Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

Void · 2023-04-21 20:35:48

Well it may be that Uranus has ocean moons.

Query: "Uranus has ocean moons"

General Response: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Uranus+ha … 0c266b8678

https://www.jhuapl.edu/news/news-releas … cean-moons
Quote:

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Mysterious features in the radiation measurements that NASA’s Voyager 2 spacecraft collected around Uranus suggest there is more going on in the planet’s space environment than previously thought.
New results suggest Uranus’ moons Ariel and/or Miranda may be releasing some of their material into space.
The results feed into a growing push to return to Uranus and Neptune, and recent mission prioritization from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

Ariel: http://www.seasky.org/solar-system/uran … 0in%201986.

Miranda: http://www.seasky.org/solar-system/uranus-miranda.html

Supposing these have no life in them, I might wonder if they might be shelled over with an insulation, so that the energy that may create oceans may be used.

As I see it, materials from the inner system could be sent to these, possibly Lithobraked to some extent, to get habitation started.

Another method for energy could be the magnetic field of Uranus: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Magnetic+ … 756ae36d48

Conductors in the path of the magnetic field connected to the moons might provide power.

And then of course we think that fusion will eventually become a thing.

If eventually access to the core of one or both of the mentioned moons could be done, then you would have all the rocky/metal materials desired. (Perhaps).

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-21 20:47:33)

Void · 2023-04-22 18:34:21

Well, all the attention on Starship has stimulated some thinking from me which I will put here, as the first steps to Para Terraforming and eventually Terraforming is some sort of access to information about a world(s), or even the ability to manipulate objects in the proximity of such a world.

I do not intend to disrupt what SpaceX has announced for its plans so far, but to build on and around it.

I want to consider what could be done with a variation on Lunar Starship and with the possible use of Tesla Bot.

OF likes the name "Deep Space Starship" for the Lunar Starship, and that will be a good name for the variation.

Dr. Johnson is remembered by me to have said that a starship could generate up to .5 g if it were to spin end over end.
That was not for "Stretched Starship" though. Stretched Starship might do more.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starsh … musk-2021/
Quote:

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says that future Starships – or at least certain Starship variants – are being upgraded with 50% more Raptor engines and stretched propellant tanks.

Well, I like the stretch idea, but would consider getting rid of all the raptors, when the ship reached orbit.

I do want the Lunar Starship landing engines up more towards the nose: https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-moon-s … ards-mars/ Image Quote: Lunar-Starship-Artemis-SpaceX-render-1-crop-2-c-1024x518.jpg

But it might makes sense to put some small engines in the engine bell to replace the Raptors.

So, I also want the reserve tanks to be made very large. The ‘header’ tanks. Large enough to return to Earth from orbit of Mars. This ship will not ever land on Mars, so it does not need the big raptors, or the landing propellants. This ship will need a booster ship to help send in on its way to Mars, since it will not have enough propellants to do it itself.

The ship will not have a heat shield, as it would use Ballistic Capture to get into Mars orbit. This ship will bring a capsule with it. Either an Orion, or an improved Dragon. I like the Orion.

When the ship returns to Earth, it will either crash into the pacific, or pass the Earth, but the Capsule is intended to deliver humans and samples to the Earth, as may be appropriate.

The initial mission may not have humans, but just some Tesla Bots, perhaps. It will still spin, and will still have a capsule or a dead weight to simulate one. It may or may not return to Earth with samples.

While this simulation mission is running, another very similar ship will be in Earth orbit, and will have a human crew, and will spin. Same time duration and also the testing of life support. Simulations of communication time lags.

The use of Ballistic Capture will allow the ship going to Mars to avoid the 26-month requirement for the launch to Mars. But the launch back to Earth will need to conform to it.

It is possible that the Tesla Bots will be able to test samples from Phobos and Deimos, if a means to get samples were created. It might even be possible that samples from Mars itself could be tested, if they can be gotten up to orbit.

The ship that remains in Earth orbit will test the artificial gravity and the life support.

Some members and readers may not like this plan as I have not mentioned landers. But probes based on previous probes may be possible. Large Radar and Optical Camera methods could be included.

Also, for the Moon, I am hoping for a lander based on the Stoke Space machine, and I also hope for Mars that the Terran-R may come into being. Maybe they could.

But this does not stop SpaceX from sending one way Cargo Lander Starships.

A "Deep Space Starship"(s) could escort landers of various sorts to the Moon, and to and from Mars. And when appropriate Capsules could be used for the passage though the Earth's atmosphere.

I think that this is something to look at.

A Landing of Several Starships with propellant making hardware, and a Terran-R 2nd stage ship may be a very good partnership to start with on Mars. Much fewer propellant needs.

And just perhaps, the first landing might somehow be able to have enough propellants to land and then take off without propellant manufacture. I am not sure about that.

Also, a lander using CO and O2 should be considered, as such it would not require the mining of water.

Done.

My feeling is that the notion of re-use of rocket hardware is the goal. But when operating on the edge of the envelope of potentials, it could make sense to use drop tanks and a Starship orbital booster to extend "Deep Space Starship"(s) capabilities, and to reduce the death march propellant manufacture requirement at the start of the visiting of Mars.

I think that there is no shame in it and it is not wrong.

I like the idea that Starship was made to just be able to access Mars, but why not use additional tools to get what is wanted in an easier way?.

The "Deep Space Starship"(s) would likely be good with other tools used as well, for missions to asteroids.

Done.

As far as radiation protection, just bite the bullet. Have extra consumables as shielding. The human crew might only be 3 people to 10? Probably only a small number.

As I have indicated I think the first mission should not have humans but should try to simulate their presence as much as is practical to evaluate the potential to have humans.

I did mention Ballistic Capture as the Earth>Mars method and that would be a bit longer, but as I have said just spend on the radiation protection, and also since you would have artificial gravity, I feel the humans might hold together fairly well.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-22 19:22:28)

Void · 2023-04-24 15:32:00

So, leaving aside missions to the Moon and Mars, low hanging fruit for stretched Starship would be research into long term flight for a Starship. This could remain in LEO, until methods to reach higher orbits emerged.

In LEO, the radiation concerns are lower, and timely assistance more likely.

It would be nice to test various simulated gravitations. Stretched Starship might relatively easily do a Mars simulation and a Lunar Simulation. If temporary weight were added to the tail of the ship, then it might simulate Venus, I think. That also could be valuable.

The space elevator would be handy in this situation as it could be adjusted to the center of spin so that ships might dock to it, and so then bring materials into and out of the cabin area towards the nose of the ship.

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

Obviously if SpaceX could provide this service, then it could be assistive to microgravity space stations to recondition people in orbit, but at the same time it would be testing life support for the ships over long periods of time, and of course will rehearse the gravities of Luna, Mars, Venus. and perhaps some other worlds. Probably very little other than Earth that humans might visit will have gravity less than that of Venus.

So, a really good tool, and you would not need major refilling in orbit to start and maintain such systems.

SSTO, almost would get a stripped-down ship into LEO. I am not recommending that, at this time, but I wonder if SpaceX should consider building a Mini-Booster for Starship? Just to get Starships without major cargo into orbit. Not now of course, it would distract from essential time local works, but eventually, perhaps.

A Mini-Booster with a Starship on top of it might be less of a problem for Stage 0's. It may be that such would have more locations they could launch from. A Mini-Booster might have legs as well, maybe, and this would allow less congestion at the big towers.

I guess it would depend on how much gravity simulation there would be a market for in LEO, and other orbital places.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-24 15:49:49)

Void · 2023-04-25 10:38:55

I am rather loose with math. I prefer estimates until precision is required.

I have been thinking some more about the Starship System. What holds true for it may likely hold true for other similar systems.

It really cannot do a very good SSTO, if it can do it at all. That seems set in stone, at least for now. I think I recall reading that Elon Musk said that the Earths gravity is just a bit too much to allow for useful SSTO.

With some modifications though it is felt that a Starship on it's own could do Point to Point on a planet such as Earth, using a sub-orbital path, with a presumed load of people even in some cases.

Using a booster, Starship is said to be able to do 150 Tons to orbit and all stages optimally recovered to the surface of Earth. 250 Tons to orbit, if the 2nd Stage is not recovered to the surface of Earth.

These are the things that I currently note as true at this time. Of course, they are estimates. Noone knows how accurate that is, but they may be fairly accurate.

I am interested in Elons statements about doing a "Stretch" Starship. I wonder about a "Shrink" Booster.

Where Starship is intended to house approximately 100 people on a trip to Mars, I do rough math that tells me that those 100 people will weigh about 7 Metric Tons. Of course, to get to LEO they have to have at least temporary life support. So, lets make it 15 Metric Tons. This is to get them to LEO, and to keep them alive to either land back on Earth in an emergency, or to get them to "Housing" in orbit, also in or near LEO.

In one case of Starship max cap = 150 Tons, then this is 10% of Starship Capacity.
In the case of a non-landing Starship, then this is ~6% of capacity. (15/250=.06=~6%).

