Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

Void · Yesterday 12:35:05

Then what if for the cylinder bottom half that might do a sub-orbit or full orbit, a heat shield was something that you put on it as if armor on a knight?

The real shell of the cylinder would have the ablative heat shield which is the emergency back-up. The Active Cooling Shield would be slipped over that and clamped down.

So, when the cylinder returned from a mission, you would do primary service to it by exchanging the outer heat shield component.

Upon an exchange with a new Active Cooling Shield, then the Cylinder could be stacked again on a Superheavy, and have a new Main Tanks assembly put on top of it.

If the emergency ablative heat shield had been burned from an Active Heat Shield failure, then of course greater repairs would be mandated.

After a Active Cooling Heat shield had been used once it would require complete analysis and refurbishment or scrapping depending on the results of the analysis.

But if you had more Active Cooling Shields, then this would minimize down time for the 6-9 raptor engines and header tanks, etc. of the Cylinder bottom half of the 2nd Stage.

Ending Pending

Void · Yesterday 13:36:23

The first time I saw an inversion was the Blue Origins Moon lander, with propellant tanks on top, engines and crew below.

So, this inversion might be somewhat similar.

As the cylindrical bottom part does not all have to be pressurized, extendable landing legs could be contained in the cylinder shell along with Header Tanks, Avionics, and maybe a smaller crew/cargo compartment.

This could allow for a tower catch and yet the legs could be in there to extend out of the bottom skirt in the event that was desired.

The cylinder reduced of the dry mass of the main tanks, might be lighter, so that the landing legs don't need to be as substantial.

While sub-orbital for the cylinder and small engines for the Main Tanks is an option, going full orbital with the Main Tanks might be an option as well in which case the Main Tanks will not need any substantial form of propulsion.

The Main Tanks also will likely need subdividing as when you disconnect the Main Tanks from the cylinder, the propellants in the tanks feeding the raptors, needs protection or it would be lost to space.

So, this would add complexity. Even so, extra structure would simply be more metal to orbit.

There would be multiple options to transfer propellants between chambers to prepare for separation. Or you would simply burn the main chambers until near empty, and separate. Other chambers could hold various fluids/propellants.

If Magdrive is able to run on an Aluminum/Lithium Alloy, then it might be able to come down into sub-orbital and take charge of the Main tanks. But it would have to be very powerful engines to do that.

There would only be the trip time from the launch from Florida for instance to the reentry half way around the world.

It is a fun set of Puzzles at least though.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 13:43:47)

Void · Yesterday 14:14:02

If a Magdrive or Neumann Drive process can be matured and expanded sufficiently then it might be possible to use tank materials to go and clean up large chunks of Space Junk.

I even wonder if we could take the ISS to a higher orbit and decommission it instead of dumping it back to Earth.

If the materials could be put to salvage/reuse, then perhaps it has value for that. At the very least it might be converted to radiation shielding, maybe propellants for Magdrive or Neumann Drive.

Inverted thinking again. So much was spent to get it into orbit, maybe it could have value if lifted to a higher orbit by efficient Magdrive or Neumann Drive.

Ending Pending

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 Yesterday 12:35:05

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#102 Yesterday 13:36:23

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#103 Yesterday 14:14:02

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

Board footer