SpaceX Starship can return from Mars without surface refilling
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 25. 10. 2021
- Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/marcus - Enter promo code MARCUS for 83% off and 3 extra months for free!
SpaceX Starship can return from Mars without surface refilling. Big claim huh? Today, we want to explore the logistics for the first possible Mars return missions with Starship. We will look into how and why we can tackle this before in-situ resource utilization has been established. We get us up to speed with the expected performance of Starship (as we know it so far) and assess the overall requirements for such a mission.
Like this shirt? Pick it up on any product you like here.
marcus-house.myspreadshop.com...
Also available in reverse.
marcus-house.myspreadshop.com...
đ Marcus House Merch - marcus-house.myspreadshop.com/
You can support me on:
Patreon - / marcushouse
Join my Discord - / discord
Follow on Twitter - / marcushouse
Support from the below is always massively appreciated:
The production crew - Brenton Myers, Brendan Lewis, Artzius, GameplayReviewUK, TiagoCruz, Aeneas
NASASpaceFlight - / @nasaspaceflight
BocaChicaGal - / bocachicagal
RGVAerialPhotography - / rgvaerialphotography
Greg Scott - / gregscott_photo
Starship Gazer - / starshipgazer
LabPadre - / @labpadre
3D artist magicians:
âš Brendan Lewis - / _brendan_lewis
âš Erc X / smallstars - / ercxspace / / smvllstvrs
âš Corey - / c_bass3d
âš Neopork - / neopork85
âš Alexander Svanidze - / alexsvanart
âš Tony Bela - / infographictony
âš Owe BL - / bl3d_eccentric
âš DeepSpaceCourier - / ds_courier
âš SpaceXvision - / spacexvision
âš Stanley Creative - / caspar_stanley
âš Kimi Talvitie - / kimitalvitie
âš TijnM_3DAnimations - / m_tijn
âš Evan Karen - / evankaren
âš 3D Daniel - / 3ddaniel1 - VÄda a technologie
What an amazing time to be alive, again.
noice
Blessing us in this comment section
Thus spake the Lord
Hey Christ, why don't you use your magical powers to get us to Mars? Asshole.
The fact that he's verified though...
The amount of information in Marcus' videos, especially this one, is incredible. This is a constant stream of information and no wasted time. Many youtubers create 20 minute videos with 5 minutes of real information. These are extremely well done.
However, the quality of the info is a bit underwhelming... this is just napkin math, reality will likely be wildly different.
I second that. This was a very informative video. Just to get to Mars is fascinating, but how to survive when there is even more interesting. Good job Marcus! :)
@@victormarinfelip1645 Agreed, but you have to start somewhere. At least they're doing the math and getting somewhere in the ballpark.
Trouble is, it's all total BS.
Nothing but delusion.
I have a fear that Radiation will be the thing that keeps long term living on Mars , not possible !
"We will not have enough fuel on board to do that!"
"What about we launch another StarShip to refuel?"
"OK"
The "module" landing and keeping tankers in orbit, for resupply, makes the most sense, like it did for first Moon landings.
Good comparison!
You can shave a bit off requirements if you drop the requirement to have fuel to land on Earth. I know it's not much, but you've been carrying it all the way from earth. Any Starship that makes it to Earth Orbit can be Refueled again.
Yeah, that was my immediate thought as well. "Wait, why carry fuel back to earth when there's already fuel there."
@@ALTruckerDad The difference between the delta-vee for re-entry and the delta-vee to get into Earth orbit is almost negligible.
This points in the direction of using standard Earth return capsules to return humans to Earth. Once you've taken that step, you realise that what you actually need is a transit vehicle that operates only in space. A vehicle that takes humans from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and return. Strip out the functional requirements (and mass) needed for planetary landing and you can then devote mass to the things that matter on a human transit vehicle - redundancy, robustness, radiation shielding, spares, repair equipment and so on.
@@saumyacow4435 I agree, over time, it would be possible to develop a specialized Earth-Mars shuttle, and landers at both ends that may save on fuel and weight. The pathfinder might be the Space X lunar shuttle, or something similar.
The starship could make use of the atmosphere to slow down a bit and then make a stable orbit by just using a little bit of fuel at the apogee and then be refueled again.
At this point, talking about Delta V without a Scottish accent just sounds wierd.
But he's australian... Am i missing smth?
@@dalisoula you are.
Fly safe.
Check out Scott Manley's channel.
If you like Marcus, you'll like him too.
H U L L O
@@JohnSmith-yp2nt ofc i watch scott xD but didn't guess he was referencing him cuz marcus repeated delta v many times this video
It was when he said Oberth effect when it got me. That word is meant to be in Scott's voice.
18:24 Wasn't expecting this lmao. Very good.
Success is not final; failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."