So, a Shorty-Shrink Booster might be good enough for that task. I don't think it makes sense to combine human tonnage with cargo and propellant deliveries to LEO. Those should travel separate, in order to try to make human passage safer, perhaps.

This probably indicates stage separation lower in the atmosphere, so there may be a penalty per dry mass for that.

We really cannot escape from the reality of the need for a booster because of Earth's gravity and thick atmosphere. But perhaps the booster can be made more manageable? A "Shorty" could be less toppling prone. It is possible that it would need less engines to lift off, but I am not sure of that, not completely. So, it may be less brutal to stage 0.

I am thinking that since it will not travel as far or accelerate as much as the normal stack, legs may be acceptable for landing. As I mentioned I see it as having the same circumference as the normal booster, but being a "Shorty", xo less topple prone.

The total mass of propellants being less, an explosion, might be less of a problem, so these may have more places where they can launch. This might reduce congestion for the heavy-duty mass launches.

So, if these are to go to LEO or perhaps just a bit above, there might be wanted synthetic gravity machines in part made of Starship structures. So, then these could hold the passengers until they were to be delivered to an interplanetary transport, whatever that would be.

My own view is that such transports should use a Ballistic Capture method to Mars, as they do not require a heat shield to attain Mars orbit. Also, I consider it a large benefit that you can have a rather expanded launch window(s) for the trip(s) Earth>Mars. As the bulk of people are anticipated to travel Earth>Mars rather than Mars>Earth, an expanded launch window allows the infrastructures for handling people to be used over a larger time period, so in a sense to be "Recycled" more rather than to experience a time of saturation of the systems ability to handle the passage of people.

Since the passage using Ballistic Capture requires more time, then radiation damage and microgravity damage would be more, without countermeasures. Spin Gravity will help with the microgravity problem and the payment will just have to be made for the radiation problem. Shielding. However, if you are using Ballistic Capture the inertia penalty may be reduced for the shielding mass.

As for the trips home, I guess you could use Hohmann transfer(s) with Heatshields and landing burns, or have a flyby machine(s) that Starships could meet with and depart from using appropriate methods to deliver humans.

=====

Back to the "Shorty" Boosters. I think that these could likely land on sea platforms like the Falcon 9. You may say, "Well then we have to tow them to port and then transport them". I would say that if they are that reusable, then you can refill them at the landing barge and fly them back to the launch site, using a retrograde path. They might land back on the launch mounts even.

So, the sea platforms would not be from which you launched a mission to orbit, but for the "Shorty" to land on with last parts of propellants, and to be refilled, and flown back to a "Stage 0".

So, these platforms might be a bit bigger than those for Falcon 9, but not nearly as big as the ones contemplated for full stacked Starship Launches.

Done.

It might also be considered if this configuration would also be useful for point-to-point transfers of materials and humans as well.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-26 10:26:28)

Void · 2023-04-26 10:33:23

Spying in a currently active topic, I guess I should make a greater effort to understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession

But, for now, until I discover otherwise, I am going to presume that I know the most important basics.

A spinning cylinder if not connected to an opposing spinning cylinder, might flop about in a destructive way. A wheel, however is not supposed to be very susceptible to that problem. I am going to suppose that a Starship spinning end over end will resemble a spoke in a wheel, and so not have massive problems with procession. I would be happy to be better advised. Dr. Johnson is the source of the notion of spinning a Starship end over end to generate up to .5 g. (Stretched Starship might do more g's).

I suppose at this point it would be best to refer to this to refresh more correctly what the HLS version of Starship may be like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS

I guess that this is important to know:

Within 100 meters of the lunar surface, the variant will utilize high‑thrust RCS thrusters located mid‑body to avoid plume impingement problems with the lunar regolith. The thrusters burn gaseous oxygen and methane instead of the liquid oxygen and methane used by the Raptors.[3][4]: 50:30 However, these thrusters may not be needed.

My understanding is that if the raptors can be made to throttle low enough, they may be able to land on the Moon using just the raptor engines. So, then the HLS may not have the RCS engines to land with.

But of course, my interest in this post is to understand their intended product for HLS, and adapt it specifically for transfers of Humans in deep space, and also as Centrifuges in Earth orbit, for gravity simulations in orbit.

So this might be done with or without the various engines. And if the device is not to actually land on a world with significant gravitation, other means of propulsion might be used with it. It might have Electric propulsion and be boosted somewhere with another rocket device.

I suppose that it might be possible in part to make one of these in Low Earth Orbit with SSTO, but then it would need to be further outfitted with materials from a non-SSTO launch of cargo to LEO. So, I am not mandating any SSTO launches, I just note that it may be possible to engage such.

It may be possible to build a somewhat proper wheel in orbit, using multiple Starships, and so that might engage a SSTO method to get some of the materials to the orbit, but for now I am just considering a single Starship with a tumble. I want to get to artificial gravity testing as soon as possible, and don't want to segway into grand notions which may become costly and interfere with test data Aquisition.

So, using Dr. Johnson's idea, I think that a simulation for Mars and the Moon can likely be done, and for smaller objects like Ceres as well, most likely.

In order to simulate Venus with just one Starship, I am thinking that ballast could be attached to the tail end of the ship, on the outside of the engine bell. This could be cargo or machinery, but for now I will simply call it "Spin Ballast".

I think I am correct in thinking that that would allow for a higher g force in the nose of the ship, but I would be happy to be corrected, if correction is warranted.

It is my hope that the planed elevator could be used to dock to and to then communicate materials and people into the cabin area of the spinning ship. I fear gyroscopic instability from that, but I think there will be methods to handle the problem.

If such a ship did have other means of propulsion, then there could be some possibility to convert the propellant tanks to another use.

I guess resort to proper references may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship
Image Quote:

These will be wild proposals of course, after all it is me............

Suppose the notion might be to convert this ship to electric propulsion, and to also plan to use an orbital booster to send it on a new path.

You might want to send it to L4 or L5, or actually on a mission to Mars or an asteroid? If saying the word Nuclear Fission Booster will make your internal Man or Woman feel better, then let's say that!

There are four significant propellant tanks shown. Perhaps one or more could be converted to hold Argon.

As for the electrical power for the engines to use Argon, make your imagination happy. Kilo power? Some other Nuclear? Well then you need shielding, and consideration of crashes to Earth if you are to be in LEO. Otherwise, I am comfortable with Solar. This is a bit like early cars. Electric was considered not manly enough, so ICE cars were designed to support the ego of Men Smart Psychology! I am not putting down the nuclear crowd, I just like to be amused at historical information like that.

Dental actually.

For this device, if it is not intended to land on a world, the Header Tanks may not even be included. Perhaps the Argon might be held in the LOX tank. But that is a lot of space for it. Perhaps the Methane Tanks would be converted into extra cabin space.

In such a case, I don't know why the Raptor engines would not be removed to reduce dry mass. Perhaps they could go into other service for another ship.

Really, if the thing were not to go on a mission to another world, then I see no reason for the Argon tank. So then even the LOX tank could be converted to extra cabin space. Obviously, materials to refurbish such a tank for such a use would be needed from a source.

Around this site, there are certain things that are not well adapted to. I imagine it is a bit like getting children to eat food they do not like.

Some are:
1) Ballistic Capture to the Moon and Mars.
2) In orbit boosters. (But if you call them tugs, then they may be acceptable).

#2, a tug/booster, could be nuclear or chemical, to give a big push to a craft going to Mars, or perhaps L4, L5, or the Moon.

#1, Ballistic Capture, allows the ship I have been converting a Starship into to travel to Mars orbit. The penalty is more travel time, and not being able to land the ship to Mars. The benefits are not needing a Heat Shield, and having much better launch window availability.

It is also suitable to electric propulsion.

The Penalties then include artificial gravity needed on the ship, better radiation protection, and needing a landing ship if you actually want to land on Mars itself.

Missions to Mars typically seem to suggest more than one ship traveling in a similar time period, so I do not see why you could not have a lander(s), traveling along with your ship, or having landing capabilities around Mars later in it's development.

I think I will end it there for now.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-26 12:23:45)

Void · 2023-04-26 18:56:35

Anyway, the way I see it is first orbital flights, could be full-fledged and bring 150 tons to orbit, and while precursors to the Lunar Starship might be able to lift 250 tons to orbit, and then be turned to service in the study of life support and Lunar and Mars gravity. This could happen well before the propellants Depots.

From that information might come clues about the future efforts to build structures in space.

It may be that the best way to access Mars is a flock of Starships or to build very large ships. I don't see enough evidence to choose just yet.

While I have avoided that discussion, I will say that I favor Ballistic Capture to transport many things to Mars including humans, if Hohmann Transfer is chosen, and many ships are used, then you have a very large surface area for interaction with the thin Martian atmosphere.

So, a few artificial gravity tests can be important to conduct in the early days of Starship and afterward as well.

