Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

Void · 2025-05-20 21:14:09

A little diversion to Ceres: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo … r-AA1F9PZ0 Quote:

Frozen ocean world discovered between Mars and Jupiter
Story by Rebecca Shavit • 4h •
7 min read

Quote:

Their study, published in Nature Astronomy, proposes that up to 90% of Ceres' outer layers could be ice. Instead of solid rock, they believe the crust is dirty ice—formed as a slushy, muddy ocean froze over time.

Quote:

Sori explained, “We think that there's lots of water-ice near Ceres' surface, and that it gets gradually less icy as you go deeper and deeper.” He added that earlier models didn’t account for how strong icy mixtures can be. Scientists once thought craters on an ice-rich body would quickly deform, behaving like honey or flowing glaciers.
But when mixed with just a bit of solid rock, ice behaves differently. “Even solids will flow over long timescales,” said Pamerleau. “Ice flows more readily than rock. Craters have deep bowls which produce high stresses that then relax to a lower stress state, resulting in a shallower bowl via solid state flow.” Their models show that these crater shapes can hold steady for billions of years—reshaping what we know about frozen worlds.

So, this might apply to robot tunnels in ice on Mars. After carving the tunnel, then I hope to smear a paste of fibers and mud to freeze on the interior surfaces of the tunnels, and so perhaps to make them more stable.

I suggest that a robot room temperature could be -10 degrees C, which is also a bit tolerable for humans with protective gear.

Prior posts deal with such a thing:

Post #56: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 89#p231589
Quote:

These ice slabs are supposed to be all over Mars, I suppose mid latitudes and upper latitudes more so.
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-resear … ter-liquid Quote:
Vast, Thick Ice Sheets Have Been Found Buried All Over Mars
Space
11 January 2018
ByBen Guarino, Washington Post
Image Quote:

Post #57: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 92#p231592
Quote:

Here we are then:
The cone vault might reject excess heat into the stone under it, for the case of a sand storm, so that heat would keep flowing into the habitat.
The ice tunnel is slightly pressurized, and hosts a tent that protects a gutter that water can flow though as a liquid.
The ice tunnels can reject heat from themselves either to habitat space, or to some of the surface buildings that will double as radiators. You might use air compression and decompression to do a refrigeration.

So, one nice thing about icy worlds such as Mars and Ceres, is that you can get your water supply while digging a habitat expansion.

And it is quite possible to have a house inside of a ice cavity, and pull heat out of the ice cavity and into the house using a heat pump, provided you have the energy to run the heat pump.

However prolonged industrial or other activities might build up heat that you would need to dispose of to the surface, perhaps by boiling water at a low pressure.

Boil more water, need more water, need more water, expand your living spaces.

I am guessing that robots at -10 degrees C may be a good thing because if you have a lower air pressure, then your cooling for the robots is a bit easier.

Ending Pending

It is nice that Ceres may have very thick layers of ice that get muddier as you go down, but it may be that the Dwarf Planet may not have that much Nitrogen. But then again maybe the liquid below was an Ammonia/water mix, then there would be lots of Nitrogen.

And infalls of asteroid materials probably contain Carbon.

Very fortunate, perhaps.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-20 21:38:01)

Void · 2025-05-21 13:27:57

This video that is a bit old, has several useful bits of information in it: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … 38a92e6a8c Quote:

Surprise Discoveries from Mars: Volcanic Ice, Weird Chemistry, Lava Tubes and More!
YouTube
Anton Petrov
140.1K views

1) Thin frost on many volcanoes, 1/100th of a mm or the thickness of a human hair. I mention this as it might be possible for a robotic system to vacuum up enough water for human settlements.

2) The polar ice does not seem to flow. This is important because if humans and robots were to make vaults in the ice, unlike many Earth glaciers, the ice will not flow, which is probably a good thing.

3) He indicates that lava tubes are probably not a very good possibility on Mars. I don't really understand why, but it is good to know what is real.

4) Impactors will be some level of concern on Mars, so undersurface may be helpful.

It has been claimed in the previous post materials that the surface materials of Ceres do not flow very much as apparently dirty ice tends not to flow as much as clean ice.

