New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#251 Re: Meta New Mars » Housekeeping » 2026-02-09 15:36:04
Had done some research at work with copilot and then reentered the same question and got different outputs.
today at work printed for inputting
tonight with a different computer
That is not good if its going to use persistent information from other questioning.
That leads to incomplete or incorrect responses....
It is tracking the machines individual usages as a cache of past response and has no ability to give the same response as its reusing that previous conversations which are different on each machine.
Not being able to login on a government computer means scanning all documents and putting them in as images for the work that I have done so far.
#252 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need » 2026-02-09 15:30:21
Here is the page printed and rescanned to display the issue
#253 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need » 2026-02-09 15:22:28
Be careful as copilot is responding to other content that is not in the current questions being posed.
Mars is going to need heavy lift equipment and movers to allow for starship reuse and repurposing
Absolutely — and this is one of the most under‑discussed bottlenecks in early Mars operations. You can land all the Starships you want, but without heavy lift equipment, transporters, and ground-handling systems, you can’t:
Offload cargo efficiently
Move large components
Reuse Starships
Repurpose landed hulls
Build anything larger than a tent
Mars becomes a construction site without cranes.
Let’s break down what a realistic early‑era Mars heavy‑equipment ecosystem looks like, especially for your plan of reusing and repurposing multiple Starships.
? What Mars Actually Needs for Heavy Lift & Transport
1. A Mars‑Rated Crane System
You need something that can:
Lift 20–50 tons reliably
Operate in 0.38 g
Handle regolith dust
Survive thermal swings
Be repairable with limited tools
Two viable approaches
A. Modular Gantry Crane (Most Practical Early On)
Delivered in flat‑packed segments
Assembled around a landed Starship
Can straddle the hull and lift:
Cargo pallets
Engines
Header tanks
Hull sections for repurposing
Uses electric winches and counterweighted legs
Can be expanded as the base grows
This is the “bootstrap crane” that makes everything else possible.
B. Telescoping Electric Mobile Crane
Think of a Mars‑rated Liebherr, but smaller
10–20 ton lift capacity
Runs on swappable battery packs
Can tow cargo pallets
Useful for moving Starship sections once cut free
This becomes essential once you start cutting up cargo Starships for torus segments or structural ribs.
2. Starship Ground Handling Equipment
To reuse or repurpose Starships, you need:
A. Tail‑Jack Stabilizers
Prevent tipping during cargo unloading
Allow safe access to the engine bay
Required for any hull modification work
B. Hull Rotators
If you’re cutting a cargo Starship into habitat segments, you need a way to:
Rotate the hull horizontally
Support it during cutting
Move it into alignment with your torus or dome
A simple cradle system with electric actuators works.
3. Mars Surface Transporters
You need movers that can carry 10–40 ton loads across regolith.
A. Flatbed Electric Crawlers
Low ground pressure
Wide tracks
Autonomous or tele‑operated
Can carry:
ISRU units
Power systems
Habitat modules
Starship hull sections
B. Palletized Cargo Movers
Think of them as giant electric forklifts:
5–10 ton lift
Quick‑swap battery packs
Used for routine logistics
4. Excavation & Earthmoving Equipment
To bury habitats, build berms, or prepare landing pads:
Electric bulldozers
Regolith loaders
Bucket‑wheel excavators (for large ISRU operations)
Small robotic diggers for trenching
These are essential for your regolith shielding around the torus habitat.
? How This Fits Your Mars Base Plan
Given your design goals — a crewed Starship as the core, surrounded by a toroidal habitat made from repurposed cargo Starships — you need heavy equipment for:
1. Cutting cargo Starships into usable segments
Requires cranes, rotators, and stable work platforms.
2. Moving those segments into torus alignment
Requires crawlers and gantry cranes.
3. Lifting greenhouse frames, airlocks, and pressure hulls
Requires mobile cranes.
4. Burying the torus in regolith for radiation protection
Requires bulldozers and loaders.
5. Preparing landing pads for future Starships
Requires graders and compactors.
Without this machinery, the base can’t scale beyond a few tents and a single intact Starship.
? The Big Question for You
Do you want to design:
A complete heavy‑equipment suite for your Mars base
A phased deployment plan (what arrives on which Starship)
Specific machines (crane geometry, lift capacity, power requirements)
A full ground‑handling system for Starship reuse
Given your engineering style, we can go all the way down to exact dimensions, mass budgets, and operational logic.
Where do you want to take this next?
this is not the response I got earlier today as you are putting part discusion it a frame work that was not asked
Thanks for calling that out — and you’re right. You weren’t asking for a framework or a structured breakdown. You were making a direct, practical point: Mars will need heavy lift equipment and movers if Starship reuse and repurposing is going to be real.
Let’s reset and respond in the spirit you intended — straightforward, focused, and without wrapping it in a big architecture unless you ask for it.
Here’s the clean, direct version of what you were getting at
If Starships are going to be:
reused (refueled, relaunched)
repurposed (cut up, converted into habitats, tanks, structures)
then Mars absolutely needs heavy lift gear and surface movers. There’s no way around it.
At minimum, that means:
Something that can lift Starship cargo out of the bay
Something that can move multi‑ton components across regolith
Something that can handle a 50‑meter steel hull if you’re repurposing it
Something that can position modules for assembly
This is the unavoidable physical reality of building anything beyond a small outpost.
If you want, we can go in any direction from here
Keep it high‑level and conceptual
Go into specific machines
Talk about what SpaceX would realistically bring
Talk about what a Mars base would fabricate locally
Or just continue the conversation naturally without structure
You set the tone — I’ll match it.
#254 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need » 2026-02-09 15:14:01
This seems to me to be one of the deconstruction items that needs to go early to mars.
#255 Re: Human missions » space x going to the moon instead of mars » 2026-02-09 15:08:11
The reason is number of launches that can happen, with Musk build launch break it methods of rockets.
A mar cadence it does not achieve so he is left to do near orbit and not much else with current rockets development.
A fast launch is due to the need to refuel on orbiting starships and nothing else.
A chance to launch every 10 days whether it is destroyed or successful is the goal.
The numbers for block 3 only achieves a payload of 100mT and with the need for a full load of fuel being 1200mT to go to mars that way to many ships to send anything meaningful to mars.
#256 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » wiki Block 4 starship first mission propellant creation » 2026-02-09 14:59:45
Elon Musk Wants SpaceX to Reach Mars Using Carbon Capture. Here’s How It Could Work
A membrane Sabatier system for water recovery and rocket propellant production ABSTRACT
Gee he is reading our pages....
https://marspedia.org/Sabatier/Water_El … is_ProcessScientists create new way to convert methane into rocket fuel on Mars
No, You Don’t Have To Worry About Emissions From SpaceX’s Mars Rocket
Methane in the Form of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Will Power the Next Generation of Rockets
Elon Musk to Launch Carbon Capture Technology
yes another curtosocy of Mars society
Propellant production on MarsElon Musk announces SpaceX launching new program to use CO2 from atmosphere as rocket fuel Video
Break it! Elon Musk's SpaceX Insane Secret Starship Goals in 2026 Shocked NASA... Video
Here is the But A Closer Look at SpaceX's Mars Plan
#257 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » wiki Block 4 starship first mission propellant creation » 2026-02-09 14:58:52
Core electrolysis performance numbers
Modern PEM/alkaline electrolysers (system level, not just stack):
Electrical energy per kg H₂:
50–55 kWh/kg H₂ is a good practical design number (HHV‑based, including balance of plant).
Water consumption:
~9 kg of H₂O per 1 kg H₂ (stoichiometric, plus a bit of overhead).
So for quick back‑of‑the‑envelope:
1 kg H₂ → ~50 kWh and ~9 kg water
How much H₂ do you need for a Starship refuel?
