a bit and then shoot ahead by earth in the direction of Mars. The second unit actually containing the human crew would leave later and their smaller (chemical) ship would dock up with the bigger ship on its run passing earth at almost full speed.
I'd rather be one of the first humans ever to set my feet on mars, etching my name into the annuals of human history, than waste my life as a basement dweller.
Also, i do not want to live on this planet anymore, but i am somewhat stuck here, in this prison of ours, like the rest of my over 7 billion bipedal mates.
a cute radiation syndrome
Whack a v8 engine on the rocketship and ur ready 2 go
how will it get the thrust?
-_-
What does vegetable juice have to do with anything
winning
Lol XD it was a joke
Of the two radiation detectors, The first, the Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer, and the second, the Radiation Assessment Detector, neither was "shielded".
The Alpha detector was to be used to bombard Martian materials & detect the resultant emissions. The second Assessment detector was to be energized when landed on Mars.
i wanna go and die there i wonder what jesus would say :0
Your imaginary friend will say whatever you make him say
+Quaternions loooool😂😂😂😂😂
Nothing he doesn't exist
Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus EVERY knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Philippians 2:11 And that EVERY tongue should CONFESS that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
And this somehow applies to someone travelling to Mars?
Send robots you fools. Until we can overcome our social/political problems, we have no business colonizing other planets. Mag Lev technology needs to be fully developed for space travel also.
What's the point? There's nothing there. You go there for a few minutes and go back. Seems like a massive waste of time to me. We already got all the data we need from the rover. What would bringing humans there accomplish? Take dirt as souvenir?
Tibiafreeeeak then turn into War of the Planets Mars vs Earth because eventually they will want independents from Earth and we all know how governments on earth are like and they wont like that.
LOL I doubt all the answers are there dude. but it sure is one hell of a test. ;)
Lord Azoun yeah we need to find more planets to destroy.
One simple reason as outlined by others..The survival of the species. If you haven't noticed Earth is becoming less and less hospitable to human life. We need to figure out how to get off this rock before we all die on it.
I'm didn't say anything about going to space, just why do we need to go to Mars?
We should make sure the place actually has something for us to do before making the trip. You know, something other than just wandering around for a few minutes before going back home. A trip like that wastes fuel, resources and money.
I don't think it's necessary to "test" whether we could make it there. We KNOW we have capable technology because we successfully sent a rover there. Again, not worth the trip.
i believe the best way to go about this would be to build fueling docs in space for ether normal fuel and or electric
Wrath Kissell and led will slow the radiation definitely take a couple of supply runs out before mission
I fucking love this dude! I actually enjoy listing to him and don't get bored as I did when I was in school.
7:01 +SciShow I'm pretty sure it's fusion that requires hydrogen, while fission uses heavier elements like uranium.
So we know how hard this is gonna be. And we also know how fast computer science is going. So instead of us wasting this planet in hopes of spreading throughout the universe maybe, just maybe, we need to seriously take care for our home, then send robots to VR the whole thing for us until we master space travel. Just a thought, made sense in my head.
Mark Zubrin suggests that building an interior room to escape the radiation events, sheltered only by mission supplies, will be enough to prevent harmful radiation. However, I think this is a little bit optimistic to say the least. And beefing up the shielding around said room suddenly makes the mission less feasible due to launch thrust requirements. Cost will suddenly skyrocket requiring orbital builds.
I'm talking about colonizing the atmosphere above the violence. There are a number of videos describing how much easier it would be to conquer those problems than holding the impossible dream about Mars.
Fantastic shirt Hank!
"Unconventional Methods, particularly ones that don't involve words like Warp and Drive" - made me laugh more than it should.
It seems the curse of space travel is that we can't get most people interested unless we send people...But sending people then becomes the hardest part of space travel, next to fuel weight. The smart thing would be to send other lifeforms & more robots, ideally combining the 2, but people just won't have as much interest.
Of the two possible methods discussed to produce energy for a Mars trip, Solar and nuclear, nuclear would be the most viable IF we get away from the traditional Uranium/Plutonium fission reactor and adopt the Liquid Florine Thorium Reactor aka LFTR. It could be built in orbit above Earth and then used for the trip. Since LFTRs are smaller, lighter, and uses a recyclable fuel source, it would make a better choice for energy generation.
That said, there is still the necessity to colonize the Moon first for a possible jumping off point to Mars. it would seem to be a logical step.
maybe a idea to reduce radiation exposure during transit is to try to create a magnetic field around the vehicle like the way the earth has a magnetic field to deflect the radiation
can we have an update video on mars?
Question: Why does a trip to Mars require more fuel? With inertia, one initial velocity should be enough to get you all the way there, with maybe a little bit of thrusts for adjusting course and landing. But this happens on all missions.
Just go at night so the sun can't emit radiation
What.
Evan Castillo The sun turns off at night doesn't it! Why do you think it gets dark...
Ah, of course.Silly me.
Yeah thats the spirit
Evan Castillo yeah! its already know that the sun turns off at night!
4:20 you forgot to mention gamma ray bursts from Magnestars
This was three years ago. I'd like to see an update on this topic!
Here's a question: If we do "beat cancer" (or become good enough at treating it that it is no longer a major concern) will we still have any reason to fear radiation?
I would be interesting to them do a show over cryosleep. The possibilities and progress. Just a thought.
Hello, I have two things to say. First off, I would not go to mars if I couldn't come back. Also, I have an idea on shielding. We genetically modify the cells of fungi that live in nuclear reactors and use radiation for energy, and we coat the astronauts in them. Plants constantly are damaged by solar radiation and yet they survive. Use biomimicry to create a fabric that does the same thing. Thanks for reading my humble suggestions.
I've looked it up and while the Mars One thing sounds like it would make an excellent sci-fi horror, It's a terrifying concept in reality. These people are crazy lol :D but I do admire their scientific drive. Maybe humanity can learn more about Mars and space in general from their efforts and research. However, I will most definitely watch whatever they broadcast cuz that sounds intriguing!
Great stuff man
it's been revealed that if we made two buildings the height of the empire estate building either side of a ship and use elastic (a lot) to tie it down and then cut it, the resulting propulsion, put with the current fuel, would make it faster and more efficient.
An idea could be setting up several unmanned stations between the Earth and Mars, then use a slingshot effect coupled with solar sails and nuclear fission reactors on the stations. The interplanetary stations could also server as a means of communication relay.
***** Use remote drones to operate then error would only be a matter of money.
I think the best possible way to do it would be to construct a colony/dry dock on the moon and launch a mars mission from there. You wouldn't need as much fuel to get off of the moon, so you could put more of that fuel to use actually going through space.
Interesting that we're looking for physical shielding against the radiation. I would think that a magnetic shield would work well against charged particles.
this video blowen my mind
I would absolutely sign up to go on a one-way trip to the Red Planet if I felt that said one-way trip wouldn't result in my sooner-than-preferable death. I don't know if I would want to be out there on that first trip, perhaps a couple of years later after the colony was established and people were officially not dying agonizing deaths...
Is... Is that a shirt with the Konami Code represented via quark flavours?
I think that's single handedly the most awesome nerdiest shirt I have ever seen.
What about putting an electromagnet onboard? Can it fend off radiation?
Damn the radiation! Full speed ahead!