I owe my success to having listened
respectfuly to the very best advice, and then going away and doing the exact opposite.
How do we get paid?
Is it through online investment platform?
Yes through online investment platform
i get paid directly to my bank account
Lots of good technical info here Marcus!
i feel like im in physics class lol
@@tatum635 Try to enjoy such moments - the world will soon begin to require you doing so constantly, I guess!
How inspiring it is that we're even speculating on the logistics of getting to Mars.. What an era to be alive Marcus!
It was inspiring few years ago, now it gets repetitive with lot of CGIs and speculations about same Marc colonization delusion.
I'm confused you appear to be converting Delta V into time in space, namely the weeks to get to a circular Mars orbit.
And extra added perigee adjustment, or every dip would slow it yes, slightly, and perigee would lower but still very fast. You would hit the ground, with hardly any de-acceleration.
Think we should focus on the moon first. Learn how to hop before pole vaulting.
Send me a postcard when you actually get there.
This really is a great video. Thanks Marcus! Would love to see more videos at this standard - from all the NewSpace youtubers!
Awesome deep dive into this subject!! Thank you Marcus
Another excellent video, Marcus! Well done! But, I think there may be some options that weren't addressed that would make this all more feasible. For instance, the most logical way to accomplish orbital refueling, for both the moon and Mars missions, is to develop an Orbital Propellant Depot version of Starship, without TPS or flaps or SL Raptors, that's equipped with solar power generation, boil-off mitigation, and bigger tanks, in the order of 1500 tons. One or more of these Depot Starships could burn for Mars with the "fleet", or be waiting in Mars orbit when they arrive. Having a surplus of propellants available will remedy a lot of problems.
Always nice to start my Sat-WAIT, IT'S TUESDAY!!! HELL, YEAH!
Was abt to say that but itâs halfway through my day
@@crucialbeatle7935 Hahaha still works, though
Marcus, the way you frame numbers so we understand their size and explain the resource and acceleration demands so we understand how and how much, is most wonderful. Thank you!
Thank you for a peek into the complexity of a mission to Mars, and also thank you for an honest look at its likelihood of success.
How about creating a dedicated shuttlecraft, used only for transferring passengers from Mars surface to Starships in orbit and vise-versa? The ship would be small/light, needing much less fuel to perform this task. Starship was designed to be multi-use but we shouldn't go overboard with this. Sometimes it's better to design something for a single, specific use.
They want to land a lot of cargo to build infrastructure. Not just tippytoe the sand and go back home as they did for the Apolo missions.
Can be argued Starship is designed for the single, specific, use of hauling a lot of cargo, and that's why it's a great multi-purpose craft. đ
It's a great idea! I vote for using the Virgin Galactic type for that shuttle. It just needs a little more power and a heat shield.
When Robert Zubrin was interviewed by Felix on the "What about it!?" channel, he proposed something similar to this. Basically a baby Starship that could fit inside the cargo hold of a full-sized Starship, that could be used as a shuttle on Mars or the Moon.
@@Kevin_Street Red Dragon!
This would be a good idea. A craft whose only purpose is to transfer humans safely to Mars surface and then back into orbit. But let me go one step further and propose a vehicle that lands on Mars fully propulsively - just as we did with the lunar landers. To do this requires about 4.1 to 4.3 km/s of delta-v. Similar to the delta-v required for ascent into low Mars orbit. Thus you need the same tanks on landing and ascent and what you have is in principle fully reusable. A fully propulsive lander has a number of advantages. For a start, its low g force (typically no more than 2 Earth gs). Hence its going to do less harm to humans than Starship (5 to 6 Earth gs). Low g forces means less structural mass. That's a big gain. Also, a fully propulsive landing means a light weight thermal protection system (no heavy ablative shields/tiles/etc). When you add these savings and the compounding effects (lighter landing legs and so on) you get a very lean vehicle.
Low mass means less requirement for ascent propellant. (A tiny fraction of that needed for Starship). Even better still is that the few tonnes of methane you need for ascent can be simply landed (separately) as cargo. Leaving you only with ISRU oxygen. And of course ISRU oxygen is simpler, more reliable and doesn't require mining.
Such a craft would also be able to do excursions to Phobos from low Mars orbit. It could also surface hop. And one more thing, unlike vehicles that use the air for braking and thus have to land in areas of Mars that are low-lying, a fully propulsive lander/ascent vehicle can land anywhere on Mars, including the top of Olympus Mons.
What's ISRU? For those like me who didn't remember (or didn't know) what the acronym means, it is "In-Situ Resource Utilization", or to fabricate the fuel on the destination.
Yes
Thank you Marcus! You have responded, by intent or accident to my request for more on orbital mechanics in a very timely way!