Take a representative “full” Mars refuel case:
Methane load: ~240–330 t CH₄
Hydrogen is 25% of CH₄ by mass, so:
For 240 t CH₄ → ~60 t H₂
For 330 t CH₄ → ~82.5 t H₂
Use 60–80 t H₂ as a working range.
Electrical energy for electrolysis:
At 50 kWh/kg H₂:
60,000 kg H₂ → 3,000,000 kWh (3 GWh)
80,000 kg H₂ → 4,000,000 kWh (4 GWh)
Average power over a 2‑year production window
Assume you give yourself 2 years (~17,500 hours) to refuel one Starship:
3–4 GWh over 17,500 h → ~170–230 kW average
That’s just for electrolysis, not counting:
CO₂ capture/compression/liquefaction
Sabatier reactor operation
O₂ and CH₄ liquefaction
Base/hab loads
If your earlier CO₂ + liquefaction + Sabatier + cryo budget is already, say, 200–300 kW, then:
Total ISRU plant power ends up in the 400–600 kW class per Starship if you want a 2‑year turnaround.
Solar array sizing impact
On Mars, a common rough design number is:
Average usable power per m² of solar (fixed, with losses): ~100–150 W/m² peak → 30–50 W/m² average over the day/year after dust, angle, etc.
If you need ~200 kW just for electrolysis:
At 40 W/m² average →
200,000 W / 40 W/m² = 5,000 m²
So electrolysis alone wants on the order of 5,000 m² of panels.
If total ISRU (all processes) is ~500 kW average:
500,000 W / 40 W/m² ≈ 12,500 m²
Which is nicely in the same ballpark as the “tens of thousands of m²” figures you see in Mars ISRU studies.
Electrolyser equipment mass
Ground/industrial PEM systems today:
Specific mass: often 3–10 kg/kW at the system level (stack + BoP) for containerized units.
For a Mars‑hardened, more conservative design, it’s reasonable to budget:
10–20 kg/kW at the system level (radiators, redundancy, structure, etc.)
So for ~200 kW of electrolysis capacity:
At 10 kg/kW → ~2,000 kg (2 t)
At 20 kg/kW → ~4,000 kg (4 t)
That’s a few tons of hardware per Starship‑scale ISRU plant just for electrolysis.
[table]
[tr][th]Item[/th][th]Value[/th][th]Notes[/th][/tr]
[tr]
[td]Electrolysis energy[/td]
[td]50–55 kWh/kg H2[/td]
[td]System-level PEM/alkaline, incl. BoP[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Water per kg H2[/td]
[td]~9 kg H2O/kg H2[/td]
[td]Stoichiometric + small overhead[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]H2 needed for Starship[/td]
[td]60–80 t H2[/td]
[td]For 240–330 t CH4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Electrolysis energy total[/td]
[td]3–4 GWh[/td]
[td]Per full Starship refuel[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Avg power over 2 years[/td]
[td]170–230 kW[/td]
[td]Electrolysis only[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Solar area for electrolysis[/td]
[td]~5,000 m2[/td]
[td]Assuming ~40 W/m2 average[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Electrolyser specific mass[/td]
[td]10–20 kg/kW[/td]
[td]Mars-hardened estimate[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Electrolyser mass (200 kW)[/td]
[td]2–4 t[/td]
[td]Per Starship-scale ISRU plant[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]Turning CO2 into rocket fuel: Elon Musk’s radical plan to save Earth and reach Mars
Elon Musk wants to turn one of humanity’s biggest problems into the fuel for its boldest journey. Instead of treating carbon dioxide as waste, he is pushing SpaceX to capture CO2 and convert it into methane and oxygen, creating a closed loop that could both cut emissions and power rockets to Mars. It is an audacious attempt to align climate technology with interplanetary ambition, using the same chemistry to clean the sky above Earth and sustain life on the surface of Mars.
At the heart of this vision is a simple idea with complex engineering behind it: if rockets can run on propellant made from captured carbon, then every launch becomes a testbed for climate solutions as well as space exploration. The question I keep returning to is not whether the chemistry works, which scientists have already demonstrated, but whether Musk can scale it fast enough to matter for both Mars and the climate.
From Mars dream to carbon-neutral propellant loop
Elon Musk has been explicit for nearly two decades that his personal goal is to enable human exploration and settlement of Mars, and SpaceX has built its entire long term roadmap around that target. The company’s Mars colonization program is designed around Starship, a fully reusable vehicle that, according to Elon Musk, will eventually rely on propellant synthesized from carbon dioxide and water to create carbon neutral methane and oxygen. That same architecture, originally conceived for Mars, is now being reinterpreted as a way to turn atmospheric CO2 into fuel on Earth as well.In parallel, Musk has framed this fuel strategy as part of a broader climate agenda, arguing that rockets should not be exempt from decarbonization simply because they are a small slice of global emissions. Reporting on his push to use CO2 derived propellant notes that SpaceX is exploring technology to capture carbon from the air and convert it into methane, with the goal of supporting constantly affordable spacecraft capabilities that do not depend on fossil gas. That ambition is reflected in plans described in How SpaceX intends to convert atmospheric CO2 into rocket fuel, which would effectively turn the company’s Mars chemistry into a terrestrial climate tool.
The chemistry: Sabatier, electrolysis and “perfect fuel” methane
The technical backbone of Musk’s plan is a century old reaction that suddenly looks tailor made for Mars. The Sabatier process combines carbon dioxide with hydrogen to produce methane and water, and SpaceX has studied a Sabatier and water electrolysis system that would sit at the heart of a Mars base. In that scheme, water is split into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen reacts with Martian CO2 to form methane, and the oxygen is reserved for both oxidizer and life support, a flow described in detail in the Sabatier and Water Electrolysis Process schematic for a Single Starship. The same chemistry can be mirrored on Earth, with captured atmospheric CO2 feeding Sabatier reactors powered by renewable electricity.Scientists are now refining that basic recipe to make it more efficient and better suited to real missions. Researchers at the University of California have demonstrated a catalyst that bypasses the intermediate step of producing hydrogen gas and instead converts CO2 directly into methane with high selectivity, a method described in their work on making methane on Mars. Other teams of Scientists have created new ways to convert methane into rocket fuel on Mars, validating concepts that Elon Musk and other engineers at SpaceX had theorized, with early experiments on Scientists converting methane into usable propellant on Mars described as very promising.
Carbon capture as launchpad: from climate tech to Mars logistics
For Musk, carbon capture is not just a climate patch, it is a logistical necessity if Starship is ever going to operate at the cadence he imagines. Analyses of Starship’s fuel demand point out that using conventional natural gas could nearly triple United States gas consumption for spaceflight, which is why some energy analysts have focused on how captured CO2 could be turned into methane at scale. One assessment of Starship’s methane supply notes that projects like Occidental’s plan to strip carbon from the air at roughly 200 dollars per kilogram of captured CO2 could feed into synthetic fuel production, a link drawn in a study of You Don and Have To Worry About Emissions From Mars Rocket The. That same analysis argues that if the methane is made from captured carbon, the net emissions from launches can be dramatically reduced.Musk has also tried to push the broader carbon capture field forward by dangling money and missions. Tesla CEO Elon Musk launched a 100 million dollar prize for carbon removal and has signaled that SpaceX will be an early customer for any technology that can pull CO2 from the atmosphere cheaply enough to turn into fuel, a commitment described in coverage of his plan to Launch Carbon Capture and convert it to rocket propellant. In a separate announcement, The CEO took to social media to say that SpaceX is initiating a program to take CO2 from the atmosphere and transform it into rocket fuel, a pledge captured in video of The CEO outlining the initiative. I see that as a signal that the company wants to be both a buyer and a developer of carbon capture hardware, using its own launch pads as demonstration sites.
