Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

Void · 2021-12-12 11:26:09

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

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

Spacecraft Scale Magnetospheric Protection from Galactic Cosmic Radiation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good enough for now.

Done.

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

Done.

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

Void · 2021-12-12 13:56:56

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

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

High-tech sleeping bag could solve vision issues in space

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

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

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

Done.

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

Void · 2022-02-11 20:38:46

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

I am thinking about Lunar Starship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just me doing brain silliness perhaps. Fun is fun.

Done

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

Void · 2022-06-19 08:07:59

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done.

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

Void · 2022-07-17 08:44:00

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done.

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

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-23 03:30:03

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

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

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

Void · 2024-03-29 20:21:59

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

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

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

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

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

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

These two are somewhat optimistic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done

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

Void · 2024-06-23 14:24:47

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done

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

Void · 2024-08-04 11:41:55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an attempt to further explain:

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

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

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

Done

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

Void · 2024-12-06 10:57:00

OK, since I don't want to profane a topic where actual professional people post I have something weird to offer here. I will post a notion about rotary engines rather than flaps for a starship.

Pause.............

OK, so please expect this to go from reasonable to then possibly verge into sillium.

All the shame is mine, I do not intend to insult Felix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWSsS3MfC7o
Quote:

This changes everything!!! SpaceX considers BIG Starship heat shield change!
What about it!?

OK, what I am after is to say that pushing Ullage gas though the hinge of the flaps and then though the flaps then you could have an actively cooled structure. You could then incorporate a nozzle to use the flap as a variable gas thruster that actively cools the flap hinges and the flaps.

But if you wanted to perhaps you could turn this into a formal engine, it would require a very increased complexity, to add a fuel and Oxidizer. Perhaps this is too far away from the Starship notion and needs. But if the flaps were engines they could be actively cooled, as the Raptors are actively cooled. Some of the Raptor engines can be used in steering, so perhaps this is not absolutely ridiculous to consider.

While the complexity is a burden, then also we might have the option of using the flap-engines to thrust during launch, while Superheavy is boosting, and after that.

And if they have the flap motion then they can do steering of the ship.

I suppose that for Lunar Starship you might still want forward flap-engines, as they might be suitable to land on the Moon.

If the Flap-Engines, were able to rotate rather than flap, then you might be able to land the Starship sideways on small worlds, perhaps even the Moon. But of course that is very complex.

Probably not wise to divert that far with Starship at this time, but perhaps some future spacecraft.

I guess I am here to dare to say the silly stuff, I have no career to protect.

Well that is it then. I think being able to use engines as flaps and to also thrust while pushing up from a worlds surface, may justify some version of this.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-12-06 11:21:35)

Void · 2024-12-07 10:50:08

Following on the previous post, I feel I might want to venture some "Educated Wishes" for a "Pseudo Starship".

I have already wondered for some time if the Starship forward flaps could be fixed, and then the rear flaps be made more powerful if necessary.

But now as SpaceX is apparently entertaining active cooling for parts of the Starship, I wonder if the forward flaps could be made into "Virtual Flaps", a combination of flap and engine.

Fixed flaps are not required for this, but I think that it is possible that fluid flows can compensate for the removal of hinges and motors for the flaps.

SpaceX has apparently modified its Raptor 3 engines to have active cooling throughout, so as to not need heat shields.

So for forward flaps, I would speculate on a vascular system in the flaps, and then a venting under the flaps to provide a heat shield "Underflow".

This might have a resemblance to the heat shield of the 2nd stage of their new rocket, NOVA, I believe. Mention of Stoke Space needed.
But now that I look at it, I think that Stoke Space could consider adding a "Heat Shield Underflow Method".

In effect, if a "Pseudo Starship" had "Flap Engines", then of course this is some sort of thruster. It could at times act like a "Cold Gas Thruster", and sometimes like a "Steam Engine".

"Steam Engine" mode would most likely occur during atmospheric reentry, but if you could provide heat you might do it in orbit or on assent from the surface of the Earth.

Methods to add heat could be electrical or combustion.

But I would not want to add more complexity than is necessary. We might want to have a look at Rocket Labs notion of electric powered pumps to run their engines.