Seamless content once again! Thanks for the mid week inspiration :)
I think a large station that a Super Heavy could still send up and a super tanker version as well would be useful. with a space station and super tanker variants I think it could help with weight reduction overall by taking advantage of the square-cube law helping with volume. I know this means that there would be something at a low volume production does hurt the cost effectiveness but I think with it being larger it gives more room for efficiency. which will be needed since aerobraking would likely get removed as an option.
the nice thing with a large enough station it is easier to spin to produce 'gravity'. though docking becomes harder. so maybe sending components to make a complex hub may be a worth while option. it would allow 'standard' starships to connection, spin producing 'gravity' but still be 'easy' to dock.
I forget who it was but they had an idea where a platform could be built to have multiple starships connected. I think this would be more complex and difficult than a larger version with aerobraking components removed but I could be wrong.
Having starships refuel in Mars orbit does mean they should greatly reduce 'wasted' fuel'. I like the idea of when a tanker is [nearly] empty it lands and becomes materials for building or new pressurized habitat.
no matter what I think spacex will continue to surprise us with ideas that we wouldn't have thought of for one reason or another
I love the balance of weekly news update videos and deep dive videos.
Upon hearing the challenges of extracting resources on Mars, I remember Jim Lovell's comment "It wasn't a miracle, (landing on the Moon) - we simply decided to go."
So loving your videos. Quite simply the very best SpaceX & Starship news progress online! So full of meaty information instead of the usual fluff, padding and conjecture by other channels that claim to do the same.
Awesome video! This is definitely something that needs to be talked about and you did a great job explaining it ( in my laymen's opinion!! )
Fascinating stuff. So many options on how to accomplish the Marsbase mission and it's fantastic to think that there are people working for SpaceX now who are working on this.
Many options indeed.. the thing that scares me is if congress gets the final say.
@@JohnSmith-yp2nt Musk will do it anyway! :)
No-one is working on the Mars logistics. They still haven't even got a successful manned return orbit. Mars is a long, long way after the Moon landings.
@@dnomyarnostaw This.. it's all hands on deck to get SS finished. They may have a small team working on the Mars side equipment. Whatever they do, all of it has to be near impossible to quit working. It's a bad day if that stuff stops working just before you get there. So much more needs to happen, and there is no guarantee that SX can even survive the expense.
@@hawkdsl Amen brother. I bet they dont have anyone actually doing Mars stuff, as the Moon is a bigger critical point.
Though, things developed for the moon will automatically inform any Mars stuff, I would think.
I also think that financing Mars is a real crap shoot, and Elon may well find that he won't be as lucky as he was with Tesla, and scrape in with mere days before insolvency.
Another step up in content quality. The research is impressive as well as the imaginative speculation. So many possibilities. We will indeed live on Mars, and comfortably.
I love these types of videos, thanks for running the numbers!
Outstanding mid-week post. Please keep them coming. Spectacular!!!!
After that intensive mass data surge, i'll take 2 Asprin's and report back in about 10 hours. I have a lot to think about.
My initial thought is it sounds feasible. 2033 and 2035 seem like the best years to travel to Mars, being closer to Earth in those years, so saving a bit on precious fuel.
That's not a problem. the dv requirements for the changing transfer orbits don't differ that much. Just need to bring a bit more food.
My vote is full send, just yeet a ship at mars and see what happens.
@@SimplySketchyGT That was Elon's plan I believe.4 supply ships ASAP. He's got 3 years to do it.
Thats why china is planning a mars mission in 2035 and u can take them seriously
@@arnonuehm7005 Cher cher. I would take them seriously. The Taikonauts missions to Tianhe /Tiangong Space Station and women Taikonaut, has certainly got my attention.
Hi Marcus. Thank you! The new title is much clearer. I've followed space exploration for a very long time but I'd not come across the term ISRU before. Keep up the excellent work, my som and I watch you regularly on a nice big TV! Bob.
Very complete . Thank you!
I always thought that starship might not be the best vessel to get people to mars. Might be better in the long term to build a âstarshipâ in orbit that is purpose built to take people from earth to mars and back. Made physically larger then anything that could be launched from the ground it would only need to be resupplied in LEO and would never land on the surface. Cargo could go the most efficient route.
Chemical burning rockets are a joke when considering serious travel in Space.
@@codetech5598 They haven't declassified anti-gravity tech yet, have they?
@@ksd593 Not to the general public
@@ksd593 they dont have it
@@codetech5598 Absolutely! Perhaps Ryan Weed can provide us with antimatter propulsion, for journeys to Mars.
So much more interesting to wonder "how it could be done" than "why it cannot be done" as we see so often on that subject. Didn't check it all, but great job with the numbers, it allows us to understand the challenge.
