Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

Void · 2021-12-12 11:26:09

Well, reverting to the relatively lately entertained general notions of a collection of space objects offering better protection, in flight I offer this, possible treatment of GCR, and perhaps also a propulsion mode, assistive more for Earth/Moon>Mars.

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/space … Radiation/
Quote:

Spacecraft Scale Magnetospheric Protection from Galactic Cosmic Radiation

I felt that my notions recent did already give some thinking on the issue of Solar radiation, and low g health maintenance.

But also using a magnetic field to shelter such a collection from some GCR, and also to help propel the collection from Earth/Moon to Mars, might really have value.

I think that having a multipart convoy, of course offers safety in numbers, as a potential value. It also may well be protective from the ill nature of space travel to human flesh.

The primary liability of using Ballistic Capture for traveling Earth/Moon>Mars, is the extended time duration of flight which might include Months.

I think that we have notions of protective measures that might be included now, including magnetic protections, may be possible.

And that may make a significant contribution to propulsion Earth/Moon>Mars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_ … etospheres.

So, having a hub with a massive energy device, either solar, and/or nuclear fission, could be very valuable.

My expectations are that those energy devices will earn their keep in the flight outward, and much of the hub would end up actually as cargo, to Mars/Phobos/Deimos.

We anticipate far fewer humans to go Mars>Earth than Earth/Moon>Mars, so on the return trip, methods to protect from the space environment would likely require less mass, so a lot of Mass could be left behind on departure from Mars.

Also, going Mars>Earth/Moon, physical deterioration from zero g could be treated on arrival to Earth/Moon, as little work would be expected from the returning humans prior to rehabilitation. However it would be nice to provide 1/6th g on return as well, if that is available.

Good enough for now.

Done.

If there is anyone out there who likes "Big Ships", I would invite them to consider this material and adapt some of it to their notions. It is a big collection of ships.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-12-12 11:37:29)

Void · 2021-12-12 13:56:56

OK, here it is, this is part of the reason why I think a fractional gravity such as 1/6th should be tried as standard, at least for serving adults.

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/High … e_999.html
Quote:

High-tech sleeping bag could solve vision issues in space

We really don't know if 1/6th will have as many fluid problems as micro-gravity, but 1/6th g is likely more economic to achieve, and special space medicines like this may be sufficient to maintain prolonged health in such an environment.

This then allows two environments of interest to be evaluated as similar.
The Moon as 1/6th true gravity, and of course machine environments in space also in many cases, constructed to provide a synthetic 1/6th gravity.

I think that the Moon could really turn out to be a much bigger thing than others would suppose, if the results of such tests work out for adults. I think it will be much longer to figure out what to do about procreation results>Children.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-12-12 14:00:43)

Void · 2022-02-11 20:38:46

As you know I am quite capable of spewing stuff. This is a place for me to do it.

I am thinking about Lunar Starship.

Frankly I am thinking I would like it to have flaps, and to be able to aerocapture to LEO by several uncrewed passes in our upper atmosphere.

The Angry Astronaut had something to say about life support for it.

I was wondering why not literally use a set of Dragons.

The thing is going to need significant landing leg structure. I am thinking put one Dragon in the cargo bay, and one somehow above the landing leg structure on one side. Then on the other side have a cargo hold for cargo to deliver.

Have the crew inhabit the Dragon in the cargo bay on the way out and the way back. Have the crew go to the side mounted Dragon prior to landing. Then have them go back to the one in the cargo bay once in orbit again.

It might be that between two there would be enough life support. For the mission.

To take off, it may be required to put lunar samples into the side cargo hold to balance the weight of the side Dragon. Maybe that side cargo bay would actually be a non-crewed Dragon.

When launching from the Moon the landing legs would be left behind for the most part to reduce load, and to provide a resource on the Moon for the future.

Then head back to Earth. Each Dragon, then may possibly then enter the Earth's atmosphere. So, you might have two capable of getting the crew down to the sea, and you would have the third cargo Dragon, to bring Moon samples down.

Just me doing brain silliness perhaps. Fun is fun.

Done

Last edited by Void (2022-02-11 20:48:13)

Void · 2022-06-19 08:07:59

Well, I will wake this up for a bit. Of course this is about Superheavy / Starship.

Most of what I have placed here is relatively low quality. However in this "Run", I think it is sufficiently of value.

