Moonhopper or Moonship.

Void · 2020-07-17 19:09:44

I misbehaved a bit elsewhere, will go off to pout here

I am thinking a ship that might be carried up to LEO by a Starship. To lighten the load, no propellants in the Moonship. This of course would be safer.

To try to be correct, Super Heavy is used for a boost. I will grant, there is a limit on how much Starship in this case can lift. So, if one flight is not enough, you cut the thing in pieces, and do two or more. In that case, some assembly required in orbit, although that could be unfortunate.

What I like about this is that it would not need a proper heat shield to return from the Moon. It would use methods of powered aerocapture, to make repeated passes through the atmosphere, so the heating can be kept below the failure point of Stainless Steel. It would be preferred not to land it back on Earth but to capture it into LEO, or some suitable elliptical orbit.

By power it during aerocapture, that would be to steer it through the atmospheric pass.

I think that it could resemble the Lunar Starship. It could have the 9 canted engines, and I suspect that it may be possible to fire them for steering during atmospheric passage. I am of the intention that there would be no large raptors on this ship, just the 9 canted engines.

Another steering mechanism could be fold out landing legs that could be pivoted from the leeward side into the airstream. Not unlike Starships air braking flaps. Remember it is the intention not to go so deep into the atmosphere that these would fail from heating.

And the ship would probably be doomed to make several passes which would tend to make it by itself alone not suitable for a crewed mission. And in fact, it could be of a type for cargo.

However, although SpaceX intends to retire the Falcon 9, those could be used to launch a Crew Dragon to LEO. For a special version of Moonship, this would be mated to the apex of the Moonship, which might have a void for that purpose. The Crew Dragon has life support and has been and is being tested. So, it exists.

So, however the Crew Dragon and Moonship were lofted to LEO, and then mated, propellants must be loaded for a trip to the Moon. This is not at all outside of the envelope of the intentions of SpaceX. The Moonship or a partner non-crewed Moonship could have extra consumables on board if needed.

The ship flies to the Moon, the fold out legs/air paddles extend to a vertical down, and the ship lands. The crew does whatever the intentions are on the surface of the Moon, and hopefully that works out.

The ship takes off, and heads for Earth. Some time before air entry, the Crew Dragon and the Moonship part company and take their own paths.

Elon Musk said that they could send Crew Dragon around the Moon. (I imagine that requires Falcon Heavy, but I don't care I am not pondering that). So obviously he thinks a Crew Dragon can come in from the Moon and make a landing on Earth.

As for the Moon ship, would make a hot pass though the atmosphere to reduce the height of it's next orbit. It would repeat as needed. There would be no crew on board, so no risk to life on that ship.

A melting point for Stainless Steel ~Steel, Stainless 1510 degC 2750 degF

So just don't let the Stainless Steel parts get that hot in an atmospheric pass.

And I think it may be possible with steering by rockets and landing legs, it may be possible to dwell in the layer of atmosphere suitable longer than a normal skip of an Apollo Capsule would have been like. Thank goodness that did not happen. I believe it did almost in one flight, maybe Apollo 13.

So, then this ship does not have to be landed, and only has to be launched one time. However if Starship were capable of taking it in one piece, perhaps it could be brought down. However, I would think that might not be dollar wise.

Sorry for the tiff elsewhere, but all of the above seemed to be ignored so that I could get a regular put down. Don't like that much.

This ship would not need a high maintenance heat shield, and that is in it's favor, but unlike Lunar Starship, it would not have to get to LEO strictly by using propellants.

And it would protect crew from radiation by it's mass.

And it would be smaller. I don't think I see a need for more that say 24 people on the Moon, until it is explored and resources/methods pioneered as real.

However, I think that Lunar Starship would make excellent bases. I think that they could be put on their sides using the 9 landing engines, if that was desirable.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-07-17 19:43:06)

Void · 2020-07-17 19:57:59

Talking to myself.

This could be a thing that other launchers could be a thing that other rocket companies could do. Something from Blue Origins, or the Vulcan.

Although they need a crew capsule, if they are going to do it with crew.

Have some good sleep tonight Spacenut. I know you have a rough ride for your life, and you give a lot.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-07-17 19:59:21)

SpaceNut · 2020-07-17 20:20:58

Here is the current nasa efforts for the lunar lander design
SpaceX, Blue Origin and Dynetics will build human lunar landers for NASA’s next trip back to the Moon

Nasa has ruled out the space x submission at this time...

https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/05/01/n … -proposal/

Thank You Void and you have a good night as well...

SpaceNut wrote:

Since this one has not been blown up it may get a chance to fly A new SpaceX filing with the FCC suggests Starship rocket prototypes may fly more than 12 miles above Texas within the next 7 months

Oldfart1939 · 2020-07-18 15:47:51

One consideration Mr. Jurzek didn't consider: Starship is already in construction/development stages and would be far more affordable than the Lobbyist design using SLS/Orion. NASA has already screwed to pooch regarding Boeing in the commercial crew decisions, and hopefully Mr. Bridenstine will not allow the Old Space prejudices/preferences to override decisions based on reality.