"The Case For Mars" by Robert Zubrin spells out the logistics involved for setting up a base on Mars. I think power requirements for a Mars fuel depot will be a lot higher than estimates, possibly a small atomic power plant will be needed to generate reliable and consistent power for fuel generation and other uses. This might be needed for in transit between Earth and Mars as well.
Starship almost feels like a LEGO Brick, used to build various spaceship constalations, with hundreds of variants and possibilities!
Thanks! I've been hoping someone would break that all down with all the more recent changes. Good job!
The return vessel does not need any fuel to land back on Earth from LEO. Once in LEO, it simply refuels what's needed just before landing.
Aerocapture needs propellant, too.
or dock at or near a space station, and rely on earth based shuttle vehicles to return people to earth -- the Mars ship itself has no reason to plunge deep into earth's gravity well.
@@alfihalma4320 Marginal though. A dive into the atmosphere, a skip, then circularization so you donât dive in the second time.
what fuel generators are you referring too?
@Rob Bannstrom Aerocapture is easier with Earth than with Mars.
Very detailed analysis. I like the idea, I'm just not convinced. I'd love to see it happen that soon, but I really prefer the idea of having things set up before we go. Love these deep-dive Tuesday vids, thanks Marcus!
Mars won't be colonised until 2195 or 2245
@@trollking202 I'd like to disagree with you on the whole. However, you may be correct, pending what you define as "colonized" with a "z" btw. If you mean a full on city or two, then yes, that sounds about right.
@@JohnSmith-yp2nt I would take the definition of colonised to be a self sustaining and self sufficient population. So a minimum of 500 people (to avoid speciation) and able to provide for their needs without external input.
@@lancer2204 If it happens in my lifetime, I'll be stoked.. Im 30.
@@lancer2204 it will never happen mars is too small
I don't know how I misssed this episode. Thanks to you and your team for doing this, Marcus House.
merry Christmas, thanks a great briefing!!!
Electrolysis is super energy intensive and requires a lot of extra technology. Bringing your own Hydrogen like in the Mars Direct approach would take out some of the complications and energy requirements.
I really like this plan though because I donât think a fuel farm is feasible without humans to drive construction rovers in real-time and to troubleshoot.
This would enable the first few crews to pave the way without risking them getting stuck there. Mini nuclear reactors are probably essential to make this viable in the long term.
I agree, I think a reactor(s) will be needed for a Mars base, solar may not be as consistent or reliable, or provide enough power for a conversion plant. Advanced AI robots should be able to do all the construction work needed, I think that will be one of the first real applications for them. Another growth market segment for Tesla.
???? Can you point me to a 'mini nuclear reactor' ??? Especially one tested in 1/3 Earth gravity. That does not need 24hr staff to keep an eye on it? That does not take up over 1000 square meters of Starship space? I look forward to the prototype details.
@@David-yo5ws The Curiosity and Perseverance rovers each have a RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator), so the technology is well tested in Mars gravity. As far as I know, there's no one on Mars to keep a eye on them either ;-)
@@bernieschiff5919 I also agree. We probably need more R&D on larger electricity output on mini reactors .
@@Jens.Krabbe They are not reactors though. Technically, they are just batteries with a long half life.
Clearly need to place nuclear reactors on Mars for power and fuel generation. The ones we use on American submarines are ideal and there has never been an accident. HE Uranium is thousands of times as energy dense as solar panels.
They will have to be completely redesigned for mass savings, submarine hardware is extremely heavy on purpose
@@ryanspence5831Heavier than 13000 mÂČ of panels? I don't think the solar panel idea is feasible.
How do you deal with the coolant issue? Not a lot of water immediately available. Converting to air-cooled is a non-starter on Mars. Salt reactors seem like a better choice as they do not require water or air and HE uranium is not present at launch.
The problem is not so much the safety of the reactor itself, as you say they are incredibly reliable and safe. The issue comes with actually launching the nuclear payload. If the launch vehicle fails on ascent and explodes, it is going to spread highly enriched nuclear fuel and the associated radiation around the launch area. That provides incredibly bad press, not only for the launch vehicle, but for the space industry as a whole. Yes we have sent nuclear powered craft into space, but on vehicles with a high safety record and reliability. It will take time for any new vehicle, including Starship, to reach that level of safety. Particularly in this very risk adverse world we now live in. I suspect it was far easier to get permission to launch a nuclear payload 20-30 years ago than it would be these days.
@@RobGirdler Launch from out to seaâŠ
Great, great video! Good plan, good execution. Thank you!
so much technical content and numbers, thank you!
great walkthrough of the problems of getting to Mars and back again đđ
Thanks for sharing your experience with all of us đđ
Thank you Marcus for these midweek videos!
Thanks for the extra effort for these
looks like a mediocre comment on this channel
My main language isnât English so I canât express my thoughts that well in English
Love the deep dives! Well done mate
I love this video; Iâve learnt so much. Thanks Marcus.
