"What?! You can't get me back?" "Well, yes and no." "CAN YOU GET ME BACK OR NOT." "Yes, we could, but our funding got cut. Anyways Elon said on Twitter that you're expendable. Sorry! Out."
@@pizzajona you know how much radiation he would get waiting? I mean, only the trip to there will get you blind, imagine being there for more than a day
@@GustavoOliveira-xt2pm sorry, I’m confused. I was referencing how NASA/SpaceX is planning (albeit very early stages) to send equipment to Mars before the astronauts arrive so they have everything there. And they could come back by extracting fuel from Mars itself and then launching back to Earth
@@pizzajona thing is the hardest part of going to the moon or Mars is escaping earth. Our own gravity is the source of our issues. My theory is that other space faring civilizations we may meet in the future will be from planets with lower gravity like Mars, since it was easier for them to get off their planets they'd have been to space sooner and far more often with minimal resources costs.
@@pizzajona Robert Zubrin's idea is to send liquid hydrogen and a small chemical convertor to Mars. When the astronauts arrive, they'd have means to make methane and oxygen.
"...We keep sending him supply ships... until we figure out a way to get him back!" I almost expected the guy listening to them to say something like - "And exactly HOW many sessions of Kerbal Space Program have you gentlemen been playing that this sounds like a GOOD idea?" ^_^
Something I found interesting from the video which was also mentioned in was the idea of how fuel affects our ability to launch rockets into space. As a result, the engineers began thinking about and proposing ideas using multiple ships to ensure fuel or supplies wouldn't become an issue. Moreover, Tom Dolan even touched on the concept that fuel would be an issue in 1916 when he explained that the weight of the rocket was of utmost importance because it determines whether less fuel is required when launching.
In hindsight, one of the oddest things about the development stages of the moon program was how difficult they thought rendezvous and docking would be, compared to how hard it actually turned out to be (and compared to how they evaluated the risks and rewards of other aspects of a moon mission.) Of course, they had to work up to it, just like everything else. But the stumbling block IMO was not that they thought LOR was impossible or impractical, it was that everyone had tunnel vision pointing at the use of a single ship that would do everything, like in Buck Rogers or other sci-fi of the time. It wasn't until they worked out the numbers that they realized the value of staging and leaving equipment behind.
That “let’s just get a man on the moon and then work out how to get him home later” is exactly the same idea as some of the Mars ideas floating around ten years ago. It is not a plan, it is desperation.
No, it's actually, by far, the most technically safe and cheapest method to use. It's only bad because people who don't understand the science think it is.
It depends on what your goal is. Do you want to put a flag down, or do you want to colonize? Colonization is inherently one way trip, you go there to live there, make a permanent home. You aren't planning to come back any time soon, possibly never. With Mars there are plenty of people who want to do the latter, not just the former.
See the difference is, here they don't know HOW to bring him back, so the pre-basing of supplies is duct tape. On Mars, they aren't using it as a stopgap. They already have to know how to bring people back, the prezbased supplies just make the whole concept a lot cheaper.
You know, I've seen this several times, and when these two engineers present the plan to their boss, I almost injure myself trying to contain my laughter... 🤣🤣🤣
"Well, thats ... Hmm. That's, ... No. No, I'm sorry gentlemen. I'm sorry gentlemen, but there is no way on God's green Earth we would ever do anything like that." That goes to show that no matter how good an idea may sound to you, it is always good to bounce it off of someone else. Especialy if the idea comes from a specialist.
You also have to reference "Rabbit" from the movie Twister and he also played Captain John Harriman of the USS Enterprise-B in the 1994 film Star Trek Generations where he was expecting everything to be sent to his ship on Tuesday.
Mars Direct: Send the supplies and Earth Return Vehicle (or vehicles) on ahead, ensure that sufficient fuel and backup is being produced through the Sabatier process. THEN send the astronauts.
You solve the problem working backwards. "First, what do you need to get two guys OFF the surface of the moon....the ascent module. Then, what do you need to get the ascent module down from lunar orbit to the surface....the descent module. To re-enter the earth's atmosphere....command module (capsule). The hard work of life support and trans orbital burns (taxicab)....the service module. You take what you really need and nothing else. Pretty smart, those guys! And this is what would make a manned mission to Mars so difficult. The Moon's "gravity well" is pretty shallow, and it doesn't take much to get a two man phone booth back up to lunar orbit. Mars is much more of an ascent challenge. Lots more gravity, and an atmosphere to get above too.
Not to mention the massively extended stay (by comparison) and in an environment we have zero information on with regards to how it will affect humans. We know 1g (earth), zero or micro gravity (space), and 1/6g (moon). Mars is approx 1/3 and, as you said, with some atmosphere. Add on the travel time and (other than getting into space), we're right back where were during the Apollo missions. A LOT of "Firsts", as well as problems we can't even imagine, will have to be planned for. As you describe in your very well written comment, the problem isn't getting there. It's getting back. Safely.
@@thewatcher8758 If you think a robot, that takes hours to accomplish what humans could do in minutes, is a better option that sending said humans ..... you clearly haven't paid attention to space exploration. At all. Ever.
@@thewatcher8758 As you know there were plenty robotic explorers on Mars. But you can't design a machine that would work on every eventuality. The Insight Lander had a penetrator probe designed to hammer itself in the martian ground and failed. Any human could have whacked the probe in minutes with a hammer deeply into the ground instead of many months trying. The travels of the rovers have to be carefully planned. A human driver could have covered huge distances by now if there was a driver on Mars. One rover got trapped in the sand. Any normal person would have freed a rover or a vehicle in zero time. Also a human with a shovel can dig really deep compared to the rover drills that can reach a few cm at max, and take ground samples unspoiled by radiation , UV rays and atmosphere that destroy organic molecules
@@thewatcher8758 Someone said exactly the same thing about going to the moon. I'm not saying your wrong though. At least for the short term machines can do the initial dirty work. (Short being a subjective word when talking about space exploration. )
A bit of background: this proposal was developed in 1962 by the Institute for Space Sciences. A fictional account of this proposal was written in 1964 by Hank Searls with the title "The Pilgrim Project". In 1967 Robert Altman would film the story as "Countdown", with James Caan and Robert Duvall.