I have been considering the notion of ships converted to Electric Propulsion. My argument could be that if you have a flock of them traveling between planets, you may transport people between them depending on the functions of life support, and how people get along.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-26 19:07:16)

Void · 2023-04-26 19:11:19

OK, once again I get Internal Server Error and have to try jumping to another post to finish the last post:

For a trip to Earth you don't seem to be able to use Ballistic Capture from Mars, but you might be able to assist capture to Earth orbit using the atmosphere and a heat shield of some sort.

And let us not forget that these ships could be boosted to a path at the start using Nuclear or Chemical methods of booster/tug.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-26 19:31:21)

Void · 2023-04-26 19:13:51

Alright I want to switch to thinking about the Earth's climate and the climate of worlds similar to Earth or that might be terraformed to be similar to Earth.

If I get the "Internal Server Error" again, I might abruptly not continue a post, and just leave it hang.

I think I see some evidence of how the Earth can self-correct for temperature. It almost seems like it is an intelligent design. So, if you believe in that or if you believe that we live in a simulation, that is one reason it could be so. Or else you may say that we are here because the Earth accidentally out of many planets has these qualities, and we are here to notice it because it has helped to cause us to be here. Choose what you like.

Let's start backward from where I started from. The ice pack melting in the Arctic Ocean is portrayed as a disaster. But what if it is simply the Earth trying to dispose of excess heat? That is another way to look at it. Over eons of time, nature has not seemed to care so much if some species of life are discontinued, it simply cooks up some new ones. As far as I am concerned, it is likely that the polar bears may merge with other land lubber bears and continue to some future that way. As for seals, some of them will likely adapt to the islands in the Arctic Ocean as substitute for the ice. In reality I think it is highly likely that at least some of the ice will persist, if greenhouse gasses are reduced for some reason.

So, look at it this way. Ice on the sea is there to conserve heat, to keep the water from cooling off as much. I think that this is very important. The other thing I am currently looking at is the altitude of the Troposphere, particularly at the poles. I think the troposphere also automatically controls the heating of the Earth and of course then the cooling of the Earth. If the Troposphere rises, then it lets more heat and cold circulate between high and low latitudes. If it falls, then the high and low latitudes become more thermally isolated.

Query: "What causes ice ages? Milankovitch cycles"

General Response: https://www.bing.com/search?q=What+caus … &FORM=AWRE

A nice article: https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what … -14092019/
Quote:

The main cause of ice ages is connected to something called the Milankovitch cycle. The Milankovitch cycle refers to the collective effects of changes in the Earth’s movements on its climate over thousands of years. Very small changes in the Earth’s orbit shift the angle at which the Sun’s rays hit the Earth.

I am not entirely satisfied with that. I believe that I can improve on it.

From another topic: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 09#p209109
Quote:

I have had a look at this: Milankovitch Cycle:
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=VRDGAR
I don't want to dominate this topic, so that is about it for now. I will migrate to the Terraform section eventually, and do some thinking there.
I don't feel I have the answers, rather, I seek more answers.
Done.

The video and video's like it are useful. Should you watch it, consider the question, "Does the whole Earth receive the same amount of solar energy in each configuration, over an average year if the sun's output is reasonably constant?". I suspect that it does, both in ice ages and interglacial times. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If I think this trough, I think this description is North centric. While it may be true that while the North had an Ice Age, Tibet and Antarctica may have accumulated ice also, but what about the tropics? (Other than Tibet at high altitude).

If during an ice age, the North is having cool to cold summers and accumulating ice, then Antarctica will have warmer summers. This may or may not allow some thawing somewhere in Antarctica. Probably not, but I am not totally sure.

But with the tilt of the poles at it's minimum, then the Equator should be getting more sunlight over a year, and this should warm the equator.

Query: "what was the sea level during the ice age"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_ … ears%20ago.
Quote:

About 130 m lower than today
During the most recent ice age (at its maximum about 20,000 years ago) the world's sea level was about 130 m lower than today, due to the large amount of sea water that had evaporated and been deposited as snow and ice, mostly in the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Most of this had melted by about 10,000 years ago.

426.5 feet. So, greenhouse that in the tropics over the sea water, with more sunlight during a year. Atmosphere being compressible, there would be more molecules of gas in the 1st 426.5 feet directly above the water than in the next 426.5 feet above that layer.

Atmospheric Displacement is a feature I have speculated on before, for Extrasolar planets with lots of ice on them. So, if the Earth's orbit was eccentric at that time, then there would be some variation over the year by that factor for the tropics, but the average would be greater solar light to the tropics because of the Earth having less tilt to the axis.

So, just like we think for Mars, there will be more of a difference for temperature by latitude extremes when the axis tilt is minimum, than when the axis tilt is at it's maximum.

So, for the Earth's ice ages, it may be that the tropics are hot, especially at sea level, due to both the increase in sunlight and the deepening of the atmosphere column.

The reduction of heat loss over the sea, by the ice, and the reduction of air circulation by the drop of the troposphere at the poles may tend to reduce loss of heat to space for the planet as a whole. But of course, the ice caps will reflect light into space, but at a lesser rate than average because the poles are less tilted.

I guess I will stop for the night perhaps there can be more to say tomorrow.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-26 20:09:10)

Void · 2023-04-27 10:07:11

In the last post this is mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet
Quote:

The Laurentide Ice Sheet was a massive sheet of ice that covered millions of square miles, including most of Canada and a large portion of the Northern United States, multiple times during the Quaternary glacial epochs, from 2.58 million years ago to the present.[3]

So in the last post a reference indicated that most of the sea level drop was from water accumulating in this ice body, not Antarctica or Tibet(+). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_ … ears%20ago
Quote:

During the most recent ice age (at its maximum about 20,000 years ago) the world's sea level was about 130 m lower than today, due to the large amount of sea water that had evaporated and been deposited as snow and ice, mostly in the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Most of this had melted by about 10,000 years ago.

So, I have to suppose that Antarctica may have even lost some ice, if Tibet(+) accumulated ice then. But I don't know.

The loss of land to ice was made up for by the reduction of sea converted to lowlands in the coastal areas.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Bat … _318715926
I am not so sure how much I trust this, but here is an Image Quote: Bathymetry-m-over-the-Antarctic-continental-shelf-and-beneath-the-ice-shelves-Black.png

If the Northern Ice Age is prompted by a "Milankovitch cycle" then the Northern Summers got colder, and so I presume that the Antarctic Summers got warmer. This would apply to the seas as well. If an extra 130 meters of air were above the sea, then that also should cause a warming. This makes me think of two things. It is possible that significant snow was deposited, but also in the summer there should have been more melting near the coast.

Could there have been coast that was somewhat habitable to say a sea going people? Keep in mind that most of that would be under sea and ice now. Yes, it is a treacherous path I am taking. But to me the implication is that Antarctica may have been more habitable 12,000 years ago?

That is what is implied if most of the sea level drop was tied up in the Northern ice body. What I read is that is that during the ice age Antarctica was entirely glaciated, even more than today. But it would have had more melting in the summers as far as I am concerned, and the seas around it might have been warmer because of more atmosphere above them. So, I end confused. Not certain. Somehow it does not seem to add up. I sill wonder if some protected Fjords might have been favorable to life under the conditions 12,000 years ago. These would now likely be submerged in sea water and overrun with glaciers now.

But maybe I am wrong. I leave that as a large possibility.

Good Enough, Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-27 10:34:20)

Void · 2023-04-27 10:45:21

Well, I return to space travel, Posts #977 to #982: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 08#p209008

I am very interested in "Combination Methods". Technically the Dawn Mission was such a mission. It certainly used chemical propulsion to start and then electric propulsion.

Don't expect me to proclaim a solution(s). I am working on methods, and considering possibilities.

Electric Propulsion is faulty for slow acceleration but good for efficiency. There are hints of the possibility of electric propulsion that is not as efficient, but with more thrust capabilities to show up some time.

I start with the notion of converting a Starship to a rehab center for people working too long in Microgravity. The Rehabilitation could be studied, and also people directly from Earth could be hosted in these to study rates of decline in various lower gravity simulations.

These might require minimal on board propulsion. It might be possible to convert one or more propellant tanks to experiment with life support using Algas or Cyanobacteria, maybe plants.

From there it becomes sensible to suppose you could add a Electric Thrust system to such devices. These could be powered by Nuclear or Solar, maybe both. Accommodating both spin and propulsion at the same time may need consideration as to if or how.

And from this point options of Chemical or Nuclear propulsions with higher acceleration make sense to me. Such a Tug/Booster can push the device through the Van Allen Belt at needed speed.

If it is cost effective, you might have a booster that gets you to High Earth Orbit and then a booster that pushes you out towards Mars. The booster that puts the ship into an interplanetary path, might be sent into a "Free Return" path.