Again, from the prior post and post #57:

Post #57: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 92#p231592
Quote:
Here we are then:
The cone vault might reject excess heat into the stone under it, for the case of a sand storm, so that heat would keep flowing into the habitat.
The ice tunnel is slightly pressurized, and hosts a tent that protects a gutter that water can flow though as a liquid.
The ice tunnels can reject heat from themselves either to habitat space, or to some of the surface buildings that will double as radiators. You might use air compression and decompression to do a refrigeration.

I have suggested a robot room temperature of -10 degrees C which can be temporarily compatible with humans having the proper clothing and other needed life support gear. Probably some sort of battery may work at those temperatures, but in the end, if needed you could have a battery heater. It might be that robots may often hibernate in times of power depravation. (Dust Storm, Polar Winter). Of course, if you had some type of nuclear then solar would not matter as much.

I have an idea about a minimum solar powered life cultivation. This could be tied into shedding waste heat in the ice tunnels as necessary or also the same for tunnels in soft rock.

This claim might be partly trustworthy, I think: https://www.newsweek.com/desert-moss-su … nt-1918887 Quote:

A future civilization on Mars could be accompanied by one very special and resilient little plant.
A type of moss found in the desert—named Syntrichia caninervis—may be able to survive and grow in the harsh environment of Mars, according to a new paper in the journal The Innovation.
This moss can grow in freezing temperatures as cold as -320.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and can survive levels of gamma radiation that would kill most other plants and life forms.
The plant can also withstand incredibly dry conditions, as well as a combination of dryness, heavy radiation, and cold weather in a simulation of the conditions on the Red Planet.
"Our study shows that the environmental resilience of S. caninervis is superior to that of some of highly stress-tolerant microorganisms and tardigrades," the researchers wrote in the paper. "S. caninervis is a promising candidate pioneer plant for colonizing extraterrestrial environments, laying the foundation for building biologically sustainable human habitats beyond Earth."

In the drawing above a surface building could be a very low pressurization greenhouse. Offering some improvement on the raw Martian environment. But it would also be important in water recycling. If you wanted to use water evaporation as a coolant to get rid of excess heat in your underground facilities, then you could do that, and if the greenhouse was not too leaky, then at least in nighttime this would heat the greenhouse a bit, and also condense water out as ice and maybe even liquid, if you had a sufficient pressurization in the greenhouse. This would irrigate any plants you were trying to grow. And with pressurization, daytime thawing might yield, liquid water flows.

There may be other plants capable of enduring such a night freeze and day thaw environment.

So, you could recycle the cooling water to some extent. Some leakage would be expected, so you probably would be extending the tunnels in ice all the time to provide "Make-Up" water.

Here is a query that may have value: "Alpine plants that endure daily freezing"

Here is a general response: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Alpine+pl … c0&pc=DCTS

Here is one particular response: https://rarest.org/nature/beautiful-alp … h-climates Quote:

Alpine plants that endure daily freezing include12345:
Yellow Saxifrage
Mountain Harebell
Resilient perennials
Hardy shrubs
Evergreens
Flowers with adapted designs to the harsh, cold climates of high altitudes.

So, if we are going to have our industrial robots in under ice/underground industrial factories, heat is going to build up.
To be rid of it, water can absorb the heat though heat pump methods, and the water could be pumped to a surface greenhouse and vented to boil. While the greenhouses will inevitably leak some water vapor, we will probably be able to replace that water by melting more ice tubes, for robots to work in. So with that waste heat, perhaps preferential vented at night, you then cool the undergrounds and buffer the level of deep cold of the Martian nighttime in a greenhouse.

Of course, using liquid water in the cold environment of Mars, then requires that you have methods to keep pipes from freezing and bursting. In the mines, if the flow of slurry shut down, we used to drain the pipes, so that pipe damage would be prevented.

While Alpine plants are not food crops, I suggest that with some forms of selective breeding and even some GMO, these might be modified to grow happily in such "Radiator/Greenhouses".

In making machines, it is important to ask the question, "Does it serve us or do we serve it?"

In choosing to adapt to Mars and meet it "Halfway", we may be more likely to get service from machines rather than to have to baby the machines, and bear such a burden.

There are Ice bodies near the Equator, which may be suitable. We don't know that yet though.