Then there's the thought about "Elon time," versus real time. Given the parsimonious congressional funding, Starship offers the only chance at a 2024 lunar landing date. I cannot help but be impressed by the rate of construction in Boca Chica. SpaceX is going all out to build and test these new space vehicles.

These are just my off-the-wall comments.

No predictions, but food for thought.

Void · 2020-07-18 17:19:53

Well, I pretty much agree. The good news is everything is up in the air. The bad news is everything is up in the air.

There is no choice except to within reason "Go with the flow", hope exists, but there are so many variables as it flows. Usually they waste our time it seems, but they do get us a little bit there.

The machine I suggested, might be a way to economically get Oxygen from the Moon to LEO, but there we still don't know if that would be the best way.

Done.

Void · 2020-07-19 09:49:42

I keep thinking I won't post anymore, but apparently I don't know myself well enough.

If you want to understand how I am thinking, imagine I am a kid in a sandbox playing with toys, thinking about what you might do with them.

I think I have a desire to think about mixing and matching existing hardware and hardware that is projected, that is particularly needed to do anything with the Moon or Mars. For now, I am leaving Mars aside, because the art for it is going to have to be at least a level or two above what I think is needed for the Moon.

One thing that I have suggested before, is that for particular purposes, I think it should be possible to use a Starship refilled, (Propellants), in LEO as a booster for some other object to go somewhere else.

The something to boost could be another Starship, or something lifted by a Super Heavy, or something else lifted by a Falcon 9. I know that the plan is to retire these devices and put that work onto the developing Starship. However Starship is going to have early editions, that will not be capable of replacing the work of Falcon 9 (Crewed Missions), or Falcon Heavy.

So, the thing to know, is what would be a first useful Starship?

It would not be crew rated, but you might be able to launch for Starlink. Also, they are likely to be unlikely to attract satellite launches from many customers until the craft is validated as reliable.

We know that there is pressure to go to the Moon. Various versions of that.

I was thinking that at first SpaceX could make a tanker, to use as a booster for missions to the Moon. However, more likely they will make something that can lift hardware to orbit, and then emptied out it could be refilled with propellants, and indeed used as a booster for a Moon mission, before it then lands back on Earth, from an elliptical orbit. This would be practice for higher speed re-entries, so would have test value that way as well. This then would be a twofer. I don't see why they would not want to do it.

As I have suggested, they could lift a crew dragon up with just a Falcon 9.

A lunar landing craft to be mated with it could be lifted by a Falcon Heavy, perhaps or maybe by Starship itself.

A rocket man here has indicated that the present build of Starship, suggests that a Lunar Starship, will not have the capabilities to fly back, and would at least at first be a one way mission. Partly because the ship once landed on the Moon would be valuable there, and it might even be silly to bring it back. Just keep making new ones on an assembly line.

Each Starship, if you converted the tankage, would potentially have a volume of ~2400 Cubic Meters. I encountered those numbers on a video I watched.

I believe that Dr. Zubrin has suggested that SpaceX could make a Mini-Starship. Elon Musk/SpaceX are not interested at this time.

But to link Crew Dragon to a Starship boosted mission to the Moon and back, perhaps a smaller craft might make sense. Small enough to launch on a Falcon Heavy, and perhaps much later on to be brought up to LEO in a Starship.

As I have said, there will be early things that Starship could and should do first before being fully established. It is the old crawl, walk, run progression of a human from a child to adulthood. It is silly to think that you would come up with a full adult device immediatly.

In this way you can use the machine without crew rating it at first, and they would have their own launch hardware customer, which would be Starlink.

And they can't do anything much beyond LEO, until refilling propellants is a established capability. They will have a great deal to do before they can send a Starship to the Moon, and bring it back to the Earth's surface.

Establishing life support in a Starship should be a low priority, as they do have the Crew Dragon already, and a Falcon 9 to launch it to LEO.

I would expect that the first Starships will be heavier than what might be liked, it would be hoped that they can make them more elegant as time goes on.

Mini-Starship, which I am thinking would be the Moon lander, could be started as expendable. A Starship would have brought hardware to LEO. Then it would be refueled. Then it would boost an assembly of Crew Dragon and Mini-Starship. It would land on the Moon with a Crew Dragon, perhaps a modified version. Do the mission launch back off of the Moon, the two parts still together. Crew Dragon and the Mini-Starship.

They would part company at the appropriate time, the Crew Dragon to splash down and be recovered. The expendable Starship to be disposed of in some way. Maybe boosting itself to a high graveyard orbit? Probably don't want to crash it into the Earth, but maybe the Pacific would be OK, in the right place. I need a correction here....I did not mean expendable Starship, rather the mini or Moonship as expendable, at first, but I really love the idea of someday a skygrazer, that has no formal heat shield. Eventually.