Don't say that he's hypocritical; Say rather that he's apolitical. "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Werner von Braun.
@snipe69 Yet, when asked if they'd volunteer for a one-way trip to Mars, virtually the ENTIRE astronaut corps said: "HELL YES". And that's current day, not 60 years ago. These people have vision and understanding that personal survival is not the end-all-be-all of existence. The one-way, supply, then come back with those supplies is both the most logical AND best bet for putting people on a foreign object. Carrying your supply along with you is incredibly dangerous for long missions. And it also, paradoxically, the method most likely to end with failure and death. Because you can't plan for every contingency and still have a spaceship that moves. Having resupply capability is, by far, the smartest capability. And if you have that capability, then hauling everything around on the same ship for a return flight is INCREDIBLY inefficient, not to mention far more dangerous than having a minimalistic ship that just gets you to your destination. Think about it - if you're flying LAX to DCA, spend a week sightseeing, then back again, do you demand that you take a 747 for 10 people, because you need enough space to have all the fuel, food, and equipment loaded in Los Angeles, and you never use anything in DC? Because that's what the whole "take it with you" mob thinks is smart. Rather than just fly a Lear Jet, and stay at a hotel in DC, then refuel the Lear for the flight back. Getting supplies to the destination (or heck, just parking them along the flight path) is INCREDIBLY easy and cheap to do. Not to mention it's trivial to have lots of backups in case one or two of the supply ships goes AWOL. If something goes wrong on your human spacecraft (a la Apollo 13), you're SCREWED if it happens to damage the stuff you need to return, in the "take it with you" scenario. By all rights, Apollo 13 should have killed everyone. It was pure chance that the damage was recoverable from. And that's 1 out of 8 moon missions. All sane interplanetary missions will rely on pre- and post-supply (or, eventually, sufficient tech at the destination to MAKE supplies). Only uneducated people think that hauling your supplies around with you is a "safe" way.
@@eriktrimble8784 It also depends on what one's goals are. Flags and footprints, or a new home? A lot of people want to make Mars the latter and colonization is inherently a one way trip. Going to Mars to live there, make a new permanent home. Would I do it? Live the rest of my life on Mars? Hell yes, in a heartbeat.
Meanwhile in an alternate timeline: Titan heavy Rockets have been used to send supplies to the crew of Apollo 22. Stranded at the US Moonbase until NASA can certify that their Saturn V Rockets are all safe
Hindsight is 20/20. Us learning about the Moon landings take it for granted that they used the lunar orbit rendezvous option but at the time it was far from obvious. As the movie points out at the time there hasn't even been a successful Earth orbital rendezvous demonstrated yet either. Such a maneuver around the Moon required extreme precision and was highly risky. The reason NASA went with it is because their technology at the time couldn't come up with the giant rocket for a direct ascent in the time frame for the project. With the technology available at the time the lunar rendezvous became the only option even as risky as it was.
They had to do all their calculations on paper back then. Now everything goes through computers and super-computers. It's amazing they managed it at all when you consider just how primitive the technology they used was.
There was a book written by Czech author Ludek Pesek titled "Log of a Moon Expedition", which came out in early 1969 that was entirely based on the idea of sending supplies first. But then, because of a system malfunction on the astronaut ship, they had to send more ships with supplies to get them home.
and it would arrive 5 years late and massively over budget, and a company will have built a cheaper alternative and beaten it to the moon in the meantime!
Von Braun was pushing EOR as it meant Many More Launches of Rockets were needed, and would ensure Long Term need for his Engineering Group. He later endorsed LOR as more likely to succeed in the time given, and it would make use of his Saturn V.
Von Braun wasn't thinking of 'long term need' for his engineering group. He was thinking practically, as a man who truly wanted to get to the Moon, of the cost and schedule delay that would be caused by having to design, build, and test a giant rocket such as the Saturn. It was the aerospace corporations who sniffed big budgets in big expendable rockets, and pushed for LOR, which funded them to build the biggest rocket of all. Von Braun had to go along, or he would have been sidelined by the money interests.
@@joeschembrie9450 I'm sure Von Braun chose to insist on another unmanned test of the Mercury Redstone, simply so the US would have less chance of being first to put a man in space, cause he knew he had more to gain if the Russians did it first. The American people would be screaming about being behind, and that would open the purse strings for funding Von Brauns dreams. If America had been first to put a Man in Space, there wouldn't have been a Moon Race, as Kenney would not have made the Speech on May 25, 1961 to go to the moon
US plan ended up being the first, USSR plan was going to be the second(before Korolev died and with him the last person with both interest in lunar program and enough political weight). Saturn was a monster that was getting 140 tons to LEO, N1 at best was looking at 95-98 tons, most likely less. There was also the funny suggestion of joint mission which was discussed by Kennedy and Khrushev(yep, ironically the same guys behind Cuban Missile Crisis were also the closest point in US-USSR relations) which thankfully wasn't selected. Why thankfully if it would have doubled the available resources and specialists and would have allowed us to stay? Because of difference between systems, language barrier, secrecy on both sides. There is NO possibility that joint missions wouldn't have been a disaster. And disaster at that stage would have canned ANY following Luna mission suggestion. So we wouldn't get a man on the Moon. So there wouldn't be a pressure to get back there nowadays. Effectively a good intention of joint peaceful space exploration would have buried space exploration forever. Funny, isn't it?