Free Return: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-return_trajectory
Quote:

Earth–Mars
A free-return transfer orbit to Mars is also possible. As with the Moon, this option is mostly considered for crewed missions. Robert Zubrin, in his book The Case for Mars, discusses various trajectories to Mars for his mission design Mars Direct. The Hohmann transfer orbit can be made free-return. It takes 250 days (0.68 years) in the transit to Mars, and in the case of a free-return style abort without the use of propulsion at Mars, 1.5 years to get back to Earth, at a total delta-v requirement of 3.34 km/s. Zubrin advocates a slightly faster transfer, that takes only 180 days to Mars, but 2 years back to Earth in case of an abort. This route comes also at the cost of a higher delta-v of 5.08 km/s. Zubrin writes that faster routes have a significantly higher delta-v cost and free-return duration (e.g. transfer to Mars in 130 days takes 7.93 km/s delta-v and 4 years on the free return), and so he advocates for the 180-day transfer.[8] A free return is also the part of various other mission designs, such as Mars Semi-Direct and Inspiration Mars.
There also exists the option of two- or three-year free-returns that do not rely on the gravity of Mars, but are simply transfer orbits with periods of 2 or 1.5 years, respectively. A two-year free return means from Earth to Mars (aborted there) and then back to Earth all in 2 years.[9] The entry corridor (range of permissible path angles) for landing on Mars is limited, and experience has shown that the path angle is hard to fix (e.g. +/- 0.5 deg). This limits entry into the atmosphere to less than 9 km/s. On this assumption, a two-year return is not possible for some years, and for some years a delta-v kick of 0.6 to 2.7 km/s at Mars may be needed to get back to Earth.[10]
NASA published the Design Reference Architecture 5.0 for Mars in 2009, advocating a 174-day transfer to Mars, which is close to Zubrin's proposed trajectory.[11] It cites a delta-v requirement of approximately 4 km/s for the trans-Mars injection, but does not mention the duration of a free return to Earth.

No, I don't have fine details, I am only trying to "Rough In" some possibilities.

So, if you wanted to your free return booster might use atmospheric braking when reaching the Earth. Maybe even magnetic braking. I still don't know if magnetic braking is a practical possibility. I don't really know if this booster has to pass around Mars. Perhaps it would not be that ambitious.

So then in this case I have suggested a serial string of two boosters to send an electric propulsion converted Starship to Mars. It will complete the path using electric propulsion.

The method of entry to Mars orbit could be by the spiral method, or might involve Ballistic Capture, or might even involve air braking with a heat shield, but not landing.

A lander might be needed or wanted but might be sent on its own. Frankly I like Starship to land big loads, and I currently like the Terran-R to move people down and up, and to bring up samples, if this is an early mission.

The Terran-R being smaller, perhaps it might even be provided propellants in orbit. One solution would be to bring extra Methane for it. If you had sent a Starship with Nuclear power to Mars ahead of time, then it could have cooked up lots of Oxygen from the Atmosphere.

So you would land the Terran-R with needed Methane, and then refill it with Oxygen from the Starship, and so get back up to orbit.

This does not stop you from trying to make propellants on the surface of Mars, but it gives you a way to get back to orbit, if that does not work out on the first try.

As for a trip back to Earth, perhaps electric will have to do, but if you could manage a booster in Martian orbit, that would make things better. Sending such a booster/depot by Electric/Ballistic Capture might make some sense.

Granted this stuff would cost extra money, but Starship is supposed to get to cost of up mass from the Earth's surface down.

Down the road we might hope that Oxygen could be mined from the orbit of the Earth's atmosphere, and/or from the Moon.

Done.

I don't mind comments.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-27 11:21:37)

Void · 2023-04-27 19:05:54

OK, I am going to steal part of a post from another member in another topic: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 32#p209132

From: http://newmars.com/forums/profile.php?id=1321
Mars_B4_Moon

His/Her carpet bombings do sometimes hit on things that are dear to my heart. This is true this time.

From that post we get this linked article: https://gizmodo.com/terran-space-opts-b … 1850328629
Quote:

“Our first chapter as a company was to prove to the world 3D printed rockets were viable. We just did that with Terran 1,” Tim Ellis, Relativity Space co-founder and CEO, said in a statement. “Our second chapter is to build the next great launch company with Terran R.”

I am actually faithful to SpaceX, but have rooms also for other things which seem possible. This then is close to the "Mini-Starship" that Dr. Zubrin at a point was promoting. I am also keeping some other things in my side view, but I think that the combination of Starship(s) and Terran-R(s), are very possibly what is needed to crack a pathway to Mars that should work.

Because of an idea that was originally that of Dr. Johnson for tumbling Starship synthetic gravity, and because Terran-R is a sort of Mini-Starship, I think a partnership should be promoted including at least these two hardware producers, maybe some others as well who may show merit down the line.

In previous posts I have mentioned that I think that a Starship with nuclear electric power connected to it, could process Martian atmosphere to produce O2 and CO, prior to any landings on Mars.

If it can make enough O2 for life support for the visitors if needed and/or propellant for a Terran-R, then all that is needed is a lesser amount of Methane than the O2 created by the robotic system. I would imagine that the Terran-R would have three choices. Bring enough Methane down to the surface to allow it to go to Mars orbit, or bring Hydrogen sufficient to react with some of the CO to make Methane, or mine ice and make Methane that way. This would be a lesser task than furling a Starship that way, so I feel is a better startup method. You could test ice mining on the first visit in any case.

Just now I am thinking that the return trip to Earth would be with a Starship, which had it own propellants with it. I favor Argon, and electric propulsion. For the first trip I suggest using an Orion capsule or an upgraded Crew Dragon for atmospheric entry to Earth. That way the Starship will not need to get to a landing on Earth. It may simply go into an orbit of Earth or the Sun. The Capsule could bring some humans and samples with it to the Earth's surface. The Terran-R would have remained perhaps in Mars orbit, maybe retrieved at some future date for a further use.

The Starship being able to tumble would provide artificial gravity both ways Earth>Mars>Earth.

If such were to exist, then a nuclear tug/booster could send the collection of ships on its way from Earth to Mars. Minimum # of Ships, 1 Starship, 1 Terran-R.

But as I said Starships would have already have been landed on Mars with gear, and also the ability to robotically synthesize LOX and Liquid CO from the Martian Atmosphere.

I feel that this could greatly reduce the labor burden that the first visitors would have in providing propellants to get back to Earth, and would allow the crew to do more science, and production methods testing for future expansions.

Done.

Just a reminder, I think that the Return Starship and the Orion or Dragon capsule remain in Mars orbit for this.

Method to achieve that orbit can be "Whatever is best". I favor nuclear and/or chemical booster methods followed by Argon Electric to achieve the final leg to orbit. Ballistic Capture features may be included.

I would not mind being responded to on these ideas.

Done

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terran_R
https://www.relativityspace.com/
https://www.relativityspace.com/terran-r
https://www.relativityspace.com/press-r … 2/terran-r
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BhkjEc6Q64
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=re … M%3DHDRSC4

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-04-27 20:09:26)

Void · 2023-04-28 12:28:33

These articles tend to limit the possibility of asteroid materials in Deimos. I am sure we will want more details over time.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo … 77e55&ei=6

https://earthsky.org/space/martian-moon … 0asteroids.

Well, maybe the truth can make us free, to have a further look(s).

So, if they are in large part similar to the observations about Mars, then they likely were from an impact or condensed from the cloud of materials that formed Mars. I suppose they may in part be composed of an impactor which could have been of various types of materials.

Samples from the moons could indicate when and if Mars was impacted. That can be important to understand the planet we hope to have inhabited in the future. (Some of us, not necessarily the people farmers).

As a resource these should still have Oxygen and Metals and Glassy materials. And it is not for sure that they would have no Hydrogen or Helium inside. Perhaps not much Carbon though, apparently. Propulsion using Oxygen and various Mass Driver schemes could still matter.

It does seem to tilt interest a bit more back towards Mars itself though.

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-04-28 12:45:32)

Void · 2023-04-29 19:24:22

Well, for various reasons I would like to try to advance a concept for the Moon.

A chamber on the surface of in a lava tube, could have a vat of molten glass to store energy and even light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass Quote:

Silicate
Close-up photograph of sand
Quartz sand (silica) is the main raw material in commercial glass production
Silicon dioxide (SiO2) is a common fundamental constituent of glass. Fused quartz is a glass made from chemically pure silica.[67] It has very low thermal expansion and excellent resistance to thermal shock, being able to survive immersion in water while red hot, resists high temperatures (1000–1500 °C) and chemical weathering, and is very hard. It is also transparent to a wider spectral range than ordinary glass, extending from the visible further into both the UV and IR ranges, and is sometimes used where transparency to these wavelengths is necessary. Fused quartz is used for high-temperature applications such as furnace tubes, lighting tubes, melting crucibles, etc.[73] However, its high melting temperature (1723 °C) and viscosity make it difficult to work with. Therefore, normally, other substances (fluxes) are added to lower the melting temperature and simplify glass processing.[74]

Query: "Temperature needed for visible light"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandesc … er%20point.
Quote:

Around 798 K
In practice, virtually all solid or liquid substances start to glow around 798 K (525 °C; 977 °F), with a mildly dull red color, whether or not a chemical reaction takes place that produces light as a result of an exothermic process. This limit is called the Draper point.

