New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#1 Re: Human missions » Block 3 starship first mission » Yesterday 19:22:12
Our engineered atmosphere is 0.5 bar for internal use starting from mars air which is 0.006 bar Composition: 95% CO2, 2.85% Nitrogen, 0.17% Oxygen.
Normal earth air is o2 at 21% for 1.0 bar containing N2 which makes up almost the remaining % of the 14.7 psi.
Of course one of the issues is the quantity of air we need to the volumes that we are living with in and the other is the fuel levels to get back home are huge which makes the power demand high.
#2 Re: Human missions » Block 3 starship first mission » Yesterday 19:05:59
This is what Mars Society has in its planning
what we know for harvesting the atmosphere
#3 Human missions » Block 3 starship first mission » Yesterday 18:44:35
- SpaceNut
- Replies: 2
The information on the web indicates that 4 cargo with 2 crewed are thought to be there with fuel to return already waiting but that means those ships needed a dedicated mission to create fuel.
It might look like this with the ships on mars surface.
But what if the mission was a half payload delivery where man setup a system from the cargo and ships that they arrive in.
Ai indicates that
[center][size=150]Starship Block 3 – Fuel Remaining on Mars (50 t Payload)[/size][/center]
Scenario: Block 3 Starship is fully refueled in LEO (≈1200–1250 t propellant) and departs for Mars carrying 50 t of payload.
With a lighter payload than the “maxed out” case, Starship needs slightly less Δv from its tanks, so it arrives with a bit more residual propellant margin—but it still lands effectively “dry” from an operational standpoint.
[hr]
[size=120]Propellant Usage Breakdown (50 t Payload)[/size]
Trans-Mars Injection (TMI): ~850–900 t
Course Corrections: ~10–20 t
Mars EDL + Landing Burn: ~80–120 t
Total Used: ~940–1,040 t
Initial Load: ~1200–1250 t[hr]
[size=120]Estimated Remaining Propellant on Mars[/size]
Remaining = 1200–1250 t - (940–1040 t) Remaining ≈ 160–310 t (in main tanks, gross)However, this “remaining” is not clean, usable ascent propellant:
Main tanks: Largely reserved as performance margin, residuals, and non-usable slosh.
Header tanks: Provide the controlled landing propellant and are nearly empty after touchdown.
Practical, controllable post-landing propellant:
[size=120]Still only a few percent of total capacity, effectively negligible for ascent.[/size]The lighter payload improves margin and robustness, not the fundamental architecture: Starship is still intended to rely on ISRU for any departure from Mars.
[hr]
[size=120]Operational Conclusion (50 t Payload Case)[/size]
Starship lands with more margin than a heavier-payload mission, but still not enough for ascent.
Mission design still assumes full ISRU refueling (~1200 t CH₄/LOX) on Mars for return.
For base planning, you should continue to treat each landed Starship as operationally “empty”.
[center]Even with only 50 t of payload, Starship’s Mars architecture is still: arrive nearly dry, refuel on the surface.[/center]
Seems like something is off as a full payload is expected to be next to nothing but with less payload it should be quite a bit remaining.
Seems that AI gets confused....
Why “Less Payload” Doesn’t Automatically Mean “More Fuel Left on Mars”
1. The landing burn dominates the fuel budget — not the payload mass
On Mars, Starship performs:A long supersonic retro propulsive deceleration
A flip maneuver
A final landing burn
These burns require a minimum fixed amount of delta‑V, regardless of payload.
Even if you remove 50 tons of cargo, the landing sequence still costs almost the same amount of propellant.Payload mass changes the burn slightly, but not enough to leave a meaningful surplus.
Think of it like braking a car from 80 mph to 0 mph — removing passengers doesn’t change the braking distance much.
2. Starship uses header tanks for landing — and they are sized for safety, not efficiency
The landing fuel comes from:CH₄ header tank
LOX header tank
These tanks are:
Small
Fixed‑volume
Filled before EDL
Designed to guarantee a safe landing even in worst‑case conditions
If payload is lighter, the header tanks don’t magically shrink or adjust.
They still contain the same amount of fuel, and Starship still burns most of it to land safely.So the “extra” fuel isn’t in the main tanks — it’s in the header tanks, and it gets used anyway.
3. Mars atmosphere is thin — so payload mass barely affects drag
On Earth, a lighter vehicle slows down more easily.
On Mars, the atmosphere is so thin that drag is weak, so mass doesn’t change the deceleration profile much.Starship still needs nearly the same:
Heat shield performance
Retropropulsive braking
Landing thrust
Thus, fuel savings from reduced payload are tiny.
4. The landing burn must maintain a minimum thrust level
Raptor engines cannot throttle arbitrarily low.
Even if the ship is lighter:The engines must stay above minimum throttle
That means extra thrust
Which means extra fuel burned
This cancels out much of the theoretical savings from reduced mass.
5. Propellant gauging in low gravity is inaccurate
As we discussed earlier:Slosh
Low gravity
Thermal gradients
Pressure transients
All cause fuel readings to fluctuate, making it look like payload changes fuel remaining when it’s really just sensor noise.
The short version
Reducing payload does help a little, but Starship’s Mars landing fuel requirement is dominated by:Fixed landing maneuvers
Header tank sizing
Minimum engine throttle
Weak atmospheric drag
So the leftover fuel doesn’t scale with payload the way intuition suggests.
#4 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need » Yesterday 16:54:58
without bbcode formating
Objective
Estimate equipment types, mass, and power needed—delivered from Earth—to use Mars regolith to produce about 2,300,000 kg of stainless steel for building structures.