Building the Mars refueling network: from Gigabay to 2026 Starships
On the ground, SpaceX is racing to build the industrial backbone that would make this fuel loop more than a lab experiment. The company has begun site preparations for Gigabay in Florida, with construction targeted to finish so the facility can support a higher launch rate via rapid reusability, according to a recent update on the Site at Gigabay in Florida. That kind of high cadence launch complex is exactly where on site CO2 to methane plants could make economic sense, since every Starship flight would draw from the same synthetic fuel infrastructure.In parallel, SpaceX is still publicly targeting its first dedicated Mars missions with Starships around 2026, with company materials describing plans to send the first Starships to Mars to gather critical data on entry, descent and landing and to begin scouting for resources. The official Mars page notes that these Mars Starships will be the pathfinders for later cargo and crew flights. Independent analysts have suggested that 2026 could be a turning point for Starship, with commentary on its “insane” goals arguing that this is the year it finally sheds the experimental label and begins to look like an operational system, a view reflected in breakdowns of Starship milestones.
Inside the Mars fuel factory: Sabatier plants, membranes and return tickets
Once Starship actually lands on Mars, the fuel story becomes existential. Space settlement advocates have long argued that early missions to Mars, including Robert Zubrin’s Mars Direct architecture, will require propellant production on the surface to make a return trip viable, and they point out that Starship uses methane for fuel precisely because it can be made from Martian CO2 and ice. Detailed studies of Propellant production on Mars describe how Early missions under Mars Direct would deploy reactors and compressors before crews arrive, so that tanks of methane and oxygen are waiting when astronauts step off the lander. Aerospace engineers have warned that sending humans without stored propellant would be reckless, arguing that the basic premise is to have fuel made in situ and fed back into the loop, a point underscored in analyses that note, “But the alternative, sending humans without propellant ready, is unacceptable,” as captured in But the discussion of SpaceX’s Mars plan.
#258 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » wiki Block 4 starship first mission propellant creation » 2026-02-09 14:57:28
[table]
[tr][th]Category[/th][th]Water Required[/th][th]CO2 Required[/th][th]Notes[/th][/tr]
[tr]
[td]Baseline ISRU Requirement[/td]
[td]540–600 metric tons[/td]
[td]600–700 metric tons[/td]
[td]Standard load for producing ~240–330 t CH4 and ~960–1,000 t O2.[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Extended Range (Low–High)[/td]
[td]500–1,000+ metric tons[/td]
[td]540–900+ metric tons[/td]
[td]Depends on Sabatier efficiency and methane target mass.[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Alternative Architecture (NASA DRA6)[/td]
[td]~18 tons imported from Earth[/td]
[td]0 tons (if methane imported)[/td]
[td>Importing methane eliminates CO2 processing entirely.[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Sabatier Stoichiometric Ratio[/td]
[td]Water provides hydrogen for CH4[/td]
[td]2.8 tons CO2 per 1 ton CH4[/td]
[td]Producing 330 t CH4 requires over 900 t CO2.[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Propellant Output Supported[/td]
[td]Supports ~1,200–1,500 t propellant[/td]
[td]Same[/td]
[td]Full Mars–Earth return load.[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Physical Volume Equivalent[/td]
[td]~600 t = 9×9×9 m ice cube[/td]
[td]N/A[/td]
[td]Useful for visualizing mining scale.[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Production Time[/td]
[td]~2 years for full load[/td]
[td]~2 years[/td]
[td]Typical ISPP plant assumptions.[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Energy Requirement[/td]
[td]Electrolysis + Sabatier[/td]
[td]CO2 capture + Sabatier[/td]
[td]Requires ~30,000 m² solar array.[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]If Only O2 Produced on Mars[/td]
[td]0 tons[/td]
[td]0 tons[/td]
[td]Methane imported from Earth; drastically reduces ISRU load.[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Life Support Water (Non‑Propellant)[/td]
[td]~0.6 kg/h/person[/td]
[td]N/A[/td]
[td]Separate from propellant production.[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Atmospheric Source[/td]
[td]Subsurface ice mining[/td]
[td]Martian atmosphere (95% CO2)[/td]
[td]Atmosphere is thin, requiring high-volume intake.[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]Table: Mass Requirements to Fully Refuel a Starship on Mars (ISRU)
Category
Water Required
CO₂ Required
Notes
Baseline ISRU Requirement
540–600 metric tons
600–700 metric tons
Standard estimates for producing ~240–330 t CH₄ + ~960–1,000 t O₂.
Extended Range (Low–High)
500–1,000+ metric tons
540–900+ metric tons
Depends on efficiency, Sabatier conversion rate, and methane target mass.
Alternative Architecture (NASA DRA6)
~18 tons imported from Earth
0 tons (if methane imported)
Methane brought from Earth eliminates CO₂ processing.
Sabatier Stoichiometric Ratio
Water provides hydrogen; ~4 H₂ per CO₂ molecule
2.8 tons CO₂ per 1 ton CH₄
Producing 330 t CH₄ requires >900 t CO₂.
Propellant Output Supported
Enables production of ~1,200–1,500 t of propellant
Same
Full Mars–Earth return load.
Physical Volume Equivalent
~600 t = 9 m × 9 m × 9 m ice cube
N/A
Useful for visualizing mining scale.
Production Time
~2 years for full propellant load
~2 years
Based on typical ISPP plant assumptions.
Energy Requirement
Large-scale electrolysis + Sabatier
Large-scale CO₂ capture + Sabatier
Requires ~30,000 m² solar array (typical estimate).
If Only O₂ Produced on Mars
0 tons (no methane production)
0 tons
Methane imported from Earth; drastically reduces ISRU load.
Life Support Water (Non‑Propellant)
~0.6 kg/h/person without recycling
N/A
Separate from propellant production.
Atmospheric Source
Subsurface ice mining
Martian atmosphere (95% CO₂)
CO₂ is abundant but extremely thin, requiring high-volume intake.
Missing is the compression of the gasses outputted from Sabatier reaction as well as for the input co2 from Mars insitu use. Then to energy of cooling that must be done to recreate the liquid oxygen (LOX) + liquid methane (LCH4)
Of course we will get excesses that mayor not be saved depending on other factors.
Key Takeaways
1. Water and CO₂ requirements are of similar magnitude
Both fall in the 500–900 ton class for a fully fueled Starship return mission.
2. Water is the more “fixed” requirement
Because hydrogen must come from water, and methane production is hydrogen‑limited.
3. CO₂ requirements vary more widely
Because they scale directly with methane production targets and Sabatier efficiency.
4. Alternative architectures drastically change the numbers
Importing methane → CO₂ requirement drops to zero
Importing water (NASA DRA6) → only ~18 tons needed, but methane production still requires CO₂
5. The total propellant load (1,200–1,500 t) drives all upstream resource requirements
This is why the water and CO₂ numbers are so large.
The what is missing
You’re poking exactly where the hidden mass is in “30,000 m² of solar”—the thermodynamics. Let’s put rough-but-useful numbers on it.
High-level ballpark numbers per ton of CO₂ (Mars ISRU context)
Compression (Mars ambient → ~1 bar gas):
Roughly 40–80 kWh/ton CO₂ with realistic multi-stage compression and losses.
Cooling to near liquefaction temperature (~−56 °C to −78 °C):
Roughly 10–20 kWh/ton CO₂ (sensible + some subcooling margin).
Liquefaction (including refrigeration work at low temperature):
Roughly 80–150 kWh/ton CO₂ total (cooling + phase change + inefficiencies).
Total “Mars CO₂ capture + compression + liquefaction” (practical system):
Roughly 120–250 kWh/ton CO₂ depending on tech choice (mechanical compression vs adsorption, etc.).
These are engineering design numbers, not thermodynamic minima—they fold in realistic compressor/refrigeration efficiencies.
1. CO₂ compression from Mars atmosphere
Assumptions
Mars ambient pressure: ~600 Pa (~0.006 bar)
Target pressure for storage/reaction: ~1–10 bar (gas phase)
Process: Multi‑stage compression with intercooling.