My intention is to compare the Falcon 9 / 2nd stage system to the development of Superheavy / Starship.

I have seen a depiction of a Starship with a "Pez" Satellite dispenser method as seeming to be the first paying version of the stack.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ut … &FORM=VIRE

However, even if this would be the first version to earn it's keep, it could have happened that SpaceX would have built a expendable "Starship", and then, it might be possible to compare the Falcon 9 Stack with the Superheavy / Expendable 2nd stage stack.

The expendable Starship, would not have a heat shield, or braking flaps, so would be lowered in cost for one use. And I might suppose that in fact they could have kept the "Expendable" Starship in orbit as part of future space structure or feed to a 3D printing process.

The advantages of the Superheavy system is that they may still innovate, where for the Falcon 9, I believe NASA does not want them to change things much.

The Superheavy has Raptors which are supposed to be more powerful engines, and not as subject to coking.

I guess there may be more, but I am looking at the idea that Falcon 9 is still the most economical as far as I can see, (Generally).

So, I am guessing that a Superheavy with an expendable 2nd stage, (Which might be repurposed in orbit), would improve on the Falcon 9 system.

So, I consider that to be a measure of relative value. A downside is that currently there are only two launch sites for that stack, and possibly in the future 2 oil rigs. I believe that Falcon 9 has more options than that.

SpaceX choose to skip over the expendable 2nd stage option and is going for a Starship reuse.

I suggest that some day they might consider making an repurpose in space 2nd stage. But even I think that that should be very low priority. If it were created, the best use of it would be to deliver cargo to LEO and then to take it to the Moon and create habs from it.
Maybe bring the engines back. That would be quite a lot like the proposed "Lunar Starship", but not exactly.

So then if they create a reusable LEO Starship with Pez dispenser, they will be ahead of the possible disposable 2nd stage, and that of course then, I presume, ahead of the Falcon 9 Stack.

And then of course you have to start working on orbital refills of propellants to do much else. (For the most part).

So SpaceX is probably on track for the $$$, even if they do not "Yet" develop orbital refilling. They would still be able to service Space Stations in LEO, presumably.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-06-19 08:29:14)

Void · 2022-07-17 08:44:00

From: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 99#p197799
Post #1655

Quote:

RGClark
Member
From: Philadelphia, PA
Registered: 2006-07-05
Posts: 551
Email Website
I’m not sanguine about using the 33 engines on the Superheavy for regular passenger flights. I think better would be developing using the 9-engine Starship for that purpose. The Superheavy could be used for delivering to orbit cargo or the large components of beyond LEO flights, i.e., Moon or Mars.
To this end SpaceX should develop a smaller 3rd stage to go atop the Starship, a mini-Starship if you will. I speculated about this before. Since it is comparable in size to the earlier Starhopper test stage, I called this stage,modified to be space-worthy, “Starhopper”. This would allow ca. 100 tons expendable payload for the TSTO Starship/Starhopper. And an expendable 3-stage Superheavy/Starship/Starhopper could do either lunar or Mars missions in a single flight.
Bob Clark
Nanotechnology now can produce the space elevator and private orbital launchers. It now also makes possible the long desired 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nano … 13319568#/

I like to think about a compare of the Lunar Starship Stack and the Falcon 9 Stack.

Then perhaps to modify the Lunar Starship for the things you have given notion to.

I wonder if a Lunar Starship were cut into two what options might be obtained? There could be various variations.

If it were cut in two, I suppose we could call the stages 2-1 the lower stage of the lunar starship and 2-2 The uppermost stage.

It might be that they could each be retrofitted to land on the Moon, as desired.

Without 2-2 stacked on it, the 2-1 would have a flat spot-on top for certain types of cargo to be attached to for landing.

I have thought that either or both of these sub-Stages could be made Hydro lox or not.

I also see the possibility that SpaceX would work with other rocket providers where they would provide the 2-2 substage.

Terran-R upper stage comes to mind: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Te … &FORM=VIRE

So, it would likely not be done to stack the Terran-R upper stage on a cut-in-two Lunar Starship, but rather might make sense to launch a Lunar Starship and a Terran-R upper stage to LEO, and then hook them together.

The Lunar Starship would likely not need a cargo hold but might have one. Rather you might simply hook payloads to its outsides somewhere.

Then the Lunar Starship might boost both itself, it's Payloads and the Terran-R mini-starship to the Moon.