Production scale and material flow
Target steel:
Total stainless steel: 2,300,000 kg
Campaign assumption:
Operating duration: ~5 years
Steel per year: ~460,000 kg/year (~460 t/year)
Steel per operational day (≈350 days/year): ~1,300 kg/day
Regolith requirement (order-of-magnitude):
Effective iron-bearing fraction in processed regolith: ~15%
Overall recovery to usable iron: ~50–60%
Net iron yield from regolith: ~8–9% by mass
Regolith per kg of finished stainless (iron from regolith + imported alloying elements): ~7–8 kg/kg steel
So:
Total regolith processed: ~16,000,000–18,000,000 kg (16,000–18,000 t)
Per year: ~3,200–3,600 t/year
Per day: ~9–11 t/day
Energy and power (order-of-magnitude)
Primary steelmaking on Earth is roughly 20–35 MJ/kg of steel (including mining, reduction, melting). Mars will be less efficient initially, so assume:
Specific energy for Mars stainless steel: ~25–40 MJ/kg
For 2,300,000 kg of steel:
Total energy: ~58,000,000–92,000,000 MJ (≈5.8×10¹³–9.2×10¹³ J)
Spread over 5 years of operation (~1.6×10⁸ seconds):
Ideal average power: ~360–580 kW
With inefficiencies, downtime, and margin: design for roughly 2–3 MW continuous electrical, plus substantial thermal management capacity
Major equipment types, mass, and power
All masses are dry hardware estimates; real cargo planning would add ~20–30% for packaging, structure, and integration.
1. Regolith mining and hauling
Function: Excavate ~10 t/day of ore-bearing regolith and deliver it to the plant
Elements: 3–4 autonomous electric loaders/haulers, small dozer, maintenance shelter
Mass: ~40–60 t
Power (while operating): ~150–250 kW
2. Crushing and grinding
Function: Jaw crusher + mill to reduce regolith to fine powder
Mass: ~15–25 t
Power: ~200–300 kW
3. Beneficiation and separation
Function: Magnetic and/or density separation, dust handling, feed hoppers
Mass: ~25–40 t
Power: ~300–400 kW
4. Chemical reduction furnaces
Function: Reduce iron oxides to metallic iron (e.g., hydrogen or CO-based direct reduction, or carbothermal)
Hardware: One or two shaft/rotary furnaces, preheaters, gas recirculation, refractory linings
Mass: ~60–100 t
Power (electrical plus thermal equivalent): ~800–1,200 kW
5. Alloying, melting, and refining
Function: Electric arc or induction furnace to melt iron, add Cr/Ni/Mn, refine to stainless
Mass: ~30–50 t
Power: ~400–700 kW (high peak, lower average due to batch operation)
6. Casting, rolling, and forming
Function: Casting of ingots/billets, rolling mill for beams/plates, cutting and shaping
Mass: ~40–70 t
Power: ~300–500 kW
7. Process gases and consumables (ISRU)
Function: Produce H₂, CO, and O₂ from Martian resources (water electrolysis, Sabatier/RWGS, gas handling)
Mass: ~50–80 t
Power: ~400–600 kW
8. Power generation and storage
Two broad options:
Option A – Nuclear
Type: Modular fission reactors totaling ~3–4 MWe
Mass (reactors, radiators, shielding, power conditioning): ~150–250 t
Option B – Solar plus storage
Array size: ~25–35 MWp (to cover night, dust storms, and storage losses for a ~2–3 MW average load)
Mass (panels, structure, batteries/flywheels): ~300–500 t
9. Thermal management and radiators
Function: Reject waste heat from furnaces, power systems, and electronics
Mass: ~30–50 t
10. Control systems, robotics, spares, and infrastructure
Function: Control rooms, electronics, cabling, structural frames, assembly tools, inspection/maintenance robots, spare parts
Mass: ~50–80 t
Totals and cargo delivery from Earth
Process, mining, ISRU, and forming equipment:
Mining and hauling: 40–60 t
Crushing and grinding: 15–25 t
Beneficiation: 25–40 t
Reduction furnaces: 60–100 t
Alloying/melting: 30–50 t
Casting and forming: 40–70 t
ISRU gases plant: 50–80 t
Thermal management: 30–50 t
Control, robotics, spares, infrastructure: 50–80 t
Subtotal (process + support): roughly 340–555 t
Power system:
Nuclear option: ~150–250 t
Solar + storage option: ~300–500 t
So:
Total hardware mass (process + power + support): about 500–800 t (nuclear-heavy) up to 650–1,050 t (solar-heavy)
With packaging, structure, and margin (+20–30%): roughly 650–1,400 t delivered from Earth
If a single cargo vehicle can land ~100 t on Mars, you’re looking at on the order of:
About 7–14 dedicated cargo flights to deliver a full stainless-steel production complex capable of producing ~2.3 million kg of stainless steel over ~5 years.
#5 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need » Yesterday 16:52:19
Objective
Produce 2,300,000 kg of stainless steel on Mars from regolith, using equipment delivered from Earth, and estimate equipment mass and power needs.
High-level production chain
[]1. Regolith mining & hauling – dig and move ore-bearing regolith
[]2. Crushing & grinding – reduce to fine particles
[]3. Beneficiation – concentrate iron-bearing fraction
[]4. Chemical reduction – convert oxides to metallic iron
[]5. Alloying & melting – add Cr/Ni, refine to stainless
[]6. Casting & forming – ingots, beams, plates, structural members7. Power, gases & thermal control – keep everything running continuously
Throughput assumptions
[]Target steel mass: 2,300,000 kg
[]Campaign duration: ~5 years of operation
[]Steel per year: ~460,000 kg/year (~460 t/year)
[]Steel per day (operational): ~1,300 kg/day (assuming ~350 days/year uptime)
Regolith and ore requirements
Assume:
[]Effective Fe-bearing fraction in processed regolith: ~15%
[]Overall recovery to usable iron: ~50–60%
[]Net iron yield from regolith: ~8–9% by mass
[]Stainless steel composition: mostly Fe, with Cr/Ni/Mn partly imported from Earth (or from richer local ores later)
Approximate regolith mass needed per kg of stainless steel:
[]Regolith per kg steel: ~7–8 kg/kg steel (iron from regolith + imported alloying elements)
[]Total regolith for 2,300,000 kg steel: ~16,000,000–18,000,000 kg (16,000–18,000 t)
[]Regolith per year: ~3,200–3,600 t/year
[]Regolith per day: ~9–11 t/day
This is a modest daily tonnage by terrestrial mining standards, but on Mars it still demands robust, autonomous equipment.