However, at a higher latitude we have this one the size of Texas and California: https://www.space.com/30502-mars-giant- … y-mro.html Quote:

"It extends down to latitudes of 38 degrees. This would be like someone in Kansas digging in their backyard and finding ice as thick as a 13-story building that covers an area the size of Texas and California combined," Bramson said.

For comparison, the latitude of southern Spain is about 38 degrees. So Mars having a similar tilt solar energy would be similar to that except attenuated by distance from the sun, and also the problem of dust storms.

But there could be sunlight in the winter, worth harvesting. But also the ability to hibernate much of the robot community may be a good option to have in times where solar power is blocked.

So, the tricks learned for Mars, might eventually be applied in part to other worlds believed to be icy such as Ceres, and Callisto.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-21 14:21:49)

Void · 2025-05-21 19:58:00

Calliban provided useful information here in answer to a discussion with (th) and myself: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 30#p231830
Quote:

Calliban
Member
From: Northern England, UK
Registered: 2019-08-18
Posts: 4,023
Email
tahanson43206 wrote:
For Void re post with images and GIF of asteroid NEAR probe...
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 94#p231794
That is an impressive composition!
Your recent introduction of the idea of using iron as propellant (reaction mass) might inspire one or two readers to wonder about the potential impact such highly accelerated iron atoms might have when they encounter the hull of a space craft. Your post includes mention of building up layers of material for radiation protection, and provision for arrival of the iron atoms used as reaction mass might seem advisable.
(th)
Short answer: none. Heavy ions have a very short range in matter (microns), due to their interaction with electron shells. Look up the Bethe-Bloch equation. Also, ions will tend to be swept away by solar wind.
One area where this could potentially be a problem, is planetary magnetospheres. Whilst interplanetary space is vast, the Earth's radiation belts start about 1000km above its surface. If they are pumped with ions that are accelerated as Earth's magnetic field lines sweep them, it could do damage to exposed components like solar panels.
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."

Thank You Calliban!

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-21 20:00:42)

Void · 2025-05-21 20:08:06

Two posts back #77, I mentioned growing alpine plants, in what essentially would be a radiator/water condenser on the surface of Mars.

Obviously, Algae and Cyanobacteria might do very well also for that.

And you could grow mushrooms on the organic materials created.

Ending Pending

Void · 2025-05-24 13:04:55

I have what I consider to be good news on batteries for Mars: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 77#p231877
Quote:

Sodium Batteries may be better for Mars, due to the cold, than Lithium Batteries.
https://www.elevenenergy.co.uk/post/the … mperatures Quote:
Between -20°C and 55°C
Sodium batteries can operate between -20°C and 55°C, far exceeding the range of lithium batteries. They are suitable for extreme weather conditions and perform well in both low and high temperatures12345.

So, with some protection and perhaps on necessity battery heaters, robots might do pretty good on Mars.

It is being proposed to send some Optimus Robots to Mars, some prior to human arrival.

And I think I have something that they could do. Please take a look and consider:

I do provide for some nuclear power so that the robots can charge up again.

We will however hope to exploit solar power as well that is intermittent.

The soil has been removed from part of an ice slab, and a solar dome put over that. We are hoping to promote the evaporation of ice to create an ice cave. At the same time, we intend to suck the moisture out of the air inside of the dome and port it into a condensation bag with enough pressure to allow for the storage of water ice. This could be relatively clean ice, I hope, as it is a sort of distillation process. Of course we do not want to get dust into it.

While sunshine may promote evaporation, we might also use fans, and a radiative heater to influence where the ice melts.

I suppose that you might go so far as to also include a greenhouse to grow some kind of food, but I want to get the parts in current illustration figured out.

With the ice cave we are starting to provide a radiation shelter, and also some protection from thermal extremes of cold.

When the humans arrive, considerable assets might have been set up before them.

This probably offers improved chances of success/survival.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-24 13:30:17)

Void · 2025-05-26 10:01:39

I think that evaporative ice mining may be of significant value, compared to working with liquids and so much with solids.

This is intended to convey methods, it should not be considered proportional to actual relative sizes. However the idea of evaporating a pit, and landing a ship into it, is demonstrated.

Of course the dome and the other items have to be moved out of the way for the landing, but might be brought back after that.