A Mini-Starship of that kind should not be that hard to make as expendable. Not what SpaceX likes to do, but Falcon 9 was expendable at first, and they still sacrifice one for a good purpose now and then.
I am a bit fuzzy about the engines for it. They would not be full sized Raptors I expect. However two possibilities might apply.
1) The thrusters proposed for the Lunar Starship, aka "Deep Space Starship" so named by O.F.
2) Merlin engines. Why not? If a Starship has given this assembly a boost to the Moon, the propulsion needs are much less. The Merlins exist and are well tested. And the fuel for them, would give less boil off problems, although I am not sure if it would not gel up at low temperatures.

The so called Mini-Starship, is just a label for a landing and return stage, which "May" escort a crew dragon.

I have originally visualized it as a gumdrop shaped capsule, but that shape will not be likely to travel well on a Falcon Heavy. Perhaps too wide. So perhaps just a sawed off replica of the Lunar Starship. But perhaps Starship itself could lift a device with a broader base in its fairing(s).

Anyway really "Whatever it takes". One good desire is that it would be more topple proof than a Lunar Starship.

I have said that I think it should start off as expendable. So, no aerobraking surfaces. That makes it less of a drain on the SpaceX resources, and they know how to make tanks out of Stainless Steel, and they do have Merlin engines, so this thing should be able to be booted up with minimal diversions to the Starship effort.
Later on though, I hope to see the Mini, or Moonhopper, or Moonship evolve into a fully fledged device with a unique capability.

To be capable of aero capture under powered flight, using engine thrust, and air flaps to fine tune the atmospheric path.

As I have said in the a previous post, I would like to see, it have the ability to avoid high temperatures, so it would not need a formal heat shield, but would simply use Stainless Steel surfaces which must be kept below failure temperatures during the passage through the atmosphere.

And so, unless Starship could bring it down from orbit, and unless there were a reason to do so, it would spend it's life after launch traveling to the Moon with cargo, which could include a Dragon, and then going back to Earth with an aero capture.

It might try to aero capture to a circular LEO orbit, or maybe an orbit that avoids the Van Allen radiation belts, and then skims down to LEO. That would be determined by the ability of Starship to mate up with it.

One notion would be that for a crewed mission, Crew Dragon goes to LEO. Starship carries cargo up to LEO. Perhaps Starlink devices.
Starship is refueled, and then is mated to Crew Dragon. That temporary assembly then goes to match orbit with the Moonhopper (Mini).
The Crew Dragon is passed off to the Moonhopper. The Moonhopper has to be refueled also during this stage, perhaps from the Starship. The Starship then links up to the assembly and gives, it a boost towards the Moon. They part company. Starship loops back down to do an Earth landing. The assembly of Moonhopper and a Crew Dragon goes to the Moon.

They do their mission, They launch off of the Moon. The assembly stays together most of the way, for radiation protection of the crew. They part company, and I am not sure, but perhaps once you get through the Van Allen belts, can the Earth's magnetic field give the crew sufficient protection in case of a solar eruption? If so they part company after that, and each take their own fate. The Crew Dragon to splash down safely, we hope. The Moonhopper to either be disposable or in advanced versions, to aero capture for re-use.
------

As I have mentioned before, I think there may be a case to build ships that can do what Moonhopper would do, that would carry materials from the Moon to LEO. Oxygen?, Water?, Minerals?, Manufactured Items? So, then, if that seems plausible as a possible value, then Moonhopper would be a research vehicle that might lead to such a capability.

A useful capability, I hope.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-07-19 16:48:45)

Oldfart1939 · 2020-07-19 11:19:55

Although I agree in principle with what Void has said here, and numbers of different variations, our existing engineering manpower won't permit too many variations and permutations to be carried out.

Long time members may recall I suggested a couple years ago, something smaller than Starship vehicles, but larger than the Dragon space capsules for longer duration missions, and incorporated a booster something similar to one of the SpaceX concept designs call FalconX as the booster element. For deep space propulsion I suggested modular hypergolic fueled throw away boosters.

SpaceNut · 2020-07-19 15:20:21

The current version of starship or moon hopper as being built is with out any sort of crew pressure vessel of which that takes time to develop and is the heavy part of a capsule crafts design. If space x keeps to current plans of refueling once its in orbit we still need to know what its fuel requirements are.

Calliban · 2020-07-19 16:15:16

Has anyone here considered the possibility of an Earth-Lunar cycle ship? That is to say, a space station with an elliptical orbit, with a perihelion of 500km and an aphelion of 400,000km?

Last edited by Calliban (2020-07-19 16:19:00)

Void · 2020-07-19 17:00:29

I have been interested in such in the past, but just now, I want a quick and dirty method to check out the Moon, and get a better evaluation of it's potential. To get the mostest value for the leastest money, and yet not be stupid by skimping on what is really needed to do it.

