Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

Calliban · 2020-07-14 11:28:53

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Void re #424
This is your topic, so your management preferences are the rule here.
However, I ** did ** follow the forum convention, of specifically addressing my reply to Calliban, and to a specific post.
For Calliban re #422
It is good to see you are still thinking about this interesting idea!
Perhaps your reply was not to either one of us, but to someone else entirely?
You can help us avoid confusion by simply indicating at the top of your message whether it is a reply, and if so to whom, and if so, to which specific post.
I have noticed that you are courteous to others when you intrude upon their topics, so perhaps you would prefer that I move to another topic?
You can indicate to others that you do not want intrusions on your topic. That would be easy to do and I'm sure SpaceNut will help you to enforce a request like that.
(th)

I shouldn't have brought it up. The reason I did is that our original discussion revolved around the BFR. The cannon was a relatively low tech way of boosting BFR payload capacity with little development cost. If it can boost payload by 30%, then it is very valuable and should pay for itself rapidly in a regular BFR transit system to the moon. But it should rightly be discussed on a different thread.

Last edited by Calliban (2020-07-14 11:32:48)

Void · 2020-07-14 12:07:20

I would not worry about it. What was said was said. No big deal.

I think a quiet time now is the thing.

Done.

Void · 2020-07-14 19:02:40

Caliban and (th),

I apologize, I was not appropriate in my reactions. I will try harder in the future.

It seemed that we were veering off what I hoped was the current topic of this topic. I thought I had discovered the "Keys" to something important, but still I was rude after all.

Done.

Void · 2020-07-14 19:07:51

Caliban posted this today, in "Starship Is A Go".
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-moon-i … o-question

I have been somewhat suspicious of the Moon from a Collision theory. Granted, there are still some chances that a variation of it is real.

I actually have a notion that the original Moon of the Earth was formed like most of the Moons of significant sized planets. I feel that there subsequently were collisions with the Moon and Earth, both of which reworked the upper part of the Moons rocks, and added material to make the Moon bigger.

So, an original smaller Moon would have served as a nucleus for accretion of further materials which in the heat of collision, did loose the light stuff, and so would present a dry surface for the Moon.

So, in that formation idea, there could be a reservoir of materials such as Carbon, and maybe water and Hydrogen, that still percolate up to the surface. But don't buy into this, I will not stake my life on it, I am just willing to entertain multiple theories at a time, and look for further evidence.

Thanks Caliban.

Umm....

I am thinking about Moons now because of you Caliban.

I think that Mercury and Venus do not have moons because they are close to the sun. And if Venus did have a moon at one time and it had an unstable orbit, and crashed into Venus, that would be an alternate means to in part explain Venus as it is.

If Luna was indeed a dual formation process, part accretion, and part later bombardment, it may fit in with a binary planet formation process.

In that supposed process, (me being the one who supposes it), there may be two methods of condensation in a planetary formation process. This is just as there are two ways to distill water which I will suggest may apply.

Condensation from pressurization would occur for at least Earth, maybe Mars, and the outer planets. We can notice that even Pluto/Charon, is a binary "Whatever it is".

For Moons forming around those planets, a cold condensation process might apply. Luna, and the outer planet moons might have formed in this manner, but probably not Triton, and some other objects called moons. For Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, as the body formed by pressure condensation shrunk, then a sequence of moons might form, at the limits of the hot ring/cloud of materials, where was possible to have accretion from sticky cold ice.

A recent theory has it that Mars has moon repeats several times. In that theory, it gets too close to Mars and breaks up into a ring, then some of the materials fall to Mars, and the remainder is boosted to a higher orbit in the process. A sequentially smaller moon accretes from that. The process repeats. I guess this could happen for Phobos, but not Demos. But if the original moon was a binary accretion of two bodies, one with hot pressurized condensation and the other with a cold icy condensation, then the original moon would have been icy and wet and bigger than what exists now.

-----

There would need to be more proof though. But if true, it is possible that drilling deep on the Moon might turn up some good stuff.
Just the Carbon might make SpaceX happy.

I apologize again Calaban and (th).

Done

Last edited by Void (2020-07-14 19:43:07)

tahanson43206 · 2020-07-15 07:11:36

For Void re #429

Thank you for reporting the theory that Phobos might have broken up and re-assembled at a higher orbit.

I'll start watching for news about that set of ideas.

(th)

Void · 2020-07-15 08:02:29

Here is an example (th):
https://www.lintelligencer.com/mars-onc … ears%20ago.

This could be pretty significant as to what the materials of the two Moons are.

If the Grandparent body was indeed 20 times the size of phobos, then it may have been a "Mudball" at one stage, which would favor the formation of clays, they might also contain Carbonaceous materials like some asteroids do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-type_as … 20minerals.

One source of heat other than impacts might have been Aluminum 26, which it is thought could produce enough heat to melt water for millions of years in the early life of parent asteroids. The Aluminum 26 is thought to have been included into the materials that formed our solar system, by an exploding star. Other solar systems may have had less or more of it.

Mudball Asteroid theory:
https://www.space.com/37490-asteroids-w … balls.html

I believe there are these hydrated minerals, and Carbonaceous materials in many asteroids, even if they are rubble piles. But for Phobos and Demos, there should be rock containing metals as well. However the Grandparent body might very well not have developed a metal core, I think it might have been too small for that.

If there are hydrated clays, and Carbonaceous materials, of course this bodes well for building habitats inside of both Martian moons.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-07-15 08:17:58)

Calliban · 2020-07-15 12:35:30

Lunar mantle may contain large quantities of water.
https://www.iflscience.com/space/scient … -the-moon/

Lunar meteorite contains minerals that could only form in alkaline water.
https://www.iflscience.com/space/lunar- … s-surface/

SpaceNut · 2020-07-15 16:45:09

It is said that mars had a ring for a period of time as to whether that was from the collision or not is still to be determined.

