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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slow down please

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

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

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

@@alexlabs4858 I've asked this question before, since there Has to be a First Moon & Mars landing eventually. What I've been told before is that because of the reduced gravity of Mars, that a booster won't be needed to get back to Earth. This may simplify a Mars Landing and Takeoff (for the Moon as well), there may still be a need for orbital refueling for a StarShip only departure from Mars. I saw EM's little Starbase Presentation the other day where he just came out and said that Landing Gear will be needed for the first Mars & Moon landings. He also went on to say how eventually there will be StarShip's returning to Earth, but didn't give detail. Maybe the Larger iterations of future StarShips will have the Delta V to make it back to Earth. Al that said, it's the Landings that will be the hard part from what this vid is showing here.

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

I still think Starship is going to tip over. No amount of top thruster power is going to stop that. Just hope I'm wrong.

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

sounds pretty easy!

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

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

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

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

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

The same was said about flying airplanes, once.

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

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

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

Potāto, potáto. 😂

yes, thx

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

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

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

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

1 ft​@@Ron-sp7lw

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

@@3gunslingers Also like some others have pointed out, the Author got a fair bit of the orbital mechanics wrong, Along with some of the terminology. (using apogee/perigee instead of apoareion/periareion or apoapsis and periapsis)

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

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

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

They did not want to distort the truth with facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

one interesing thing about starship, (which i dont think wasmentioned in this video) is that sharship is fully and rapidly reusable. what this means, is that the cost of launching the starship will be entirely just the fuel costs, similar to an airliner how you reuse it many times. also, starship was designed to be multi-use, meaing it could be used to launch a variety of other payloads and be used for many other missions, meaning that it can get funding and money from many different places, such as for example the starlink internet sattelite constelation. a reused falcon 9 managed to get 260 tons worth of cargo, over 3.5 years. a starship could do that in 2 launches, which with them being rapidly reusable, it could do that within 12 hours.this means that it will be able to launch payloads and other things with a reduced time, which when you launch a rocket more often, it means overall its cheaper because the development costs are spread over multiple launches. it is expected, that in the near future, starship will get a launch cost of only 2 million dollars, which compared to a similar sized rocket, the Saturn V, (the rocket that took humans to the moon) costed around 1-2 billion dollars per launch. With a launch cost of around 1 thousand times cheaper than saturn V, and having greater payload capacity, it is likely that it will be very different than the past. Also, spaceX had done things that people thought were impossible before, such as landing the falcon 9 vertically, and being able to reuse them economically. so, in my opinion, i think there may be a chance in the future, that we go live among the planets of the solar system, although i could see like some issue goes unsolving like some kind of life support problem with interplanetary space, and it takes us like many more decades to reach mars.

Dispense with travel to Mars and redeploy those resources towards CLIMATE CHANGE, the EXISTENTIAL THREAT to HUMANITY. Every other human affectation must be dispensed with and deployed towards that great purpose ---- right?

we will never colonize mars? I will come back to this comment in 10 years.

Human beings have not colonized Antarctica in a hundred years, and that is a benign and welcoming PARADISE compared to Mars. Furthermore, environmentalists can be expected to wage war in OPPOSING colonization of Mars, I would suppose. "Spoil ANOTHER planet? Over our DEAD BODIES!"

try a 100 years lol @@fatcammal

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

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

I'm glad someone finally thought of that! 😂

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

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

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

I think that’s actually a great way to increase the speed of development. My only concern being that maybe they find out that that a piece of hardware eg the flaps or the engine gimbals need to be changed. But if that was resolved I think sending a batch of starships would be very efficient.

@@macadoua4847 I think that's actually a great way to go broke.

@@markussitzmannhow so?

@@macadoua4847 yes, that was my initial concern as well. But I was assuming that when they finally attempt to land in Mars, they would have figured out hardware issues by then by their several practice attempts here on Earth, thereby minimizing hardware issues when they finally head to Mars.

@@markussitzmann you are correct, but SpaceX is not a traditional rocket company that takes it very slow. Judging by what SpaceX/Elon Musk is doing currently, he doesn't seem to care if he builds a lot of excess Starships even though other Starships down the line are already obsolete by the time Elon decides to make sudden changes to the design. And yet SpaceX still has plenty of money to waste..

You need to play some Kerbal, dude...

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

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

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

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

@@winstonmontgomery8211 Mars doesn't have the atmosphere for that scale of storm. A power failure would lead to a lack of ability to launch from the surface to the space station. There's just not a situation where the super complicated launch into space option is going to be more feasible than just having a backup location on the surface or spare equipment.

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

🤣 this century? i think you meant decade,

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

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

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

I had the same thought.

