New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#226 Today 06:21:40
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,165
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
I have been seeing notions that electrolysis of water is becoming more practical.
This article suggests such a gain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le4tH9qHjrw
Quote:
Breakthrough: Hydrogen Finally Cheaper Than Gas?
German Science Guy
70.9K subscribers
It seems sensible that over time the technology will improve not get worse, as long as social structures for technology are stable.
This would support making propellants on Mars, but of course will matter in other places in space.
Of course I am thinking of "Water Stations".
A "Water Station" might have "Storm Shelters" for radiation storms, but when the supply of water stored on the "Water Station" was large, resort to such shelters might be less important.
Water tanks can double as "Farms", and if electrolysis is getting better the production of acetate and Oxygen should become more efficient.
Acetate does require Carbon of course so a "Water Station" should have some. Maybe even a lot.
So, a "Water Station" might cook up Methane also.
As for Iron Oxide, it might be stored long term, and with the other assets of a "Water Station", It should be possible to reduce the Iron Oxide with Hydrogen and either biological or heating methods. Then you could have Iron and water and then you could split the water to produce Oxygen.
The Iron can be propellant for Magdrive or Neumann Drive, or you could be able to make some types of Steel, depending on the ingredients available.
So bulk items to store at a "Water Station" might include water ,Carbon or Carbon compounds, Iron Oxide, and other smaller amounts of substances.
A "Water Station" could cook up a batch of propellants for a mission, "Just in time". "An old catch phrase).
This would avoid having large amounts of stored explosive substances that will require active cooling.
Ending Pending 
Last edited by Void (Today 06:36:38)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#227 Today 09:59:04
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,165
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
Returning to a concept of a in-orbit booster, I think it could be competitive with Nuclear-Thermal.
Nuclear-Thermal-Hydrogen will do much better than Hydro-Lox, we are told, to get humans to Mars more quickly. But that has to assume that
You transported huge amounts of Hydrogen from a source.to go to Mars you need it from Earth or the Moon. The Moon would have to be developed first, And then to return to Earth from Mars, you need a lot of Hydrogen from Mars. You probably will not be aerobraking into Earth's atmosphere with a nuclear fission drive.
Two things I retain from Dr. Robert Zubrin are:
1) If you have more power, rather than to take a faster trip, take more payload.
2) Use a path to Mars with a "Free-Return" option.
Humans and Cargo can be handled to some extent as separate things.
You probably want humans headed to Mars to have a "Free-Return" option. But you might prefer to add consumables to such a mission, as if you are forced to do a "Free-Return", you will need them.
Cargo in bulk could be done on ships that do not access the "Free-Return" option so they may be slower than that.
Also Cargo, might be brought to orbits of Mars using efficient electric rocket propulsions.
The "Star-Kicker" could be useful to launch a Starship that would have extra supplies to survive a 2 year "Free-Return". That ship would likely be for human transport. In such a case, the Star-Kicker may or may not be expendable.
Here is that video again that mentions "Star-Kicker": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqERiN848DY
Quote:
How SpaceX Is Solving Starship’s Moon Landing Problem
Space Zone
39.5K subscribers
In early implementation of missions to Mars, it would almost certainly be expendable and abandon to a Ghost orbit somewhere.
But depending on the existence and nature of "Water Stations". the "Star-Kicker" could be dropped off at a higher energy orbit "Water Station" somewhere. If might be refilled and then fly back to another location to be reused.
I might assert, that more than one "Star-Kicker" could be stacked. Presuming that the structure could endure the thrusting, you could have two or more "Star-Kickers", attached to a Starship. I am not sure what the mission would be to justify that but it could be an available service.
And then if you want to play games, you could convert "Star-Kickers" into drop tanks. You would have to pull the engines out of them and plumb pairs of them to mount sideways to a Starship. So, for instance three times the propellants and using the engines of the actual Starship to burn it all.
That may give access to the deep outer solar systerm, I am guessing.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Today 10:46:42)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here