Keeping the ice stable after that may require reducing the amount of sunlight that can enter the dome. As it happens Mars will try to do that with dust anyway.

It can be obvious that on average the base of the ship will have the most radiation protection from this, both GCR and Solar. But of course their may be times of day where solar may be more a danger if for instance some kind of a solar eruption. In that case you might seek a better shelter.

The ship will also be thermally buffered in a hole under a dome.

The nuclear itself might be put into an evaporation hole of its own, to protect the ship, and perhaps moved a bit elsewhere.

It is possible that a great deal of setup could be done prior to a ship landing.

While landing precisely in a hole from space, seems too demanding to me, I would suggest that if the ship could land, disgorge its equipment, and be partially refilled, then the site prep could be done and then the ship activated to do a hop. Hops were done with early starship using raptor #1, so I do not think that is too demanding.

A big hope would be that this could be done by a collection of Optimus-Like and other types of robotic equipment.

I know it is not going to be popular, but I suggest again a side landing ship. I am pushing my luck but I will suggest again that it not have movable flaps, but rather a "Flange" all around its long perimeter, to expand its air braking footprint.

This is the idea:

So, I don't think that flaps are going to be that effective for Mars anyway, and I suggest that perhaps thrusters on the leeward side could be able to maintain the angled-horizontal presentation of side #2's heat shield to the atmospheric burn.

By having a larger surface area than that of the ship itself only, I hope to get a better braking effect to slow to a lower terminal velocity prior to landing, thus hoping to reduce the amount of propellants needed for landing.

Of course, if the thrusters are to orient the craft during passage through the atmosphere to landing, then those will consume more of the propellants.

But, you would not have the weight of the flap motors, or the power system to run them.

I am not thinking of carrying cargo in a ship like this. It is the cargo, so you could justify the weight of the flange and the legs by the idea that you skipped carrying 200 tons of Cargo.

After the aero burn the ship will have to rotate 180 degrees to present the thrusters and landing gear to the ground. and I don't know it could endure the forces imposed by doing that.

About terminal velocity. (I am hoping to cut it in half with the flange):
Quote:

Copilot Answer

Images
Videos
Approximately 4.8 times faster than on Earth
The terminal velocity of Starship on Mars is approximately 4.8 times faster than on Earth. The only mention of terminal velocity on Mars for Starship was on a blog post, which stated 66-68 m/s for SN8, implying ± 320 m/s on Mars. The SpaceX Mars landing simulation has a ~40 s landing burn initiating at ~Mach 2.3 = ~550 m/s (about 1.7 g Earth) for a total velocity change of ~700 m/s.
Stack Exchange
+2

So, you would do the 180-degrees roll somewhat high in the atmosphere, so the air density would not be as much as on the ground. On the ground saying the air density if 1% that of Earth is being generous.

So, I am hoping that the ship could survive the 180-degree roll because the air is so thin.

As for the flanged ship being pushed to LEO though Earths atmosphere, I am hoping that it could be streamlined enough that it could be done. Landing gear and reinforcement structure could be added in LEO, I hope.

My notion is that this would only need a one-time heat shield as you would not be flying it again from Mars.

Here again you might do a crude landing and then be partly refilled and then hop into a evaporation pit, to be then in a buffered environment, where radiation and thermal issues are reduced.

Post landing you could have some choices:
1) Remove the flange for another material use.
2) Put water bags over the horizontal craft to freeze and be further radiation protection.

A horizontal landing then avoids the need to tip the ship over and put braces under it.

As for the thrusters, Rocket Lab and Relativity Space will have smaller engines that are Metha-Lox, that might work.
And SpaceX has notions for special engines to land on the Moon.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-26 10:54:05)

Void · 2025-05-26 19:31:58

The manufacture of ice sinkholes could be aided by something that perhaps should rather be called a "Tent" rather than a dome.

It may use a bit of compressed air in side to keep it inflated, or maybe it would use rigid structure and anchors to keep the tent as desired.

The edges could be tucked under soil by a humanoid robot with a hand shovel, perhaps.

It might not be necessary to move the bulk of the soil covering the ice, if heat is transmitted though the soil into the ice and the ice then sublimates, the dirt will naturally fall down as the icy pit forms. This could reduce effort needed by a significant amount.