We have real devices that exist, and projections of real intentions to create some other devices needed, and my hope is that we can nit them together into a quick and dirty way of putting some people on the Moon to evaluate it, and to evaluate the impact of 1/6 g on the human body. Also, with weights to partially simulate Martian gravity for the same reason.

Those other things will evolve over time if they demonstrate utility in the envelope of what is discovered to be the real nature of getting from point "A" to point "B" for Earth <> Moon interactions.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-07-19 17:00:58)

SpaceNut · 2020-07-19 17:14:30

What is being built is starhopper….

50 meters long and powered by three Raptor engines, creating a whopping 12,000 kN of thrust.

Of course the fins are only good for an atmosphere and the moon has none but if its going to the moon and landingon its tail then refueling and returning to earth then its only half the time not using the wings.

So how much fuel and what would be the size of a capsule cabin pressure vessel for this ship to be viable for the moons use?

Void · 2020-07-19 17:59:36

Well, I see no reason to land an aerodynamic Starship on the Moon. And I would like to avoid the requirement for refueling on the surface of the Moon.

As I see it at this point what is needed is a pseudo Apollo method. Actually, I believe that the engine for the Apollo Capsule and Command Module was sufficient to land on the Moon. I think that they just left it that way, because they realized that they needed a LEM to make the mission work, per ability.

I should think that the Aerodynamic Starship would have two options.
1) Escort the lander to Moon orbit and do a loop around to head back to Earth to do an aerodynamic landing.
2) Enter Lunar orbit, to retrieve the lander/Capsule when it came back up. To a degree this is safer. And if the mini-Starship/Moonship is expendable perhaps it is expended in Lunar orbit, to eventually crash. The Crew Dragon to be escorted back to Earth.

I am trying not to over define the options at this point I don't want to get excessively myopic before all possibilities are reasonably considered.

If the lander/Crew Dragon finds what they want then they can prep for a one way Lunar Starship to land, maybe intentionally do a powered topple on it's side.

Prior to the lander/Crew Dragon, I would consider a lander with robotic scout, maybe extra consumables. This would stay on the Lunar surface.

Coarse adjustment first. Find tuning later.

I want another look at the Moon, while diverting the least amount of effort from the Mars plans.

I also want to develop a "Sky-Skimming Moonship" eventually from the expendable lander stage.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-07-19 18:03:22)

Void · 2020-07-20 04:46:31

I suppose I could improve on my last response Spacenut.

I am looking at "Payday" machines, and the Mars effort being somewhat distinct.

I think that SpaceX's position on life support on a Starship can start with the guts of a Crew Dragon being added to it. That of course would not make it yet Mars capable, but it would be a start.

Not Done.

Void · 2020-07-20 04:47:55

I suppose I could improve on my last response Spacenut.

I am looking at "Payday" machines, and the Mars effort being somewhat distinct.

I think that SpaceX's position on life support on a Starship can start with the guts of a Crew Dragon being added to it. That of course would not make it yet Mars capable, but it would be a start.

Apollo through dumb luck and heroic effort was able to save the Apollo 13 crew, because there were two life support systems available.

But to put life support into a Starship which is a "Payday" starship per ability to move things about, is not all that sensible. If you put your life support into the Starship for Moon purposes, then you would have to land the whole ship onto the Moon to use that life support on the Moon.

But aerodynamic Starship cannot land on the Moon, as it has Raptors which will tear up the regolith and dig a crater. Also I understand that it would be very hard to throttle the Raptors correctly for a Moon landing.

Also AI is far superior to what existed during Apollo, so there is no need to have a life support in the Aerodynamic Starship, because you don't need a person on it for that reason.

But they do have Crew Dragon, so take that along with crew, and land it on the Moon where the work is to be done.

But to do that you need a lander, to insert the Crew Dragon into.

There may be a new smaller engine coming, which would be used for the Lunar Starship, and if it uses Raptor propellants, that would be the preference to use.

But until that were validated as trustworthy, I suggest an expendable lander propulsion system based on the Falcon 9 2nd stage. So it would use Merlin engines. So a different fuel.

It is hard to be sure, but when using Merlin engines, perhaps the lander should be expendable. Merlin engines might Carbon up over time so then need more service. But they would only be used twice in an expendable lander. Another reason to make it expendable, is that it would take up much less of the resources of SpaceX to develop it. It might be derived from a Falcon 9 2nd stage technology.

Back to the "Payday" notion.

A Starship which could move cargo up to LEO, is where the early payday would be. Crew rating the thing is going to take time, and a Starship with crew capabilities would interfere with the "Payday" anyway, and for the reasons mentioned would not be all that suitable to support a Crew Dragon mission to the Moon.

So, you lofted some equipment to LEO, and some of it might be Starlink and other items. You might lift the Moon lander also, but possibly a Falcon Heavy would do that. Falcon Heavy is not crew rated, and the version Starship I would want for the Moon, would not be crew rated.

But Falcon 9 seems to be headed in the right direction. Fingers crossed.