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

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

@@mobiuscoreindustries A truism of greatest apparency. 🫡

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

Or apocenter and pericenter

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

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

@@BobHutton Correct, from the Greek, Ares.

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

The atmospheric deceleration at Mars will be nothing compared with earth entry which approaches 6.5 G (Apollo) MARS Entry decel. G will be around 1.5 -2 G , easily bearable no matter the orientation .

@@dongraham4760 We’ll have to agree to disagree. They’re not going to make crew experience even just 2G sideways or throwing you forward in your seat. All seats must orient with backs to direction of travel. A flower pedal seating arrangement would be a very bad idea.

uuhhh.....that's just during their 8 month travel time. They'll he strapped in for entry and exit . Duhhh

@@philipzanoni So then, what are these couches for? They’ll have their own private cabins with beds. And during the trip, they won’t be laying on couches. No need for that. They will only need launch and landing couches, arranged in straight lines, with the ability to rotate so that, as the ship flips for landing, their backs will always face the direction of G forces. 😊

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wrong, they were unplanned because the thing that failed was not what they expected. you can't say because it a test so it should fail, that wrong, because the test would be testing for something, and if something elses failed before the test can provide the data on what is being tested, than that test has failed too as there will be no usable data. people need to stop reading PR statement and take them as fact. there are already alot of analysis and data that prove the "test" and "controlled failure" narrative wrong. the first launch suffered from pipe damage, it not due to pressure, this is why some engine fail and some did not, if it was pressure, they should all fail. the 2nd launch suffered an engine failure, we know this from the irregular release of pressure which happened before the tank itself imploded, so the tank never reach it maximum stress, it was damage by the engine which it useless as a "pressure test" as it would be as silly and measuring the max pressure of a tire that already has a hole in it. for a test to be valid, you need usable data. the fact that they were uncertain as to the exact cause of the problem means whatever data they receieved was insuffient to reconstruct the problem. not that I believe the launch were complete failure, they were provening exercises, but what they are not, are "successful test scenarios" since we never got the data we want from them.

‘Can’t do that without blowing up’ Ahem. The Saturn V never blew up and worked every single time. And it was built with slide rules and hand built computers. SLS has not blown up and has worked every time. Stop drinking the Musk cool-aid. Catastrophic failure is not normal nor expected.

Not necessarily, lunar starship for example is seeing the addition of landing thrusters in the upper housing of the spacecraft, at an angle. Less useful for taking off, but should permit landing, though a Mars version will need more thrust than the lunar one.

@@SCComega All falcon 9 landings whether at sea or on land have been on a prepared FLAT surface. Furthermore, with Starship, the landing surface will need to be perfectly level, lest Starship tip over. The lunar surface is bouldery, powdery, no flat level surface in sight. The problem is larger than you assume.

mainly physics

LOL! 😂

Space X public plans and public statements mostly.

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

Most likely if means everyone dies.😢

The first 4 will if current launch trend continues 😅

It will...

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

How so

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

Bro thatz wut u call a parachaute lmao. Actual parachutes are much better than wut u proposed. SpaceX is actively trying to avoid them in favour of propulsive landing.

You don't need to. Starship in its current form is more than capable to use the martian atmosphere to slow down to about 600m/s. It doesn't need tu use propellant to slow down prior to aerobraking The video is completely wrong about this. Just look how all the rovers got to Mars. They also didn't slow down. They only used their heatshields.

@@3gunslingers The video also says that starship needs to use it´s lift to push down to Mars, which is counterproductive at best.

@@ancientcolors _"The video also says that starship needs to use it´s lift to push down to Mars, which is counterproductive at best."_ No. This is standard praxis since at least the Apollo Missions. Negative lift keeps the spacecraft in the atmosphere for longer "on the way _out"_ but at higher altitudes where the atmosphere is thinner and therefore doesn't heat up the heat shield as much.

​@@3gunslingersthe rovers can get away with the heat shield approach due to their size for sure, wouldn't fancy slamming into the atmosphere at full pelt personally 😂

Tell us your simple design to get humans to Mars then .....

Apollo had a much simpler design, and it landed there 50 years ago.@@callumcurtis15

I worked at KSC for twenty years as a Space Shuttle inspector. Retired now though.@@VincentKarabouladMusique

@@callumcurtis15 As Elon states. "The best part is no part. It cost nothing and can not fail. The best process is no process." Don't got to mars with humans. It's WAY to expensive, difficult and nothing real to gain. The moon trip 50 years agon was an incredible stunt, but beside the space race trophy, mankind gain not so much from it. If you need a challenge, climb mount everest in flip flops and shorts!

You mis-spelled {With massive huge Governmental Subsidies}-