Image Quote: th?id=OIP.phO99Eyfem8D92rvsmJSYQHaE3&w=120&h=120&c=8&rs=1&qlt=80&o=6&dpr=1.1&pid=3.1

Photon Upconversion might be used, additionally, but I would like to avoid it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_up … 20emission.

Although I do like Lava Tubes, what I will suggest could also be done on the surface, and in some ways perhaps better.

If we have a vat of molten glass, we could put a roof over it, that could include anti-solar panels:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Anti+Sola … f3c4884053

https://www.techsciresearch.com/blog/an … th%20light.
Image Quote: 2021_12$blog_night%20sky-min.jpg_30_Dec_2021_102108623.jpg

Maybe they can be as good as 1/4 that of a solar panel? But keep in mind that at most times they may be in the deep cold of the Lunar Shade, and will have an incandescent vat of molten glass under the roof of them.

I would entertain a coating reflective of visible light on the underside of the roof. We can call the Roof, the Outer Enclosure.

It will reflect visible light to greenhouses. And of course, we are going to want to do this without overheating the greenhouses, so it may be that the greenhouses will be of several layers of glass that will reject infrared.

The "Outer Enclosure" will not be intended to hold a high pressure, but it will be intended to catch gasses that escape from the greenhouses so that the gasses can be recaptured for reuse.

If the greenhouses get too hot than it will be necessary to have a cooling method for them, which could simply be using Oxygen compressed to send heat to the anti-solar cells. That may be troublesome to achieve without chemical reactions damaging stuff. I suppose if needed water cooling might be possible.

The original energy to heat up the glass could be Nuclear, but I am inclined to think solar to electric, and so the electric to heat the glass.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-29 19:56:32)

Void · 2023-04-30 10:02:19

This is a sort of drawing for the previous post:

Green is glass pressurized greenhouse. Yellow is glowing melted glass, and depicted rays of light in the side view.

The grey dome should be reflective inside both ceiling and floors, except greenhouse.

The black extension of the greenhouse extending outside of the grey dome is for radiative cooling of the interior of the greenhouse.

The outer surface of the grey dome and also black greenhouse extension could have anti-solar panels applied to generate power 24/7.

The grey dome is not to be significantly pressurized, so much of this system will act like a vacuum thermos, except that we will want photons from the molten glass to exit the molten glass and impinge on the inner grey dome surface, (Which will be reflective, and also for preferred wavelength photons to enter the greenhouse preferentially.

The molten glass is to be heated with electricity from solar or even nuclear power.

That would be interesting if a Nuclear core very hot could be kept in the bottom of the molten glass. But a containment that would be physically stable would be hared to do, and if things went wrong, I guess you would have to abandon the bulk of the facility.

A Fission-Nuclear sun Cooled by natural convection of a molten glass pool.

Not for this planet, but it might be OK for other worlds, if it can be done.

Sounds fun, but I think that the glass may get cloudy from transmutation into other materials.

If you used electricity to heat the glass, then transmutation would not be expected to occur. Electricity from Nuclear may be inconvenient on the Moon as for a lack of fluids for heat engines. Solar may be the correct thing.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-30 10:19:01)

Void · 2023-04-30 10:21:04

Grain of salt or salt shaker suggested, also perhaps mouth guards so you don't grind your teeth:

Quote:

SpaceX STARSHIP to Orbit In TWO WEEKS?! Yes Indeed, If They Go SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit)!
Dr. Know-it-all Knows it all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbYuf23Q0NM
Quotes of some of the Comments:

Martin Verrisin
Martin Verrisin
18 hours ago
Having a record on first SSTO would be epic. Let's hope. ^^
14
Reply
Chris Muir
Chris Muir
18 hours ago
Well, a "single stage to orbit" could be a good test for the heat shield, a good test for the vacuum raptors, and a better test for the "flip to land" maneuver. Remember that SpaceX had a lot of failures and just 1 success with the lower altitude "flip to land" tests. More successful landings will be necessary before Starship can carry passengers.
17
Reply
5 replies
Pastor Clyde
Pastor Clyde
17 hours ago
Remember, Star ship "IS DESIGNED" for single stage suborbital hops half way around the world with hover quality landings. My guess is they have the numbers for empty payload SSTO already in their possession. It's just a question of value of effort.
8
Reply
1 reply
Justin Jacobs
Justin Jacobs
17 hours ago (edited)
Elon actually talked about this on twitter maybe a year or two ago, pretty Sure Tim is aware of it, think i remember him talking about it on his channel at some point. Elon mentioned with no payload, all fuel, (modified obviously from its current design) starship could SSTO but would end up relatively empty, so it wouldnt be able to do anything else after getting there.....this was in raptor 1 days i think though so....
9
Reply
1 reply
Ted Archer
Ted Archer
18 hours ago
What astonishes me is why they didn't test the starship suborbital reentry before even loading it on the untested booster
8
Reply
4 replies
Jim Stafford
Jim Stafford
17 hours ago
I believe Elon referred to the possibility of Starship being an SSTO craft but with little or no payload and asked what would be the point of that.
9
Reply
7 replies
Steve Rosenberg
Steve Rosenberg
14 hours ago
A very interesting video. It really extended my mind to new possibilities. A great idea.
2
Reply
rceldib
rceldib
15 hours ago
Atlas Rocket was also Stainless Steel, like Starship.
4
Reply
Bt Farrell
Bt Farrell
21 minutes ago
Fascinating video. Right now, Falcon 9 Starlink launches carry a payload between 16-17 tons. Would the Starship SSTO numbers still work with a small-ish payload of that size?
Reply
heartflame
heartflame
9 hours ago
SSTO was almost possible with Raptor1.0 so I am sure with Raptor 2.0 will work. in terms to thrust just adding a 3 more engines to the outer rim would work but it wont be in 2 weeks :-) There is also the non throttling version of Raptors which are more powerful. These can be used in the centre if you are not planning for it to land "properly" ie they can do a F9 type landing without hover capability.
Reply
Ben Tray
Ben Tray
16 hours ago
It is nice to demonstrate single stage to orbit. You could re-enter without fins but with heat tiles.
1
Reply
aresmars2003
aresmars2003
15 hours ago
Makes sense. Rapid iteration means being able to test different systems in parallel.
3
Reply
1 reply
Krozar TAL
Krozar TAL
15 hours ago
One thing I always thought about is to have an RD-180 type of design but with a vacuum and atmospheric nozzle. No clue how optimized that would be though.
Reply

Starship Fairing Size: 9 m

Terran-R Fairing Size: 5-meter

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comme … the_cargo/
Image Quote: 3myosuhrv9551.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=3b36066b121149dca72f258352bf5b9f7e0fef87

----------------------

OK the above is just mind food, perhaps with a lot of junk food added in. But..........Somone said Imagination is more important than Knowledge. (Supposedly).

While the testing value is actually worth pondering, both for orbital and sub-orbital uses in the future.

But I have wondered for Starship itself becoming a first stage? If it does not go to too high of a speed while releasing a following stage from it's payload bay, might it avoid a ceramic heat shield?

Could you release a smaller ship nested into the payload bay? Would the fairing pop of for Falcon 9 and be recovered at sea, of could the small ship be so fitted into the ship that no payload bay door is needed.

If no payload bay door, could a starship be made that could still endure the drop though the atmosphere and then land?

Fun imaginings.

I would like a "Moon-Ship" to be launched as 2nd Stage.

Terran-R could fit inside the payload I believe, but you would need a payload bay door as the fit would be very loose.

Also perhaps a Dreem Chaser?

Starting with a Starship for Stage 1, would require a less powerful Stage 0, so perhaps many more launch sites available.

But I don't know if even a Stretched Starship with 9 engines could lift off the pad with a payload in it. I just don't know.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-04-30 11:46:18)

Void · 2023-04-30 11:29:54

A bonus, I guess something to learn better, in my case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHMSe0ty8Eg
Quote:

SpaceX RAPTOR Rockets Have an Efficiency of 327 seconds--HUH?? What is ISP, and Why Does it Matter?
Dr. Know-it-all Knows it all

Done

Last edited by Void (2023-04-30 11:32:12)

Void · 2023-04-30 22:39:34

You would be wrong to think that I am not interested in Mars anymore. It is just that the Moon is looking good now, and within certain limits I think SpaceX will be able to make many Starships, and Various other companies will be testing and maturing new hardware's of great value.

A thing I could be interested in is the use of tethers to assist Starship as SSTO. Now I understand we are not ready for that, we have a lot on the plate already, but the Starship end of it could be evaluated for such a future ability. Who can say how future, but it will not be known if research is not done. I even speculate on tethers eventually pulling SSTO Starships or their payloads to orbit.

Calliban has stimulated some of this thinking.