It also could have been with another moonlet that no longer exists as it fell to the surface of mars....

Is there any evidence of the crashes from the rocks that fell in the form of craters?

Void · 2020-07-15 17:33:47

This is the article for it Spacenut:

https://www.lintelligencer.com/mars-onc … ears%20ago.

They think the "Grandparent" moon was ~20 times as big as Phobos.

Done.

Void · 2020-08-01 11:10:59

I guess I will work here.

I am looking for tricks to try to gain benefits from Starship. I originally started by trying to perhaps get favors from the Moon. Someday that will be possible.

I ran across this which is something that can be read:
Launching rockets from the Moon is our ticket to a home on Mars
https://medium.com/teamindus/why-launch … bba878e9d8

------

However, I am now thinking of the word "Congregation" in reference to Starship.

I will post again after I have completed the content on notepad.

Every time I come here, my browser says "Not secure", and I have to do all sorts of things, to get this site to not do the twirl thing. It is painful and annoying. So, I guess no more live posting.

Done.

SpaceNut · 2020-08-01 11:28:52

problem reply here

Void · 2020-08-01 13:01:28

Alright, good to know. I have run through that process again. Some progress, for now. Thanks Spacenut and (th).

I turned off my programming thinking years ago. Maybe time to wake it back up. More interested in other things.

Thanks again.

Done.

Void · 2020-08-01 13:04:31

Well, with that apparently justified humiliation, I will endeavor to risk being foolish again.

Continuing from post #435, I have chosen the word "Congregate" to label a process which I think could be considered for trips to Mars in Starship like vehicles loaded with people.

First of all like any trick that I am familiar with, you don't get to play the trick without compromises. Everything seems to cost something.

I am next going to try to get reference materials from Dr. Robert Zubrin per his tuna can with artificial gravity. This might build on that.

I have become more and more one of his followers in concepts. Not 100% yet but getting there.

This, I think takes 10 minutes:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Dr … &FORM=VIRE

Tuna Can and Burnt out upper stage Ares Booster mentioned. 6 month trip and 2 year free return explained as sensible. The need for artificial (Synthetic) gravity asserted, the ability to deal with radiation problems reasonably covered. (In my opinion).

In that time, SpaceX had not demonstrated it's magical powers. Now it has. I can ask, what if the Spent Ares Upper Stage Booster, could be cycled back to Earth for re-use? 2 years is a significant time. Have to wonder the value of it. But tolerate me a bit more.

I have set aside most of my fantastical ponderings about getting propulsive resources from the Moon, Asteroids, Solar Wind, Photon Inertia, and Ion Electric drives (For now).

I have also set aside exotic versions of Starship. I want to do this cleanly without those future potential diversions. For now I am thinking the "True Blue" Starship, Earth Surface <> Mars Surface. (If you want to do that )

To do this, it would be much preferred that insitu built infrastructure existed on Mars. Frankly I am going to think that just one or two Starships would actually land on Mars, with a very large number of people on board, so they will need to swiftly be moved to quarters that can sustain them, which means this is not as likely to be a practice for early settlement, not perhaps for the first few hundred people.

Of course, my intention is that for a congregation of say 6 ships, one or two would actually land, and 4 or 5 would follow a "Free Return" trajectory back to Earth.

So, you are linking perhaps 6 of these ships together, and distributing the people across most or all of them, during most of the 6 month trip. But in the last few days to Mars, you cram them together into one or two ships deemed to be the most trustworthy, and land them. Then four or five of the ships, do the 2 year free return to Earth.
This has it's dangers. If you land all 6 ships, then one or more of them may crash. You might already know that one of them has a problem that you don't want to risk a landing of people with. Then what do you do? You put those people into another ship, crowded of course, and do what you like with the untrusted one.

If you land everyone in just one ship, then you risk all. Better not do that unless it checks out to be very good out of the total of 6 ships.
Better not do that unless you have a reception that can unload them into less crowded quarters. If you feel that you have trust of this method then you might count some of the potential advantages.

There can be swap out maintenance. If two ships go bad during transit, you might be able to swap out parts, to get one of them as working again, provided the faults were not identical.

If you only land 1 or 2 of them then you only have to make propellants on Mars for 1 or 2 ships. Not for 6 ships.

And you may have artificial gravity on your way to Mars, and on your free return. It is possible that some of the crew would want to do the free return, or even some of the passengers. Factors change for people over time.

Of course I have implied that for the trip out to Mars, 6 ships would be tied together to create synthetic gravity.

On the trip back, it could be 4 or 5.

Crowding insanity is one of the regulators of such a travel system. I have presumed that it would have been calculated how much space each person must have for the 6 month trip to Mars, while maintaining human sanity of normal people. I have presumed that for a few day on approach to Mars you could have primed them to tolerate more crowding for a few days, when they are then congregated into 1 or 2 ships days before landing.

-------

I think that the methods for cargo ships will be quite different. Another time for that.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-08-01 14:02:56)