Energy and power budget (order-of-magnitude)
Primary steelmaking on Earth typically consumes on the order of 20–35 MJ/kg of steel (mining + beneficiation + reduction + melting). Mars will be less efficient at first, so assume:
Specific energy for Mars stainless steel: ~25–40 MJ/kg steel (including overheads)
For 2,300,000 kg of steel:
[]Total energy: ~58,000,000–92,000,000 MJ
[]In joules: ~5.8×1013–9.2×1013 J
Spread over 5 years of operation:
[]Seconds in 5 years (approx): ~1.6×10^8 s
[]Average continuous power: ~360–580 kW (ideal)With inefficiencies, downtime, and margins: design for ~2–3 MW continuous electrical + substantial thermal handling
Equipment breakdown: mass and power (delivered from Earth)
All masses are dry hardware masses, not including packaging; add ~20–30% for shipping overhead when planning cargo.
[]1. Regolith mining & hauling system
[]Function: Excavate ~10 t/day of ore-bearing regolith, transport to plant
[]Elements: 3–4 autonomous electric loaders, small dozers, haulers, maintenance shelter
[]Mass (hardware): ~40–60 tPower (peak while operating): ~150–250 kW
[]2. Crushing & grinding
[]Function: Jaw crusher + ball/rod mill to reduce regolith to fine powder
[]Mass: ~15–25 t
[]Power: ~200–300 kW
[]3. Beneficiation & separation
[]Function: Magnetic separation, density separation, dust handling, feed hoppers
[]Mass: ~25–40 t
[]Power: ~300–400 kW
[]4. Chemical reduction furnaces
[]Function: Reduce iron oxides to metallic iron (e.g. hydrogen or CO-based direct reduction, or carbothermal)
[]Hardware: One or two shaft/rotary furnaces, preheaters, gas recirculation, refractory linings
[]Mass: ~60–100 tPower (electrical + thermal equivalent): ~800–1,200 kW
[]5. Alloying, melting & refining
[]Function: Electric arc or induction furnace to melt iron, add Cr/Ni/Mn, refine to stainless
[]Mass: ~30–50 t
[]Power: ~400–700 kW (high peak, lower average with batching)
[]6. Casting, rolling & forming
[]Function: Continuous or batch casting, rolling mill for beams/plates, cutting and shaping
[]Mass: ~40–70 t
[]Power: ~300–500 kW
[]7. Process gases & consumables production
[]Function: ISRU plant for H2, CO, O2 (electrolysis, Sabatier/Reverse Water Gas Shift), water handling
[]Mass: ~50–80 t
[]Power: ~400–600 kW
[]8. Power generation & storage
[]Option A – Nuclear:
[]Type: Modular fission reactors totaling ~3–4 MWe
[]Mass (reactors + radiators + shielding): ~150–250 t
[]Option B – Solar + storage (harder on Mars):
[]Array size: ~25–35 MWp (to cover night, dust, and storage losses)
Mass (panels, structure, batteries/flywheels): ~300–500 t
[]9. Thermal management & radiators
[]Function: Reject waste heat from furnaces, power systems, electronics
Mass: ~30–50 t
[]10. Control, robotics, spares & infrastructure
[]Function: Control rooms, electronics, cabling, structural frames, assembly tools, spare parts, inspection robots
Mass: ~50–80 t
Total equipment mass (hardware only)
[]Process + mining + ISRU + forming: ~310–475 t
[]Power system (nuclear or solar): ~150–500 t (depending on architecture)
[]Thermal + control + spares: ~80–130 t
[]Subtotal hardware: ~540–1,100 tWith packaging, launch adapters, margins (+20–30%): ~650–1,400 t to be delivered from Earth
You can tune this range depending on how aggressive you are with:
[]Automation level: more robots vs. more human labor
[]Power choice: nuclear (lower mass, higher complexity) vs. solar (higher mass, simpler tech)Throughput: longer campaign (lower power) vs. shorter campaign (higher power)
Cargo delivery concept (Earth → Mars)
Assuming a heavy cargo architecture (e.g. multiple large cargo landers or Starship-class vehicles):
[]Total delivered mass for steelmaking complex: ~650–1,400 t
[]Per-cargo-ship mass (if ~100 t landed per flight): ~7–14 cargo flights
[]Staging:[]Wave 1: Power, basic ISRU, initial mining & crushing (~200–300 t)
[]Wave 2: Full beneficiation, reduction furnaces, first melting/casting line (~250–400 t)
[]Wave 3: Expanded rolling/forming, additional power, redundancy, spares (~200–400 t)
Direct answer to your question
For producing ~2,300,000 kg of stainless steel from Mars regolith:
[]Equipment types needed:
[]Mining & hauling robots
[]Crushing & grinding plant
[]Beneficiation/separation line
[]Reduction furnaces
[]Alloying/melting furnaces
[]Casting & rolling/forming line
[]ISRU plant for H2/CO/O2
[]Power generation & storage
[]Thermal management & radiatorsControl, robotics, spares, structural frames
[]Mass per type (typical ranges):
[]Mining & hauling: ~40–60 t
[]Crushing & grinding: ~15–25 t
[]Beneficiation: ~25–40 t
[]Reduction furnaces: ~60–100 t
[]Alloying/melting: ~30–50 t
[]Casting & forming: ~40–70 t
[]ISRU gases plant: ~50–80 t
[]Power system: ~150–500 t
[]Thermal management: ~30–50 tControl & spares: ~50–80 t
[]Power needs:
[]Average continuous process power: ~2–3 MWe (including mining, ISRU, furnaces, forming)
[]Peak process power (melts, startup): up to ~4–5 MWe
[]Total installed generation (with margin): ~3–6 MWe equivalent
#7 Re: Human missions » Mars Insitu Fuels made from atmosphere, regolith, water » 2026-02-03 19:24:34
Found a document for the topic
An Introduction to Mars ISPP Technologies
#8 Re: Meta New Mars » kbd512 Postings » 2026-02-03 17:20:08
Data inputted told of location on mars and source of the stainless from the starships 304L being re-fired in smelting and formed to the tubing dimensions. The equations presented give no temperature shift component to the strength.