Something like it has been considered in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_%28structure%29
Quote:

Phase I of Boeing's Hypersonic Airplane Space Tether Orbital Launch (HASTOL) study, published in 2000, proposed a 600 km-long tether, in an equatorial orbit at 610–700 km altitude, rotating with a tip speed of 3.5 km/s. This would give the tip a ground speed of 3.6 km/s (Mach 10), which would be matched by a hypersonic airplane carrying the payload module, with transfer at an altitude of 100 km. The tether would be made of existing commercially available materials: mostly Spectra 2000 (a kind of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene), except for the outer 20 km which would be made of heat-resistant Zylon PBO. With a nominal payload mass of 14 tonnes, the Spectra/Zylon tether would weigh 1300 tonnes, or 90 times the mass of the payload. The authors stated:
The primary message we want to leave with the Reader is: "We don't need magic materials like 'Buckminster-Fuller-carbon-nanotubes' to make the space tether facility for a HASTOL system. Existing materials will do."[14]

Now, think about scooping air up when you are not grabbing a load. The Europeans have a electric rocket engine which can apparently excite Nitrogen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospher … propulsion
Quote:

Atmosphere-breathing electric propulsion

Image Quote:
Quote:

Atmosphere-Breathing Electric Propulsion concept

This one apparently works with Nitogen: th?id=ODL.39d7c146bdfa6ab82f1b36c1c84230a9&w=298&h=204&c=12&rs=1&qlt=99&pcl=faf9f7&o=6&dpr=1.1&pid=13.1
Quote:

RF Helicon-based Plasma Thruster (IPT) prototype operating on Nitrogen Uni Stuttgart Press Release

So, if this was a spinning tether, then probably two ends, and at some point on each a propulsion device. It could also be that some type of thermal ramjet could be employed. While electrical power might travel through tethers, I am inclined to think of either laser power to such engines, (Any type), or Microwave transmissions. Such could come from the ground where maintenance would be easier, but could also come from space solar power, and particularly solar panels at the spin hub of the tether.

We would hope to obtain a number of gasses. Oxygen has its uses and can be pushed out a mass driver also. Nitrogen you can see has at least one use. If Argon could be collected that could be rather good for deep space activities.

As for space junk, if you have these resources in orbit then you likely could and would clear up a great deal of it.'

As I have said though this will be future stuff, but the Starship and other ships could be evaluated for compatibility with possible tether methods.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-05-01 09:49:05)

Void · 2023-05-02 12:00:16

I have had a new look at what the "Online" proclaims about Terran-R. Changes are said to be. I think that their logic is very good.

They are going to mothball Terran-1, and work on Terran-R instead. Good!

But they seem to be retreating on the reusable 2nd stage for now. Reusable 1st stage, probably no reusable 2nd stage for now. I think that is OK, as they could eventually move to a reusable 2nd stage if they want to later. So, for now Terran-R would not be a Mars lander, that then is a bit of a loss, but I am still happy, as I think they have chosen a path to profits first, which is sensible.

As it happens Dragon exists and Dream Chaser is also seeming to emerge, and perhaps some day a crewed version. It can do a bit od down mass so it may cover that. And also some notions exist of launching robotic capsules to bring down mass though the atmosphere from Microgravity Manufactuing processes. SpaceX will eventually get a 2nd stage return, so of course that could cover a lot of down mass.

Perhaps I spoke too soon, this article implies a calculation of mass to orbit using a recovered 2nd stage. I guess that may come later.
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/comm … pment-plan
Quote:

Relativity Lays Out Terran R Rocket Development Plan
Guy Norris April 20, 2023

The thing about this company is its 3D printers to make much of the rockets. They intend that they should be able to use it on other planets, and so I presume they might use it in orbit eventually.

They are going to use Helium rather than to experiment with using the propellant vapors to drive some processes. I guess what they would have then is a competitive edge on Falcon 9 perhaps. You only have to be lower buck with equivalent quality to get market I would think.

The thing that comes to my mind is that down the road, will it be possible to cannibalize expended orbital vehicles to build new ones in orbit. Things that are suited to that environment, and so not enter atmosphere. That would be more advanced than simply repurposing expended 2nd stages. I am sure it is a way off, but still I think it may make more sense than mining raw materials from a world to build orbital structure.

This holds an interesting piece of information: https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/comm … pment-plan
Quote:

The second-stage engine on the Terran R will differ from the Terran 1 by running on sub-cooled liquid oxygen and sub-cooled methane. “The first-stage engine is sub-cooled liquid methane, but the oxygen is at its normal boiling point, so not so cool–which is all to do with how the turbopump suction margin needs to work. You don’t need sub-cooling for the first-stage engines,” Ellis explains.

So, they won't bother to chill the Oxygen for the 1st stage but will for the 2nd stage.

I suppose their own web site might be the place to go: https://www.relativityspace.com/terran-r
Ambiguous about 2nd stage reuse:

Terran R will prioritize first stage reusabil As a two-stage, 270-foot-tall rocket with an 18-foot diameter and a 5-meter payload fairing, Terran R is a customer-centric launch vehicle …

It makes sense though, as it apparently only needs to be a bit better than Falcon-9, or at least equivalent in capability. Then they could upgrade the 2nd stage down the road if they have reason to.

In case they are some young readers or unfamiliar readers, I am not a professional, so this is just the rantings of an average person (I hope), who is interested.

I guess it is a hobby interest.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-05-02 12:36:02)

Void · 2023-05-02 12:57:15

Continuing with the just previous post, it occurred to me that for both the Falcon-9, 2nd stage and the Terran-R 2nd stage, you might bundle 4 or so of them together side by side and make a nice Lunar lander. Of course, the device would have to be refilled in orbit.

With 4 of them you would have two pairs of two engines to land with. I am presuming that would be enough. You would also want to be ablet o swap propellants from one tank(s) to others to use 2 engines at a time. You would want that if you were running on your backup pair of engines because the primaries had a failure.

And of course, you need to add landing legs, and figure out how to attach payloads. The thing might not be too tippy though. Also Merlin engines tend to coke up, so you might get less reuses from them.

Also, you need the hardware not only for the legs but to bind the 4 or more together.

I am also presuming that 2 engines alone would be strong enough to land on the Moon. I don't know if Merlin's can throttle down well enough for that.

And I don't know much about Aeon Engines either, actually I know less, but they are not supposed to be so prone to coking up with Carbon.

A fun notion of how to repurpose 2nd stages though.

I wonder about asteroid missions.

Done.

Void · 2023-05-02 20:20:47

Well, I ran across this article today, which may support some of the notions I am beginning to develop about what goes on with Antarctic per ice ages. I will offer a bit of criticism as well.

Previously I was talking about ice ages and such beginning here: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 22#p209122
Posts #983 and #984 apply as previous materials additive to this post, perhaps.

https://phys.org/news/2023-05-scientist … -lake.html
Quote:

MAY 1, 2023
Editors' notes
Scientists describe carbon cycle in a subglacial freshwater lake in Antarctica for first time
by University of South Florida

Quote:

In other words, just a few thousand years ago the West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreated about 155 miles—a few dozen miles shy of the distance from New York to Boston—before re-growing to its modern configuration.

The mention of 6000 years ago is in the article. I had speculated that it may be that at times the coast of Antarctic may have been more hospitable to life. Go far enough back and that is certainly true.

With the changing of ice sheet weight, the rock will move up and down, but also the sea level has moved up and down.

Well this article seems to give numbers. I found it by accident just now:
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-years-cli … 7s%20level.
The article is about the Murray River in Australia having been flooded to form a lake about 6000 years ago.
Quote:

One way to do this is to look back to a period 5,000-8,000 years ago, to a point in the sea level cycle known as the Holocene highstand. The Holocene refers to the past 11,700 years or so of Earth's history. The highstand is the point at which sea levels were highest.

Well OOPS!

After the peak of the last glacial period 18,000 years ago, melting ice caused sea levels to rise from about 120 meters below today's level. About 6,000 years ago, sea level peaked at two meters above today's level.

So.....If the seas rise 2 meters, we are still normal. How about that.

So, the West Antarctic ice sheet retreated 155 km about 6000 years ago when the sea level was 2 meters higher than it is today.

This video is a quote from the last linked article on this post: https://youtu.be/BoRpRJtI65g

So, if I understand 18,000 years ago the sea level was at its lowest, and 6000 years ago the sea level was at it's highest.

6000 years ago, the west Antarctic ice sheet had retreated 155 km back from where it is now.

The Laurentide ice sheets in the North then had maxed out 18,000 years ago perhaps because that is where the most of the water from the sea had been stored. During that time the North had colder summers with less melt, and the Southern Hemisphere would have had warmer summers.

I would like to know what Antarctica was like 18,000 years ago. If most of the sea level drop was stored in the North, then the other places would be either Tibet(And associated areas), or the Southern Hemisphere. I do believe that South Island in New Zealand was perhaps more glaciated??? But glaciation is not only due to temperature but also type of precipitation, and if you have days of melting of ice in the summer. If the Southern Oceans were warmer due to warmer summers, then Mountains in New Zealand could have collected more snow and glaciers could have run down the slopes.