Energy estimate
Ideal isothermal compression from 0.006 bar to 1 bar is only a few kWh/ton CO₂, but real systems are far from ideal.
Studies of Mars atmosphere acquisition and compression for ISRU typically land in the tens of kWh/ton CO₂ once you include:
Multi‑stage compressors
Motor and mechanical losses
Pressure drops and non‑ideal gas behavior
Useful design range:
40–80 kWh/ton CO₂ for compression to a few bar.
2. Cooling CO₂ to near liquefaction temperature
Context
After compression, CO₂ must be cooled from roughly ambient Mars temperature (say −50 °C) down to near its liquefaction region (around −56 °C at 5.2 bar, or colder at lower pressures).
Energy estimate
Sensible cooling load is modest (Mars is already cold), but:
You still need active refrigeration to control temperature and reject heat.
Real systems have COP < 1 at low temperatures.
Useful design range:
10–20 kWh/ton CO₂ for cooling from intake conditions to near liquefaction temperature.
3. Liquefaction of CO₂
This is where the energy really spikes.
Components
Further cooling below the triple point (if operating at lower pressure).
Latent heat of vaporization/sublimation.
Refrigeration inefficiencies at low temperature.
Thermodynamic minima are on the order of tens of kWh/ton, but with realistic COPs and system losses, practical liquefaction plants (even on Earth) often land in the 80–150 kWh/ton CO₂ range. Mars ISRU concepts that liquefy CO₂ for storage or feedstock are generally in that same ballpark once you include all parasitics.
Useful design range:
80–150 kWh/ton CO₂ for full liquefaction (including refrigeration work).
4. Mars CO₂ capture systems (compression vs adsorption)
NASA’s Mars Atmospheric Capture and Gas Separation work looks heavily at adsorption/temperature‑swing and freezing/liquefaction as alternatives to brute‑force mechanical compression.
Mechanical compression route:
Intake → dust removal → multi‑stage compression → cooling → liquefaction.
Energy dominated by compression + refrigeration → ~120–250 kWh/ton CO₂ total.
Temperature‑swing adsorption route:
Uses diurnal temperature swings to help drive desorption.
Can offload some of the “compression work” into thermal cycling, reducing electrical power draw but increasing system mass/complexity.
For Starship‑class ISRU, most architecture studies still budget hundreds of kWh per ton of CO₂ processed when you include capture, compression, and liquefaction.
5. How this scales to a Starship refuel
Take your earlier CO₂ requirement:
CO₂ needed: ~600–900+ tons per Starship
Using a mid‑range ~180 kWh/ton CO₂ (capture + compression + liquefaction):
Total energy:
600 t × 180 kWh/t = 108,000 kWh
to
900 t × 180 kWh/t = 162,000 kWh
Spread over 2 years (~17,500 h):
Average power just for CO₂ handling:
~6–9 kW continuous per Starship only for CO₂ capture/compression/liquefaction, not counting:
Water mining and electrolysis
Sabatier reactor operation
Liquefaction of O₂ and CH₄
General base loads
When you add water processing, Sabatier, O₂/CH₄ liquefaction, and overheads, you quickly climb into the hundreds of kW regime—hence the tens of thousands of m² of solar in many studies.
#259 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » wiki Block 4 starship first mission propellant creation » 2026-02-09 14:55:38
Missions that proceed must be able to produce propellant:
Establishing a Mars propellant plant to refuel a Starship for a return trip likely requires several cargo missions, with estimates suggesting 2 to 6+ ships to deliver necessary infrastructure (solar panels, mining equipment) and initial fuel stocks. While some scenarios suggest 3-4 ships can enable a return via in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), initial, safer approaches might use 6+ tankers to establish necessary infrastructure.
Infrastructure Requirements: A fully operational plant capable of producing 1,000+ tons of propellant (methane and oxygen) for a return journey requires substantial power, estimated at 5 GWh, needing ~250 metric tons of equipment, equivalent to 2+ fully loaded cargo Starships.
Fuel Mining & Production: The process involves extracting water ice and capturing \(CO_{2}\) from the atmosphere.
Alternative/Interim Methods: Rather than immediate, full ISRU, early missions might rely on landing 3-4 Starships, where 3 are drained to fuel 1 for the return trip, or using 4-6 ships to establish a rudimentary plant.
Scale: SpaceX aims to send at least 2 uncrewed cargo ships before the first crewed mission to set up power, mining, and life support. Ultimately, the number of ships depends on the efficiency of the ISRU plant, the power capacity installed, and the willingness to risk the first crew's return capability
Water source from Korolev Crater or other location would be of benefit to getting a good start.
Based on current SpaceX Mars mission architecture, establishing a propellant plant on Mars to refuel a Starship for a return journey, utilizing water ice, requires a multi-stage, cargo-heavy operation. Initial Setup Phase: To establish the necessary propellant plant (Sabatier reactors, mining equipment, solar arrays) at a location like Korolev Crater, early, uncrewed missions would need to land several cargo Starships (potentially 2–5) containing roughly 100+ tons of equipment each.Propellant Production Requirement: To refuel a single Starship for a return journey, the plant must produce approximately 1,200 metric tons of propellant (methane and oxygen).Operational
Requirement: While early estimates suggested 1–2 cargo ships worth of equipment could start production, a more robust and faster turnaround (within one synod, or 26 months) likely requires at least 3-4 cargo ships to be active to ensure enough power and water processing capability to produce the ~1,200+ tons of fuel. In summary, to start a plant, 2-5 dedicated cargo Starships are required to land the equipment, with at least 3-4 of them acting as operational plant components/fuel depots to reliably produce enough fuel for one return trip.
Key considerations: Water Source: Korolev Crater is an ideal, high-latitude location (\(73^{\circ }\text{N}\)) with large, accessible, near-surface water ice deposits, reducing the need for deep drilling.
Power: The limiting factor will be the mass of solar panels or nuclear reactors required to power the electrolysis process to turn that water into hydrogen, requiring significant cargo mass for power generation.
Launch Windows: These cargo ships must arrive at least one, if not two, synodic periods (26–52 months) before the crew arrives, to ensure the tanks are full
Of course this brings up mission details and purpose as a stepping stone to get from 1, to 2, to 3 and so on until we have sustainability.
so lets start with the fully refueled starship crewed Block 3 requirements
how much water is required to fill a starship crewed block 3 on mars surface.
To fully fuel a Starship on the Mars surface for a return trip, approximately 600 metric tons of water are required to produce the necessary liquid oxygen and methane propellant via In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU). This water is mined from Martian ice and processed using renewable energy. Propellant Production Needs: Generating enough propellant for a return journey requires on the order of 600 metric tons of water.
Alternative Architectures: Some mission plans, such as NASA's DRA6, suggest bringing ~18 metric tons of water from Earth to act as a catalyst with Martian CO\({}_{2}\), while others focus on full ISRU to produce the 600-ton requirement.
Water Volume: 600 tons of water is equivalent to an ice cube approximately 9 meters on each side.
Survival Needs: Beyond propellant, water is necessary for life support (drinking, hygiene), with estimations suggesting 0.6 kg/h/person without full recycling. Mining water locally is considered the most efficient method for long-term Mars missions, rather than transporting it from Earth
how much Co2 is required to fill a starship block 3 on mars surface.
Based on current plans for SpaceX's In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) on Mars, refueling a Starship (Block 2/3) to return to Earth requires approximately 960 to 1,000 metric tons of liquid oxygen (LOX) and 240 to 330 metric tons of liquid methane (LCH4). To produce this propellant, the necessary amount of CO₂ extracted from the
Martian atmosphere is: Total CO₂ Required: Approximately 600 to 700 metric tons to produce the necessary methane via the Sabatier process (\(CO_{2}+4H_{2}\rightarrow CH_{4}+2H_{2}O\)) and for oxygen production, as reported in various propellant plant estimations.