So, the Mission is payed for in part by lofting some items that someone wants to pay for to be in orbit. And I presume that whoever it is that wants to send people to the Moon for exploration, will be paying customers as well.

If Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have lifted the Moon mission items up, then the cargo that the Starship had lifted up might not involve the Moon mission at all. But it might. Depends on what becomes real. So far Starship is test articles, so we don't really know what would make the most sense. But if it did lift the Moon lander, there could still be ride sharing, to help pay the costs of the Mission.

So, however you do it, you have an almost propellant empty Starship and an empty Moon lander in orbit. Nothing can be done beyond LEO with these unless they are refilled with propellants. So, obviously there would need to be a Starship that lifts those propellants to orbit. That would not be crew rated either, I have to believe.

So, you can re-use the Starship for a Moon mission before sending it back to lift another load to LEO.

There are 3 methods I can think of to do this.
1) Starship serves pretty much a similar purpose as the Command Module of Apollo did. It brings the Moon lander and Crew Dragon to Lunar orbit. To finish the mission, it brings at least the Crew Dragon back to do a splash down, while the Starship does its type of landing.
2) The Starship does the same, but disconnects from the Moon lander, and Crew Dragon. It does not stop in Lunar orbit, but heads back to Earth to be put into more service. This one then does require a more capable Moon lander, as it has to go into its landing cycle most likely
immediately. It also has to lift off of the Moon and escort the Crew Dragon back to Earth all by itself.
3) The Starship only serves as a booster for the combination Moon lander and Crew Dragon. It does not even loop around the Moon. In this case the Lunar lander has to be even more capable. I has to finish the path to the Moon, and do everything that the version in #2 has to do.

Of these three, #1 seems the safest, and perhaps should be the way. If the Moon lander should only be able due to malfunction, to just get the Crew Dragon back up to a wobbly orbit, still the Starship might be able to go get it. #1 also demands the least of the Moon lander.

But a Starship is also presumed to be a paying item, so later on, as more infrastructure such as a base were on and perhaps around the Moon more methods of recovery local to the Moon would exist to save the situation, and in #2 and #3, you can free up the Starship early to go back to Earth and resume making money, to pay into the SpaceX revenue stream.

So, there is no reason to implement on board life support for an aerodynamic Starship in a Lunar mission.

But it does of course make sense to install such into a Lunar Starship, alias Deep Space Starship. Probably it is only going to fly once, so the cost is not going to be repetitive, and you don't have to try to be weight effective. Weight considerations for a repeatedly flying Starship would push you to expensive extremes, but for a one time flying Lunar Starship, I would think your standards for weight of a life support system can be much more relaxed. And of course for a base, it is likely over time that some of your life support resources would come from Lunar materials. Oxygen, maybe water.

------

If we have Lunar Starships, I would expect that they will have those 9 small canted engines to land. If those are mini-raptors and run on Methane, and Oxygen, then I would think that over time you would incorporate that type of engine in a Moon lander and move away from the Merlin engines. For such a vehicle, then I would think that it can become re-usable.

And that is where aero braking comes in. It would have the advantage of no proper heat shield, and of course the game of the day is re-usable hardware. Supposedly that pays off. I am pretty much a believer.

Done.

When I post here, my computer bogs down, I have to stop clean things up and then start again. This does not happen to me anywhere else. If there is some jerk out there doing something, why don't you learn to walk on your two hind paws, knuckle dragger.

Last edited by Void (2020-07-20 05:57:37)

Void · 2020-07-20 10:41:28

OK, that is not a plaster entity in a museum. Ya, you might want to work around that. Land a Lunar Starship, with automation and robots, make a landing pad for a cant hack the wilderness Starship. Then maybe you can land an aerodynamic Starship. But the throttle issue is in the way. So, maybe SpaceX fixes it.

But It you want to check out different locations on the Moon, maybe that is more investment than you like just to have a look.

I am not looking to wreck your world, wishing I can help it.

Probably going to assess if it is worth it to be on this site posting, as it appears that animals cannot leave it alone.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-07-20 10:50:17)

SpaceNut · 2020-07-20 16:59:27

The trouble with the moon is the scale of crew size to duration needs changes the shape and size of the ship to make it plausible.

Void · 2020-07-21 12:11:18

I don't see it as trouble, just a decision. Does someone see value sufficient to justify the creation of what is needed.

From a Science standpoint, the discovery of Carbon emitted from the Moon, throwing suspicion on established orthodoxy about the Moons creation, is very important, as a better measurement will allow adjustments to the calibration of the concepts of reality, which could be important to understanding many worlds.

-----

Was going to talk about containerization Earth<>Moon, with a relay of different Starships, though that might be at least a few words.

I'm getting extremely frustrated. It seems like this site moves really slow. Hangs up. Guess I should try another computer, in case it is no my end. Is anyone else experiencing this? But I am not getting it on other sites. You may have jerks bothering this site. I am not sure.