Actually this idea was around even before NASA... As people at NACA had been discussing what it would take for 90 years. Where the Movie got the Title. It's a book from Jules Verne from 1865..... And yes John Houbolt actually put together a detailed proposal. Out lining Lunar orbit rendezvous.. The whole thing hinged on the math. There was no equation yet. They had to come up with one... And yes a two ship Earth Orbit idea was stupid. They had to build and launch two Space Ships. Just to make that work. At the same time.
@@kingpin6989 Too bad the "whole episode" isn't available, or I would have watched it. Then again, I don't have to watch it. My uncle worked with Houbolt at LRC in Virginia in 1960 and 61. Uncle Johnny read the letter Houbolt wrote to Seamans, before it was even sent to Seamans. I've heard the entire story, dozens of times, from someone who was there, for practically my whole life.
How this series isn't streaming perpetually is ridiculous. And how there hasn't been any follow-up series' covering the rest of space history is equally ridiculous
Where did you get that. I havent seen an official plan from NASA on a mars mission yet? We dont even have the hardware yet and the SLS is still years from launch
It’s weird how Tom Dolan doesn’t get the same amount of credit as John Houbolt. Seems like John Houbolt wouldn’t have had the idea of it wasn’t for Tom Dolan.
The thing about the Lunar rendezvous that has me scratching my head is, since it was never tested before they got to the Moon, did they really know how dangerous it was? That on the first lunar landing the landing module was left on out of fear they would loose track of the command module, which almost screwed up the landing, makes me think there were a few people worried about this.
Grogery, they definitely knew how dangerous it was. In the Gemini program NASA practiced rendezvousing and docking with several Agena spacecraft and then two Gemini meeting up and flying in formation. This was proof of concept. That it was possible with the technology they had, to rendezvous and dock. Then in Apollo, multiple missions testing the LM and refining the rendezvousing and docking procedures. Those Gemini mission were critical. If docking wasn't possible given the technology constraints and orbital mechanics being underdeveloped, then a lunar mission would be out of the question.
The United States' recruitment of Wernher von Braun is an interesting and controversial subject. Von Braun worked on rockets for the Nazi war effort using slave labor. Perhaps he felt he could not survive if he did otherwise. He joined both the Nazi party and the SS. Again, perhaps he felt compelled. In the end, he was arrested by the Nazis, although shortly thereafter he was released as Hitler recognized his importance to the weapons program. When the Soviets were finally closing in, von Braun surrendered to the Americans. The seeds of the cold war with the Soviets had already been planted, and the United States made good use of von Braun in their space race against Russia. As the Soviets were already staunch enemies of the Nazis, perhaps von Braun fell into this role naturally. But it's not clear whether von Braun was a liberated nonbeliever, or a former Nazi who was "forgiven" by a United States eager to get his help against the Soviets.
@smnpayne I took me a while to figure it out too. I think I realized it while watching the episode for the 5th or 6th time. LOL Love watching this episode.
If you're referring to the proposed solo mission to the Moon, the spacecraft wasn't actually given a name, but google "one way trip to the moon could have proceeded Apollo 1965".
To paraphrase Tom Dolan writing to VP Johnson, "I'm not saying that this is one way to do it; I'm not saying this is the best way to do it; I'm saying that this is the only way we'll ever do it."
It was a good idea ask for volunteers to land on the moon and just wait there until they die or until we can send them enough supplies to survive there and maybe if they're lucky get home again.
I fail to see how doing lunar rendezvous is any more dangerous than earth rendezvous. Either way, mistakes mean death for the crew. It's not like the lack of atmosphere is more forgiving in earth's orbit compared to the moon's.
If the randezvous is unsuccessful in earth, they can just go back down to earth. If a lunar rendezvous is unsuccessful, they are stuck in lunar orbit for ever.
There's no way we'd ever do anything like that... USSR: We have done terrible things to our cosmonauts...perhaps you heard of Mr. Kamarov's tragic (planned) demise?
John Houbolt found his proposal and pushed it forward, and after being laughed off for a year or so, it finally got chosen as the mission profile for Apollo. At the end of the episode, Tom Kelly, the lead designer for the Lunar Module at Grumman, invited both Dolan and Houbolt to the final roll-out of LM-5 - "The Eagle"
3:20 you are going to the moon, land there, start and ride back to earth. And you do that starting on top of a 100m tall rocket with a shit ton of fuel. And THATS what you think is dangerous?
The funny thing is that this is basically NASA's plan on going to Mars ... get there and use the raw materials on Mars to make the fuel they need to get back.
Well, yes and no. Mars Direct calls for a HAAB, automated robots, and a Return Craft to be landed on Mars. But you don't send people out until the base of operations is already established. The ideas bouncing around back in the 60s seemed more geared towards marooning someone on the moon until they figured out the rest.
@@matthewdavidjarvis6039 Except he didn't say anything about having a craft or facility ready. Just that the materials were there, probably with the idea that whoever gets to the moon would then put it all together themselves
@@ariochiv By the time this miniseries was made, we knew enough to make another miniseries out of. We didn't know everything, but we knew a lot. Though there is a four part docu-drama called "Space Race" from BBC in 2005 (which is on UA-cam now) that does focus equally on both sides. Though its focus is more on Wernher Von Braun and Sergei Korolev, but does do a wonderful job showing the juxtaposition of the two rival programs.
@@k1productions87 That scene in BBC's _Space Race_ of the sick-at-home (and soon-to-die) Korolev being given a magazine by his wife that shows the series of Gemini mission accomplishments, upon which he sighs, _"They're leaving us behind,"_ still lingers in my mind.