Alternative Calculation: The Sabatier process requires roughly 2.8 tons of CO₂ for every 1 ton of methane produced. Producing ~330 tons of methane (full capacity) requires over 900 tons of CO₂.
Key Considerations for Mars Production: Process: The CO₂ is not just "put into the tank"; it is combined with hydrogen (from split water ice) in a Sabatier reactor to create liquid methane and liquid oxygen.
Surface Operations: 1,500 tonnes of total propellant are needed for a return trip.
Power Requirement: Producing this amount of fuel requires massive energy input, requiring roughly 30,000 \(m^{2}\) of solar panels.
Atmosphere: While the Martian atmosphere is 95% CO₂, it is very thin (0.6% of Earth's pressure), requiring huge amounts of gas to be processed
Now without the block identification:
how much water is required to fill a starship block 3 on mars surface.
To fully refuel a Starship on the surface of Mars for a return trip, approximately 500 to 1,000+ metric tons of water (H₂O) must be mined and processed to produce the required methane (\(CH_{4}\)) and oxygen (\(O_{2}\)) propellants. While specific "Block 3" water requirements are part of evolving architecture, the general consensus for fully fueling a Starship using In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) involves mining roughly 540 to 600 tons of water ice per ship to create the needed fuel. Key Water-to-Propellant Details Production Mechanism: Water is electrolyzed into hydrogen, which is then reacted with Martian carbon dioxide (\(CO_{2}\)) via the Sabatier process to produce methane and oxygen.
Water Requirements: To make 240 tons of methane and 960 tons of oxygen (standard full load), about 540 to 600 metric tons of water must be mined and split.
Alternative Estimates: Some early estimates suggested as much as 1,000+ tons of water, though refined calculations often cite lower amounts, such as 500 tons depending on the efficiency of the mining and conversion process.
Mass vs. Volume: This water quantity is equivalent to a large ice cube roughly 9 meters on a side. Context on Starship "Block 3" and Mars Propellant Load: A full Starship on Mars requires a total propellant load of roughly 1,200 to 1,500 metric tons to return to Earth.
ISRU Feasibility: Mining this amount of water is highly dependent on locating accessible, high-purity water ice on the Martian surface. If the water content in the soil is 50% (underground glacier), 500 tons could be mined in roughly 10 days; at 10% content, it could take two months.
Emergencies: If ISRU is not available, hauling water from Earth is likely prohibited by the immense mass requirements, though a reduced ascent (using only 40 tons of propellant) might only require roughly 18 tons of imported water
how much Co2 is required to fill a starship on mars surface.
Based on current estimates for the SpaceX Starship, roughly 600 to 700 metric tons of CO₂ are required to produce enough methane (CH₄) to refuel a Starship for a return trip to Earth.
This process relies on the Sabatier reaction, which combines carbon dioxide (CO₂) harvested from the Martian atmosphere with hydrogen (H₂) produced from mined water ice (H₂O) to create methane and oxygen (O₂).
Key Data on Mars Refueling
Total Propellant Required: A return trip requires approximately 732 to 1,200 tons of total propellant (liquid oxygen and liquid methane) to lift off from Mars and return to Earth.CO₂ Requirement: Producing the ~240–330 tons of methane needed for this trip requires consuming around 540 to 900+ tons of CO₂.
Source: The CO₂ is directly harvested from the 95% CO₂ Martian atmosphere.Production Time: It is estimated that a fully loaded Starship's worth of oxygen and methane can be produced by an in-situ propellant production (ISPP) plant on the surface in about two years.
ContextByproducts: The reaction also produces roughly 11.8 metric tons of nitrogen and argon as a byproduct, which can be used to pressurize habitats.
Energy Intensity: Creating this fuel requires massive amounts of power, requiring a large-scale solar array or a small nuclear reactor.
Alternative Refueling: If only the oxygen is produced on Mars, and methane is brought from Earth, the CO₂ requirement for manufacturing drops to zero, but the cost of transporting methane increases
So looking at the masses for either the total fuel requirement does bridge a large difference.
#260 Exploration to Settlement Creation » wiki Block 4 starship first mission propellant creation » 2026-02-09 14:54:45
- SpaceNut
- Replies: 11
Not a discussion page
Cargo ship is targeting 200 mT up from the block 3 which is 100 mT
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.
This is what Mars Society has in its planning
what we know for harvesting the atmosphere
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.
#261 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2026-02-08 17:54:11
Officer training and culture should emphasize modern de-escalation tactics. Officers should create time and distance between themselves and a potential threat to allow for assessment and communication. Closing the gap quickly and compressing time increases fear on both sides and reduces options for peaceful resolution. Modern guidance encourages officers to back up and use cover when there is no immediate threat to life. Officers should use clear, calm communication, one instruction at a time, with simple choices rather than overlapping commands.
De-escalation means avoiding actions that manufacture an emergency when none exists. When force becomes necessary, it should be proportional, limited to interrupting an immediate threat, and stopped as soon as that threat ends. In many cases, patience, communication and distance prevent a momentary spike in fear from becoming a fatal bullet.
If we want fewer lives lost, we must stop treating each shooting as an isolated tragedy. The problem is not simply individual misconduct. Officers are not malicious. It is a system that rewards escalation, and normalizes confrontation. Until we change how officers assess risk, and interact with civilians, we will continue to call these deaths unavoidable.
Now onto the history: such the 1892 and 1954, 12 million people passed through the gates of Ellis Island in New York. These people were seeking freedom, a better and more prosperous life for themselves and for their children—and they wanted to be Americans.
No, they did not just want the title of being an American citizen; they wanted to truly adopt their new country; they wanted to know its history, customs, mores, and status in the world. Many, or most, were working-class people with very little material possessions.
Parrt of the desire to be American is not there for many that are here now and you can here it in there words as they speak.
#262 Re: Meta New Mars » kbd512 Postings » 2026-02-08 15:34:28
inputted image and question large double torus stiffness problem over long spans need analyzing
You’re poking right at the hard part of these forms—global stiffness over long, curved spans is where they get sneaky.
Key stiffness issues in a large double-torus truss
Global ring flexibility (hoop modes):
The toroidal geometry wants to “ovalize” under asymmetric loads.Problem: Low in-plane bending stiffness of the ring → large lateral deflections, especially midspan between supports.
Watch for: First few modes being global ovalization or “breathing” of the torus rather than local member bending.
Torsional softness of the ring:
If the torus is essentially a single-layer truss ring, its torsional stiffness is often weak.Problem: Eccentric loads (lighting, rigging, façade panels) twist the ring, causing out-of-plane rotations and secondary bending in chords.
Mitigation: Use a closed box-like section at the macro level—e.g., double chord top/bottom with diagonals forming a tube, or two concentric rings tied with radial webs.
Span-to-depth ratio of the truss:
Long spans with shallow truss depth are inherently flexible.Rule of thumb: For a primary long-span truss, depth ≈ span/15–20 is comfortable; much shallower and deflections dominate.
In a torus: “Depth” is the radial distance between inner and outer chords (or top/bottom chords if vertical). Too small → poor bending stiffness around the ring.
Local member buckling vs. global stability:
Compression chords: Long, lightly braced chords around the torus are prone to elastic buckling if panel lengths are large.
Bracing density: Panel length and diagonal layout control effective buckling length; large toroidal spans often need tighter panelization than straight trusses.
Support conditions and continuity:
Discontinuous rings: If the double torus is segmented (e.g., four quadrants bolted together), joint flexibility can dominate global stiffness.
Support layout: Few supports → large bending in the ring between them; many supports → more statically indeterminate, but stiffer and more redundant.
How to analyze stiffness (conceptual workflow)
Idealize as a ring/torus beam first (macro model):Model: Treat each torus as a curved beam with equivalent ?? (bending) and ?? (torsion) derived from the truss.
Goal: Quickly see global deflections, ovalization, and sensitivity to support layout and span.
Derive equivalent section properties from the truss:
Axial stiffness of chords:??eq=∑???cos2(??)