I definitely hadn't had enough coffee on my first run through on this video... lmao. These are some awesome stats!
Seems like a "Mars Cycler" could be set up with starships. Utilized atmospheric starships at the end of the journey in either Mars or Earth orbit. Only need to worry about refueling the Mars end insitu.
I thought the same:
3 levels of ships:
1. launches, goes to orbit (and lands) (the Shuttles, was it the name?)
2. operates only in orbit, never lands, goes to the Cycler, and slows down after detaching from the Cycler to orbit (the transorbital (Sun orbit-planet orbit) ships)
3. the Aldrin Cycler(s) orbiting the Sun, taking people from Earth to Mars, and also from Mars to Earth.
(4. tankers)
Yes!
An Aldrin Cycler could be made from joining Starships together in space...
If 200m across and spinning at around 8 rpm, it would provide Mars level gravity to any Starship docked to it... :)
My concern would be maintenance. Longevity. Repairs. Shit wears out...
As I understand this, To dock with the cycler you need the same amount of delta-V as if you were going without the cycler. The cycler only make sense if you use it several times, however next time you want to use it itâs not lined up, itâs about ten years until it can be used again which means its hardware is outdated. Might be wrong, but cyclers would be quite useless for other than museums. Might be nice to check out a museum while on route between earth and mars. :)
@@macjonte You use the same delta-V, but you get to spend months on a giant ship with spin sim gravity, instead of a little zero-G tin can... :)
It's 146 days there and 146 back, with a 16 month gap where it is out of use...
So two cyclers does work better than one..
I love this content, thank you so much for producing it.đ
Thank you for putting his endeavor into perspective.
I love this type of video. Looking at how things might play out is exactly the kind of inspiring ideas that get me pumped for the future. One critical note. This might just be me, but I think the video could be slowed down a bit. My brain was zoning out a bit thru some of the math and more technical details just because it was going by so fast. Could be Iâm just too dumb!
Just be grateful he's not from outback Queensland.
I disagree. I'd rather hit the pause button and read the details of his math than slog through 5 minutes of tedious explanations (if they aren't needed), wanting to fast-forward the whole time. Always easier to pause and re-watch than be bored each time. Well done, Marcus!
It's amazing how much of the fuel is simply for landing and launching. And most of empty space smooth sailing.
Good observation! That's a basic principle of current spaceflight. Once you'll have nuclear (e.g., fusion or antimatter) propulsion, you'll accelerate throughout most of your journey, to keep the latter short. A trip to Venus then will take just a couple of days. Eugen S[ae]nger describes these and farther outlooks in his book Space Flight - Countdown for the Future from the 1960s, which is not yet obsolete.
Wow this is really amazing videos. Great work guys, I hope you'll make more of these in the future (something when more info on human mission on Mars is posted)
Lots of thought went into this video! Would love to see more like this. Very unique!
Hi Marcus - How come you don't include a logistics base on Phobos or Deimos? 78% of the propellant is LOX, and those moons are full of oxides. Lots of sunshine (potentially 24/7 with no dust storms) too for power. Note, as well, that a command/support facility at a P/D base is outside the gravity well, so it's much easier for astronauts based there to come home.
"potentially 24/7"
nope
I think Phobos or Deimos would be phase 2 of infrastructure development, after initial manned set up of the Mars base. I don't think telerobotics would be enough to finish up the details, and in early stages it just makes more sense to go the extra mile of landing on the surface, especially if you have orbiting Starships as fuel / resource depots, which would in effect take the place of Phobos as a staging point. Once you have asteroid mining, an orbiting transfer platform on a moon is perfectly logical.
Because there are not real plans to do so?
Interesting idea, and it's always good to have options, but when analyzing the ISRU option why are you assuming you only start producing fuel for a return trip after you land? Everything I've heard from Musk is that the fuel factory would be an automated system, and the first manned mission wouldn't launch until there was already fuel for the return trip waiting for them, or at least until production was on-track to be ready for the return trip, which more than doubles the time available. Meanwhile, especially for an automated system you probably wouldn't have any heavy scaffolding for the panels, probably just unrolling or accordion-unfolding long strips of panels directly onto the surface. You wouldn't get quite the same yield per panel without the scaffolding, but you could get a lot more panels for a lot less total mass. And their yield could later be enhanced with locally produced "scaffolding" such as sand berms.
Watching the guys build Starbase and especially its propellant plants has made it quite clear to me that we do NOT have the technology to autonomously build a tank farm.
>the first manned mission wouldn't launch until there was already fuel for the return trip waiting for them
No. To do that, it will take much of 2030s before SpaceX gets any human on Mars. That would make no sense for SpaceX.