If the tanks are inside the 9m shell and they are said to be 8.8 m inside then the walls either have a 10 cm spacer rib or the stainless is thicker than 4mm
#9 Re: Meta New Mars » Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day » 2026-02-03 15:37:26
Trying to do without prefilling of numbers being generated making use of excel and auto fill to do my best
starting post is carried from the previous days 2-02-2026 last number for the day 237811 - last post 237831
2-3-26 postings
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
What collections of people think people should be property?
What collections of people think people should be property?
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.
Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day
Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
Peter Zeihan again: and also other thinkers:
#10 Re: Meta New Mars » kbd512 Postings » 2026-02-03 15:35:37
Between using Googles AI and Bings copilot The tubing needs to have a wall thickness of 8 mm or for plate a thickness of 15mm for what we are trying to do. The large squarish area needs to even be thicker since the inflatable doe not push against the total surface.
#11 Re: Meta New Mars » kbd512 Postings » 2026-02-02 18:32:27
repurposing starship has a note of issues
#12 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Project Designing for Mars » 2026-02-02 18:31:03
dummy page to put in more content
#13 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Project Designing for Mars » 2026-02-02 18:30:04
Table 1: Individual Functional Spaces and Volumes
FUNCTION VOLUME - 4 CREW (m3) VOLUME - 6 CREW (m3)
Exercise
Aerobic Exercise 3.38 6.76
Aerobic Exercise 4.91 9.82
Resistive Exercise 3.92 7.84
Bone Loading 4.91 9.82
Sensorimotor Conditioning 4.91 9.82Group Socialization & Recreation
Athletic Games 18.2 27.3
Personal Recreation 1.2 1.2
Tabletop games & artistic/creative recreation 10.09 15.14
Video/movie viewing 4.8 7.2
Window viewing 4.62 4.62Human Waste Collection
Hand cleaning 2.69 5.38
Liquid waste collection 2.36 4.72
Solid waste collection 2.36 4.72Hygiene
Changing Volume 2.18 4.36
Facial cleaning 2.69 5.38
Finger/toenail clipping 2.34 4.68
Full body cleaning 4.34 8.68
Hair styling/grooming 2.34 4.68
Hand cleaning 2.69 5.38
Oral hygiene 2.34 4.68
Physical work surface access 4.35 8.7
Viewing appearance 1.8 3.6
Shaving 2.34 4.68
Skin care 2.34 4.68Logistics
Physical work surface access 4.35 4.35
Small item containment 1.2 1.2
Temporary stowage 6 6Maintenance & Repair
Computer display and control interface 1.7 3.4
Equipment Diagnostics 4.35 4.35
Physical work surface access 4.35 4.35
Soft goods fabrication 2.69 2.69EVA Support
Suit Component Testing 4.82 4.82
Computer Display and Control Interface 1.7 1.7
Video Communication 1.7 1.7
Audio Communication 1.7 1.7
Meal Consumption Full Crew Dining 10.09 15.14Meal Preparation
Food Item Sorting 3.3 3.3
Food Preparation 4.35 4.35
Utensil and food equipment hygiene 3.3 3.3Medical Operations
Advanced Medical Care 5.8 5.8
Ambulatory care 1.7 1.7
Basic Medical Care 5.8 5.8
Computer data entry / manipulation 1.2 1.2
Dental care 5.8 5.8
Private telemedicine 1.2 1.2
Two person meetings 3.4 3.4Mission Planning
Command and control interface 3.42 3.42
Physical work surface access 10.09 15.14
Team Meetings 4.8 7.2
Mission Training 18.2 27.3Private Habitation
Changing clothes 8.72 13.08
Meditation 4.8 7.2
Non-sleep rest/relaxation in private quarters 4.8 7.2
Physical work surface access 17.4 26.1
Single person private work, entertainment, and comm. 4.8 7.2
Sleep accommodation 10.76 16.14
Stretching 13.96 20.94
Two person meetings 13.6 20.4
Viewing appearance in private quarters 7.2 10.8Spacecraft Monitoring and Commanding
Command and Control 3.42 3.42
Teleoperation and Crew Communication 1.7 1.7Waste Management
Trash Containment 2.55 2.55
Trash Packing for Disposal | 3.76 | 3.76
#14 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Project Designing for Mars » 2026-02-02 18:21:36
Nasa document text Table 17: Comparison of Minimum Habitable Volumes and Case Study Habitable Volumes
Functional Space | Minimum Volume (m3) | MTH Volume (m3)
Exercise-1 (Cycle Ergometer) | 3.38 | 3.50
Exercise-2 (Treadmill) | 6.12 | 6.20
Exercise-3 (Resistive Device) | 3.92 | 4.29
Group Social-1 (Open Area) / Mission Planning-3 (Training) | 18.20 | 21.21
Group Social-2 (Table) / Meal Consumption (Table) / Mission Planning-2 (Table) 10.09 10.48
Human Waste-1 (Waste Collection) 2.36 2.36
Human Waste-2 (Cleansing) / Hygiene-1 (Cleansing) 4.35 4.35
Logistics-2 (Temporary Stowage) 6.00 6.18
Maintenance-1 (Computer) / EVA-2 (EVA Computer/Data) 3.40 3.55
Maintenance-2 (Work Surface) / Logistics-1 (Work Surface) / EVA-1 (Suit Testing) 4.82 5.11
Meal Preparation-1 (Food Prep) 4.35 4.35
Meal Preparation-2 (Work Surface) 3.30 3.30
Medical-1 (Computer) 1.20 1.65
Medical-3 (Medical Care) 5.80 6.40
Mission Planning-2 (Computer/Command) / Spacecraft Monitoring 3.42 3.55
Private Habitation-1 (Work Surface) / Medical-2 (Ambulatory Care) 17.40 17.40
Private Habitation-2 (Sleep & Relaxation) / Hygiene-2 (Non-Cleansing) 13.96 14.00
Waste Management 3.76 4.43
Logistics-3 (Storage Access) - 2.14
Utilization-1 (Scientific Research) - 5.22
Passageway to Hygiene - 3.84
Passageway to Second Deck - 10.25
Passageway to Third Deck / Egress/Ingress for Airlock - 3.43
Total NHV 115.83 147.19
NHV per Crewmember | 28.96 | 36.80
#15 Re: Meta New Mars » Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day » 2026-02-02 15:46:03
Trying to do without prefilling of numbers being generated making use of excel and auto fill to do my best
starting post is carried from the previous days 2-01-2026 last number for the day 237791 - last post 237810
2-2-26 postings
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
Bogs and Bog, Floating Island Technology, and Roller Solar.
WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need
Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day
Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day
Data Centers (Including Off World)
WIKI Project Designing for Mars
WIKI Project Designing for Mars
WIKI Project Designing for Mars
#16 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need » 2026-02-02 15:33:32
Requiring 10 starships of stainless steel to make the exoskeleton with a lot os tools to reform and repurpose it is a task that seems to make for failure.
37,050m of 30mm OD / 2mm wall thickness 304L tubing per Starship primary structure. 10 Starships provide 370,500m of tubing to work with.
It seems that just 1 m over our structure can not be supported by this tubing.
Based on structural requirements to support 2 meters of Martian regolith, 304L stainless steel would require significant thickness or structural reinforcement (such as corrugation or supporting arches) rather than a simple flat sheet.
Here is the breakdown based on structural analysis for Martian conditions: 1. Load Calculation (The Challenge) Regolith Depth: 2 meters (sufficient for radiation shielding).
Regolith Density: Approximately \(1000\text{--}1500\text{\ kg/m}^{3}\) (loose to packed).
Martian Gravity: \(0.38\text{\ g}\).Load per \(m^{2}\): 2 meters of regolith creates a vertical load of roughly \(7.6\text{--}11.4\text{\ kN/m}^{2}\) (approx. \(1500\text{\ kg}\times 2\text{\ m}\times 0.38\text{\ g}\approx 11.4\text{\ kPa}\)).
Internal Pressure: The habitat must also maintain internal air pressure (approx. \(10\text{--}100\text{\ kPa}\)), which often acts in favor of the structure by lifting the load, but requires the steel to act as a pressure vessel.
2. Thickness and Span for 304L Stainless Steel For a flat roof, 304L stainless steel would be prohibitive in thickness. Therefore, structural forms are required.
Thin Sheet (0.5 mm - 1 mm): Cannot span any meaningful distance; it would buckle under 2 meters of regolith.
Corrugated 304L Sheets (1.5 mm - 3 mm): If using a 2-3 inch deep corrugated profile, a thickness of \(1.5\text{\ mm}\) (\(16\text{\ gauge}\)) to \(3\text{\ mm}\) (\(1/8\text{\ inch}\)) might support the load over short spans of \(1\text{--}2\text{\ meters}\) between supports.
Structural Plate (\(6\text{\ mm}\) - \(12\text{\ mm}\)+): To span larger distances (e.g., \(3\text{--}5\text{\ meters}\)) without intermediate supports, \(304\text{L}\) plates of at least \(6\text{\ mm}\) to \(12\text{\ mm}\) (\(1/4\text{\ inch}\) to \(1/2\text{\ inch}\)) would likely be required to prevent sagging and failure under 2 meters of regolith.
Summary Recommendation To support 2 meters of regolith over a modest span of 3-4 meters, a \(6\text{\ mm}\) (\(1/4\text{\ inch}\)) thick 304L steel plate, properly stiffened or arched, is a reasonable starting engineering estimate. If using corrugated sheets, thicknesses as low as \(2\text{--}3\text{\ mm}\) could be used if closely supported
The other thing is the double toru constructed with 2 layers is insufficient for the 0.5 bar internal pressure. The stuff Nasa and Bigelow created is using 13 to 15 layers which means we are in need of 6 to 8 layers to get the same performance.
The internal of the inflatable needs for support structures that are not so far planned.
Estimated time to build a starship less engine is about 8 months plus so to think it will take any less to pull them apart and store until we need the pieces is also not in our favor.
Also landing them in a cluster means being 500 m to 1,000 meters from each other to limit debris damage push is the site has to much ice the units may not land stably possibly falling.
since we need 4 cargo ships to land and make fuel this could be a problem.
Starship Cargo Fuel Tank Dimensions (Metric)
Starship uses two main tanks inside its 9m‑diameter hull:
LOX tank (upper)
CH₄ tank (lower)
Both tanks share the same 9m outer diameter, with domed bulkheads separating them.
1. Outer Tank Diameter
9.0m external diameter (hull diameter)
Internal tank diameter is slightly less (~8.8m) due to wall thickness.
2. LOX Main Tank (Liquid Oxygen)
Approximate Dimensions
Diameter: ~8.8m internal
Height: ~20–22m (varies by configuration)
Volume: ~1,200–1,300m³ (estimated from total propellant volume split)
Notes
LOX tank occupies the upper half of Starship.