The Lunar Starship would enter orbit of the Moon, probably the Mini-Starship would be with it, but it might take a path to the surface instead if it had humans on board, to reduce risk of radiation and consumption of consumables.

Then the Mini would hop up and down with payloads as a robot, refueling at least in part from the Lunar Starship. However, if Oxygen production began on the Moon, then the Mini would tank up on Oxygen on the Moon's surface, and with Methane from the orbital Lunar Starship.

Down the line perhaps a Mini with Hydro Lox would be created, and it would refill entirely on the Moon.

This would not stop the use of Starship on the Moon, where that seems worthwhile.
-Sacrifice where the ship stays on the surface and brings a large amount of cargo.
-Lunar Starship itself.
-Regular Starship, provided that sufficient landing pads have been provided.

But of course what would be selected of the options would be what works best for the particular action desired.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-07-17 09:07:08)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-23 03:30:03

Elon Musk, SpaceX's billionaire founder and CEO, wants Starship to fly to Mars.
https://news.sky.com/video/elon-musk-sp … s-13095103

Elon Musk claims SpaceX Starship will take humanity to Mars despite aircraft exploding under atmospheric pressure
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech … -moon.html

NASA Shares Newest Results of Moon to Mars Architecture Concept Review
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa- … pt-review/

Void · 2024-03-29 20:21:59

This is an old garbage bin where I have placed quite a few of my odd speculations.

But I will use it for a potential topic. I can be up to the moderators to move this post to another topic if they want to or to create a new topic if they want to, or to do nothing.

The new topics name could be "In-Orbit Heat Shield Repairs".

I expect that SpaceX will improve its heat tile methods over time. It seems highly likely to me that at this time they are experimenting on many different types, and some are not working that well.

As I understand it the Space Shuttle could endure losing some heat shield tiles, but some were critical, and we lost a crew because of that.

I queried for opinions and got some opinions here: "Can starship tolerate heat shield losses?"
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/c … eld_tiles/

These two are somewhat optimistic:

u/CremePuffBandit avatar
CremePuffBandit
•
3y ago
They still have the insulating ceramic fabric behind them, which will hopefully help in the case of a lost tile.

webbitor
•
3y ago
Musk has stated that it can lose a few. The stainless steel can withstand pretty high temperatures, much more so than aluminum (like the shuttle) or typical carbon fiber composite materials.
MrDearm
•
3y ago
The biggest difference with Starship vs the shuttle is that it’s made of steel, not aluminum. One shuttle other than Columbia actually lost a tile in its mission and re-entered successfully cuz the tile happened to be the one covering a steel antenna mount. Steel is a lot more resilient to heat. So to answer u question, it can prob lost a few, but not a lot.

But it has occurred to me that there are going to be space stations in orbit and propellant depots. Robotics it improving a lot.

So, for many cases where the heat shield has damage it may be possible to do patching. Patching ideally would simply mean snapping a new tile in where a gap occurred, provided that the pins were functional. So, that could be a vast improvement over the situation which existed for the Space Shuttle.

So, if such a repair method were available in orbit, then the tanker Starships should be highly redeemable from a damage of the heat shield in many cases.

Mars bound Starships should be redeemable. If they are not of course they should not set off for Mars.

So other Starships might be able to "Abort to Orbit, if it is felt landing before repairs would be too dangerous. There may be a tug with a repair kit to service those.

Point to Point, however, may need a higher reliability of heat shield, which could come later.

However, if Point to Point also used the Superheavy booster perhaps, they too could abort to orbit, if they understood they had heavy heat shield damage. For Point to Point if cargo could be ejected somehow, perhaps they could better facilitate a abort to orbit.

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-03-29 20:45:40)

Void · 2024-06-23 14:24:47

I am going to babble about sea-based drone ships and launch platforms. I do not want to profane a better topic, so I will do it here.

A video suggesting it: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … C21D4EC250

So, who knows, as they have previously considered sea-based launch platforms, perhaps landing on a drone ship may be an alternate method. That could be landing only as like the Falcon 9. While the video suggests landing on legs, I might wonder if a half height landing tower would do OK for the Super Heavy, and then only for emergencies, perhaps the Starship.

A Step Based expansion of such capabilities makes sense to me. These steps would move in the general direction of a full sea based two stages launch system. (Move in the direction not necessarily go that far).