Void · 2020-08-07 20:32:48

Just some ponderings about possible future space activities, sort of like what SpaceX is up to or might eventually be up to.
-SSTO (The most evil of all evils!):
It seems to me that a Lunar Starship might do it. I think that Elon Musk has said that Starship could make orbit, if it had no heat sheild, and no landing legs. This one of course would also not have any flaps, so less drag on the way up. I am thinking that with those requirements, a landing leg device could be brought up for it with a aerodynamic starship. Of course, if superheavy is available, maybe it just makes sense to use it. However, they droped it for Earth point to Earth point Starship, as "The best part is no part".
Where using Superheavy is going to need sea based platforms, I wonder, if that could be avoided by splitting Starship into two stages? The bottom section that looks like a flying grain silo, having the sets of flaps. The upper portion perhaps being a smaller version of Deep Space Starship, for use wherever might be useful. So, I wonder if that stack would be small enough to launch from land. As for the grain silo with the flaps, I wonder if it could do the belly flop with a blunt end? Or maybe no flaps, and just a Falcon 9 1st stage propulsive only recovery. As the (Silo) device would not go to orbit, and so would not be traveling as fast therefore, I wonder if it might be possible to eliminate the heat shield.
I am also wondering if a Starship could have an expanded fairing section? That is bloom out sideways as in the upper portion of Falcon 9. While that would increase drag on the way up, it would also increase drag on the way from orbit, which might be useful. I am wonder if the canards could be eliminated because of that drag. Just the rear flaps to balance it. Flaps not deployed, then the engines would end up down, and of course burn up. Flaps depoyed appropriately then you may be able to deorbit with just two flaps....."The best part is no part".
I would make note that while the expanded fairings on the upper portion would increase drag, they would allow for much bigger objects to go to orbit. Also, it is possible that the two rear flaps might fold in such a way that they would be in the wake of the fairings, and so in that manner air drag would be reduced per the two flaps.
So, for instance, the two bottom flaps might have a fixed portion that attaches to the ship without hinges, and from those two, would be hinged a foldable flap section, which could tuck in during assent, but could then be deployed as needed during skydiving. Those much smaller flap portions would not need as big actuating motors I presume.
This style might be rather good for refueling Starships as well, I would think, as when they are skydiving, the balance of the ship should always be very similar per loads of front and back of the thing.
Done.

Void · 2020-08-09 12:03:47

This connects best to post #438:

I will start with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_mold
Quote:

Slime mold
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Not to be confused with Mold (fungus), Slime bacteria, or Biofilm.
Iridescent slime mold, Diachea leucopodia. Berkeley, California.
Slime mold Stemonitis fusca in Scotland
Fuligo septica, the "dog vomit" slime mold
Mycetozoa from Ernst Haeckel's 1904 Kunstformen der Natur (Artforms of Nature)
Slime mold or slime mould is an informal name given to several kinds of unrelated eukaryotic organisms that can live freely as single cells, but can aggregate together to form multicellular reproductive structures. Slime molds were formerly classified as fungi but are no longer considered part of that kingdom.[1] Although not forming a single monophyletic clade, they are grouped within the paraphyletic group referred to as kingdom Protista.
More than 900 species of slime mold occur globally. Their common name refers to part of some of these organisms' life cycles where they can appear as gelatinous "slime". This is mostly seen with the Myxogastria, which are the only macroscopic slime molds.[2] Most slime molds are smaller than a few centimeters, but some species may reach sizes up to several square meters and masses up to 20 kilograms.[3]
Many slime molds, mainly the "cellular" slime molds, do not spend most of their time in this state. When food is abundant, these slime molds exist as single-celled organisms. When food is in short supply, many of these single-celled organisms will congregate and start moving as a single body. In this state they are sensitive to airborne chemicals and can detect food sources. They can readily change the shape and function of parts, and may form stalks that produce fruiting bodies, releasing countless spores, light enough to be carried on the wind or hitch a ride on passing animals.[4]

I include the above, because it is how cells of Slime Mold can be related to discrete instances of Starship. But we may consider configuring them into a collective entity when it is useful, buy Stacking, Swarming/Flocking, and Congregation. These are things I will mention.
Some very sensitive people might find a bit of the guy's language as salty, but I don't think it is beyond the level of tolerances I have seen preveously o this site. But if you are sensitive, then don't watch these video's.
And, the Angry Astronaut:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy5ZizaYZPo
Part2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWaUslurjG4
Nuclear Starship? Seems a good idea to me. I can see where this could push a congregation of Starships at some point and save liquid propellants, to make landing safer.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=An … &FORM=VIRE
-------
So, I have been doing studies of his materials, and mostly see value in them.
In a previous post I used the words congregation of Starships. I still see value in that. I willl now add "Starship Stacking", and Starship Swarming.
Stacking of Starships. This could be two or more. For now, I will just contemplate two. One a passenger Starship, and the other a cargo Starship. I see many advantages to this. You could join them temporarily on their leward sides. The cargo Starship would face the sun, the passenger Starship behind it. This offers some additional radiation protection for the passenger Starship. Ideally the Methane tank of the cargo Starship would be interposed between the sun and the passengers.
The cargo Starship might have a large deployable solar pannel array. This would, in addition to the bulk of the cargo Starship itself offer some impactor protection. A certain part of an immaginary sphere around this assembly would shield parts of the assembly from some types of impactors. A power buss could convey electrical energy from the cargo Starship to the passenger Starship. Possibly enabling recycling processes in the passenger Starship. Recycling water and CO2 exhaled from passengers, in particular.
This assembly would potentially offer some possibility of emergency propulsion and some sort of potential life support, in the event of an Apollo 13 similar mishap.
I would also think of spinning these pairs end over end to get a maximum spin gravity of .5 g, as per the previous cousul of GW Johnson. (As I recall). The cargo Starship and its solar array would remain pointed at the sun. I think that .5 g is plenty, as .37 is typically assumed to be enough for adults at least, on Mars. If this turns out not to be acceptable, then Mars will need centrifuges, on it's surface and/or in orbit. In reality I might want to see 1/6 used, along with weights that you could wear. Possibly something like a life preserver with pariffin wax, and sinkers. A helmet for your head, leggings.
While it would be possible to think of stacking 1000 Starships into a single assembly, I would fear cascade explosions. That is, if one ship exploded, and the other ships were stacked like a row of dominos, you could get a chain reaction, possibly blowing eveything up.
So, for now I am thinking binary stacking, and using swarming of binary stacked ships. They would be similar to a flock of birds, but spaced to inhibit cascade failure.
Obviosly you would not join binary Starships together, until both were in orbit. Similarly they would be separated prior to landing on Mars. The cargo Starship would stow it's solar arrays. I also think that the cargo Starship should be designed so that the unpressurized cargo holds could be converted to pressurized chambers after the cargo was offloaded, in the case where the cargo Starship would be expected to become habitat. In that case, the cargo holds, converted to pressurization by welding, I presume, would adopt the furnishings from the passenger starships cabins. Most of it anyway. And then you could similarly convert the cargo Starships propellant tanks to more habitat.
If the Hohmann transfer is to be the method, then landings would occur about every two years. So, you might use "Congregation". Lets say, that you had a subswarm of 6 Starships.
This might be three passenger ships, and three cargo ships. You might intend of course to land all of the cargo ships. Using passenger congregation, you might hope to land only 1 or 2 of the passenger Starships. Ideally only one. The other two might do a free return to Earth/Moon, or be pushed by a nuclear rocket in a shorter period of time to the Earth/Moon.
If in the ideal situation, 3 cargo Starships and 1 passenger Starship were landed, it would be inconvenient to quickly make the 3 cargo Starships habitable. But, if you had done a similar process 2 years earlier, then the 3 previous Starships would be ready to recieve the new arrivals. And the freshly arrived cargo Starships could be rendered habitable in the next 2 years, in order to recieve a new set of passengers.
So, the cargo ships stay. It may be possible to salvage some things from them, if that makes sense. Raptors? Other things? Well, you have 1 or 2 passenger Starships, from which you have stripped furnishings, and so reduced cabin space. You may have a place to put those raptors or whatever else. You might retain a small cabin presuming that some people would recycle back to Earth.
So, in this case, ideally, 2 passenger Starships would return to Earth by some means, and already have their landing propellants available to land somewhere in the Earth/Moon system. (Probably Earth). 3 cargo Starships would be permanently kept on Mars. Ideally 1 Starship would be refueled on the surface of Mars, and would carry a few people, and some parts from the 3 cargo Starships back with them to the Earth/Moon system. (Likely the Earth).
I am not going to bother spell checking just now, just want to do my stealth bomber post.
Done.