Uses a common dome to separate it from the CH₄ tank.
3. CH₄ Main Tank (Liquid Methane)
Approximate Dimensions
Diameter: ~8.8m internal
Height: ~12–14m
Volume: ~700–800m³
Notes
Located in the lower section of Starship.
Slightly smaller than the LOX tank because methane is less dense.
4. Header Tanks (Landing Tanks)
SpaceX has published header tank dimensions.
LOX Header Tank
Diameter: 3.14m
Internal Volume: 18.67m³
CH₄ Header Tank
Diameter: 3.14m
Internal Volume: 16.21m³
These are small spherical/ellipsoidal tanks used for landing burns.
5. Total Propellant Capacity (for context)
~1,200t LOX + ~240t CH₄ (varies by variant)
Total propellant volume ~1,900–2,000m³ (derived from density and mass)
Summary Table
Tank Diameter (m) Height (m) Volume (m³) Notes
Main LOX Tank ~8.8 ~20–22 ~1,200–1,300 Upper tank
Main CH₄ Tank ~8.8 ~12–14 ~700–800 Lower tank
LOX Header Tank 3.14 — 18.67 Published spec
CH₄ Header Tank 3.14 — 16.21 Published spec
#17 Re: Meta New Mars » Housekeeping » 2026-02-01 20:05:03
crater image has been fixed
Also removed Quonset hut tent from the posting removing structural confusion
#18 Re: Meta New Mars » Housekeeping » 2026-02-01 19:16:22
Posts created by the topic first post or any other notable members get churned under by our forums software as a part of database management in the MYSQL. The way to look for topics is now via our Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day, looking for bookmarks, or hash tags that you started, plus we have Posted | New | Active, memory of member profile check for any post that they have made. Keyword for our site can only do so much but then again we have google advance which looks at just the our website only.
All members are equal when it comes to making a post, the reason is for MOD's or Admins are to ensure we have no bad operators within them. Posing question in topic is what should be done so as to get all members that have knowledge to respond and to keep information within discussions and not privately scattered all over the place.
I am sorry that you took it personally as that was not the intent.
#19 Re: Human missions » Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo. » 2026-02-01 15:04:29
NASA delays Artemis mission to moon due to cold weather
Bracing for a weekend cold snap in Florida, NASA delayed a dress rehearsal fueling test for its Artemis II moon rocket, moving it from Saturday to Monday, and pushed the long-awaited launch back at least two days to no earlier than 11:20 p.m. EST on Feb. 8.
At the same time, NASA is gearing up to launch a fresh crew to the International Space Station to replace the four Crew 11 fliers who cut their mission short and returned to Earth on Jan. 15 due to a medical issue with an unidentified crew member.
Crew 12, launching atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, will be ready to blast off as early as Feb. 11. But if the Artemis II mission gets off on Feb. 8 as NASA hopes, Crew 12 commander Jessica Meir, pilot Jack Hathaway, European Space Agency astronaut Sophie Adenot and cosmonaut Andrey Fedaev will stand down until after the Artemis II crew returns to Earth. In that scenario, Crew 12 would launch around Feb. 19.
If Artemis II takes off on Feb. 10 or 11, the only other opportunities left in the February launch period, then Crew 12 could take off 11 days later. If Artemis II runs into major problems and slips to the next launch period in March, Crew 12 could launch as early as Feb. 13, depending on when the moon mission is called off.
But there are no scenarios where Artemis II and Crew 12 would be in space at the same time unless there's an emergency aboard the space station that requires a quick launch for Meir and her crewmates. Otherwise, the moon mission has priority.
The long-awaited Artemis II mission will use NASA's huge Space Launch System rocket to boost three NASA astronauts and a Canadian crewmate on a trip around the moon and back, the first such flight since the final Apollo mission 54 years ago. The upcoming mission will set the stage for another crew to attempt a landing near the moon's south pole in 2028.
Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen had planned to blast off next Friday, assuming a leak-free fueling test Saturday.
But with the test delay and the time needed for NASA to analyze the results, the agency opted to give up launch opportunities on Feb. 6 and 7. That leaves just three opportunities in the February launch period: Feb. 8, 10 and 11. If the rocket is not off the ground by Feb. 11, the flight will slip to early March.
The "wet dress" rehearsal countdown now will start at 8 p.m. EST Saturday. Fueling will begin around 11 a.m. Monday, leading to the opening of a simulated launch window at 9 p.m. that night.
Engineers plan to load the Space Launch System rocket with more than 750,000 gallons of supercold hydrogen and liquid oxygen to work through loading procedures and to make sure the rocket's tanks, valves, propellant plumbing and umbilicals attached to the side of the booster are leak-free and good to go.
Launch Director Charlie Blackwell-Thompson and her team plan to work through a variety of recycle options to rehearse procedures for dealing with unexpected problems.
The Artemis II SLS will be making the program's second flight. Before its unpiloted maiden flight in 2022, multiple fueling tests were required to address a variety of propellant leaks and other issues. The Artemis II rocket features upgrades and improvements to eliminate those issues.
"Artemis I was the test flight, and we learned a lot during that campaign, getting to launch," said Blackwell-Thompson. "And the things that we learned relative to how to go load this vehicle, how to load LOX (liquid oxygen), how to load hydrogen, have all been rolled into the way in which we intend to load the Artemis II vehicle.
#20 Re: Human missions » Starship Lunar Lander and landing legs » 2026-02-01 14:51:03
Lunar Starship was never meant to come home to Earth, SpaceX admits
SpaceX’s lunar Starship was never designed to blaze back through Earth’s atmosphere in a shower of plasma. Instead, the company has quietly positioned its Human Landing System as a one‑way ferry that lives and dies in cislunar space, while NASA’s Orion capsule handles the brutal trip home. That architectural choice, long embedded in Artemis planning documents, is only now breaking through to a wider public that assumed every Starship would eventually come back to Earth.