Step #1: Granted, Superheavy is much bigger, but it also will not use the Hover-Slam method. They supposedly can do an actual hover. A catch only platform where likely it has to make a trip back to land launch facilities, is likely to be similar to what is done with Falcon 9, so not a massive departure.

Step #2: The USA has the Intercostal Waterway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intracoastal_Waterway
A Superheavy landing on a ship, could be purged of explosive materials such as propellants, and then brought to a tank farm location connected to the Intercostal Waterway. Then it could launch in a small retrograde direction to land on a full stack launch tower.

I don't know how aerodynamics would work with that. Keep in mind there would not be a payload or Starship involved in the launch so the blast effects of the launch could be considerably less than for a full stack launch with Starship and payload. You might have to put a lightweight hollow cone on top of the superheavy to make it work.

Step #3: would be like Step #2, except you would not travel the drone ship back to "Land". It would need the full ability to refill a Superheavy sufficiently to allow it to fly back to Florida or Texas, probably in a retrograde direction. (But no Starship or payload on it, so just a partial refilling).

Step #4: of course, would be a fully Sea Based platform, capable of the two-stage launch, perhaps with a payload as well. I expect this would be a long way off.

I am supposing that using Step #1 and perhaps #2 and #3, might have a payoff for some launches, as it would be on territory already discovered in part, #1, and in #2 and #3 to expand towards #4. The methods might offer an expanded payload to orbit without sacrificing a Superheavy. #3, might have a reasonable payoff, if you could indeed catch Superheavy at Sea, and refill it and fly it back to the original launch site in a matter of hours.

If I understand, the effort to fly directly back to the original launch site eats significantly into the propellants that could launch payload to orbit.

But there are lots of chances that I am misunderstanding some things. In that case it is an opportunity to learn.

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-06-23 14:56:12)

Void · 2024-08-04 11:41:55

Well, here I am again. This time I am considering heat shield methods.

I am considering a "Clip-On" heat shield with a potential method of active cooling which may be suitable for Mars.

The "Clip-On" heat shield would have the contours of the windward side of a Starship. It would be made in a large part from a metal that could be useful in initiating a Martian settlement(s). An ablative coating is likely to be desired.

For now, lets just say the device would be largely of Stainless Steel with an ablative coating and would clip onto the windward side of Starship.

The coolant could be CO2, which should be available from Mars and Earth.

The method for actively cooling the propellant tanks would be to vent CO2 into the propellant tanks and then from there into an air gap between the windward side of the propellant tanks, and the "Clip-On" heat shield.

Similar could be done with the cabin, but for landing any humans would take refuge in a special sub-compartment in the Cabin/Cargo section on the leeward side of the ship. They would be quite crowded during landing.

There may be options for dropping the "Clip-On" heat shield in flight. Perhaps easiest done as the landing rockets would fire.

As I understand it, the main tanks are not used during transit to Mars after the primary burning to do the Mars send. Then, I believe they may be in a vacuum state to insulate the craft like a vacuum bottle.

It is my impressing that these tanks have to be pressurized prior to the atmospheric encounter to stiffen the craft. I believe that the tanks can handle 6 bars of pressure.

Similar could be done for some version of the Cargo/Cabin but you could have a special compartment to put humans and other sensitive items into during landing.

Note: This method might allow landing a "Naked" Starship. The Moon does not have much CO2, but Mars does.

While it might be possible to do this in interplanetary mode, I see it as even better for Mars Orbit <> Mars Surface.

We would want the one-time heat shield to be of materials that could be fed into a manufacturing process such as 3D printer.

The Heatshield could remain on the ship until after landing or might be ejected prior to landing.

Here is an attempt to further explain:

It is not a drawing of a Starship, but may illustrate what I am thinking.

To get these things into orbit from Earth, perhaps they would be clipped to a Starships leeward side and then disconnected in LEO. Then shipped as a collection of them to Mars orbit with a nuclear electric rocket.

But as I have said, using the method in interplanetary mode is not ruled out.

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-08-04 12:18:29)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#476 2021-12-12 11:26:09

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#477 2021-12-12 13:56:56

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#478 2022-02-11 20:38:46

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#479 2022-06-19 08:07:59

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#480 2022-07-17 08:44:00

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#481 2024-03-23 03:30:03

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#482 2024-03-29 20:21:59

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#483 2024-06-23 14:24:47

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#484 2024-08-04 11:41:55

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

Board footer