I think Musk has implied or stated that Mars mission for people would be a permanent one way direction for early settlers. No one will be co-erced or forced at gun point to go there on one way direction. However there will likely be hundreds that can both pay for it and are willing to take the one way risk. Thats what Musk has talked in the past.
@@JayVal90 all musk's projects start when there isn't the technology to make them work at the start. When he started full self driving computing power wasn't adequate, he used Moore's law, when sufficient data is collected with enough vehicles the computer tech would have developed to be good enough.
Same with mars, build and develop what you can, the rest will be there by the time you can act. Besides, you don',t need to build a tank farm on Mars, the star ships that landed the equipment to make the fuel are the tanks.
@@JayVal90 We don't need to - the ship(s) that landed the solar panels and other equipment *is* the tanks. There's no other reasonable option even with a manned mission. The only assembly that needs to be done (semi-)autonomously is plugging the "out" pipes of the fuel refinery into the Starship fueling ports. And that's assuming the fuel refinery and CO2 capture isn't simply built into a specialized Starship in the first place, in which case it's just a matter of hooking up electricity and pumping in water.
The hard part will be mining the ice autonomously - though there are some interesting technologies being developed by other companies for asteroid mining that might simplify things. Really though, if you''re mining an ice cap you can probably do something relatively simple like covering an area with a vapor capturing "tent", and then apply heat while you capture the sublimated vapor. Maybe not the most efficient method, but hard for even a mindless robot to screw up. I'm picturing something like a big umbrella with a heat lamp instead of a handle, and maybe a fringe that could be weighted down with sand for a better seal if needed. Such a system would also have the benefit of virtually eliminating any particulate contamination of the captured water vapor, so you you'd only need to eliminate any other vapors that sublimate at lower temperatures than water - and most of those should be fairly easy to condense out by carefully cooling the mixed vapor to just over the water's condensation point.
@@RareKino It would only add two years - you ship the automated fuel refinery to Mars during one launch window, and the humans on the next. The refinery then gets an extra ~720 days to refine fuel before the humans arrive, and I think more than a single mission's 400 days to make sure everything is up and running on schedule before the manned mission launches.
Moreover, they can send the fuel refinery before all the additional technology for a manned mission is even ready. In fact, they could potentially send it as soon as they have orbital refueling working, long before they've flown enough flights to be confident even just flying humans to orbit and back.
Not to mention you probably don't want to have humans aboard the *very* first ships to land on Mars anyway - just in case there are any unforeseen problems with reentry, landing, or starting everything up again after it's spent months sitting idle in space (for example it'd really suck if an unspotted design flaw in any of the pumps or valves let them vacuum-weld in place)
Keep in mind too that early on the fuel refinery infrastructure will also be the primary source of water and oxygen to keep the colonists alive, so you *really* want that to be working at least reliably enough to supply that relatively minor demand before you send colonists. And sending it ahead of time also lets you confront any mining or refining problems before hand, at worst sending new hardware instead of the first batch of colonists.
Musk has been highly mixed in his comments on return flights. He has at various times reiterated both that he expects early colonists to remain there for life, and that anyone who goes will have a guaranteed free return flight to Earth should they want it. My takeaway is that he intends to make sure return flights are possible, at least so long as few people take them. He probably wants to return at least the more expensive passenger ships to Earth for reuse anyway, probably along with at least the engines from the cargo ships (With the change to steel I believe they now represent most of the cost of the ship, but only a tiny percentage of the mass). Adding a handful of disillusioned colonists to such flights is probably no big deal, and at least leaves open the possibility of leaving the engines behind if (most of) the beachhead mission needs to be evacuated for some reason.
Top stuff Marcus (and team) - well done, very well done⊠thankyou! đ
Excellent information Marcus! I always look forward to your next video!
Hey Hey Tuesday edition is BACC!
Awesome! Love this kind of content. More like this would help making us multi-planetary. The more ideas out there, the better chance that the successful procedures would be explored/ discovered!
Thank you Marcus and assistants. You are vary informative and help for me to understand more of what is going on and needed.
Great video! Actually learning something here! Thanks!
Love the video top marks great stuffđđđ€đđđ
Love the technical stuff. Hereâs a question searching for an answer: when the ISS is past its use-by date, how much would be the minimum thrust to lift it out of Earth orbit and put it in a transfer orbit towards Mars? No time limit on the journey and all power options open - ion-drive, solar sail etc. Even as a used/refurbished habitat, it could be quite useful orbiting the Red Planet.đ€
The ISS does not have the radiation shielding to operate outside of the Earthâs magnetosphere.
@@eypandabear7483 and starship does? I highly doubt starship, with its ridiculous low proposed dry mass, will have much radiation shielding at all.
A great video to get an idea of what it would take to get to mars, keep up with the incredible videos!