@@Wired4Life2 Yes, Gemini is definitely when we pulled ahead. Voskhod basically only accomplished two goals with its two missions - multi-man crew, and EVA... the latter it accomplished poorly. Gemini was launching a new mission every few months, and ticking off box after box on the to-do list, even after many blown up AGENA's, the "angry alligator", and poor EVA performance until Buzz Aldrin just threw a mockup capsule in a pool, dove in after it, and said "THIS is how you train for EVA" LOL
though the proposal he was talking about was more about just sending everything there and having him put it all together and fly it back from the moon on his own. Absolutely dumb idea lol
And as it appears to be now. The 50s and 60s guys were actually right. And the decisions these other guy's made actually paved the road to nowhere for spaceflight for 50 years. Hail Starship!
It is astonishing how much of the Apollo Program was the result of German and Soviet science though it does make sense as Germany and the Soviet Union had invested the most research in rocketry before and during the Second World War.
They had Werner von Braun right there! They could have forced him to explain how Hitler landed all those Nazi troops on the Moon back in '44! Opportunity wasted!
"But Ferris, how will we get back to Earth?"
"You worry too much Cameron!"
Ahahah, funny guy.
The captain of the Enterprise NCC 1701-B should know the answer to that.
"G-d dammit, call me SIR!!!"
He had the day off!
My man hasn’t aged
“Ok mission control, I’m ready to go back to Earth now.”
“Yeah, about that…”
"What?! You can't get me back?"
"Well, yes and no."
"CAN YOU GET ME BACK OR NOT."
"Yes, we could, but our funding got cut. Anyways Elon said on Twitter that you're expendable. Sorry! Out."
@@RideAcrossTheRiver 😂😂😂
@@RideAcrossTheRiver the story of the Martian lol
@@kbanghart Ben Affleck on the radio link there.
Strangely, the first alternative plan is the rescue plot in "The Martian."
It’s also the preferred method (at the moment of writing) of a real life mission to Mars
@@pizzajona you know how much radiation he would get waiting? I mean, only the trip to there will get you blind, imagine being there for more than a day
@@GustavoOliveira-xt2pm sorry, I’m confused. I was referencing how NASA/SpaceX is planning (albeit very early stages) to send equipment to Mars before the astronauts arrive so they have everything there. And they could come back by extracting fuel from Mars itself and then launching back to Earth
@@pizzajona thing is the hardest part of going to the moon or Mars is escaping earth.
Our own gravity is the source of our issues. My theory is that other space faring civilizations we may meet in the future will be from planets with lower gravity like Mars, since it was easier for them to get off their planets they'd have been to space sooner and far more often with minimal resources costs.
@@pizzajona Robert Zubrin's idea is to send liquid hydrogen and a small chemical convertor to Mars. When the astronauts arrive, they'd have means to make methane and oxygen.
"...We keep sending him supply ships... until we figure out a way to get him back!"
I almost expected the guy listening to them to say something like -
"And exactly HOW many sessions of Kerbal Space Program have you gentlemen been playing that this sounds like a GOOD idea?" ^_^
Basically the plot for The Martian
More struts. Or boosters. Or both.
@@sparta139 Also the plot for the 1964 Hank Searls novel "The Pilgrim Project" (filmed as "Countdown" in 1968 by Robert Altman).
LOL
Let's strand someone on the moon... it'll all work out. Sounds like someone with no sense of morality.
Something I found interesting from the video which was also mentioned in was the idea of how fuel affects our ability to launch rockets into space. As a result, the engineers began thinking about and proposing ideas using multiple ships to ensure fuel or supplies wouldn't become an issue. Moreover, Tom Dolan even touched on the concept that fuel would be an issue in 1916 when he explained that the weight of the rocket was of utmost importance because it determines whether less fuel is required when launching.
"I don't know, would it?" -the engineers motto
If you believe in an idea. Prove it.
"To the calculators!"
YES! I love this. Rather than them saying "ehhh, would probably be too dangerous" they don't make assumptions. They find out.
In hindsight, one of the oddest things about the development stages of the moon program was how difficult they thought rendezvous and docking would be, compared to how hard it actually turned out to be (and compared to how they evaluated the risks and rewards of other aspects of a moon mission.)
Of course, they had to work up to it, just like everything else. But the stumbling block IMO was not that they thought LOR was impossible or impractical, it was that everyone had tunnel vision pointing at the use of a single ship that would do everything, like in Buck Rogers or other sci-fi of the time. It wasn't until they worked out the numbers that they realized the value of staging and leaving equipment behind.
@@kmarasin The goal of Apollo was to beat the Soviets to the Moon with a manned landing. That's why shedding equipment was an expediency.
That “let’s just get a man on the moon and then work out how to get him home later” is exactly the same idea as some of the Mars ideas floating around ten years ago. It is not a plan, it is desperation.
No, it's actually, by far, the most technically safe and cheapest method to use. It's only bad because people who don't understand the science think it is.
It depends on what your goal is. Do you want to put a flag down, or do you want to colonize? Colonization is inherently one way trip, you go there to live there, make a permanent home. You aren't planning to come back any time soon, possibly never. With Mars there are plenty of people who want to do the latter, not just the former.
@@tylisirn They'd all die. Bad PR.
See the difference is, here they don't know HOW to bring him back, so the pre-basing of supplies is duct tape. On Mars, they aren't using it as a stopgap. They already have to know how to bring people back, the prezbased supplies just make the whole concept a lot cheaper.
Von Braun‘s german accent english is perfect.😉Love it.