Coffee...........

The thing is Starship needs batteries, I presume to run it's flap engines and other processes. There is one resource that we could currently tap in orbit, and that is solar energy. If you engine process can lean on electric pumps, then you may not need to use as much of the energy in the fuel to move the fluids to sustain a thrust method.

These electro-chemical engines which Rocket Lab has already created a version of, then could assist in achieving orbit, and maneuvering the ship in orbit, and in cooling the flaps on reentry.

Of course as described the push is asymmetrical, but on push to orbit, I think that the Raptor tail gimbal could compensate for that.

In orbit, the asymmetrical nature of the fap engines has to be compensated for in another way(s). Possibly other thrusters.

I have left it open as to if pressurized gasses are to be vented from the "Flap Engines", or an actual form of combustion might be included, gas or liquid.

If it were a Ullage Boil Off gas, then you could use the boiloff as thrust to go to another world. You would also wind up the electric power before an interworld thrust event.

While Raptor is supposed to be the most efficient in using chemicals, I am guessing that electro-chemical may have an efficiency and convenience potential of it's own.

It is even possible that Flap-Engines would have parallels to Moon landing engines.

Ending Pending

Animals that move though fluids, birds, fish, Purpose-like, use either front limbs as for power or rear limbs/flukes/tail, for power and the other limbs are then used for steering. So, it may be that specialization of front or rear limbs has sense in the nature of evolution of method.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-12-07 12:09:07)

Void · 2024-12-11 18:27:32

I seem to have a desire to make a fool of myself, so don't be surprised when it may happen.

I started by trying to get the best attributes of various rocket systems into one device. I am still working on Starship, but I think messing with Stoke Space NOVA will satisfy my goal easier.

But I will talk about Starship for a moment and say what I desire.
-I want to be able to just fly the engines and avionics back to Earth and leave the big propellant behind in orbit.
This is a bit like the Vulcan philosophy but would be somewhat more difficult.

The goal for Vulcan is to dispose of the 1st stage booster tanks, and just land the engines and avionics, using an expanding heat shield and parachute, I believe.

So, if you could leave the main tanks and Upmass cargo compartment in orbit that can be repurposed. But then if you have small fuel tanks in the lower section, you might fly the engine section back to land.

Of course heat shielding and shape are going to matter. So, for Starship I am not there yet, but I have some ideas.

The Stoke Space NOVA, however, might be modified for it and just might work.

https://www.stokespace.com/nova/
Image Quote:

So, because you would leave the main tanks and the fairings in orbit, you could then lift more payload, as you would not need as much for propellants to land the engines and avionics section.

But you would have to have a reliable way to plug in a full set of main tanks and cargo fairings, for each flight up.

It is likely that space salvage will have value if it can be put to good use. Structures might use it, and also the upcoming Neuman Drive and Magdrives may be able to use the metals as propellants.

I have not given up on a Starship version, but it seems like it would be much harder to figure out. Maybe something will pop into someone's head, maybe mine..

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-12-11 18:47:20)

Void · 2024-12-13 10:50:56

Well, I have been thinking about is some more. Currently I think that we have maybe 3 major families of thought about private enterprise western space vehicles. The current natures and the possible evolution of these in part depends on Economics and Philosophy, I think.

Examples that I am aware of are:
1) SpaceX - Starship & Superheavy.
2) Rocket Lab - Neutron.
3) Stoke Space - NOVA.

As far as I know these and others such as Blue Origin or Relativity Space, are developing 1st Stages that burn Methan or Natural gas, which is very similar, I think.

Blue Origin seems to have several concepts for a 2nd Stage, which are not so similar to each other.

Pause...........Coffee.............

I am very pleased with this "Explosion" of concepts.

I think I will be interested to see if not only SpaceX, but eventually the others will increase the size of their rockets, following the paths they have established. It presumes that each of them will have some sort of success for their methods, and some path to profits also.

For instance Neutron with light weight materials and 1st stage fairings retention, may not forever have only and expendable 2nd Stage, but might think of some type of return device, such as at least a capsule.

I am very interested to see if Stoke Space could upsize the NOVA after proving the first device.