Love the weekday vids!! Keep it up!!
Also, why not pre deploy the fuel generators to Mars? Have them ready to fuel up when they get there.
Yes, you can send the fuel generators and solar arrays to Mars ahead of time, but you still need astronauts to gather the ice and set up the solar panels.
I wonder. What about landing tankers of CH4 and only manufacturing O2 from Mars ice? The Sabatier process uses a lot of energy.
@@franksolario1842 I think the whole process could be automated, no astronauts required. Solar power may not be enough. Atomic power might be needed to run the conversion plant and recharge equipment. AI robots would source materials, solve problems as they arise, and do construction. A fully refueled ship would be ready to go when the first crew arrives on Mars.
@@bernieschiff5919 - problem is that we don't have AI robots and stuff like that yet. Nuclear is definitely the way to go as far as power goes.
@@Mosern1977 AI robots could even just be something like a rover that harvests martian soil it thinks it recognises as ice harbouring
...why come back?
This is one of only a few really formidable Mars-colonization videos I've ever seen. It's full of hints to decisive principles, and it pampers you via great computer-generated imagery on equally crucial aspects.
Extremely well thought through, Marcus!
Very Informative. Thanks for the update.
great video, excellent content! I do enjoy the long format of these.
Thank you for the work and the team do to make these possible
Our pleasure!
Thanks for the detailed analysis. I wonder if, for the first mission, space x has ever considered docking multiple starships together and make one large starship for the Earth to Mars transit flight and then using a stripped down lander starship for the landing. As consumables are used during the mission a starship, or ships, could then be expended, after transferring any resources back to the crew starship. This would be to reduce mass for the return journey.
they cant use a stripped down starship for mars, its DESIGNED to land on mars.
SpaceX hasn't considered anything. They make a bunch of cartoonish CGI concepts without any actual engineering before hand. It's like a kid with a crayon trying to write complex computer code.
@@matthewbalsinger3238 Why do you draw these conclusions? do you work at spacex? do you have inside information? Or just baseless criticism?
Love the detailed breakdown in this video đđđ
Love these mid week videos! :'D
A station with gravity wheels in a permanent Earth-Mars transfer orbit is also a very good idea.
Have you read or watched The Martian? That's exactly what they use. Downside is a two year cycle time. No way to get around that, the sun or the huge distance when Earth and Mars is in opposition.
@@Jens.Krabbe Why not keep a constant stream of stuff heading to the point where Mars will be? Send everything at different velocities depending on when it launches off of Earth, that way they all end up there at the right time.
Yep... A bunch of docked together Starship would do it..
200m across and 8 rpm spin would give Mars level gravity to any Starship docked to it...
Wow, a 90min Uni lecture in Just a few minutes. Sooooo much to learn. Thanks, Marcus!
Awesome work guys!!!
Stunning images and great explanation. Super nice work here. Kudos!
Seems there will need to be many iterations of the Starship but I'd suggest a Crew Dragon type vehicle fitted as a cargo module inside a Starship for doing transfers from Mars orbit to Mars surface and back. I'm sure this could be tested in the moon missions.
It would be heavier than desired... And could have entry/exit issues that a pure cargo wouldn't have. Right now the cargo carrier would just open the entire cargo unit (the top 1/3 of Starship). Not good for a passenger unit. The cargo door is likely not as securely air tight as a manned Starship. Essentially, requireing two layers of hull (more weight), and less room inside.
The gravity on Mars is low enough to not make it mandatory - which on Earth it is, thus less refueling requirements in orbit.
Check out Mars 3.0, a mini starship plan.
@@jessepollard7132 Need a decent crane fairly early on for Mars Base, cargo Starship would hold lot of segments with room to spare. (or a build it module like the propose satellite girder constructor)
@@johnpotter4750 Starship design includes one.
@@jessepollard7132 you mean the two fixed hawser drop from the ships wider hatch. That is certainly not my intent, something on a crawler, a contruction vehicle.
An interim crane fixed to a simple base with two steady outrigger cable. Basic
Thank you so much for these deep dive videos! They're truly awesome.
And as for the topic... Yes, this is the way. Everything you say here makes total sense, and is backed up by actual calculation. In situ resource utilization will eventually be possible, but it won't be cheap or quick. I don't think it could be automated either, at least not the process of setting everything up. As you said, the innovation and engineering challenges are going to be immense, and all that stuff will be orders of magnitude harder when you have to work through robots that are only occasionally able to communicate with Earth. The ice mining and water filtering and fuel manufacturing systems will have to be built by astronauts working over multiple missions, and only automated once it gets going.
We're gonna need to throw fleets of rockets at Mars for a while, until such time as ISRU facilities on the surface can be constructed and successfully automated. After that it will get cheaper, but at least in the initial stages things are going to be very expensive and slow.