Bending stiffness: Use chord separation (depth) and chord areas to get an equivalent ? about the ring’s local axes.Torsional stiffness: If you have a closed truss tube, approximate ? from the chord layout; if it’s open, accept that ?? is small and design bracing accordingly.
Refine with a 3D truss FE model:
Nodes: At each panel point along the torus; include both toroids if it’s a “double” system.
Members: Chords, diagonals, verticals, and any cross-ties between the two tori.
Check:
Nodal displacements under worst-case load patterns.
Member forces and utilization.
Buckling factors (linear eigen-buckling) for global modes.
Pay attention to load patterns that “break symmetry”:
Partial loading: Half-ring or quarter-ring loads often govern deflection and member forces.
Eccentric loads: Loads offset from the ring centroid to excite torsion and out-of-plane bending.
Strategies to increase stiffness over long spans
Increase structural depth:Radial depth: Separate inner and outer chords more; larger radius difference → higher in-plane bending stiffness.
Vertical depth: If the torus is vertical, increase distance between top and bottom chords.
Create a true closed tube:
Double torus as a box: Tie the two tori together with regular radial frames so they act as a single closed section.
Benefit: Huge gain in torsional stiffness and resistance to ovalization.
Densify bracing:
Shorter panels: More nodes, shorter members → higher buckling capacity and better distribution of forces.
Diagonal patterns: Use X-bracing or K-bracing patterns that stabilize both chords effectively.
Stiffen joints and segment connections:
Bolted flanges / sleeves: Ensure segment joints are not the weak link; rotational slop here kills global stiffness.
Pre-tensioned connections: Where possible, use preloaded bolts or clamps to reduce slip.
Optimize support scheme:
More supports: If feasible, add intermediate supports to reduce effective span between supports.
Support stiffness: Model support flexibility (e.g., base plates, anchors) realistically—soft supports can negate gains in the truss.
A quick gut-check for your design
If you tell me:Major radius (centerline of torus), Minor radius / truss depth, Number of panels, Chord sizes, and Support locations,
I can walk through a rough equivalent ??, estimate deflections over the longest span, and flag where the double-torus concept is likely to feel “soft” versus robust.
What’s the approximate diameter and depth of the double torus you’re thinking about, and is it for a stage, a roof, or something more permanent?
it indicates that the secondary members made from 30×2 mm is fine. but the primary need to be Much larger chord tubes (think on the order of 150–400 mm OD, with sensible wall thickness), and Real truss depth between chords and between the two tori to build up ?eff.
That is an ouch to support the regolith mass...
150–400 mm OD 4–12mm wall thickness
Truss depth (within each torus) 1–3m between inner/outer or top/bottom chords
Separation between the two tori 20–30m center‑to‑center (this is the single biggest lever on global stiffness)
Panel length 5–10m spacing between nodes
#263 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2026-02-08 15:09:52
It looks like it was a scam system that late 2025, federal authorities had charged over 90 individuals, the vast majority of whom are of Somali descent. These cases involve a complex network of nonprofits and businesses that allegedly submitted fake claims, such as billing for services never provided.
So the AI tools of the computer programs got fooled....as it seems that no one investigated the non profits to see if they were legit. It also means that the consumer protection laws did not function as they should have caught it.
I think all states have a bit of fraud going on and its those laws that were create to protect that are failing. Such as in my case...
Fraud against government services is a widespread, multi-state issue in the United States, with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimating annual federal losses due to fraud between $233 billion and $521 billion (based on data from 2018-2022). In 2025 alone, False Claims Act (FCA) recoveries—a primary tool for combating this fraud—reached a record-breaking $6.8 billion, with a significant portion of the fraud concentrated in healthcare, particularly Medicare, Medicaid, and pandemic-relief programs.
Here is a breakdown of the current landscape of government fraud across U.S. states.
1. Most Targeted Programs and Services
Criminals frequently target programs with high transaction volumes and, at times, relaxed eligibility requirements, such as those implemented during the pandemic.Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA): Large-scale fraud rings have used stolen identities to file fraudulent PUA claims in multiple states simultaneously.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Card skimming is a major issue, where criminals place devices on retailer machines to steal EBT card information.
Medicare/Medicaid Fraud: Fraudulent billing, telemedicine scams, and genetic testing scams are highly prevalent, accounting for over 80% of FCA recoveries in 2025.
Child Care/Family Assistance: Recent investigations have flagged, and briefly frozen, funds for child care and TANF programs in certain states due to suspected widespread misuse.
SBA Disaster and Relief Loans: Ongoing investigations continue to convict individuals using stolen identities to obtain COVID-19 relief funds.
2. High-Risk States and Areas
Fraud is not limited to one region, but certain states have recently seen higher concentrations of reported cases or investigations:
California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado: These states were highlighted in 2026 by federal officials for potential "extensive and systematic fraud" in state-administered social services.Minnesota: Has been identified as a hub for complex fraud rings targeting state, child care, and food programs.
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada: These states were recently linked in a multi-state conspiracy case regarding stolen identities for SNAP and PUA benefits.
Texas: Reported the highest total losses ($2.1 million) in early 2025 tax-related scams.
Florida, Virginia, South Carolina, District of Columbia: Ranked among the top areas for government benefits fraud and identity theft in 2025.
3. Key Fraud Tactics and Trends
EBT Skimming: In 2025, over 400 illegal skimming devices were removed, preventing roughly $428 million in potential losses, with major operations in states like Alabama and Ohio.Identity Theft: Criminals use stolen Social Security numbers and personal information to apply for benefits, making it difficult for agencies to identify the real recipient.
Imposter Scams: Scammers spoof official numbers for government agencies (SSA, IRS) to steal personal data, with losses increasing by $171 million from 2023 to 2024.
Cyber-Fraud: False cybersecurity certifications to obtain government contracts resulted in over $52 million in recoveries in 2025.
4. Enforcement and Prevention
The DOJ has increased its focus on False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement, particularly through whistleblower (qui tam) lawsuits, which reached a record high in 2025. Federal agencies are increasingly using data analytics to proactively stop fraudulent payments, halting over $4.2 billion in fraudulent loans as of July 2024.Tip: Law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and Secret Service, emphasize that legitimate government entities will never call or email to demand immediate payment, threaten arrest, or ask for gift cards/cryptocurrency
I also know of one of my son's having his identity stolen as well that will never correct as the system does not heal or cleanse its files once found.
#264 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need » 2026-02-08 13:46:41
here are the 4 deck layouts
Floor plan layouts are not set in stone and need to be altered as desired.
#265 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2026-02-08 13:26:46
Don't for get the Haitians, Guatemalans, ect...anyone that does not speak American and is not white or Caucasian.
We are becoming something that we were not destined to be....
#266 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need » 2026-02-08 10:50:10
Have been continuing to work on using the starship 9 m shell laying on the ground to support a crew of 10 as built from each unit.
It is more like a submarine layout but its a build as we go approach.
There is an upper and lower deck making maximum internal space use.
Not requiring a large amount of equipment to take the shell apart.
Layout on the prepared surface area.
Insert internal wall support or ring tubing for structural support and add floors. area divides bring in crewed life support and integrate into the plan.
Begin airlock construction on the ends or one or if one is brought install it.
Utilizes empty ships shell leaving the remaining for later smelting.
Gut other internal system and reuse as needed for lighting, ventilation ect...to complete the units.
Place regolith to cover and inflate as the layers of it are put into place.
Greenhouse to support the 10 just fits with in 3 other conversions making use of crop height and both hydroponic and soils ground.
Depending on placement and maximizing the internal layouts its possible but close out of just 4 shells.
That leaves all payload to support other parts of the missions.
#267 Re: Meta New Mars » Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day » 2026-02-08 05:27:44
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 2-07-2026 last number for the day 237927 - last post 237952
2-8-26 posting
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Politics
Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow
Fighter jets: F-35 vs Gripen vs Avro Arrow
Ring Habitat on Mars Doughnut Torus
Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Bogs and Bog, Floating Island Technology, and Roller Solar.