You know, I've seen this several times, and when these two engineers present the plan to their boss, I almost injure myself trying to contain my laughter... 🤣🤣🤣
1:00 to 1:40 They look EXACTLY like Kerbals trying to solve a problem ;)
I'm totally convinced that's supposed to be a reference to this series.
The actual history of the Soviet space program and KSP have a LOT in common. "We'll test it at launch" type of things.
"Well, thats ... Hmm. That's, ... No. No, I'm sorry gentlemen. I'm sorry gentlemen, but there is no way on God's green Earth we would ever do anything like that."
That goes to show that no matter how good an idea may sound to you, it is always good to bounce it off of someone else. Especialy if the idea comes from a specialist.
We, in the military, like to call that....the Good Idea Fairy.....
Adunno, it works in Kerbal Space Program...
@@AD-1138 That's... I didn't imagine that. Good to know, though. Thank you, A D!
But you won't be on God's green Earth, you'll be on the moon. 😏
I see Cameron is channeling his inner Ferris again . . . .
lol 😂😂😂😂🎵let my Cameron gooooo🎵
You also have to reference "Rabbit" from the movie Twister and he also played Captain John Harriman of the USS Enterprise-B in the 1994 film Star Trek Generations where he was expecting everything to be sent to his ship on Tuesday.
"Ferris Buehler, you're my hero!"
@@George040270 Can you imagine NASA saying that their next supply run will be on Tuesday?
Alternate Title: Alan Ruck saves the space program
Awesome comment.
@Rebel N Trains Maybe his dad will finally forgive him 😁
@Rebel N Trains He just has to drive the spaceship back from the moon in reverse so his father doesn't know about it.
@@joemckim1183 awesome response!
But Captain John Harriman said it won't be until Tuesday...
Mars Direct: Send the supplies and Earth Return Vehicle (or vehicles) on ahead, ensure that sufficient fuel and backup is being produced through the Sabatier process. THEN send the astronauts.
You solve the problem working backwards.
"First, what do you need to get two guys OFF the surface of the moon....the ascent module. Then, what do you need to get the ascent module down from lunar orbit to the surface....the descent module. To re-enter the earth's atmosphere....command module (capsule). The hard work of life support and trans orbital burns (taxicab)....the service module. You take what you really need and nothing else. Pretty smart, those guys!
And this is what would make a manned mission to Mars so difficult. The Moon's "gravity well" is pretty shallow, and it doesn't take much to get a two man phone booth back up to lunar orbit. Mars is much more of an ascent challenge. Lots more gravity, and an atmosphere to get above too.
Not to mention the massively extended stay (by comparison) and in an environment we have zero information on with regards to how it will affect humans.
We know 1g (earth), zero or micro gravity (space), and 1/6g (moon). Mars is approx 1/3 and, as you said, with some atmosphere. Add on the travel time and (other than getting into space), we're right back where were during the Apollo missions. A LOT of "Firsts", as well as problems we can't even imagine, will have to be planned for.
As you describe in your very well written comment, the problem isn't getting there. It's getting back. Safely.
Forget about sending people to Mars. Send our machines instead. They can explore much better than people. And nobody dies trying.
@@thewatcher8758 If you think a robot, that takes hours to accomplish what humans could do in minutes, is a better option that sending said humans ..... you clearly haven't paid attention to space exploration. At all. Ever.
@@thewatcher8758 As you know there were plenty robotic explorers on Mars. But you can't design a machine that would work on every eventuality. The Insight Lander had a penetrator probe designed to hammer itself in the martian ground and failed. Any human could have whacked the probe in minutes with a hammer deeply into the ground instead of many months trying. The travels of the rovers have to be carefully planned. A human driver could have covered huge distances by now if there was a driver on Mars. One rover got trapped in the sand. Any normal person would have freed a rover or a vehicle in zero time. Also a human with a shovel can dig really deep compared to the rover drills that can reach a few cm at max, and take ground samples unspoiled by radiation , UV rays and atmosphere that destroy organic molecules
@@thewatcher8758 Someone said exactly the same thing about going to the moon. I'm not saying your wrong though. At least for the short term machines can do the initial dirty work. (Short being a subjective word when talking about space exploration. )
A bit of background: this proposal was developed in 1962 by the Institute for Space Sciences. A fictional account of this proposal was written in 1964 by Hank Searls with the title "The Pilgrim Project". In 1967 Robert Altman would film the story as "Countdown", with James Caan and Robert Duvall.
I would love a remake of this movie.
@@mickywanderer8276 You have it here.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver lol
0:46-1:48 Interesting that actually eventually became the template for the proposed Mars Direct Mission!
One of my favorite scenes of the series.
1:07-1:17, is basically Zubrin's approach to Mars
Don't say that he's hypocritical;
Say rather that he's apolitical.
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Werner von Braun.
Thank you, Tom Lehrer.
-We put a man on the moon as soon as possible -Just get him there -We can keep sending him supply ships -Until we figure a way to get him back!
LOLLLL
Any volunteers for this mission raise your hand ... anyone?
Okay, any volunteers take one step forward ...
@@loissimmons6558 I mean, it's the moon. You'd have no end of volunteers willing to take the risk.
@snipe69 Yet, when asked if they'd volunteer for a one-way trip to Mars, virtually the ENTIRE astronaut corps said: "HELL YES".
And that's current day, not 60 years ago. These people have vision and understanding that personal survival is not the end-all-be-all of existence.
The one-way, supply, then come back with those supplies is both the most logical AND best bet for putting people on a foreign object. Carrying your supply along with you is incredibly dangerous for long missions. And it also, paradoxically, the method most likely to end with failure and death. Because you can't plan for every contingency and still have a spaceship that moves. Having resupply capability is, by far, the smartest capability. And if you have that capability, then hauling everything around on the same ship for a return flight is INCREDIBLY inefficient, not to mention far more dangerous than having a minimalistic ship that just gets you to your destination.