Void · 2020-08-21 12:03:31

Lunar Oxygen?

Had to use Stealth Bomber methods to get this post through. Very annoying.

I have had some thoughts on many things, including other members posts.
But for now, I am focused on a "Alternate Starship" concept. Big surprise!
OK, if we start with the Lunar Starship, aka, "Deep Space Starship".
Take away it's permanent landing legs. Provide engines as needed. That is, there might be a desire to modify those, as per two "Modification Kits" that I will propose.
1) A Lunar landing kit with auxiliary Oxygen tanks.
2) A Aerocapture Gliding kit to get Oxygen to LEO from the Moon.
These two kits would both be clamp on's.
Here is the background that I presume will be present at some point, as soon as is achievable:
I don't like the orbital refueling as concieved for Starships. However it is going to be the only deal going at first, so, you have to live with it, until better can be done.
I am assuming that for #2 above, you could clamp a kit for Hypersonic gliding in the Earth's upper atmosphere, and that you would not need a hard core heat shield. The tolerance of stainless steel might be enough for high altitude dips using gliding methods.
I do not like the idea of orbital refueling for the Moon Oxygen. I would want to land it with it's #1 kit to the Moons surface, and glug-glug, fill up all the Oxygen tanks.
I am going to presume that for now the manufacture of Methane will be out of reach, so the ship landing will need to have enough Methane to assend back to low lunar orbit with it's Oxygen load.
I am not going to be shy at all about involking an electric helper for this Starship. It would convey the device from Low Lunar Orbit, to a trajectory, in part to intercept the Earth's atmosphere. The electric propulsion device would not, (At least for now), try aerocapture itself. It would use electric propulsion to get back to the Starship after it achieved it's orbit, in part by aerocapture.
We have the question of the mass of the two kits. Seems stupid to move them back and fourth more than is necessary. So indeed a Lunar associated space station where the Starship could change cloths, and also by the way bring propellents to a orbital depot. Electric Rocket propellants, Methane, Oxygen, and maybe Hydrogen for Nuclear propulsion.
I think this could be an effective way to tap into Lunar Oxygen for space purposes asap, and to not call up futuristic methods that we cannot count on having or may never perfect.
I concur with the Angry Astronaut, that the Lunar Gateway or something like it, may not be entirely wrong. Might even be made right.

Done.

Void · 2020-08-21 15:01:01

OK, some possible flaws in the previous post.
It can be fixed I believe.
Have the electric ship move the auixilary Oxygen tanks to LEO.
The Starship if it will filled with Liquid Oxygen, and that was adjacent to the aerobrake surfaces would have boil off. It might be possible to partially engineer for that. Perhaps the Starship would include extra large header tanks for the Oxygen as well, so that Oxygen would not be proximate to incandescent metal.
Some work needed.

If you can make your Methane from a place else than the Earth, perhaps it is not worth it to aerobrake the special type of Starship to the Earth. Ideally the Moon I suppose.

Last edited by Void (2020-08-21 15:02:51)