So, yes, I have modified a drawing with a tent with a Vertical Starship for the center mast.

Of course if you had a Horizontal Starship you could put a tent over that, but the ice pit would be longer, and so the tent would need to be longer.

Ending Pending

There would be more dirt in the bottom of the pit than the drawing shows, if the dirt had not been scrapped off of the ice first.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-26 19:50:22)

Void · 2025-05-31 15:37:26

A dialog with Calaban elsewhere drew a post from me about Basalt and Lunar Oxygen: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 80#p231980
Quote:

As it happens Asterofuturism just came out with a video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p230vGS … ROFUTURISM Quote:
Lunar Construction Materials
ANTHROFUTURISM
There is quite a bit of good information in this one.
Using Iron Pyrites apparently was a trick of the Inca's in their stone work. But the article indicates that Sulfur will be in relatively short supply on the Moon. (Not so for Mars).
I have thought that perhaps Iron wool could be used between cast blocks of Basalt. I would expect that might be possible to melt the Iron wool using a coil to induce strong eddy currents in the Iron. It is possible that this might help to bond the blocks. Perhaps a surface preparation of the blocks to give a texture, could make that more effective.
Using Iron Pyrites apparently was a trick of the Inca's in their stone work. But the article indicates that Sulfur will be in relatively short supply on the Moon. (Not so for Mars).
I am also encouraged in the video of statements of desire to move Lunar Oxygen to LEO to support a space effort.
Ending Pending

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-05-31 15:40:56)

Void · 2025-06-02 18:23:20

Dr. Robert Zubrin, Starboat mentioned: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … 6e9484c505
Quote:

Robert Zubrin - 2025 Humans to the Moon & Mars Summit - May 29, 2025
YouTube
The Mars Society
11 views

I agree with the bulk of his materials. I do however think of a Mars mission(s) and Moon mission(s) as an objective in itself. That is I see that perhaps the relationship between humans and robots as being similar to algae and fungi in a lichen.

So, then a "Lichen" civilization to develop as an objective, and the acquisition of Mars and the Moon and other worlds as the natural result of the "Lichen" objective.

After that all we need is fusion, and we will be able to apply methods developed for Mars and the Moon, to set up expansions into all of the solar system.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-06-02 18:28:42)

Void · 2025-06-02 21:26:22

Here are some interesting claims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcollPP … aceXReport
Quote:

Elon Musk’s NEW Starship Plan SHOCKS NASA: 200 Tons To Orbit!?
SpaceX Report

The new Block 3 will be stretched and use Raptor 3 engines, and is said to be able to lift 200 tons to LEO, fully reusable.
That system is said to be able to lift 400 tons to LEO, if the whole rocket "Thrown away".
Block 3 will have 3 instead of 4 grid fins.

The old ships 10, 11, and 12 will be outdated so are either for scrap or for destructive testing.

Block 3 will not launch on pad "A", but will launch from pad "B".

I speculate that you could lift ~300 tons to orbit, reusing the Superheavy, but leaving the Starship in orbit.

If they do get to the rate of build of 1000 Starships a year, what if 250 of those were made to not return to Earth?
That would be 100 extra tons to LEO per each of the 250. And the ships would still be in LEO or maybe boosted up a bit higher. So, an extra 25,000 tons to LEO. And if the ships are 120 tons dry mass then another 30,000 tons of metal. The ships as well if refilled might be used for an additional service.

Additional service might be construction of Space Stations, as well, or the rendering of some of the metal to propellants for Magdrive or Neumann Drive.

If refilled some of these ships might be able to fly one way to land on the Moon, to become a resource for bases there.

They also might be refilled to send massive probes to other worlds. In that case the second use of the Starship would be finished by abandoning it to a solar orbit or around another planet, I suppose.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Another interesting idea would be a "Shortie" Starship. Where SpaceX very much is into stretching Starships, by shrinking the tanks, and the cargo compartment the dry mass might be reduced in these cases.

Where there is interest in moving from 6 engines to 9 on the stretched Starships, could a shortie get by with 2 Sea levels, and 2 Vacuums? That would reduce dry mass a little and also reduce engine cost a bit.