Until it gets better, I guess I will end posting. It is too frustrating.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-07-21 12:21:03)

tahanson43206 · 2020-07-21 12:32:12

For Void ... re #17 and computer issues ...
I'll offer a suggestion for your consideration in the Housekeeping topic
(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-07-21 16:40:38

Void do not worry about the computer issue as its bad programming for a website that you may have visited that is the cause with the active browser.

As for the moon hopper we need to put together some limits for the design and not just do the guessing as to what is needed to launch it from earth or to land on the moon as its more than that for designing the ship for manned use.

Void · 2020-07-21 17:34:24

Well thank you Spacenut. Things seem OK now.

Ummm......Ya, I am not all that much for that at this time.

There are so many variables. Will it be based on Falcon 9 2nd stage, at least at first. Or, will they show presumed new small engines, that are for the Moon Starship? Lots of unknowns, even if they are interested. And I could be that they would partner with someone else with a Moon lander in planning. So, lots of things to consider before getting ready to make forms to pour concrete.

And, which mission type, Boosted by Starship from LEO, or on it's own? Probably boosted by Starship makes sense. But then how much boosting/escorting? The high level escort requires that a Starship be tied up in orbit of the Moon, when it could be doing lifting work in Earth<>LEO.

I guess the logic for the device would be that you don't want to lift a whole Starship from the Lunar surface and to the Earth, which does not have Aerodynamic capabilities. On the other hand it may not make sense to land an Aerodynamic Starship onto the Moon, even if you have a landing pad built, and have figured out how to throttle its engines well enough for a landing. And I will admit that part of that decision would be as to the price and availability of propellants.

Propellants will be something to discover. Some here are not really confident that there is water at the poles. Previously Carbon was thought to be almost totally absent from the Moon. Now, it seems that more is there than expected.

You do want to seem to get all numbers with me, and if you need it I will validate any assumption that I am certainly not up to the capabilities of others here. Particularly for something that has not been more than vaguely defined, other than the crew capsule.

And returning to variables, we do not even have more than vague notions of what Starship of any kind will do at first or as is is perfected.

So, I decline, because of lack of ability on my part, as that is the easiest out, and also lack of definition of future developments in technology. And also for probable variability of tasks, against future discovery and technology upgrades.

Here is a notion. It's gotta be good enough to move the capsule with crew where you want them safely. I hope it may evolve into a aerodynamic reusable device. (That's another variation).

Too soon for Orthodoxy I would think. Haven't even got serious about doing it. It was just a proposal, to think through a potential value and compare it to other options.

If you don't tar and feather me, I guess I will move on to a supply chain concept which might involve 3 different types of Starship moving loads in serial fashion. I guess if you don't mind, that's what I will do, as soon as I am in the mood and able.

Containerization.....??? Later or not If it ain't fun, I ain't not so eager ta bee doin it. Sorry, but you will just need to give me the bums rush, if that does not work for you.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-07-21 17:58:57)

SpaceNut · 2020-07-21 18:12:45

This is the rocket that has been there

The first stage of the Saturn V rocket, using five F-1 rocket engines, produced 7.5 million lbs. (3.4 million kilograms) of thrust and was used during launch for about 2 minutes. It gobbled up 20 tons (40,000 pounds) of fuel per second

https://www.space.com/18422-apollo-satu … aphic.html

All the fuel loads and burn times are on the slides for first, second and third stage but nothing for the Apollo capsule command module and none for the lunar module.

So we should be able to calculate what it would take to made the same with existing parts for similar performance.

https://www.boeing.com/history/products … ocket.page

The Saturn V could put a 120-ton (108-tonne) payload into Earth orbit or a 45-ton (40-tonne) payload near the moon. It contained 5.6 million pounds (2.5 million kilograms) of propellant, or 960,000 gallons (3.6 million liters). The S-IC was built by Boeing at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. It was 138 feet (42 meters) tall and 33 feet (10 meters) in diameter and had five engines. It was the largest rocket produced in the United States, with a dry weight of 300,000 pounds (136,077 kilograms). When fueled, it weighed 5 million pounds (15.8 million kilograms). When loaded, 97% of the weight of the stage was propellant. Instead of having an intertank structure to separate the two fuel tanks as was done in the S-IC, the S-II used a common bulkhead consisting of two aluminum sheets separated by a honeycomb structure made of phenol, which insulated against the 125 degrees Fahrenheit (70 degrees Celsius) temperature difference between the two tanks and saved 3.9 tons (3.6 tonnes) in weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
https://thephysicsofspacex.wordpress.co … t-engines/
https://thephysicsofspacex.wordpress.co … t-engines/

physics-of-spacex-first-stage-engines-annotated2.png?w=1000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compariso … et_engines

Void · 2020-07-21 19:17:36

OK, Spacenut, I will think about this for a time, and leave other things alone. I did take a look at the dry mass for Crew Dragon, and did not like the number. I did at least that. I am not sure I got a good number.

Anyway maybe I should school myself better on it before I talk anymore about it.