Void · 2020-12-12 15:23:45

------
As always, when it comes to propulsion, I consider my ideas to be somewhat speculative and 2nd rate, so i will confine my dialog to this topic.
So, I have several speculations.
1) A modification of the Lunar version of the "Deep Space" Starship.
I think that for the Lunar version it would make sense to put both header tanks just above the tail/engine section, and to also put any items to reuse proximate to that. Then make the Lunar Starship as two sections. The upper part, you leave on the Moon, then engine section, launches itself back off of the Moon. This reduces the amount of Methane you need, in order to re-use the propulsion section, and leaves behind useful structure which might be wanted on the Moons surface. You might of course stuff the cargo space with hardware to deliver. This scheme might also be useful for asteroids. In the case of the Moon, it is not out of the question to eventually expect to retank the Oxygen on the surface before the engine section takes off again. In this version, you would need a proper landing pad(s) on the Moon, as you would be using proper raptors in the tail end. For this reason, this version should not carry crew, except in emergencies, as it might be possible at times that the ship would not make it to a landing pad.
This #1 does have some holes in it. Once you have an engine section in orbit, and back to Earth orbit. How would you re-use it? Well, I am presuming that you could assemble a new load and perhaps fuel tanks on to it from items lifted by aerodynamic starships. You might even deploy drop tanks. Or you would just refuel the header tanks, and allow a starship to escort it to a Lunar fly by. On return to Earth, it would not be out of the question to use atmospheric grazing to consirve propellants. Anyway, perhaps someone else will transpose this in some way to make it more useful.
2) It is my opinion, that NASA, and other entities of the west will seek to blend what SpaceX produces, with other efforts, say from ULA, and Blue Origins and others. This only makes sense. Each may have their own specialized higher capabilities.
I am most interested in the Oberth effect, and possibly Lunar gravity assists.
Oberth effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
Lunar gravity assist:
https://www.permanent.com/space-transpo … %20More%20
My understanding is that Lunar gravity assists are mostly useful in the Earth/Moon sub-solar system, and that usually they are used to lift the low part of the orbit of a device.
However, although I do not know, perhaps it may be possible to speed up a device to pass the Earth at a faster speed, and then to use the Oberth effect. I am not at all sure on this, but it is work discovery, yea or nay.
I think it is worth looking at a combined mission. If you had two starships, an alpaca lander and also a blue Moon lander, you may have some interesting options.
The types of Starship might be variable to purpose and intentions. I have already mentioned #1. #1 has reduced wet mass needs, so it might be employed as a booster to help get the other ships into a swinby of the Moon. As for radiation protection, if you do have something which is sensitive to radiation such as humans, obviously you might interpose this multiple ship fleet between the sun's output and the crew.
If the Lunar starship were used as a booster, then that would reduce the amount of wet mass you would need to send the Mars or asteroid starship on it's way. Further, I anticipate using a swingby of the Moon, to send that Mars or asteroid back towards the Earth, hopefully at a high speed, but at a trajectory where it could use the Oberth effect to an advantage.
If this assembly had carried another lander(s), such as the Alpaca, or the Blue Moon, it would be their carrier to a point where they could slow down and land on the Moons surface. I think the Blue Moon would best be used to land hardware. The Alpaca for crew.
3) #2 could be revised, so that you would not have a landing starship. Instead both the Mars/asteroid starship and the "Deep Space" Starship would swing back towards the Earth, on separate paths. The Mars one would seek to use the Oberth effect, to gain power, but the "Deep Space" starship might alter its course with a Lunar swingby, to put its low Earth orbit where it might prefer to have it. In this case, the "Deep Space" starship might carry back landers such as the Alpaca, and Blue Moon to a lower orbit around the Earth to be readied for another trip to the Moon.
4) Beyond this, it would be silly to ignor the future emergence of other propulsive systems, as they could be blended to this process as might be useful. Nuclear, Nuclear Electric, Ion Solar, Solar Sail, Tether, and Dr. Robert Zubrin has come up with a "Dipole Propulsion System". I do presume he knows what he is talking about in this.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ro … &FORM=VIRE
So, of course I think it is rather wrong to assume SpaceX doing everything. It should be supposed that they will excell at some things, and may partner with other things, which is already apparent for the Lunar space station. (Like the Lunar space station, or not, it is a way to polically gather a quorum of nations which should have pull in helping to determine the future of space developments).
5) I am thinking about the early things Starship might be able to do.
-I am thinking about a LEO mission where you integrate a zero g factory but with hardware payload to fill a pressurizable section. In this case, you unload the cargo, to make space, you stay in LEO in microgravity, and your automation perhaps can manufacture something of value, ideally without human intervention. However, if you did need humans involved, you might use the Dragon with a Falcon 9 lift.
-I am also thinking about a temporary space station composed of two Starships, and a utility hub that they would connect their tails to. In this case it could be spun for 1/3 gravity, so that you could conduct research about 1/3 g, mostly biological research, but perhaps also some manufacturing research. In this way a body of knowledge about ~1/3 g effects could be built up. The hub would include utilities such as the larger part of electrical power needs. It should be re-usable. At the end of mission, you would land both Starships back to Earth.
These Starships might never-the less lift cargo before connecting to the hub. Here again, you might have a pressurizable cargo bay. You would get the cargo out, and then seal the cargo bay and pressurize it, and then add crew if needed.
6) Finnally, there is the dispised "SSTO". While I understand the shortcommings of this, never-the-less, it might not hurt to have a look at it. If for some reason it was sensible to do these from an assembly line situation, of course if they are not going to re-enter atmosphere or land somewhere without assistance, then you could get them up, perhaps without superheavy, and upgrade them as would be needed. You could use various means to get them from LEO to a better place. I don't think because of the Kessler Syndrome, it is a good idea to put more into LEO than is absolutely needed. It would depend if their might develop a market for such stuff. Never-the-less, I understand that it is possibly not worth it.
I am sure that there is more, but this is plenty.
I am just trying to look at the first things that might be done, and then look forward into the future at what might possibly develop over time.
Done.

Void · 2020-12-16 13:55:21

------
I have several things, at this time that I am interested in, the below is one.
Ice Silo(s)
OK, and illustration:

And a 1920's flapper lady:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view … ajaxhist=0
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view … ajaxhist=0
You might note that they have skirt reppititions on the vertical dimensions.
I like that for Starships in a ice silo.
Going to pause, as I am getting a bit crabby.
Probably want a walk.
More later, maybe, if the creepies don't block my internet access.