It looks like SpaceX could get to the point of refilling liquid propellants in orbit, before others may do it in a major way.

But a new kid in town could be metal propellants. Devices like Neumann Drive and Magdrive.

I think my observations are pretty good so far, but now I want to do "Cups" and "Saucers" as a perversion of the NOVA concept.

First of all I will say that this thinking could go wrong. But NOVA is already potentially very close to it.

To justify the perversion of NOVA, then it needs to become true that metals in orbit are very valuable. To be valuable then you have to have uses for them away from the Earth, and the tools to manipulate these materials. If you wanted metal fuel "Rods", or "Pellets" for the Neuman Driver or Magdrive, you could manufacture them on the surface of the Earth, and move them as cargo to orbit in any ship that can attain orbit with such a cargo.

But a Cargo compartment might be a burden, it could be that by using a "Cups" cargo method you could eliminate a cargo compartment with a hatch, and perhaps even facilitate delivery of "Cups" of metal to orbit.

Dixie Cups, cone shaped: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Dixie+Cup … cc=0&ghpl=
Image Quote: 71mXpGZMvHL._AC_SS115_.jpg
The cups don't exactly have the contours of the NOVA, but could be modified so that you could stack "Cups" of metal over the 2nd stage to bring them to orbit. Should it be needed to have access to thrusters or sensors, then holes could be provided in the cups.

https://www.stokespace.com/nova/
Image Quote:

Cups of Iron, Aluminum, and Copper might suit Magdrive, and Neumann Driver for propellant materials.

I believe that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum is a preferred material for Neumann Drive.

So, maybe a cup made of that.

If we did decide to have metal fuel cups, then maybe we could desire a Sauser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_saucer
Image Quote:

OK, yes/no, I am being more than a little silly, but I have wanted a way to consider leaving the main tanks in orbit that are used to achieve orbit and a way to have a more Sauser shaped engine section with header tanks to be able to reenter the atmosphere and land. So, yes you would leave the main tanks behind in orbit, and mass produce replacements on the surface of the Earth, rinse and repeat to orbit. The tanks left behind may have value in orbit. Being able to stack cups on top of them would allow special cargos, not usually to be used for spaceship structure, such as Copper, and Molybdenum, and of course if desired Iron or Aluminum.

Granted, the cups moved to orbit would have to have metal work done on them in orbit to be suitable as structures or as metal propellants, but it might eventually make sense to do that.

Well I made a drawing, but Imgur is not letting me upload it.

Anyway, I will confess, that since the 2nd Stage of Nova is Hydrogen fueled, separating the assent fuel tanks and leaving them in orbit has a hazard when you would land the Sauser, and try to connect a fresh assent fuel tank. That would be tricky as Hydrogen loves to leak.

Some have said that Madness is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

But of course, my ideas could also be a different path to madness.

But I had fun with this.

Disposing of the assent fuel tanks to orbit, would make the lander lighter, so that the header tanks for landing could be smaller, and so then less fuel is needed to get fuel to orbit that is used for landing.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-12-13 18:55:23)

Void · 2024-12-13 18:27:40

OK, continuing from just previous post #488, I got into Imgur:

No special art there, but a sort of explaining of my wishes. The cone of course would be more rounded, and I am not sure that the shape colored blue and pink is the final shape of the device to land engines and avionics and other desired parts, but I think the idea is there.

Listening to Dr. Johnson, the active cooling of NOVA will only be sufficient to handle an atmospheric entry at LEO speeds. It uses Liquid Hydrogen for active cooling. My logic is that if you could leave the main tanks in orbit for salvage repurpose, then you could relieve the cooling load needed, and so reduce the size of the header tanks for landing, and so reduce the amount of landing resources you would have to launch to orbit.

But this could have a down side as if you added new assent propellant tanks, it seems like it may be troublesome to seat the fixtures that would feed the propellants into the Engine section. Particularly the Hydrogen would be prone to leakage.

So, you could go either way, change out the assent tanks that you would leave in orbit as a possible recycled resource, or bring the main tanks back down paying the price to land them.