Done.

SpaceNut · 2020-07-21 19:23:01

GW ran the dragon a while back when we wanted to get to the moon and land with the super draco engines. What was found is that it could land but when or if we wanted to leave we could not as it did not have the engine thrust or ISP to get back to low lunar orbit even if we refilled it with fuel on the moons surface.
Myself I do like the engine canting on the crewed dragon and that makes a lander less apt to have a problem with rocks hitting the engines if they were under it between the legs as the LEM did.

Here is a batch of topics that relate:
Apollo 11 REDUX
Apollo 8, redux
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary
Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status
Crew vehicles discussion

More Saturn Apollo data

third stage of Saturn v

Single engine stage produced 1.00x106 N of thrust.
Burn time for the entire load of fuel was 477 seconds. This rocket engine would burn for 165 seconds (2.75 minutes ) not expending all of the fuel.

finishing circular orbit after launch then used again for the earth depature.

Then, if all systems are "go" the remaining fuel would burn for 312 seconds (5.2 minutes ) putting the rocket into its trajectory towards the moon ("translunar injection").
Total mass of the fuel for this stage was 0.0119x106 kg .
Empty, the frame of the third stage had a mass of 0.0154x106 kg . In addition to the frame there was a .00204x106 kg (45,000 pound ) instrument package, which sat atop the third stage, used to control the three stages in flight: ignition and cutoff of the engines, steering, and any other controls for the Saturn V rocket. This total mass was 0.0174x106 kg .

main-qimg-af31c117284dbb43e2990c81a1170884

The Apollo 14 CSM mass of 29,229 kg was the launch mass including propellants and expendables, of this the Command Module (CM-110) had a mass of 5758 kg and the Service Module (SM-110) 23,471 kg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

Void · 2020-07-22 11:00:41

Spacenut,

I have had a number of thoughts, and want to approach this again, with greater connection with that it appears SpaceX has said they are up to, and then try to do an ignorant guess as to where they might evolve to for the Moon. The difference here would be rather than to build up a lander for a Crew Dragon, perhaps ask if they might consider shrinking down their proposed Lunar Starship for special missions. And it is an easier way out for me so that I don't waste as much time on perhaps unproductive thinking.

I guess a restart would be to "Measure" the suggested magnitude of the activities they say they intend to be involved in, and figure out how the Moon and other space activities other than Mars might be touched by their hoped for capabilities. So, then this:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sp … &FORM=VIRE

I have come to realize that all of the functions that I want can be satisfied by various types of Starships. The two basic types that are already mentioned with some believable substance are:
1) Aerodynamic Starship.
2) Lunar Starship.

I can see the value of having some variations later, but it seems those two working together could do a lot obviously.

It seems to me that Mars can be ignored in the time periods between interplanetary launches. That is supposed to be about 1000 ships about every two years? I guess.

So then what are they doing with these things in the dead time? They are proposed to manufacture about 1 new one every 72 hours when they get up to speed.

So I don't think they are going to load them up with people and supplies for Mars and wait up to 2 years to head to Mars. Obviously.

There will probably end up a lot of activity other than Mars for that capacity that would otherwise be idle.

It is likely that they may indeed establish a ship with very large life support, that would be necessary for the trip to Mars. But it is likely to be overkill for working with the Moon, for a while. I don't think we are likely to see 1,000,000 people on the Moon anytime soon.

I guess I would think that there would likely be two phases for the Moon. 1) Like and Antarctic research base, combined with research on resource development. 2) If a viable resource can be developed, then a business plan. However the Moon is likely to involve lots of robots and Telepresence activity, which should reduce numbers of people needed, even if some kind of a resource can be a going business.

So, a Starship with a mega cabin for 100 people with life support does not seem a good fit to me.

I think that what would make sense for the Moon would be "Passing Parcels", between Aerodynamic Starships, and Lunar Starships, at a low Lunar orbit.

So, perhaps some of the parcels would involve "Containerization". And one container could be a Crew Dragon, or some update of one.

So, I am thinking that the large passenger cabins that they might put into some Starships headed to Mars, would be rather useless, except for some space tourism, and maybe some labs??? I am just trying to figure out efficiency for all this.

I might suggest that the large cabins be containers themselves to be installed just prior to launch to Mars. And I might suggest that they mostly be left on Mars. There is some inefficiency, as I know that for instance Elon Musk/SpaceX do not want to add the weight of a "Can within a Can", but if you install the cabin space for 100 people directly into a Starship, and then choose to bring the ship back to Earth, you also have a lack of propellant efficiency, as you have to bring all the habit for humans back from Mars to the surface of the Earth, which is silly because you brought 100 people to Mars, and you are then taking away a habitat they could live in on the surface of Mars.