On a related topic, I love your speculations on how Starships could be made to specialize in different ways. It's really interesting to think about what that future fleet might look like.
Exactly. I've always hated the idea of saying.. oy yea.. you are all on a one way trip. Byeeeeee!
We need a solution for initial return missions. The math here does add up. Alternatively you make some extremely advanced robots that can set it all up. We need Boston Dynamics to pull their finger out there and get it done. Haha.
@@MarcusHouse Kevin is right. AI, whether Boston Dynamics or Tesla, that deal with tightly constrained contexts within an instantaneous communications environment, is nowhere near up to the task of handling 100 "unknown-unknowns" situations per day on a planet that is 8 to 20 light minutes away.
That is at least 20-50 years in the future.
Very comprehensive. Thanks for the future vision
These space updates that absolutely awesome, as a big fan of Science Fiction, I greatly appreciate these info-packed videos! Cheers, Marcus đ BTW I believe Curiosity Streams should totally pick this up as a video on their streaming platform đđœ
Great video on what needs to happen after the fun part of building a super-heavy class rocket. Using this video and previous experience on Apollo missions as a model, there will need to be good margins designed in for most every aspect of the colonization of a base. Likely, a team of engineers and heavy equipment beyond those required should be sent as well. Personally, it's hard to justify turning around and going home after getting a foothold on a new world. Either way, you and the team point out how this is probably the hardest challenge humanity can undertake.
Get 5 fully fuelled starships in earth orbit then strap it onto 1 starship that powers it all and gets the 5 to mars orbit where they become mars 1st orbit/refuelling station.
Put as many solar panels as you can on them, so when they run out of fuel, they can âbeamâ power from lasers down to mars surface. Do this a few hundred times then send then after they have reached the end of their life send each 5 down to mars surface, then with then in the 5 configuration, build a tower 100 starships high that acts as a launch cannon.
Haha.
Let's just shoot for the stars...although with low gravity...could a electromagnetic cannon work, and mar is smaller so the curve is tighter....hmmmm.
Your channel has inspired me to make a video-series highlighting the mental health challenges of going to mars (just editing them now). Thank you for inspiring me Marcus!
Marcus,
In general I enjoy your videos but this one is at another level! Congratulations amazing work!
Keep it up
You should consider the possibility that there is likely a whole lot of qualified people who would volunteer for a one-way mission. There is really no need for return-to-earth as the general case. 2024: A dozen uncrewed Starships head to Mars, spaced out so that data from the first few that enter can improve the odds of the remainder. 2026: A few dozen crewed and un-crewed Starships head to Mars with no plans for any near-term return.
I'd always assumed maybe one in ten Starships would return to cycle the Mars base crews...
The rest would be cut up for parts - batteries, pipes, turbo pumps, wiring etc
Most of what a Mars Base needs for improvised build and repair jobs, could be harvested from Starships
All that stainless steel and instrumentation is worth far more on Mars than on Earth! :)
This.
If the best part is no part...
...the best return trip is no return trip.
Plenty of people would love to leave and never come back.
I sure would.
reusable - NOT disposable
I leave this video with a BIG BRAIN full of new knowledge, thanks Marcus
Great content. I know a ridiculous number of guesses/speculations, but at least someone is guessing until the big reveal.
Great video, enjoyable and informative!
I wouldn't want to be on that Tanker, so close to Mars yet so far
Michael Collins, the most isolated human in history at that time.
You show a âdown underâ version of planetary orbits (going clockwise). Just like an Aussie LOL.
G'day,
It be not our fault that most of the 8 Billion live on the Underside of the Earth, where the North Magnetic Pole happens to be.
Such is life,
Have a good one.....
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
@@DrWhom
G'day,
Omne
Mane
Padme
Hummmmm...
Quod Erat Demonstrandum !
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Very good estimates for the return mission at the end of the video. It is important to run this scenarios to also get a fell for the size and complexity of a first major Mars mission.
Information-packed video! Well done! Thanks!
Mid week nightly juicy content
You missed the option of docking in earth orbit and using dragon crew capsules to bring astronauts home...
4 months or more in a Dragon crew capsule? HmmmâŠ
They need to land the Starships. After 2 years in space, all the facilities would need to be cleaned out, wiped down and some maintenance done. Also cheaper to re-load, re-charge and then launch again. Also to add or swap out designs with lighter materials.
Yes, Crewdragons could return Astromartians to Earth in a matter of hours, but they would be very weak. A capture landing might be less strain and also easier to extract the crew with helpers going inside the ship to carry them out.
@@Crazy_Worlds Silly, they transfer to the capsule so as to save fuel by not deorbiting the Starship...
it's always a treat to watch a new video of yours!
Quality episode. Thank you!