So, now we have a contest, between lifting mass from the Earth, or from the Moon or getting it from an asteroid. But at the Mars, end, we have Phobos and Deimos. We should be able to get metal propellants from them.

So, metal ion propulsion methods like Neumann Drive or Magdrive, could be refueled at both ends of a Earth/Moon<>Mars/Phobos/Deimos scheme.

While I tend to be excited about the Moon, it is a reality that it will take some time to setup infrastructure to get metals to orbit from the Moon. And the quality of the metals from Earth may be significantly better.

Earth could supply the metal Molybdenum for Neumann Drive, and perhaps Copper for Magdrive.

Molybdenum is supposed to be the best for Neumann Drive, and I am suspecting that Copper being heavy is better than Aluminum and Iron for the Magdrive.

At the Mars/Phobos/Deimos end, then probably the propellants would be Aluminum, Iron, maybe Silicon, but Carbon from Mars might do also. While Neumann Drive apparently can use all of those, for Magdrive, so far I have read that Aluminum, Iron, and Copper may do.

Carbon / Atomic mass
12.01 u

Aluminium / Atomic mass
26.98 u

Silicon / Atomic mass
28.09 u

Iron / Atomic mass
55.85 u

Copper / Atomic mass
63.55 u

Molybdenum / Atomic mass
95.94 u

I am guessing that the ones that would be easiest to work with in orbit might be Aluminum, Copper, and Molybdenum, as I suspect that they are relatively soft, and sheet metal of them could be cut relatively easy, and of course perhaps the melting process is easier. Not sure about Molybdenum. OK, yes it has a higher melting point, but may be a very good propellant for Neumann Drive.

From post #488, quote:

Dixie Cups, cone shaped: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Dixie+Cup … cc=0&ghpl=
Image Quote:
The cups don't exactly have the contours of the NOVA, but could be modified so that you could stack "Cups" of metal over the 2nd stage to bring them to orbit. Should it be needed to have access to thrusters or sensors, then holes could be provided in the cups.

So, my hope is that the cups, made of metal could be stacked on a rocket to be lifted as Up-Mass to LEO.
You might have several different metals, as the use of them may not only be for propellants in all cases.

My hope is that in some cases the sheets will be thin enough to cut with appropriate tools and then each section cut could be melted and formed into an appropriate part, such as a "Rod" for a Neumann Drive, or "Bullets" for a Magdrive.

If the quality of the propellants is good and the efficiency of lifting to LEO is good enough then for a time the Moon will not need to be accessed for Metal propellants. (But eventually it probably will be).

A good thing about using ion drive is that you would not have to depend on the Hohmann Transfer Method, and could spiral materials to Martian orbit, and maybe even use Ballistic Capture to Martian orbit to get lots of stuff to Mars.

Of course you would need a Mars lander then to get the stuff down to the surface or to one of the two moons of Mars.

Ending Pending

And I do wonder if SpaceX and Stoke Space could work together to size up the NOVA so that it could fit on top of Super Heavy for Starship. (That is, if NOVA as currently planned works). That could be a big payday for both companies.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-12-13 19:06:10)

Void · 2024-12-13 19:54:02

Considering posts #488 and #489, I think that metal propellants could move liquid propellant depots to places of convenience to help host the travel of ships like Starship.

Your Depots could be actively cooled with various liquid propellants, or you might have depots that have Liquid or ice water, and Dry Ice on board. Then the depot could cook up propellants like Hydrogen, CO, Oxygen, and Methane as desired to host a mission.

So, then I think this could be very useful. If you could have refill points before departing Earth, maybe one near the Moon or at a Lagrange Point, maybe a very high Earth orbit. So then to refill from a high orbital energy position and not have to launch directly to Mars from LEO.

Ending Pending

New Mars Forums

Announcement

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

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

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

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

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

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

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

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

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

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

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

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

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

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

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

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

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

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#485 2024-12-06 10:57:00

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#486 2024-12-07 10:50:08

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#487 2024-12-11 18:27:32

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#488 2024-12-13 10:50:56

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#489 2024-12-13 18:27:40

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

#490 2024-12-13 19:54:02

Re: Alternate BFR (Big Falcon Rocket)

Board footer