And a further argument can be that if you just don't install the large habitation containers, on the Starships until it is close to time to launch your armada of 1000 ships to Mars, you pay very little penalty for the "Can within a Can" issue. It will cost you a bit per the mission to Mars, but before you put that container into a Starship, you then may use your "Aerodynamic Planet Landing Starship" as a workhorse for a relay of materials and people to the Moon, and perhaps some things coming back from the Moon. Containerization making a fair amount of sense for this.

------

So, the "Aerodynamic Planet Landing Starship", makes sense to me then as a part of a relay system to the Moon, during time periods for the ships between the manufacture of the ship, and the sending of the ship to Mars. The machine could move containers up from the Earths surface, be repropellented (I am inventing that word, cause when you say refueling you are inaccurate, as Oxygen is not a fuel. If you have a better existing word, then please let me know). The to pass to low Lunar orbit, where it may be possible to pass the container/parcel to a Lunar Starship (Deep Space Starship), to be landed on the Moon.

As I have said, this container could be an upgraded Crew Dragon, or a Crew Dragon, with a expanded life support module, for missions say 1 to 2 weeks on a Lunar surface.

The Lunar Starship, is pretty good. Some issues:
-You don't need the Raptors after you get it off of Earth, it seems to me you remove them and then the canted engines have to be strong enough to get to a low lunar orbit.
-Landing legs/pads appear to be an issue. Well, if you don't have raptors on it's tail end, why can't you attach a landing pad to the tail end before landing in a new location. Leave the landing pad behind when you go back to Lunar orbit.
-Size: Seems like a full size might be overkill for some missions. So, it should be possible to "Dwarf" the things where useful. I guess, most likely for most geology, they would carry robots, and telepresence machines to a location. Not even a upsized Crew Dragon mission.

But at times, it might be good to get someone out there if something of sufficient interest is found. In that case a "Dwarf" Lunar Starship with a Crew Dragon upgrade (A container), were provided for that mission on the Moons surface.

------

OK, another piece for my little dream world in space would be another basic version of Starship.

If you have a Starship with containerization, that is special for lifting containers through the atmosphere to LEO, you might not want to bother pushing it's heat shield and raptor engines, and Earth grade landing legs, back and fourth to the Moon LLO (Low Lunar Orbit). You probably don't want to miss out on many of its lifting repeats, as that is Money.

So, I am looking for an "Trans-Lunar-Starship".

It would launch from Earth once. Have its raptors removed, not have a proper heat shield, but have stainless steel atmospheric braking fins similar to the "Aerodynamic Planet Landing Starship". The idea would be to do a powered aerocapture. I guess it would be a choice if it could land on the Moon. Best efficiency would be;

"Aerodynamic Planet Landing Starship" <> "Trans-Lunar-Starship" <> Lunar Starship (Moon surface <> LLO).

A containerization/parcel relay.

So, all of this I think solves for the issues. Don't really have to re-invent the wheel, for landing a Crew Dragon on the Moon and getting it off of the Moon. You just start with a Lunar Starship, connected with a containerization/parcel relay.

------

I would think that eventually you might have a relay system for Mars, but not at first.

------

Containerization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containerization

Done.

Not quite:

For Starships that land on the Moon, it might be nice in some cases to just attach the containers to the outside of the ship(s), and close to the surface. There would be balance problems to solve though.

Done....Done.

More....

I guess it is pretty obvious that containers brought to LEO, the Moon, or elsewhere, might be converted into extraterrestrial habitat structure. How about Space Station, some having synthetic gravity?

The can within the can weight penalty is real, but it should not take up much of the volume. And if the cans are an asset down the way, then the weight problem is perhaps not a problem since the containers are then also payload.

Really Done.

I swear!

Last edited by Void (2020-07-22 13:07:09)

SpaceNut · 2020-07-22 21:25:17

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/05/s … -moon.html

https://www.universetoday.com/146508/ho … -the-moon/

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi … 001606.pdf

https://www.spacetv.net/artemis-program/

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starsh … prototype/

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2020-07-17 19:09:44

Moonhopper or Moonship.

#2 2020-07-17 19:57:59

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#3 2020-07-17 20:20:58

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#4 2020-07-18 15:47:51

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#5 2020-07-18 17:19:53

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#6 2020-07-19 09:49:42

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#7 2020-07-19 11:19:55

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#8 2020-07-19 15:20:21

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#9 2020-07-19 16:15:16

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#10 2020-07-19 17:00:29

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#11 2020-07-19 17:14:30

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#12 2020-07-19 17:59:36

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#13 2020-07-20 04:46:31

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#14 2020-07-20 04:47:55

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#15 2020-07-20 10:41:28

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#16 2020-07-20 16:59:27

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#17 2020-07-21 12:11:18

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#18 2020-07-21 12:32:12

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#19 2020-07-21 16:40:38

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#20 2020-07-21 17:34:24

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#21 2020-07-21 18:12:45

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#22 2020-07-21 19:17:36

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#23 2020-07-21 19:23:01

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#24 2020-07-22 11:00:41

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

#25 2020-07-22 21:25:17

Re: Moonhopper or Moonship.

Board footer