Framed correctly, this is less a retreat from reusability than a bet on specialization. By stripping out the heavy heat shield and recovery hardware, SpaceX can turn its lunar variant into a tall, fuel‑hungry elevator between orbit and the Moon, while the rest of the Artemis stack focuses on launch and reentry. The tradeoffs behind that decision reveal how NASA and SpaceX are trying to thread the needle between ambition, schedule pressure, and basic physics.
Artemis needs a lunar shuttle, not a return capsule
NASA’s Artemis architecture was built around the idea that no single vehicle would do everything, and that includes the trip home. The agency’s own outline for Artemis III makes clear that astronauts will launch on the Space Launch System, ride in Orion to lunar orbit, then transfer into a separate lander for the descent and ascent. The Artemis program description spells out that SLS and Orion are the pieces designed for deep‑space transit and Earth reentry, while the lander is a dedicated vehicle for the last leg between orbit and the Moon’s surface.That division of labor is why NASA refers to SpaceX’s vehicle as the Starship Human Landing System, or HLS, rather than simply Starship. Agency material on the Initial Human Landing concepts shows a tall, stripped‑down lander on the Moon, with Orion waiting in lunar orbit as the ride home. In other words, the mission design assumes from the start that the lunar Starship is a shuttle between the Moon and orbit, not a capsule that ever sees Earth’s atmosphere.
Inside the one‑way Starship design
SpaceX’s own technical descriptions underline that the lunar lander is a specialized branch of the broader Starship family. A detailed overview of Starship‑HLS notes that the Human Landing System is derived from Starship but modified for operation as a lunar lander, and explicitly states that this configuration is not designed to return to Earth. That is not a late‑breaking compromise, it is a core assumption baked into the hardware, from the missing heat shield to the absence of aerodynamic control surfaces needed for atmospheric entry.The logic behind that choice has even filtered into public discussion among enthusiasts and engineers. In one widely shared explanation, Forrest and Townsend tell fellow fans that engineers “dont’ plan on ont he lunar starship to return to earth, no heatshield, save on the cerami,” while David Cluett promises to explain the trade in layman’s terms. The point is simple: every kilogram not spent on ceramic tiles and reentry systems can be spent on propellant, cargo, or life support for the lunar mission itself.
Why Orion still matters in a Starship era
The decision to keep the lunar Starship in space also explains why Orion remains central to NASA’s plans, despite Starship’s headline‑grabbing capabilities. A technical discussion of whether the lander could replace Orion, framed as Can Starship Lunar return to Earth orbit so Orion is not needed anymore, points back to the reality that Orion on SLS is planned to handle the high‑energy return and splashdown. The Orion capsule is built around a robust heat shield and abort systems that the lunar Starship variant simply does not carry.Programmatically, that means Artemis is locked into a choreography where SLS, Orion, and the lander are all indispensable. The SLS missions listed for Artemis I, Artemis II, and beyond show a steady cadence of Orion flights, while separate documentation describes how the Starship Human Landing will be instrumental in ferrying crews from lunar orbit to the surface and back. That is why, even in a Starship era, Orion’s role as the Earth‑return vehicle is not a redundancy but a structural pillar of the mission design.
A “simplified” mission profile, still complex in practice
As schedule pressure mounts, SpaceX has been working with NASA on what it calls a simplified mission architecture for the lunar lander, but that streamlining does not include bringing the vehicle home. Company representatives have described to NASA a Starship for NASA approach that reduces the number of on‑orbit refueling events and mission steps while still delivering astronauts to the lunar surface. A separate account of that simplified approach notes that the company is defending the viability of its lander even as it trims complexity to hit key milestones.Critics inside the space community have questioned whether those changes are enough. At a high‑profile event, former NASA leaders Charlie Bolden and Jim Bridenstine expressed skepticism that the current Starship schedule could deliver on time, even with a leaner mission design. Yet SpaceX has publicly stood behind its timeline, with one detailed feature on its lunar plans, titled around Fly Me to the Moon, stressing that, unlike Apollo, Unlike Apollo, Artemis III will rely on a multi‑vehicle choreography that includes several crucial milestones in 2025.
Refueling, timelines, and the politics of delay
Behind the scenes, the biggest technical swing remains in‑space refueling, which is essential if a non‑returning lander is going to haul enough propellant to and from the Moon. SpaceX’s official updates describe how the next major flight milestones tied specifically to HLS will be a long‑duration flight test and an in‑space propellant transfer in Earth orbit. Without those capabilities, the one‑way lunar Starship would struggle to carry the fuel it needs for multiple sorties between lunar orbit and the surface.That technical risk feeds directly into political anxiety. In one public exchange, Rob Jacobs But the points out that the many Falcon 9 flights are irrelevant to NASA’s immediate problem, because what the agency needs is HLS, which is a special version of Starship. That concern has grown loud enough that NASA has signaled it may consider new proposals from other top space companies to get America back to the Moon if delays mount, a reminder that the lunar Starship’s one‑way design does not insulate it from competition.
#21 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Volcanic Holocaust - Monster Eruption Overdue. » 2026-02-01 14:47:41
A Chicago-sized bulge has appeared near Yellowstone’s volcano — and scientists say it’s growing
Yellowstone National Park is a must-visit site for its geothermal features. From hot springs to geysers, the place is embellished with serene views at every corner. Beneath the park's landscape lies a volcano that hasn't erupted in more than 600,000 years. But recently, experts observed a one-inch-high bulge from underneath, prompting speculations of an eruption. The slight rise in ground along Yellowstone's north rim is as wide as the city of Chicago.