Void · 2020-12-16 16:30:44

------
OK, about the "Ice Silo" notion(s):

I have seen interesting concepts of how to additively make housing structures for Mars, Insitu. They are fine, but we already know that we want to extract water from ice, probably ice slabs. Many of those are about the right thickness that a starship landed in a silo would only partially stick out of them. So, if you are mining ice, why not also get a "Twofer" by making a structure that could house a starship like device?
I have learned significant things from other members here, in this case I am thinking of GW and of course others. I have been pondering how Steel Cans can be made useful. GW has cautioned that that is what they might be. While they might be landed on the surface of Mars and in some cases would be used as housing for people and processes, they would be subject to problems like radiation and thermal cycles. For instance I anticipate that on the surface, there would be expansion and contractions of the structures from day and night temperature variances.
Having landed a ship like that into an ice silo, you very quickly have radiation protection for a large part of it. Put a tent over it and you have a fair amount of thermal stability, less stress on your Steel can(s).
The landing process would have hazards, and possibly benefits.
The backwash of thrust inside of the silo, while landing in it, could be turbulent, and might present problems that way. Also the process might cause the ice walls to cave in, which would be bad. So those problems have to be assessed, and compensated for if possible.
On the other hand the thrust reflecting from the bottom and then pushing upwards might help to levitate the starship during the landing process, reducing the amount of landing power needed.
Of course you would need very good accuracy. The Falcon 9 first stages have very good and improving accuracy, to land on sea platforms. So, it may not be impossible, as the starship landing process might be perfected and also supported by navigation resources on the surface.
I have mentioned ground engines before. Probably more trouble than they would be worth, but this would be rocket engines pointing up from the bottom of the silo. They could be assistive in the landing, reducing the necessary wet mass of a starship to land. If it could be done well, then that could be of merit. It might not have to be a hot exhaust. If you had a Methane/Oxygen combustion process, you might then introduce CO2 into the exhaust to cool it and increase volume.
------
Now, I want to deviate in the type of Starship. The logic of Starships, so far, is to land cargo, and perhaps people on to the surface of Mars. The idea of a Starship with a dry mass of 85 tons is probably very too much optimistic. But I have seen numbers that are about 50-100 tons to land as cargo. Just to be consirvative I will choose 50, and then suppose that maybe it might be more.
Dr. Robert Zubrin has suggested that Starships are too valuable on Mars for there to be a reason to send them back to Earth. He has suggested the use of a "Mini-Starship", but I support the SpaceX plan for the Major Starship, at this time. Mini might come later if there is sufficient reason.
I think I may have shown that a standard starship landed in a ice silo, presuming no crash and no ice wall collapse, is then somewhat protected, so you would not need to put it on its side and pile regolith on top of it. It would be sort of a mostly underground skyscraper. So you could cut passages into the propellant tanks, and possibly use it all.
But I do want to change the scheme. It will be a long time before a Martian society will be able to manufacture high quality stainless steel on Mars. So even crashed Starships may be of significant value. However of course we do not want to crash them, but odds are sometimes they will crash.
The scheme I have provided does have an eliment of insitu. The silo is pretty much a modification of Martian materials. However as Elon/SpaceX are striving for efficient assembly line production of Starships, and the Earth's environment is so much easier to work in than any place not on Earth, I don't think that it would be wrong to "Feed the young" with stainless steel cans from the Earth for a very long time. Humans and some mamals and of course most birds, and some other creatures invest significant energy in providing for the young. So, then if we are to foster young in challenging environments we need to think like good parents. And on the male side we should prefer "Dads" and not "Cads".
So, now if landed structure can be enhanced by insitu receptors, (Ice Silo's), then can we reconsider what "Cargo" is?
I would see a starship which does not have anything except propellant tanks, and would not carry much loose cargo. Instead, build additional structure in the interior of the device. You have 50-100 tons available. So, make more floors. This would not have to interfer with the utilization of the propellants. The end device after you landed it, and purged it of remnant propellants, might have many floors. You could cut passages so that the whole thing could be integrated. You might end up with an elevator shaft somewhere, perhaps in the center, after you cut the necessary holes. And there would likely be stairs.
So, perhaps a whole lot of stainless steel structrure. This version might actually be able to hold internal pressures higher that what is currently availible in the designs being tested.
-----
So, lets return to the flapper lady, seen in the previous post. Lets add a penguin, and a polar bear. Skirts, feathers, and fur.
The ambient pressure of Mars being about 5.5 mBar, +/- perhaps some mBars, it is essentially a vacuum relative to that of the Earth sea level.
Lets suppose we expose each of them to the Martian surface environment. We might ignor how that would kill them in so many ways. I only want to focus on the thermal processes.
In each case, I suggest that they would be rather protected, and might be in danger of overheating, presuming other factors did not kill them. The air space between skirts, feathers and fur, should, I think act to a large degree like a thermos bottle.
And so you may understand why I want "Skirts" around the starship. After it is landed in an ice silo.
------
Now it is important that I remove the "Hooks", that certain entities might begin to try to exploit. They have a circular and often degerate pathway. They seek to exploit human sexuality for power, control, and money.
So, I am afraid I will have to modify my 1920's flapper lady to curtains. It's curtains kids. Can't have the creepies setting their meat hooks into this, for exploitation. So, from here if we lift something it will not be a skirt, which has sexual connotations which that kind of people might hope to exploit, but is lifting curtains.
I do hate them. My constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishments, but that is all that keeps me from horid deeds against these monsters. Thank God that the founders gave us that guidance.
------
So, then the temptation might be to mate the ice wall to the starship wall. It is probably not the way to go. We may want the landed starship's interior to be at what we call room temperature, and the ice walls to be very cold. And so the Curtains. We may put such on the outside of the Starship, and maybe on the ice walls as well. And might hope to stabalize things for a long time without intervention.
What to make the curtains out of? Well at first delivered as cargo from Earth. Later, it should be hoped that something could be manufactured on Mars.
------
As for power, I am getting very comfortable with fission nuclear. I think this could be very good. The Starships to be the primary radiators.
I am getting tired. Maybe more later.
Done for now.

SpaceNut · 2020-12-16 17:51:49

Wow you seem to be getting better and that is good to see...

I like the Silo for a starship to set in once we are there as the regolith soil gives plenty of protection from the elements and radiation.