Think about it - if you're flying LAX to DCA, spend a week sightseeing, then back again, do you demand that you take a 747 for 10 people, because you need enough space to have all the fuel, food, and equipment loaded in Los Angeles, and you never use anything in DC?
Because that's what the whole "take it with you" mob thinks is smart. Rather than just fly a Lear Jet, and stay at a hotel in DC, then refuel the Lear for the flight back.
Getting supplies to the destination (or heck, just parking them along the flight path) is INCREDIBLY easy and cheap to do. Not to mention it's trivial to have lots of backups in case one or two of the supply ships goes AWOL. If something goes wrong on your human spacecraft (a la Apollo 13), you're SCREWED if it happens to damage the stuff you need to return, in the "take it with you" scenario.
By all rights, Apollo 13 should have killed everyone. It was pure chance that the damage was recoverable from. And that's 1 out of 8 moon missions.
All sane interplanetary missions will rely on pre- and post-supply (or, eventually, sufficient tech at the destination to MAKE supplies). Only uneducated people think that hauling your supplies around with you is a "safe" way.
@@eriktrimble8784 It also depends on what one's goals are. Flags and footprints, or a new home? A lot of people want to make Mars the latter and colonization is inherently a one way trip. Going to Mars to live there, make a new permanent home. Would I do it? Live the rest of my life on Mars? Hell yes, in a heartbeat.
Meanwhile in an alternate timeline: Titan heavy Rockets have been used to send supplies to the crew of Apollo 22. Stranded at the US Moonbase until NASA can certify that their Saturn V Rockets are all safe
Hindsight is 20/20. Us learning about the Moon landings take it for granted that they used the lunar orbit rendezvous option but at the time it was far from obvious. As the movie points out at the time there hasn't even been a successful Earth orbital rendezvous demonstrated yet either. Such a maneuver around the Moon required extreme precision and was highly risky.
The reason NASA went with it is because their technology at the time couldn't come up with the giant rocket for a direct ascent in the time frame for the project.
With the technology available at the time the lunar rendezvous became the only option even as risky as it was.
They had to do all their calculations on paper back then. Now everything goes through computers and super-computers.
It's amazing they managed it at all when you consider just how primitive the technology they used was.
The man most singularly responsible for NASA adopting LOR was John Houbolt. Him and Tom Dolan were memorialized in this episode.
@@cleekmaker00 Am I the only one who found it weird how the 1999 _NOVA_ episode "To the Moon" only featured Houbolt and never mentioned Dolan?
They used computers to calculate the insertions. Just computers that are very primitive to us now.@@DomWeasel
@@jkevinomalley
Computers weren't trusted back then so after the NASA computers spat out their calculations, the human computers double-checked them.
There was a book written by Czech author Ludek Pesek titled "Log of a Moon Expedition", which came out in early 1969 that was entirely based on the idea of sending supplies first. But then, because of a system malfunction on the astronaut ship, they had to send more ships with supplies to get them home.
Nowadays it'd be "what's the most expensive option we can pitch them that they'll pay for?"
and it would arrive 5 years late and massively over budget, and a company will have built a cheaper alternative and beaten it to the moon in the meantime!
Nowadays, it is, “Wait for Elon to figure it out, then pay him to do it.”
Von Braun was pushing EOR as it meant Many More Launches of Rockets were needed, and would ensure Long Term need for his Engineering Group. He later endorsed LOR as more likely to succeed in the time given, and it would make use of his Saturn V.
Von Braun wasn't thinking of 'long term need' for his engineering group. He was thinking practically, as a man who truly wanted to get to the Moon, of the cost and schedule delay that would be caused by having to design, build, and test a giant rocket such as the Saturn. It was the aerospace corporations who sniffed big budgets in big expendable rockets, and pushed for LOR, which funded them to build the biggest rocket of all. Von Braun had to go along, or he would have been sidelined by the money interests.
@@joeschembrie9450
I'm sure Von Braun chose to insist on another unmanned test of the Mercury Redstone, simply so the US would have less chance of being first to put a man in space, cause he knew he had more to gain if the Russians did it first. The American people would be screaming about being behind, and that would open the purse strings for funding Von Brauns dreams. If America had been first to put a Man in Space, there wouldn't have been a Moon Race, as Kenney would not have made the Speech on May 25, 1961 to go to the moon
Norton: “I don’t know… would it?”
Scientist: “YES!”
US plan ended up being the first, USSR plan was going to be the second(before Korolev died and with him the last person with both interest in lunar program and enough political weight). Saturn was a monster that was getting 140 tons to LEO, N1 at best was looking at 95-98 tons, most likely less.
There was also the funny suggestion of joint mission which was discussed by Kennedy and Khrushev(yep, ironically the same guys behind Cuban Missile Crisis were also the closest point in US-USSR relations) which thankfully wasn't selected. Why thankfully if it would have doubled the available resources and specialists and would have allowed us to stay? Because of difference between systems, language barrier, secrecy on both sides. There is NO possibility that joint missions wouldn't have been a disaster. And disaster at that stage would have canned ANY following Luna mission suggestion. So we wouldn't get a man on the Moon. So there wouldn't be a pressure to get back there nowadays. Effectively a good intention of joint peaceful space exploration would have buried space exploration forever. Funny, isn't it?
Except that wouldn't have happened
@@kbanghart it took us decade to develop joint airlock standard. Rushed joint Lunar mission wouldn't have been a smooth ride.
@@TheArklyte maybe
Wait, what happened to John Houbolt? He's the guy who actually came up with the LOR idea... Sold it to von Braun himself.