Mike Poland, scientist-in-charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, spoke to Cowboy State Daily about what he and his fellow scientists observed at the site. “It’s an area over 19 miles across, give or take a few miles,” he said, adding, “Saying the uplift is the size of Chicago makes it sound incredibly grandiose, but I think it’s pretty stunning even if it’s not particularly unusual."
Does the wide bulge indicate that an eruption is on the horizon? Experts have slashed the speculations without any fluff. “That doesn't mean that the volcano is about to erupt. It’s Yellowstone being Yellowstone," Poland said. The reply makes perfect sense, given that the ground uplift has happened a few times before. Under the outlet's Facebook post, people reacted similarly to the news, not making too much of a big deal out of the development. "Is it time for the annual Yellowstone is gonna erupt stories again?" one person wrote. "A whole inch, huh? Wowsers," another wrote, sarcastically. "Not a bad thing. Upheavals in Yellowstone happen all the time," a third added. The slight movement of the surface above the dormant volcano of Yellowstone, a deformation known as the Norris Uplift Anomaly, occurred once between 1996 and 2000 near Norris Geyser Basin. The instance repeated in 2004 and then again in 2020.
Thanks to modern technology, scientists can get real-time data on the movements of the ground along Yellowstone's north rim and other areas of the park. The data has enabled experts to curate a map showing the uplift or "bulge" in the middle of Yellowstone. “It's a measure of how advanced our monitoring networks have gotten, and their sensitivity in detecting these small changes. That’s the story of the year for me,” Poland noted. The expert compared the bulge to a balloon blowing up in the subterranean and is quite insignificant in size to be observed with the naked eye. However, advanced technology has allowed scientists to observe these slight upheavals quite accurately. Poland revealed that the experts have been observing movements through radar maps and satellites.
“We've got 17 GPS stations in Yellowstone, and many more in the surrounding area, and they could pinpoint exactly when this uplift started," he revealed. But if Yellowstone's volcano shows no sign of eruption, then what does the bulge indicate? Experts believe that the activities within the magma chamber of the volcano are the most probable explanation behind the sudden yet subtle ground uplift. “The most likely explanation is that it's the accumulation and withdrawal of magma at a depth of nine miles,” Poland explained. The movement is nothing to be worried about and will certainly not result in an eruption. Scientists believe that the bulge would be much larger if the magmatic system were preparing to erupt anytime soon.
#22 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Google Meet Collaboration - Meetings Plus Followup Discussion » 2026-02-01 14:32:32
Are we on for discussion of what we know?
Things to talk about is Korolev location landing cycles and what they are to do.
Initial is Insitu propellant plant which is cargo ships in quantities maybe due to what is shipped for mass is 2 all the way to 6 ships the cycle before men can go.
First crew out is exploratory probably 20 crew split between 2 crewed starships and setting up shop for future construction utilizing all spare cargo mass to cut the quantity for the future asset required with compliment of 4 cargo..
second mission is more science with a larger crew of possibly 50 or more across a pair of crewed starship with compliment of 4 cargo.
#23 Re: Meta New Mars » kbd512 Postings » 2026-02-01 11:50:56
Another view of the Korolev
#24 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Project Designing for Mars » 2026-02-01 11:49:51
Another view of the Korolev
#25 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » Ring Habitat on Mars Doughnut Torus » 2026-02-01 11:38:32
The Korolev Crater on Mars, located in the northern lowlands at 73°N latitude and 165°E longitude, features a remarkably smooth, flat, and dome-shaped surface in its central region. This topographically uniform area is a 1.8-kilometer-thick, 60-kilometer-wide mound of permanent water ice.
Topographic Features and Data:
Smooth Center: The central, ice-filled floor of the 82-km-wide crater acts as a natural "cold trap," creating a flat, bright, and smooth surface.
Elevation: The crater floor lies approximately 2 kilometers below its rim.
Topographic Profile: Color-coded topographic views (such as those from the High Resolution Stereo Camera on Mars Express) show the central ice mound as a relatively high-altitude, flat deposit, whereas the surrounding area is characterized by the rugged, steep crater walls.
Composition: The flat surface is not snow, but a massive deposit of water ice, with a volume of approximately 2,200 cubic kilometers, that remains stable year-round.
The smooth, ice-filled depression is surrounded by the dune fields of Olympia Undae, further distinguishing the flatness of the crater floor from the surrounding terrain
AI seems to not understand being not landing inside the crater on the ice.
Trying to land outside of the crater but on flat smooth surface:
Landing outside the immediate topographical map area of the Korolev Crater on Mars (located at 73°N, 165°E in the northern lowlands) allows for access to smooth, flat terrain within the broader Planum Boreum or the nearby Olympia Undae region. These areas are characterized by extensive, low-lying northern plains.
Recommended Smooth/Flat Areas Outside Korolev Crater
Planum Boreum (Northern Polar Plain): The Korolev Crater is located on this vast, relatively flat expanse. The plains surrounding the 2-kilometer-high crater rim offer extensive flat, solid ground suited for landing.
Olympia Undae: Located just north/northeast of Korolev, this dune field wraps around part of the north polar cap. While it is a dune field, the boundary regions between the plains and the dunes offer relatively smooth, accessible terrain.
Northern Lowlands (General): The region surrounding Korolev is part of the northern lowlands, which are characterized as being much smoother and lower in elevation than the southern hemisphere. These areas are often favored for landing due to having fewer obstacles and lower topographical variation.
Key Topographical Features in the Area
Rim Elevation: The rim of Korolev Crater stands approximately 2 kilometers above the surrounding Plains.
Surface Composition: The terrain immediately surrounding the crater is typical of the northern high-latitude plains, often covered in seasonal frost and dust.
Accessibility: The region is considered a "cold trap" and is a primary target for finding water-ice and studying polar climate history.
The surrounding northern plain, specifically the area within the Mare Boreum quadrangle (specifically away from the crater rim), provides a flat, stable surface
