Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

Void · 2025-08-16 12:32:56

Some further thoughts about the two just prior posts.

So far, we have seen plans for a Starship with four active flaps. A quadruped with all around active flaps.

I have wondered if two of the flaps could be static. Not a requirement, but a possibility. Of course, less back-up control if you do that.

But I have also suggested a splitting ship. It would do the horrible burn though the upper atmosphere as a whole structure, but split, somewhere in the troposphere, to do separate landing methods. The "Locomotive" would land on a platform, and the "Cargo Capsule" do a somewhat aided landing in the sea, using airbags, maybe Dragon thrusters, and if necessary, parachutes. (Parachutes may be a nasty expense).

But for this scheme could we allow for more than 4 flaps? I suggest that 6 might be enough. The "Locomotive" to have 4 of them and the "Cargo Capsule" to have 2 of them.

In some scheme or another 2 flaps would be static.

The extra flaps would offer more drag, but be a drain on cost. But they may be worth it.

Let's say we do 6 Starships that stay in orbit, and 1 that is a return, a Hexapod return.

We have avoided 4 * 6 flaps, = 24 flaps being lifted from the Earth, plus the motors and their support.

For the return ship we have added 2 extra flaps, and they might be static, not needing motors and motor support.

For the return Starship, the extra flaps add drag on reentry, giving assistance to the shedding of heat from atmospheric impact.

On the way up, it is possible, at least in my mind to align the 6 flaps to produce the least amount of drag.

So, I would consider that to be a win.

Thanks,

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-08-16 12:36:00)

Void · 2025-08-17 09:24:32

A factor I have been thinking about is propellant margins and cooling methods. I would expect that many notions about the rocket equation limit the amount of excess rocket propellant margins that can be allowed.

If you can predict perfect performance, then maybe you can calculate to almost the last drop, but if you have various mechanical failures, or variable payloads, you might need to keep greater margins of propellant in the main tanks. The Headers are likely calculated to provide almost the exact supply needed.

For a Propellants to Orbit Starship, this might not be such a problem, but for other Starships, including Expendable/ Not Really, it might be preferred to have extra margins at an additional cost. I would like to make those extra margins useful if possible.

Turning extra propellants into coolants would be the goal.

Where, extra Methane and Oxygen, offer the Methane as a coolant, I consider that the Oxygen as a coolant may be quite dangerous to attempt as it typically wants to Oxidize things.

So, I suggest reacting excess Methane and Oxygen while in orbit, and then cooling those products off in orbit, then perhaps using them as part of a reentry heat shield method.

Another possible source of such coolants could be packing materials, that become a part of a garbage stream, and perhaps Oxygen from the Moon.

So, I am imagining that there are four main types of surfaces to give heat shield protection to.

1) Cargo Holds.
2) Main Oxygen Tank.
3) Main Methane Tank.
4) Other, such as engine bay walls.

A Starship in orbit might have its belly coated inside with these materials. Possibly Dry Ice for the Main Oxygen and Methane Tanks. This then may have some ability to protect the metal from reentry heat.

For the Cargo Hold, I am thinking of a wicking material which would use capillary action to distribute liquid water to the inner walls of the Cargo Hold. You would need tanks of water that could give the water to be distributed. The internal air pressure could be regulated. A lower pressure would allow a lower temperature of vaporization.

This calculator can suggest things to consider: https://endmemo.com/chem/vaporpressurewater.php

100 degrees C steam might harm people or things exposed to it. A pressure of 1019.0135 millibars is calculated.
But with a little protection such as a protective suit, it might be tolerated.

75 degrees C would still have burn dangers, but less so, and would give a pressure of 384.6636 millibars, which would be enough that a human with protection might not die from vacuum exposure.

Regulating such a pressure would be a danger as well, as some Soviets died, I believe in a depressurization event.

My expectation would be that any humans on board would be hosted in another compartment that does not have a "Hot Wall" during atmospheric entry.

I don't know if a "Wick and Water" method could be adapted to the Main propellant tanks. It might provide a contamination that could not be tolerated.

I again mention the possibility that Lunar oxygen could be reacted with Organic Wastes to produce Coolants as well.
We also have the possibility that coolants such as Water and CO2 could be brought in from other worlds, at some point if the technology is proven to be suitable for it.

While then methods I have mentioned may have some value, I anticipate that some use of additional Ceramic or Active Cooled metals will be needed in the hotter places.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-08-17 10:01:04)

Void · 2025-08-17 10:36:09

To continue with the previous post, it might be possible to bring Paraffin Wax to orbit to react with Lunar Oxygen, if Lunar Oxygen were made available in LEO. To produce primarily the potential coolants CO2 and H20.