It would be easy to make a cap dome to cover the only 10 meter diameters versus needing 100's of meters for a domed habitat space. If the dome is brought in pieces its assembled and attached to the ships nose that now becomes the habitat seems to be a quick way to get up and running.

The cargo door on the starship is depicted at still a very high location and tunneling into the soil at depth allows for a pressurized entering after the capping dome is installed. That makes all work in shirt sleeves and gloves rather than a space suit that is fragile...All that is needed is a means to get rid of the tunneling soils...

Edit
since a cargo ship could land and once a hole has been made we could refuel the ship for a hop and land back in the prepared hole....
making the hole taller than the ship so as to make a larger area for internal use seems reasonable make progress with.

which mean landing legs must be accounted for with regards to the hole diameter...

Void · 2020-12-17 18:43:01

------
That is reasonable alternative Spacenut.
And yes, in general, I seem to be rather functional, and mostly improving, but there are little concerns, as my hearing sometimes seems to be somewhat impaired. I put it down to residual sinus activity, good chances it will be OK long term. Sometimes it is a little like hearing through water, if that might make any sense. During my illness, I felt that my eye sight was negitivly affected, but I think that feature is gone.
Back to the topic. I hope that the members understand that when I propose something as I did, it is not intended to replace or displace other concepts. We need every possible tool that can be considered. Mars will not be easy at all.
I have been reading about municiple heating with fission power, in northern places such as Scandinavia, and Russia. We do now know what it excessivly risky with fission power, Fukishima, and Chernoble can be named. But perhaps we are too shy about fission nuclear, as after all something like it appears to help our Earth planet to having a persisting biosphere, the radio active decay, making many processes function.
So, it does seem to come down to being careful about how you choose to use fission nuclear.
Solar for Mars is a great temptation, as it may offer periods of abundance, but then it also curses the scheme with very long winters, and also global dust storms.
A person should consider insitu as it is practicle, but it is only a periodic resource. The metal ships into ice holes notion with nuclear power, offers something like the roots of a plant. Many plants endure winter, and the life of them persists underground. But then the solar opportunity appears, and so the resources in the roots can be utilized to re-activate the solar portion of activity.
As far as resources go, like some animals that live underground, particularly in the winter, Mars seems to offer the storage of food, in freezing conditions. So, then it seems reasonable that bulk food production would be coupled with this storage option. Having a underground nuclear sub-economy, seems the best way to have a position to spring back to solar activity, after enduring winter and/or a global dust storm.
One thing to consider is the utilization of labor during adverce conditions. Do, we want the settlers to hide and shiver in the dark during adverse conditions, or might it be better if they would serve the non-solar times, doing useful manipulations of material objects? It seems better to me that they move underground into these situations made available and use their time to manufacture what will be needed in the next "Solar Summer".
I guess I will mention sub-ice mineral wealth. It seems to me that there is likely to be a very big portion of Mars where we do not easily know what minerals are under the ice slabs. But if a location of interest could be discovered, perhaps magnetically, then that might be a good place to put this sort of a "Base", as not only would you support the repeated return to solar as opportunity showed itself, but you might be able to go deep for minerals.
That's enough for now.
Done.

Void · 2020-12-25 14:44:27

------
Merry Christmas, to those who wish to receive it, best wishes elsewise.
My gift is that I continue to recover. Breathing, we take for granted, but not so much me anymore. Makes a lot of sense to take care of your lungs, and they will take care of you more likely.
------
I will take this opportunity of quiet to project some of my thinking about what could be possible when and if Starship is successful.
You might have discovered by now that I am more of a "Glass half full" person.
While there are many new propulsion systems on their way, useful perhaps in 0-50 years.
For the now, I am of course looking at the Methalox method, but also solar electric, and thermal nuclear. It may be that some of you will find it necessary to correct me where I might be not understanding things well. I would welcome that.
If Starship could bring mass to LEO for ~~~~~$10.00 per Kilogram, then of course it could bring propellants and other mass for Nuclear and Solar Propulsion to orbit for a rather low price, and make each of those more likely for practical use.
In my view, an attempt should be made to use all of these together. The deep objective is to get "Stuff" to Mars at a lower price, and at a fast pace. Insitu on Mars is a lovely notion, but it cannot occur very well, unless you get stuff there, primarily from Earth, that will facilitate advance insitu capabilities.
I assure you that I am aware that I am not a properly trained person with any significant recognized credentials. I do my best not to step on conversations that those types are engaged in, as they have their own methods, and can reach things that I simply am not likely to be proficient in.
------
I am going to get specific for a bit for a "Dream" method I am interested in examining. For this to work, of course, SpaceX and others like them will have to achieve LEO with a ships dry mass, "Stuff", and propellants.
Where SpaceX is expected to try to refuel Oxygen and Methane, to a need in LEO and perhap higher orbits. But I am thinking that as they advance, they could bring up Hydrogen, my primary interest is for a Thermal Nuclear tug. Until someone explains how I am wrong, I am going to expect that this tug will only work in CIS Lunar Space. And for my dream method that would be fine.
So, at some point, you would assemble a structure to sent to Mars by way of Venus. Perhaps this would include at least two Starships, a hub, and a very large amount of solar panels.
So, then this would be sent towards an encounter with Venus, primarily by thermal nuclear, and then solar electric. I want to suppose that the Oberth Method could be used in a swing-by of Venus.
I have been trying to understand how the Oberth Method works. The literature just says that it does. My reasoning is that you are toying with the time you spend dropping into a gravity well, and the time you are coasting out of the gravity well. If you have as much time comming out as going in, then the net energy gain should be ~zero. However, if you cut short the time you spend in "Hover" mode being pulled on by the gravity well, then you take inertia from the object that generates or is associated with the gravity well.
A problem I have with this is that solar electric will not be very useful for the Oberth Effect. So, I would want to use Methalox propulsion for the swing by of Venus. Which says that something significant has to be done about boil off while traveling from Earth to Venus.
If you have a large amount of solar panels, perhaps you can shade the Starships behind them.
If you have a lot of energy from those solar panels, especially when you are between the Earth and Venus, then you might afford active cooling. And finally if you can utilize boil off in some useful way, then you just have to make sure you have enough propellants left when you get to Venus to execute the Oberth Maneuver.
Other benfits might include rediation protection from the wet mass of the Starships, during the passage from Earth to Venus, until, you burn it up at Venus.
The trip from Earth to Venus might involve microgravity. I am thinking that after that, you might attach the tails of two Starships to a hub, and spin the assembly, to provide some synthetic gravity. This should get people into better condition during the passage from Venus to Mars.
How then do you get a non-destructive reception on Mars?
If you have two propper Starships they can do the typical expected method to enter the Martian atmosphere. This could be by screaming in at a high speed. In that case they will have to take on board all the solar panels that are destined for use on the Martian surface. It might be possible for a separated solar electric assembly, to get into Martian orbit on it's own.
However, if you have solar electric propulsion, can you get into Martian orbit? It is in the nature of solar electric that you can do things different. Also existing is "Ballistic Capture".
So, in such a case, you bring the whole assembly into Martian orbit. You have the potential, that if a serious dust storm is going on, you might continue with syntetic gravity, and wait it out. In this method you also have the potential access to Phobos and Demos.
And when your Starships do land, they will enter at a lower speed than if from interplanetary space.
In sending an assembly into Martian orbit, or just the solar part of it, you have the oportunity to refuel the Starships later to bring the rest of the stuff down.
I realize that all of this will warp existing notions of orbits and timing in the dance of planets in the solar system. I do not know very well, how that all shakes out. If any of these things can make practicle sense.
I do understand that Nuclear Thermal would make a very good Tug to get a push from.
I do understand that we want solar panels in bulk on Mars. I do understand that solar panels will be of a best use during the time when the mission is closer to the sun than the Earth. Less useful during passage from Earth's orbit to Mars. But still useful. And a set of wet starships delivered to a Venus flyby may be able to use the Oberth Effect.
In all of this may be some abort to releative safety modes, as there would be at least two Starships, and one or more electric propulsion bundles.
If this turns out useless, at least I tried Yoda. Do and Don't do needs tries.