Actually this idea was around even before NASA... As people at NACA had been discussing what it would take for 90 years. Where the Movie got the Title. It's a book from Jules Verne from 1865.....
And yes John Houbolt actually put together a detailed proposal. Out lining Lunar orbit rendezvous.. The whole thing hinged on the math. There was no equation yet. They had to come up with one...
And yes a two ship Earth Orbit idea was stupid. They had to build and launch two Space Ships. Just to make that work. At the same time.
You should watch the entire episode. Houbolt and Dolan are both featured in it prominently.
@@kingpin6989 Too bad the "whole episode" isn't available, or I would have watched it. Then again, I don't have to watch it. My uncle worked with Houbolt at LRC in Virginia in 1960 and 61. Uncle Johnny read the letter Houbolt wrote to Seamans, before it was even sent to Seamans. I've heard the entire story, dozens of times, from someone who was there, for practically my whole life.
@@kingpin6989 In July 1962, the idea that didn't have a chance in hell of succeeding, succeeded!
How this series isn't streaming on HBO Go in the 50th anniversary of the moon landings is ridiculous
How this series isn't streaming perpetually is ridiculous. And how there hasn't been any follow-up series' covering the rest of space history is equally ridiculous
...Amen!
Good point
_Succession_ enthralled most people far more than space exploration.
@smnpayne Actually, they are not 2 but 3 guys (2 wearing ties and another one wearing a knot). I don't know why we don't see them all at once.
You gotta admire the ingenuity of our ancestors
Alot of these ideas, if taken out of context, are the ideas being mulled over now, for mars and the moon. Mars now, Mars 2020, etc
Let my Cameron gooooooooo!
"Wouldn't it be kind of dangerous?" You're going to the moon, everything is dangerous.
Littering the moon with our leftover junk. Outta be a law against that in the international house of space flight (and pancakes) rule book.
Thanks John Houbolt
Where did you get that. I havent seen an official plan from NASA on a mars mission yet? We dont even have the hardware yet and the SLS is still years from launch
It’s weird how Tom Dolan doesn’t get the same amount of credit as John Houbolt.
Seems like John Houbolt wouldn’t have had the idea of it wasn’t for Tom Dolan.
In the first cut scene why does that guy’s tie keep changing from a regular tie to a bowtie?
1:43 LOL the guy's defeated gesture
The thing about the Lunar rendezvous that has me scratching my head is, since it was never tested before they got to the Moon, did they really know how dangerous it was?
That on the first lunar landing the landing module was left on out of fear they would loose track of the command module, which almost screwed up the landing, makes me think there were a few people worried about this.
Grogery, they definitely knew how dangerous it was. In the Gemini program NASA practiced rendezvousing and docking with several Agena spacecraft and then two Gemini meeting up and flying in formation. This was proof of concept. That it was possible with the technology they had, to rendezvous and dock. Then in Apollo, multiple missions testing the LM and refining the rendezvousing and docking procedures. Those Gemini mission were critical. If docking wasn't possible given the technology constraints and orbital mechanics being underdeveloped, then a lunar mission would be out of the question.
They practiced rendezvous around the moon in Apollo 10
They also practiced rendezvous in Earth orbit on Apollo 9, so it was tested twice before the actual Moon landing
if you practice enough and can dance(docking) at home (earth) there's no reason you can't at ballfloor (moon)
Mars Direct is not a NASA proposal, but a proposal by Dr. Robert Zubrin made over 20 years ago. He continues to advocate it.
He doesn't know much about the tyranny of rocket equation.
The United States' recruitment of Wernher von Braun is an interesting and controversial subject. Von Braun worked on rockets for the Nazi war effort using slave labor. Perhaps he felt he could not survive if he did otherwise. He joined both the Nazi party and the SS. Again, perhaps he felt compelled. In the end, he was arrested by the Nazis, although shortly thereafter he was released as Hitler recognized his importance to the weapons program. When the Soviets were finally closing in, von Braun surrendered to the Americans. The seeds of the cold war with the Soviets had already been planted, and the United States made good use of von Braun in their space race against Russia. As the Soviets were already staunch enemies of the Nazis, perhaps von Braun fell into this role naturally. But it's not clear whether von Braun was a liberated nonbeliever, or a former Nazi who was "forgiven" by a United States eager to get his help against the Soviets.
@smnpayne I took me a while to figure it out too. I think I realized it while watching the episode for the 5th or 6th time. LOL Love watching this episode.
If you're referring to the proposed solo mission to the Moon, the spacecraft wasn't actually given a name, but google "one way trip to the moon could have proceeded Apollo 1965".
Connor Roy was interested in spaceflight from a very young age
0:45 reminds me of mars direct
This is the same guy that thought running a car in reverse would lower the mileage on the odometer. 😀😀
When Cameron was on the lunar surface.... let my Cameron goooooo!
To paraphrase Tom Dolan writing to VP Johnson, "I'm not saying that this is one way to do it; I'm not saying this is the best way to do it; I'm saying that this is the only way we'll ever do it."
At his "direkt" you immediately hear he is actually German (the actor).
It's could to get a 2nd opionion. Espically if the idea is NUTS!!!
It was a good idea ask for volunteers to land on the moon and just wait there until they die or until we can send them enough supplies to survive there and maybe if they're lucky get home again.
I take it you will not be among those volunteering.
I fail to see how doing lunar rendezvous is any more dangerous than earth rendezvous. Either way, mistakes mean death for the crew. It's not like the lack of atmosphere is more forgiving in earth's orbit compared to the moon's.
If the randezvous is unsuccessful in earth, they can just go back down to earth. If a lunar rendezvous is unsuccessful, they are stuck in lunar orbit for ever.