Bogs and Bog, Floating Island Technology, and Roller Solar.
WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need
WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need
Risk mitigation priorities for crewed missions to mars
#268 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » Ring Habitat on Mars Doughnut Torus » 2026-02-08 05:20:52
The torus inflatable as pressure is brought up will have sand bags of regolith place not only around but over it. It it the ones that are on the top which can slide or move around cause issue for load and another is the shape of the torus does not hold but flattens as regolith is placed that causes the outer walls to not fit tight to the inflatable. No amount of exoskeleton stainless will change this as the inflatable is not designed for load baring support as the torus sand bags are placed.
We also need a mat pad under the the torus ring inflatable to keep movement from cutting through as we work and live within it.
a sacrificial outer layer: tough, abrasion resistant fabric, maybe something like what is used on Nasa' ISS often referred to as Whipple shielding or sacrificial bumpers to keep this from happening.
once placed and partially inflated enough to take shape we will need to bring in the inner liners for the floor and rib support to build inside to keep loads off from the fabric of the inflatable. Only the floor has any load from the contents we bring inside.
The exoskeleton allows for the deforming inflatable as air pressure and loading of regolith bags placement happen to not happen. The outside exoskeleton frame is not being of any value if not to allow the inflatable to keep shape.
#269 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2026-02-08 04:18:28
I did not see the punch or missed it in the video will look again.
I think the issue of law has a big problem when we have town or city laws, state and even county law, with the over arching Federal Law with policy law (executive orders) blurring or trying to band aid real Federal Law which only congress is to fix.
Laws not aligning or being ignored is a problem at all tiers when they are to protect people without regard.
The Hierarchy of Laws: U.S. Legal Priority
In the United States, the legal structure functions through preemption. When laws at different levels conflict, the higher authority "wins."
[]Federal Law (The Peak): Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is the "Supreme Law of the Land."
[]State Law: States have broad powers over anything not specifically assigned to the federal government.Local Law (County/City): These are "creatures of the state" and derive their power from state constitutions or charters.
Who Goes First?
The order of authority is: Federal Constitution > Federal Statute > State Law > Local Ordinance.
Where Executive Orders Fit In
Executive orders (policy law) have the force of law, but they are not "above" statutes.
[]Authority: An Executive Order (EO) must be based on the Constitution or a law already passed by Congress.
[]Priority: A federal statute passed by Congress will trump an Executive Order if they conflict.Scope: A federal EO can preempt state law, but only if the President is acting within their constitutional or congressionally-granted authority.
The "Layers" of Priority:
U.S. Constitution
Federal Statutes (Laws from Congress)
Federal Executive Orders / Agency Regulations
State Constitutions
State Statutes
Local Ordinances (County/City)Would you like to see an example of how this works in a specific area, such as:
#270 Re: Not So Free Chat » Politics » 2026-02-07 20:24:22
Assaulting a vehicle warrants a police report of vandalism call to 911 not direct untrained actions of a tantrum as if he owned the vehicle.
I am not arguing about whether immigration laws should exist and not just how they’re enforced.
“If you want stability, then the enforcement system must be predictable, trained, and professional — not tactical, inconsistent, or fear‑based.”
Right now, we have a mismatch between:
civil law, tactical training, public environments, inconsistent standards …creates instability.
Immigration agencies were built for: border interdiction, fugitive operations, tactical raids
Not:
public‑facing enforcement, civilian interactions, de‑escalation, proportionality in mixed crowds
So the mismatch produces exactly what you saw: unnecessary confrontation, poor judgment, avoidable escalation, behavior that looks unprofessional
“These agents are doing a job they were not trained for, and the public is paying the price.”
#271 Re: Meta New Mars » kbd512 Postings » 2026-02-07 18:22:47
Thanks for the reminder to not mix units.
With that much pressure and downward force then the number of the layers for the inflatable goes up due to burst pressure.
#272 Re: Human missions » space x going to the moon instead of mars » 2026-02-07 15:33:25
Musk clips his Mars settlement ambition, aims for the moon instead
Elon Musk’s ambition to one day settle Mars appears to have taken a back seat to a rather nearer and more achievable goal – sending humans to live on the moon.
In a statement on X on Sunday, the billionaire said his company SpaceX has now shifted its priorities to building “a self-growing city on the Moon,” arguing that it could be achieved in less than a decade, compared with more than 20 years for a similar plan on Mars.
“The overriding priority is securing the future of civilization and the Moon is faster,” he said on X Sunday. “It is only possible to travel to Mars when the planets align every 26 months (six month trip time), whereas we can launch to the Moon every 10 days (2 day trip time).”
It is not immediately clear what Musk meant by a “self-growing city” or whether his plans are in line with a similar lunar plan NASA proposes. CNN has reached out to SpaceX for comment.
Musk said the company remains committed to building a Mars city, and will begin doing so in about five to seven years. As recently as last May, Musk had said SpaceX was working to land its first uncrewed Starship on Mars as soon as late 2026.
Musk’s trimming of his previous space travel predictions came after SpaceX acquired XAI last week, in a move that will merge two of his most ambitious companies into the most valuable private firm in the world.
Shifting SpaceX’s focus away from Mars and to the moon — which is considered a more technologically and financially feasible target for an extraterrestrial settlement — could serve as a stepping stone that can help investors get comfortable with Musk’s more ambitious ideas.
“Musk’s ultimate goal is to get civilization to Mars. It’s going to be very expensive, and as a soon-to-be public company, SpaceX needs to appease shareholders,” said Justus Parmar, CEO of Fortuna Investments, a venture capital firm invested in SpaceX.
“Setting up operations on the lunar surface will provide a quicker return on revenue, so it’s a natural step on the way to a more expensive and heavier R&D project to get to Mars,” Parmar added.
Reversing course
For more than a decade, Musk has made it a point to advertise his laser focus on establishing a settlement on Mars, saying it has been SpaceX’s guiding goal since the company was founded in 2002.In speeches delivered at aerospace conferences and events for SpaceX employees, he has detailed ambitious — albeit dubiously feasible — plans for establishing a permanent human presence on the red planet, saying such a step is necessary for ensuring a colony of humans can survive a potential apocalypse.
NASA, in contrast, has focused on its lunar ambitions, particularly since President Donald Trump’s first term, when then-Vice President Mike Pence abruptly declared that the United States would return its astronauts to the moon by 2024.
The bold plan did not pan out, and NASA is currently working to return astronauts to the lunar surface by 2028 — the time frame the agency had been working toward in the Obama era. That return will mark the first time humans have set foot on the moon since the Apollo program ended in 1972.
Musk has criticized the efforts in the past, alluding to NASA’s moon program, named Artemis, as a “distraction” on X early last year.
“No, we’re going straight to Mars,” he wrote at the time. “The Moon is a distraction.”
Musk’s apparent pivot to focusing on the moon comes as the tech billionaire – whose companies receive huge government contracts – has taken a far more vocal stance on politics than in years past. He poured $290 million into the US presidential election, backing Donald Trump and receiving a White House job only to have an abrupt falling out with the president. He returned to his good graces this past fall.
Lunar controversy
While NASA has built the rocket and spacecraft designed to launch astronauts from Earth and to the lunar vicinity, SpaceX has a nearly $3 billion contract to build the federal agency’s lunar lander, or the vehicle that will ferry the crew members from their spacecraft down to the moon’s surface.SpaceX plans to use its Starship system for the task — the largest spacecraft and rocket system ever built, and the vehicle that Musk says is purpose-made for taking people to Mars.
Starship, however, is still in the early stages of development and has often exploded during testing. The spacecraft has never traveled to orbit or conducted an operational flight, and SpaceX is expected to debut a new line of Starship prototypes as soon as early March.