Here we go: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna52755266
Quote:

West Antarctica Warmed Quickly ... 20,000 Years Ago
The modern meltdown of the Antarctic Ice Sheet mirrors the frozen continent's big thaw after the last ice age ended 20,000 years ago, a new study finds.

Quote:

New ice core records from West Antarctica show the huge ice sheet started heating up about 20,000 to 22,000 years ago, 2,000 to 4,000 years earlier than previously thought. But in East Antarctica, which was higher in elevation, colder and drier than the West, the continent stayed in its deep-freeze cycle until 18,000 years ago. The results were published today (Aug. 14) in the journal Nature.
The mismatch between West and East is similar to today's Antarctica. Modern West Antarctica is one of the fastest-warming places on the planet. The middle of West Antarctica has warmed by 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4 degrees Celsius) since 1958, three times as fast as the overall rate of global warming. But relatively little warming — half a degree or less — has been measured in East Antarctica. [ In Photos: Stunning Photos of Antarctic Ice ]

So, it is a bit muddled, two factors are 1) The flip-flop of warm summer alternation between the hemispheres and 2) The whole temperature of the Earth. So, I can be hard to figure it out. If large amounts of ice can build up where land and sea once existed, that can cool the whole Earth by Albedo. So, the North ice mass could have cooled the whole earth, during the episode where the North was experiencing an ice age caused by the Earths tilt and how warm the summers were alternately in the North and South.

So, indeed, it the West Antarctic warmed up as much as 22,000 years ago, and yet the lowest sea levels were 18,000 years ago, there could have been a period of time of significant exposed land in West Antarctica, much of that land is now under sea level, or covered by ice flows.

It needs more thinking, but I now feel much more secure in thinking that historical projections from science are very unsure, especially as per news media depictions.

Returning to this article: https://phys.org/news/2023-05-scientist … -lake.html
I am somewhat disappointed in that they sort of depict the food chain in the lake as being entirely dependent on old Carbon in rocks deposited 6000 years ago when the lake was connected to the sea.

I understand that there is a whole biosphere in the sea floor a few meters down that runs off of radioactive decay, creating disequilibrium in materials such as H20 and CO2, splitting them into H, C, O and other materials.

So, I anticipate that this will happen on the bottoms of the Antarctic subglacial and ice covered lakes: https://www.sci.news/biology/subseafloo … ew%20study.

The article is so good I will quote the bulk of it here:

“This work provides an important new perspective on the availability of resources that subsurface microbial communities can use to sustain themselves,” said Dr. Justine Sauvage, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Gothenburg.
“This is fundamental to understand life on Earth and to constrain the habitability of other planetary bodies, such as Mars.”
In contrast to the conventional view that life in sediment is fueled by products of photosynthesis, an ecosystem fueled by radiolysis of water begins just meters below the seafloor in much of the open ocean.
“The resulting molecules become the primary source of food and energy for the microbes living in the sediment,” sai Professor Steven D’Hondt, a researcher in the Graduate School of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island.
“The marine sediment actually amplifies the production of these usable chemicals. If you have the same amount of irradiation in pure water and in wet sediment, you get a lot more hydrogen from wet sediment. The sediment makes the production of hydrogen much more effective.”
“Why the process is amplified in wet sediment is unclear, but minerals in the sediment may behave like a semiconductor, making the process more efficient.”
“This study is a unique combination of sophisticated laboratory experiments integrated into a global biological context,” said Professor Arthur Spivack, also from the Graduate School of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island.
In a series of laboratory experiments, the researchers irradiated vials of wet sediment from various locations in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, collected by the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program and by U.S. research vessels.
They compared the production of hydrogen to similarly irradiated vials of seawater and distilled water. The sediment amplified the results by as much as a factor of 30.
“We experimentally quantified hydrogen yields for alpha- and gamma-irradiation of pure water, seawater, and seawater-saturated marine sediment with a typical abyssal clay porosity (80–85%) for all abundant marine sediment types (abyssal clay, nannofossil-bearing clay (calcareous marl), clay-bearing siliceous ooze, calcareous ooze, and lithogenous sediment), which collectively cover ~70% of Earth’s surface,” they explained.
“Our results show that for pure water, seawater, and marine sediment slurries, hydrogen production increases linearly with absorbed alpha- and gamma-ray dose.”
“The implications of the findings are significant. If you can support life in subsurface marine sediment and other subsurface environments from natural radioactive splitting of water, then maybe you can support life the same way in other worlds,” Professor D’Hondt said.
The results also have implications for the nuclear industry, including for how nuclear waste is stored and how nuclear accidents are managed.
“If you store nuclear waste in sediment or rock, it may generate hydrogen and oxidants faster than in pure water,” Professor D’Hondt said.
“That natural catalysis may make those storage systems more corrosive than is generally realized.”
The findings were published in the journal Nature Communications.
_____

So, now I suggest that we might hope to start a biosphere for Mars by exploding nuclear devices in ice bodies. Korolev Crater might be a possible choice. Such a biosphere might produce biological biproducts for terraforming Mars. And also Tritium>Helium3.

I will criticize the article about the Antarctic Lake article, but in a very friendly way. I feel that the researchers are possibly too specialized, and do not have a sufficiently generalist view, or they would have figured out that radiolysis could be going on in that lakes sediments.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-05-02 21:17:54)

Void · 2023-05-02 22:41:30

This showed up and is related to the last post so I guess I will put it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg0Z3LappEM
Quote:

The Geography of the Ice Age - YouTube

I am not satisfied with the description of the history of West Antarctica.
In the previous post is suggestion that it may have been less icy 6000 years ago.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-05-02 22:43:47)

Void · 2023-05-03 05:26:55

I am thinking that sea and land have a different albedo, so sea level should affect that balance. Further, as wet areas are emitters of the greenhouse gasses the amount of sea, it's temperature and ice cover should affect the amount of greenhouse water vapor emitted into the atmosphere.

Atmospheric displacement by ice should also affect the greenhouse effect over water and land. If the Seas are 130 meters lower than today, then they have 130 meters of extra air above them and that air layer is also a bit more compressed than sea level air pressure now. And when sea level drops, atmospheric displacement would cause the amount of air molecules over land to drop, as land is higher than sea usually.

So, the Laurentide ice sheets would have a lowered greenhouse effect not only for altitude created by their existence, but by taking water out of the seas, to achieve that altitude, they displace water to the sea basins due to their expanded volume.

Evaporation from Lake Superior is less, when the lake is completely frozen over in the winter than it is in the else.

Albedo Land/Sea variations: https://ponce.sdsu.edu/surface_albedo_a … e%20ground.

Quote:

Water and vegetation surfaces have lower albedos than do dry, bare soil surfaces. Soil moisture is the crucial parameter in the land use-albedo relation, since albedo increases markedly with a decrease in soil moisture. Forests have typically lower albedos than do rangelands; in turn, rangelands have lower albedos than does dry bare ground.

I am going to suppose that the following could apply to Earth as well: (Quote):

Not only all that, but water vapor in the atmosphere on Mars is thought to be able to modify the heating of Mars by the altitude of clouds.

Lower clouds would be expected to cool the surface of Mars, but high-altitude clouds are expected to warm Mars.

(A significant part of my working life involved the consideration of process control, and also I did a lot of component level repairs of electronic equipment, so it seems that my brain is wired for analysis of complex feedback relationships, and I often enjoy trying to solve puzzles like this as a consequence.}

I don't consider it solved at all yet but I think exposure of factors is emerging.

Albedo: Water and vegetation surfaces have lower albedos than do dry, bare soil surfaces. Soil moisture is the crucial parameter in the land use-albedo relation, since albedo increases markedly with a decrease in soil moisture. Forests have typically lower albedos than do rangelands; in turn, rangelands have lower albedos than does dry bare ground. Quote:

Albedo is the measure of the diffuse reflection of solar radiation out of the total solar radiation and measured on a scale from 0, corresponding to a black body that absorbs all incident radiation, to 1, corresponding to a body that reflects all incident radiation. Surface albedo is defined as the ratio of radiosity Je to …

I have a lot of trouble with Albedo, my mind tends to think of it backwards, so I will read that 0 is dark and 1 is completely reflective.

So a Conifer Forest near sea level of the last ice age is a low number for albedo, and an elevated ice sheet top surface is typically a high albedo number.

So, many factors, not just greenhouse gasses CO2 and Methane variations.

Managing extend and type of vegetation that is able to grow on a land with a certain moisture level is a tool that humans could use to alter the Earth's albedo.

This is more possible I think in the Northern Hemisphere, while forests tend to have a lower albedo, it is likely that of forests albedo is lower for evergreen forests than for Deciduous forests. Deciduous forests have a loss of leaves for winter and if snow or dry ground is so exposed, that will allow more reflection.