Good spelling? Not I

Getting tired.
Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-12-25 14:45:17)

Void · 2020-12-25 16:17:55

A little amendment to the previous post.

In the event that a mission has the desire and ability to insert into Martian orbit because of bad Martian ground conditions, it would not hurt to have a backlog of "Stuff" in a bundle in orbit that you could use as additional radiation shielding in the event of a dust storm and solar flares.

It could be stuff from Earth, Mars, or Phobos and Demos.

Done.

Void · 2021-01-03 10:58:26

------
OK, lets be clear. I am goofing off to a large degree in what I will present here.
I am actually going to plan something about a toilet seat and whoppie cushions next, (That possibly being involved in an Oldfart39 noise), but for now, what about Alternate Superheavy?
I read recently, rightly or wrongly, that Falcon 9 could get itself to orbit, without a load. True or not, it is an interesting notion. To have an orbital booster.
However, how about an orbital Superheavy? I suppose it might be in need of a useful task, maybe. As you may know, from recent posts, I very much favor looking into solar powered propulsion, primarily for cargo. I like it because it can have methods to propell itself to a destination. And at it's destination, to remain and be hardware itself. I guess something similar might be that if you wanted a horse somewhere, you could crate it up and deliver it to that location, or you might just send the horse by it's own power to that location. Granted, it would need some method to compell it to go where you want, but that is not going to be a problem for sending craft to a location on their own power.
To reduce the lunacy claims for a Super Heavy to orbit, it might be possible to refer to the Lunar Starship. It will not have a proper heat shield and will be expected to do multiple tasks before doing a RUD or being retired to some other purpose.
I am thinking of some use of it, in combination with a solar power plant to be sent somewhere, perhaps Mars.
The combination of it with a solar power plant with ion propulsion might be as follows. Both devices are loaded with propellant. The solar power plant moves the combination into an eliptical orbit. When convenient, the Super Heavy attempts the Obirth maneuver around the Earth. The two separate, and Super Heavy remains in the Earth's gravity well. The solar power plant travels to Martian orbit. It is then either dissassembled and brought down to the Martian surface, or actually functions as an orbital power plant to beam power down to Mars.
The Super Heavy may be able to graze the Earth's atmosphere to circularize it's orbit. Perhaps multiple passes. It might use grid fins to assist that.
It is possible that the Super Heavy would have a lesser amount of raptor engines, and of course no legs.
Yes, it is extremely speculative, and perhaps nonsense. I just wanted to shake it into the collective imagination.
If you see faults, please comment. I don't want to continue with false notions.
Done.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#426 2020-07-14 11:28:53

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#427 2020-07-14 12:07:20

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#428 2020-07-14 19:02:40

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#429 2020-07-14 19:07:51

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#430 2020-07-15 07:11:36

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#431 2020-07-15 08:02:29

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#432 2020-07-15 12:35:30

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#433 2020-07-15 16:45:09

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#434 2020-07-15 17:33:47

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#435 2020-08-01 11:10:59

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#436 2020-08-01 11:28:52

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#437 2020-08-01 13:01:28

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#438 2020-08-01 13:04:31

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#439 2020-08-07 20:32:48

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#440 2020-08-09 12:03:47

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#441 2020-08-21 12:03:31

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#442 2020-08-21 15:01:01

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#443 2020-12-12 15:23:45

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#444 2020-12-16 13:55:21

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#445 2020-12-16 16:30:44

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#446 2020-12-16 17:51:49

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#447 2020-12-17 18:43:01

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#448 2020-12-25 14:44:27

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#449 2020-12-25 16:17:55

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#450 2021-01-03 10:58:26

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

Board footer