Don't worry about getting him back right away, we'll just hire an Astro-nut to make the trip!
They already have.
Frye? Frye? Frye?
I think they should have used a large kite and 239,000 miles of string.
Is there another clip where NASA gets sued by one of the competing companies for not choosing their idea?
Yes it is, but its not the official plan from NASA on how they are going to get to Mars and back.
I can see why David Brisbin retired to open a Dude Ranch in the 90's.
There's no way we'd ever do anything like that...
USSR: We have done terrible things to our cosmonauts...perhaps you heard of Mr. Kamarov's tragic (planned) demise?
This was filmed on a Tuesday
What show was this??
John Houbolt was critical to selling this idea. He nagged and nagged Von Braun until Von Braun changed his mind and embraced the idea.
So after 12 years just out of the blue....
Anyone know what happened to Tom Dolan?
John Houbolt found his proposal and pushed it forward, and after being laughed off for a year or so, it finally got chosen as the mission profile for Apollo.
At the end of the episode, Tom Kelly, the lead designer for the Lunar Module at Grumman, invited both Dolan and Houbolt to the final roll-out of LM-5 - "The Eagle"
How is it we did this in record time using slide rules and 1960's technology - and now it's too complicated?
Boomers were into heavy drug use in the 1960s and in the 1970s started to take over government and corporate management.
2:23 is that Cameron?
You really couldn't have picked a better thumbnail where the guy doesn't look like a creepy uncle?
Our nerds are the greatest !
1:40 "No way on God's green Earth..." Well good thing you're doing it in space then.
1:06 the Mars direct plan.
Lol, alternate method is to strand a guy on the moon
This episode was so cheesy. They really needed someone to rein in it.
3:20 you are going to the moon, land there, start and ride back to earth. And you do that starting on top of a 100m tall rocket with a shit ton of fuel. And THATS what you think is dangerous?
The funny thing is that this is basically NASA's plan on going to Mars ... get there and use the raw materials on Mars to make the fuel they need to get back.
Well, yes and no. Mars Direct calls for a HAAB, automated robots, and a Return Craft to be landed on Mars. But you don't send people out until the base of operations is already established. The ideas bouncing around back in the 60s seemed more geared towards marooning someone on the moon until they figured out the rest.
@@matthewdavidjarvis6039 Except he didn't say anything about having a craft or facility ready. Just that the materials were there, probably with the idea that whoever gets to the moon would then put it all together themselves
This is the same plan as "Mars Direct"
That's it--I'm restarting this series.
Hey William Shatner where are you
love this german accent...
It is a great series. I only wished they'd devoted a chapter to the Russian efforts as a means of comparison.
At the time, I don't think we knew very much about the details of the Russian efforts. I'm not sure we know all that much even today.
@@ariochiv By the time this miniseries was made, we knew enough to make another miniseries out of. We didn't know everything, but we knew a lot.
Though there is a four part docu-drama called "Space Race" from BBC in 2005 (which is on UA-cam now) that does focus equally on both sides. Though its focus is more on Wernher Von Braun and Sergei Korolev, but does do a wonderful job showing the juxtaposition of the two rival programs.
"Comrade, how do I get back?"
"..." or "Is that a trick question?"
@@k1productions87 That scene in BBC's _Space Race_ of the sick-at-home (and soon-to-die) Korolev being given a magazine by his wife that shows the series of Gemini mission accomplishments, upon which he sighs, _"They're leaving us behind,"_ still lingers in my mind.
@@Wired4Life2 Yes, Gemini is definitely when we pulled ahead. Voskhod basically only accomplished two goals with its two missions - multi-man crew, and EVA... the latter it accomplished poorly.
Gemini was launching a new mission every few months, and ticking off box after box on the to-do list, even after many blown up AGENA's, the "angry alligator", and poor EVA performance until Buzz Aldrin just threw a mockup capsule in a pool, dove in after it, and said "THIS is how you train for EVA" LOL
2:34 he's basically talking about Starship which is why it will fail.
I don't follow
@@iamarokotmanson lunar starship is too big.
@@TheMrPeteChannel how's it too big?
@@iamarokotmanson hmmmmmm🤔 well if something needs more than 2 refuel flights!
@@TheMrPeteChannel Dynetics and NT landers would both take 3 launches.
Great clip!
Here's the Russian Dolan refers to
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Kondratyuk
Actually he was Ukrainian
Before there was the KSP there was real life...
1:34 How can he be so obtuse??
Read The Pilgrim Project.
This isn't very accurate nobody is smoking hell everybody smoked
Nowadays, having the supply's on the moon is not wrong, and or mars
though the proposal he was talking about was more about just sending everything there and having him put it all together and fly it back from the moon on his own. Absolutely dumb idea lol
That's one of the dudes from ferris buelers day off -.-
And 'Speed' also.
Which one?
The guy at the end was the new captain of the Enterprise at the beginning of Generations.
1:07 Elon Musks grandad.
1:35 NOOOOOOO
Not accurate.
What’s with the horrible music?
And as it appears to be now. The 50s and 60s guys were actually right. And the decisions these other guy's made actually paved the road to nowhere for spaceflight for 50 years. Hail Starship!
Pixar didn't happen. Links for proof please.
If it wasnt for the germans, they never wouldve gone to the moon
It is astonishing how much of the Apollo Program was the result of German and Soviet science though it does make sense as Germany and the Soviet Union had invested the most research in rocketry before and during the Second World War.
Yuriy Kondratyuk Ukrainian, not russian, lol.
Same thing
They had Werner von Braun right there! They could have forced him to explain how Hitler landed all those Nazi troops on the Moon back in '44! Opportunity wasted!
What