This would not be a Mini-Starship that Dr. Zubrin wants, but it might give similar service. So, you might partner a "Shortie-Starship with a Full-Starship for a flight to Mars. As for the Moon, a "Shortie-Starship" might be a better fit.
It might be more suitable for bringing people back from Mars as to use less propellants that have to be manufactured on Mars.

Particularly if the Shortie-Starship could be refilled in several places. Oxygen on the surface of the Moon, and from Depots placed in useful positions in orbits of the Moon and the Earth. The Depots might be positioned there by electric-plasma propulsions. A Shorty would be less inclined to tip over, and also might disturb regolith or landing pads less.

Ending Pending

Dr. Zubrin seems to think that a ship that can deliver 30 tons of payload to the Moon or Mars, might be quite useful. Perhaps a "Shorty-Starship" could. What if it's dry mass were 60 tons instead of 120 tons? 40 tons?

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-06-02 22:02:27)

Void · 2025-06-02 22:47:55

Continuing with the materials of the previous two posts, interesting things are given in a video that I cannot fetch with my computers search engine: "Future Space, Why Starship's 'Failure' Just Made SpaceX Unstoppable...Mind-Blowing!"

This is not too unusual. I will find something with my smartphone, and then my computer search engine cannot find it.

Perhaps tomorrow it will become available.

Anyway the video indicates that the destructive testing they did with the Superheavy points to modifications that could cut propellant use by 30% and cut cost for a trip to Mars by 70%. And apparently it can increase payload, by ??? It seems to involve, the methods they used on the #9 Superheavy test, and gives hope that future Superheavys will be able to tolerate the maneuver.

Anyway they intend to put gyros into the ship to control spin and have a backup plan. They hope to be able to right the ship before it burns up just using the flaps, if it enters in a wrong configuration. Apparently, they will not use ullage gas thrusters.

So, after all, lots of good stuff.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-06-02 22:52:20)

Void · 2025-06-03 11:39:19

OK, I now can find the video, that I did not get yesterday in the last post: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE
Quote:

Why Starship's 'FAILURE' Just Made SpaceX UNSTOPPABLE... Mind-blowing!
YouTube
Future Space
1.2K views
13 hours ag

From post #86, just previous:

Anyway the video indicates that the destructive testing they did with the Superheavy points to modifications that could cut propellant use by 30% and cut cost for a trip to Mars by 70%. And apparently it can increase payload, by ??? It seems to involve, the methods they used on the #9 Superheavy test, and gives hope that future Superheavys will be able to tolerate the maneuver.
Anyway they intend to put gyros into the ship to control spin and have a backup plan. They hope to be able to right the ship before it burns up just using the flaps, if it enters in a wrong configuration. Apparently, they will not use ullage gas thrusters.
So, after all, lots of good stuff.

In post #85, I did some rough calculations about the value of a Starship sent to LEO and then moved to a rendering facility for reuse/repurpose/recycle: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 16#p232016

Quote:

I speculate that you could lift ~300 tons to orbit, reusing the Superheavy, but leaving the Starship in orbit.
If they do get to the rate of build of 1000 Starships a year, what if 250 of those were made to not return to Earth?
That would be 100 extra tons to LEO per each of the 250. And the ships would still be in LEO or maybe boosted up a bit higher. So, an extra 25,000 tons to LEO. And if the ships are 120 tons dry mass then another 30,000 tons of metal. The ships as well if refilled might be used for an additional service.
Additional service might be construction of Space Stations, as well, or the rendering of some of the metal to propellants for Magdrive or Neumann Drive.
If refilled some of these ships might be able to fly one way to land on the Moon, to become a resource for bases there.
They also might be refilled to send massive probes to other worlds. In that case the second use of the Starship would be finished by abandoning it to a solar orbit or around another planet, I suppose.

If SpaceX were to build 1000 ships a year, and left 250 of those a year stranded in LEO, then that would be almost 21 ships per month. Rather than to burn them in the atmosphere, lifting them higher slowly with an electric rocket tug could make sense. So, then you would have an input of 30,000 tons of mostly metal, to such a rendering facility each year.

One thing you could do to start with is remove the cargo sections from the rest of the ship, and to repurpose each of them. Cargo sections to be joined into space stations perhaps, or maybe large ships to travel to Mars. The Propulsion sections could be converted to land on the Moon, and become a resource there, as it would be hard to make high quality Stainless Steel on the Moon, at least at first.