So, I suggest that the conversion of Taiga to rangeland could cool the Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga Quote:

Taiga , generally referred to in North America as a boreal forest or snow forest, is a biome characterized by coniferous forests consisting mostly of pines, spruces, and larches. The taiga or boreal forest has been called the world's largest land biome. In North America, it covers most of inland Canada, Alaska, and parts … See more

The climate argument seems to involve parties who use religious form to try to alter society. The trick is to convince people that they are sinners, and to repentance being a tax paid, a tithe to pay, this then empowers Climate Priests. We are told that we are "Carbon Sinners", and so our repentance is required.

I read a book by a person India origins, who said the four power types are Aquisitionor, Priest, Warlord, and Intellectual. Priests are essentially librarians, they tend to read books. Intellectuals do also read books as learning only by active scientific inquiry outside of books would take too long. People have far too short a life span to learn by discovery. But Intellectuals do write books, then the Priests read them.

R.A.M. And of course our library is censored, but that has to be, as the teaching of children could have a bad effect if not proper.

Done.

Albedo of Ice altered by microbes: https://phys.org/news/2023-05-ice-cap-t … nisms.html
Quote:

Black algae
One of the microorganisms on the ice that the researchers spent most time investigating is a small black algae. The algae grows on top of the ice and tinges it black. There is a reason why the black algae so interesting for the researchers.
"When the ice darkens, it becomes more difficult to reflect sunlight. Instead, heat from the sun's rays is absorbed by the ice, which starts to melt. The more the ice melts, the warmer the temperature on Earth. The algae therefore play an important role in global warming," says Alexandre Anesio.
In recent years, larger and larger areas of the ice have become stained by the algae, making the ice melt even faster. Alexandre Anesio has calculated that the algae are increasing the ice melt by about 20%.

So, fertilizer to ice is a factor for albedo of ice. Volcanos and dust storms would increase "Ice Fertility".

Desertification would raise the albedo of some land, but the resulting dust storms would reduce the albedo of ice. The desert lands then reflect more light, but the ice absorbs more light. Grasslands that do not allow dust storms will tend to cool the planet then. Particularly if they are covered in snow pack part of the year. Converting northern forests to grasslands could cool the planet but a counter effect could be tree Carbon to Atmosphere. So converting the tree mass to not burn or decay would avoid Carbon to atmosphere.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-05-03 06:29:10)

Void · 2023-05-03 13:32:14

It may seem that I jump around a lot in this topic, because I do.

I am jumping over to solar sails and have a desire to learn more about them as there seems to be more to learn at this point.
I am going to anticipate a continuing accumulation of abilities for such devices, and although I am enthusiastic for pure science applications, I also am interested in coupling them to Orbital Habitats and Cyclers and Semi-Cyclers. I will refer to previous posts of that nature later.

Here are some new materials:

Solar Sails are Even Better Than You Think, Frazer Cain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-E83lC-eN0

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-kind-sola … icult.html

The apparent improvements in mobility attract me, the ability to tack into the sunlight.

I have been interested in Magnetic Bubble and Electric Rockets, but solar sails may be much less demanding as per on site resources. You need less power I presume, and you do not need to expel mass, so well worth learning about, I feel.

If it becomes true that in space manufacturing may happen then I anticipate accumulating ability to build these machines, over time.

I still have to fully study the video's myself.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-05-03 13:36:17)

Void · 2023-05-03 19:11:21

So based on the materials in the just previous post, a change in notions may be warranted.

Being in a solar orbit and using the sunlight's inertia to move platforms, I can imagine three main activities. 1) Construction 2) Movement 3) Basking.

If you want to move space probes to another path and speed, then you would follow certain methods and would be restricted to certain realities. The speaker for instance mentioned about 3 AU as a sort of limit for solar power. But that limit does not have much significance if your objective is not to get a probe into the outer solar system in a hurry.

For Space Habitats it would be 1) Construction 2) Movement 3) Basking.

Since the inertia of the Photons from the Sun will likely be available for ~4.5 billion years, And of course with mirrors it would be quite possible to "Bask" fairly far out into the solar system.

There are materials that are primarily in the sun's gravity well, functionally, and there are materials that are more or less in the gravity well of a Planet/World.

The asteroids do look optimal as being primarily responsive to the Sun's gravity well. And a distribution of materials is available.

If you don't like the level of sunshine in the asteroid belt, after your habitat is built you could slowly sail it inward and even park it around a planet if you liked.

That is not to say that places like Mars would not be inhabited, but it may well be that time will tell what preferences will be.

I can imagine platforms with spin habitats that move about from material source to material source and use those materials to build more platform.

Even for Mars, you could have such a platform that travel slowly from a low orbit of Mars to load up on Volatiles, and then up to a Moon or Mars or even a Trojan of Mars.

If you have a large platform with many spin habitats in it, then time of mission is not that important. You might live a lifetime traveling from one Material resource to another, but so what. The platform would be a full world in itself.

Most movement would be from the inertia of light, not an expulsion of mass.

I did not so much like light sails before as I felt that they would be hard to sail inwards to the sun, but apparently great minds have figured out how to make a machine that can do it.

Very nice!

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-05-03 19:32:19)

Void · 2023-05-04 10:33:41

From the last post:

For Space Habitats it would be 1) Construction 2) Movement 3) Basking.

So, as for Cyclers and Semi-Cyclers(If possible):

Taking the example of Mars, (but we might consider similar for other planets as well), you could have settlements on the planet itself, and settlements in the orbits of Mars. A third option exists which could be cyclers/semi-cyclers.

Previously Cyclers were considered for bridges from one planet to another, for instance Earth/Moon<>Mars. But I wonder about cyclers that are only linked to Mars. This in part would be done so that the cycler could "Bask" in greater sunlight than that of Mars, but still Mars would be a "Hub-World" for a community. This could also harvest time latency in a cultural sense. As communications would have time latency this would facilitate greater individuality, and perhaps avoid attempts at an all powerful state. So, it would be hospitable for cultures from Japan to UK/France/etc, USA, Canida. These are all cultures which from time to time get infected by the "Very Old" world and trend for mistakes of the past. Not giving centralized power easily is a solution to that, or at least a medicine for the problem. A treatment.

Anyway, enough of politics, great danger is currently embedded in such discussions.

So, for Mars, a cycler would have a half year cycle, (Half a Martian year). I am thinking that on approach to Mars, the whole station might do a Powered Ballistic Capture, if it was desired for some reason. Otherwise just some ships from it might do so, and the cycler would simply zip by.

I am thinking of course of these Cyclers being primarily solar sail for propulsion method.

So, if the Cycler did a Semi-Cycle Pause by this method, eventually it might want to unhook from the gravity well of Mars, and resume back to a 1/2 year cycle. In part it would unhook from the Martian gravity well, and then after that it would have to use it's solar sails to get back in sync with the orbit of Mars.

Cyclers would likely have less solar sail for total mass than actual spaceships. So, if you had 10,000 cycler worlds linked to Mars, it might be reasonably easy for a solar sailed craft to overtake and link to one of the cyclers to hitch a ride to Mars.

A cycler might also change Planets for its hub, but it might take some time. For Cycler/Semi-cyclers, it might be possible that the sails could also double in some way at times as solar concentrating mirrors.

So, that brings up a question as to why do a cycle/semi-cycle basking orbit, if you could just have big mirrors in the orbit of Mars? A reasonable question. But no matter how big your mirrors were, they could collect more light over a year in a cycler/semi-cycler orbit than at Mars.

This brings up the question of "Enough?". When it there enough of a thing? In general, it seems like more energy is always better than too little energy, as long as you don't "Burn Down the House".

This leads into the idea of a Dyson Swarm. Some have speculated that a very advanced civilization would opt for maximum use of resources, to support a maximum population. Well maybe, but is there such a thing as "Enough"?

So with Cycler/Semi-cyclers we would get the opportunity to ask that question, presuming we can find a way to get the nations to remain rational and conscious about duty to the liberty of humanity.

We have had some success in that, but we definitely don't have the problem mastered.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2023-05-04 11:00:56)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#976 2023-04-21 20:35:48

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#977 2023-04-22 18:34:21

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#978 2023-04-24 15:32:00

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#979 2023-04-25 10:38:55

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#980 2023-04-26 10:33:23

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#981 2023-04-26 18:56:35

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#982 2023-04-26 19:11:19

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#983 2023-04-26 19:13:51

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#984 2023-04-27 10:07:11

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#985 2023-04-27 10:45:21

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#986 2023-04-27 19:05:54

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#987 2023-04-28 12:28:33

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#988 2023-04-29 19:24:22

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#989 2023-04-30 10:02:19

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#990 2023-04-30 10:21:04

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#991 2023-04-30 11:29:54

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#992 2023-04-30 22:39:34

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#993 2023-05-02 12:00:16

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#994 2023-05-02 12:57:15

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#995 2023-05-02 20:20:47

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#996 2023-05-02 22:41:30

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#997 2023-05-03 05:26:55

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#998 2023-05-03 13:32:14

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#999 2023-05-03 19:11:21

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#1000 2023-05-04 10:33:41

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

Board footer