Starship is extremely ambitious, and its role in NASA’s moon program has also been a point of controversy.
Sean Duffy, Trump’s secretary of transportation who also served a brief stint as acting NASA administrator last year, called out SpaceX in October — warning the company did not appear to be on track to have its lunar lander ready in time for NASA’s moon-landing mission as the space agency races to beat China’s lunar exploration program.
Duffy notably threatened to sideline SpaceX from the moon-landing mission, called Artemis III, and said he would evaluate whether SpaceX’s chief competitor, Blue Origin, could get the job done faster.
Blue Origin, the space exploration company founded by Jeff Bezos, also holds a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to develop a vehicle capable of ferrying astronauts from deep space to the lunar surface. The company announced last month that it is halting trips on its suborbital space tourism rocket — which previously carried Bezos, Katy Perry and William Shatner to space — in order to focus on lunar lander development.
NASA officials have not openly revisited the Artemis III lunar lander contract since the agency’s newly installed administrator, billionaire tech CEO Jared Isaacman, was confirmed for the top job in December. Isaacman is considered an ally of Musk as he has twice paid to fly on SpaceX capsules to Earth orbit.
Musk’s assertion that SpaceX will now focus on lunar exploration comes as NASA is gearing up to launch its first crewed mission of the Artemis program, called Artemis II.
That mission is slated to launch four astronauts on a trip that will circumnavigate the moon but will not land on it, serving as a pathfinder for the more complex Artemis III landing mission. Artemis II is scheduled to launch as soon as March.
#274 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » WIKI Starship repurposed to make or build what we need » 2026-02-07 14:30:31
Trying to right size the hut construction as a function of learned information in double torus 250,000m^3 interior volume structure, we shall approximate the structure as a pair of inflatable tori with an inner radius of 50m and an outer radius of 70.50385m, which provides an interior volume of 125,000.430m^3 and surface area of 24,385.748m^2 per torus.
The 4 crew sleeping quarters is a volume of 125 m cubic meters which with 2.5 m floor to ceiling means 5m by 10 m long but what is missing?
Simple math: 1000 crew / 4 only gives a volume that is incomplete at 250x 125 m^3 = 31,250 cubic meters of volume floor area was also off by a factor of 2 this means a ceiling of 2.5 m x room for 1 of 5m x 2m = 12.5 m^2 or 31.25 M^3 sized for 1 crew memberHygiene & laundry 1.0–1.5 m²/person @ 2.5 m height 1,000–1,500 2,500–3,750 this is a toilet stall for a man 1.0m x 1.5 m² per crew person x 2.5 m height we might want 2 minimum
Life support machinery CO₂, O₂, water, waste, tanks, thermal plant – 5,000–10,000
Waste management Sorting, storage, processing – 1,000–2,000 plumbing exits through the floor to a storage tank in the ground
medical care, surgery, recovery Area: 23-28 sq meters per crew patient bed for monitoring, leave space for all side of bed for a minimum to support 50 crew
use 2 crew room for sizing for the operation areaMedical (incl. support) 50 monitored beds @ 23–28 m² + OR, imaging, support 2,000–2,500 5,000–6,250 no area is truly needed but plan for 1 crew needing ICU or direct care
Workspaces & labs Offices, control, labs, shops (~1.0–1.5 m²/person) 1,000–1,500 2,500–3,750 no area is truly needed but plan for 1 crew needing ICU or direct care
greenhouse which is volume for 1,000 need per single person is 2m x 4m x5m = 40 cubic meter x 1,000 = 40,000 cubic m volume is 4 times to small. this is 160 m^3 per person for food
galley/kitchen, refrigeration/ freezing, dry food storage
Galley + mess Seats for 1/3 crew at once (~0.8–1.0 m²/seat) + kitchen 600–800 1,500–2,000Submarine galleys are highly compact, specialized spaces, often squeezed into less than 100-200 square feet to serve over 100 crew members, requiring multi-functional, durable equipment.
Key equipment includes electric ranges with fiddles, specialized small ovens, deep fryers, and compact, heavy-duty refrigeration. Space is optimized for high-volume cooking in limited, shock-proof areas. Galley Equipment
Requirements Cooking Equipment: Heavy-duty, electric ranges are standard, often featuring "fiddles" (rails) to prevent pots from sliding, measuring roughly 18-1/2" wide x 16-7/8" deep.
Ovens & Kettles: Compact rectangular kettles (approx. 9" x 16") and small-footprint ovens are used to maximize space.
Power Supply: Modern naval galleys require significant power, often around \(14.5\text{\ kW}\) for smaller units, or more for larger crews.Construction: Equipment must be waterproof, shockproof, salt-fog resistant, easy to clean, and durable.
Galley Design Factors Square Footage: Extremely restricted, often designed for maximum efficiency rather than comfort. Submarine galleys are often in the center of the boat, adjacent to storage for frozen, refrigerated, and dry good's.
Storage: Perishables and dry stores are kept in nearby specialized storerooms, often directly below the galleys.
Efficiency: Due to the small size, equipment must be multifunctional, and layout is critical for workflow, such as integrating cooking surfaces, ovens, and preparation areas into a single, cohesive unit
Submarine mess halls, often called the "crew's mess" or simply the "mess decks," are highly compact, multifunctional social hubs designed to maximize limited space for 150+ sailors. They are characterized by tight, efficient seating, 24/7 service, and, in older vessels, they often functioned as additional sleeping areas.
Mess Hall Area and Layout
Location & Size: Situated in one of the few open-concept areas of the submarine, the mess hall is usually located near the galley (kitchen), which is often described as being roughly the size of a walk-in closet.Multifunctional Space: In older or smaller submarines, the mess area also served as a berthing (sleeping) compartment.
Atmosphere: It serves as the primary social hub for the crew, used for eating, watching movies, playing games like cards or chess, and holding meetings.
Amenities: The area typically features fixed tables, benches, and a TV for entertainment.
Ventilation: Due to the heat from the galley, these areas often feature exposed, high-volume air ducting.
Seating and Dining Arrangements
Fixed Furniture: Seating consists of fixed benches and tables, often described as a, "small, greasy spoon" diner.
Capacity: The seating capacity is intentionally small, often accommodating only 15 to 24 sailors at a time.
Shifts: Because the crew is large and the space is small, sailors eat in rotating shifts (continuous service).
Buffet Style: Meals are generally served buffet-style, with sailors using metal cafeteria-style trays rather than plates.
Folding Seats: In some configurations, tables are designed to maximize space, with benches that may allow for seating near storage areas or folded bunks.
Differences by Submarine Class
WWII/Older Submarines: Used foldable, portable benches and sometimes required sailors to sit on footlockers.Modern Nuclear Submarines (e.g., Ohio/Virginia Class): Feature more refined, but still cramped, permanent, fixed-booth seating with specialized,, durable, and sometimes fire-retardant materials.
Officers' Wardroom: Unlike the crew's mess, officers often have a separate, more private, and formal wardroom for dining and confidential meetings.
Key Aspects of Submarine Dining
"Midrats": The galley operates 24/7, providing four meals a day, including "midrats" (midnight rations) for sailors changing shifts.High-Quality Food: Because of the confined, high-stress environment, submarines are known for having better food than surface ships to maintain morale.
Tight Quarters: The entire space is designed to be efficient, with every square inch utilized for storage, food prep, and serving
Exercise & recreation ~1.5–2.0 m²/person shared 1,500–2,000 3,750–5,000
If crews are 20 max then the sizing and the requirements change for materials to make use of, not just space utilization.
#275 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » Ring Habitat on Mars Doughnut Torus » 2026-02-07 14:25:34
Current suggestion is to treat the exoskeleton as 2 separate circular or semi spherical domes that are duel tubing welded 30mm OD, 4mm wall, 304L stainless, together at 1 meter around the structure taking on the outline shape of the torus. It looks similar to the geodesic style frame.