Some materials might be converted into propellant for Magdrive or Neumann Drive. This might be used to move Stranded Starships, from LEO to a higher orbit where rendering facilities might be created.

Also possible to look into might be power stations of some kind.

So, at some point you would need to do a calculation. How much value does a Starship have returned to the Earth, against how much value it may provide, being rendered into beyond LEO uses.

You might choose to return a certain portion of the Starships, and leave the balance in orbit for conversion. Obviously if they are to be used in a rendering facility to convert, you would not be likely to bother with a heat shield, or other landing parts such as Flaps and Motors.

Things like gyros, avionics, and engines might be returned to Earth in some cases.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-06-03 12:17:27)

Void · 2025-06-03 13:14:20

Continuing, the Starships could have their cargo compartments cut off, and kept in a relatively low Earth orbit to construct things with.

The "Locomotive" might travel to the Moon to be of service there. If a Starship has a dry mass of 120 tons, perhaps the Locomotive might be 60 to 80 tons dry mass.

If Oxygen begins to be produced from the regolith of the Moon, then the Ships may in part be refilled on the surface of the Moon, to allow repeated excursions to orbit and to land.

Depots, sent from LEO to orbit the Moon could supply Methane. The ships would lift things like extra Oxygen or regolith to orbit. Regolith might in this case be treated and refined materials. For instance Iron Oxide.

The Locomotives would run until failure at which point they would become scrap metal.

So a stream of Oxygen may travel from the Moon to LEO in the form of Oxygen or perhaps Iron Oxide, or Aluminum Oxide. A Stream of Methane would travel from LEO to the orbits of the Moon.

The scrap in part can be converted to propellant for Magdrive or Neumann Drive. This will be the means to transport cargos from Low Lunar Orbit to Low and Medium Earth Orbits.

Similarly some scrap from the cargo sections of the Starship will be converted into propellant for Magdrive or Neumann Drive, to facilitate the transport of bulk mass from Low and Medium Earth orbits.

So, we would not be burning liquid fuels, except to rise from a worlds surface to an orbit and back, and except for the case of moving humans swiftly between the Earth and Moon.

Should this system have enough excess Oxygen then it might help fill ships destined for Mars.

I think it could be good.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-06-03 13:27:32)

Void · Yesterday 21:51:23

Isaac Arthur has given us another video: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=VAMGZC
Quote:

Orbital Shipyards - Building Fleets in Space
YouTube
Isaac Arthur
216 views

He has some interesting ideas.

In launch #9, a leak made the ship derelict to some extent. Ultimately it crashed with limited control from SpaceX, into the atmosphere.

Had this been later in time the ship would likely have made orbit, and then exhibited the trouble. The options then would be to repair it, or to move it to a higher orbit as scrap at a rendering/Ship building facility.

I also think that a ship that is it's own cargo might make sense. It only has the capability to make it to orbit, and then be taken as salvage materials. A variation on that would be that it could do a one time flight carrying a useful cargo, then go to scrap.

Such a ship would be simplified as to not have header tanks, flaps/motors, or heat shield.

Returning to "The ship as it's own cargo", it may become true that such a Starship could make it to LEO by SSTO means. This would make sense, if when taken to "Scrap", what was built from it and other ships had significant value justifying such a process.

At one point Elon Musk thought that Starship could possibly do a feeble SSTO. Maybe it could. But you would want an orbital tug, perhaps using electric propulsion to take hold of it once it made it to orbit. Such a ship might be built to live hours or days, which might simplify its structure and reduce it's cost.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 22:02:36)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2025-05-20 21:14:09

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#77 2025-05-21 13:27:57

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#78 2025-05-21 19:58:00

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#79 2025-05-21 20:08:06

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#80 2025-05-24 13:04:55

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#81 2025-05-26 10:01:39

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#82 2025-05-26 19:31:58

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#83 2025-05-31 15:37:26

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#84 2025-06-02 18:23:20

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#85 2025-06-02 21:26:22

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#86 2025-06-02 22:47:55

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#87 2025-06-03 11:39:19

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#88 2025-06-03 13:14:20

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

#89 Yesterday 21:51:23

Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

Board footer