I have hopes that Neumann Drive and/or Magdrive may become assistive to bring Lunar Oxygen to LEO.

Ending Pending

It is possible that Liquid CO2 could be used somehow in the Main Tanks, but this would require a great deal of CO2 to get a high enough pressure for liquid CO2.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-08-17 10:40:52)

Void · 2025-08-17 17:57:29

As usual, asking the internet about the composition of Phobos and Deimos is giving ambiguous answers.

Some people hope that one or both of them will have ice in them. I feel that if they do, it would be hard to get to it, as it probably is deeply buried.

But I would also be interested in Hydrated Minerals, Carbon, and Oxygen.

Of these, I think Oxygen can be guaranteed.

So, I am looking for resources that would facilitate air braking on Mars and landing on Mars.

I am guessing that a first visit of Mars could have robot ships travel directly to the surface of Mars, to facilitate a first visit/base for humans and their robots.

But over time I a thinking about a prolonged nurturing of a settlement(s) on Mars, assisted by Earth, and in part supported by the materials of Phobos and Deimos.

As I see, it at a certain phase of settlement, it would make sense to make Starship Bodies to land on Mars that would have a onetime heat shield method.

These would fly to LEO without Flaps-Motors and would be escorted to Mars orbit by some form of electric propulsion.
Their Raptor engines could be removed in LEO, and recycled back to Earth surface for reuse.

In Mars orbit they would be outfitted with the means to land one time. This could include special landing engines, and recycled flap-motor assemblies. A source of CO2 might be in the moons of Mars and this could possibly serve as coolant and be split to provide propellants for landing, CO and O2.

Here again much of the landing gear might be recycled back to orbit to land other ships. Legs, Engines, and Motor-Flaps could all have their own active cooling, and be recycles back to orbit. If Phobos and Deimos have no Hydrogen or Carbon then I guess a coolant would have to be brought to orbit. Perhaps a fuel like Methane. Although that could be stretched into more coolant by reacting it with Oxygen from one or both of the moons.

Entering the Mars atmosphere from Low Mars Orbit will be much less stressful than an entry from interplanetary space. So, the heat shielding methods will not be as stressed. The Starship shell might have the ablative emergency layer only that SpaceX has developed. But it might be possible to attach ablative or other types of heat shield patches on top of that, where the worst heating might be. These ablative or burnable additional heat sheid patches might come from the materials of the moons Phobos and Deimos, along with Oxygen and maybe Carbon for coolants.

Some animals reproduce by making lots of eggs, and leaving them to their fats. But often more complex, and we might claim more advanced creatures nurture their young. So, this is not much different than that. It seems like companies like SpaceX may be able to mass produce Starship bodies from Stainless Steel, and that these bodies could be quite useful for settling Mars and other worlds. However, I think strait line distribution with maximum efficiency makes more sense than traveling Starships back to Earth, except for rare cases where humans and samples are to be moved from Mars/Phobos/Deimos, to Earth/Moon.

I am hoping that MagDrive or Neumann Drive will eventually be effective/efficient methods to move the Starship bodies to Mars orbit using metal propellants. But I suppose electric with Argon might be another option.

I do not see fault in moving solar panels to Mars orbits. Those might be from electric propulsion devices that move the materials to Mars orbit. Even if light is attenuated by Mars orbit, a very thin mirror system, and light weight could make them perform more towards their maximum.

It seems possible that solar panels of advanced types might reach 37% efficiency which may make them more practical than they are now.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-08-17 18:33:59)

Void · 2025-08-18 14:56:56

Just a notion. It might use too much coolant though:

Maybe could be used for some things.

Ending Pending

Void · 2025-08-19 12:55:28

Further thoughts on the prior post, "Wick Cooling".

A combination of external and internal "Wick Cooling" might be useful.

It is possibly in the nature of wick cooling that hot spots will draw more coolant fluid to themselves, so that if some failure occurs in the external heat shield, the internal wick shield might cover the problem well enough to allow the ship to survive.

We also could consider a "Squirt" gun in open spaces such as the Oxygen or Methane tanks, a robot that might squirt a coolant at a Infared visible hot spot. Mayb CO2 would work, maybe Nitrogen. Of course, you would not want to damage things with thermal shock either.

Ending Pending

Void · 2025-08-27 11:47:00

I want make a note that offtherock has some interesting ideas here: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?
pid=233875#p233875

I know what Elon Musk's favorite dream is and what NASA's is: Mars, Moon.

But now consider Rafts of Starships and what could be done with them.

If you run "Disposable/Not Really Starships, in the current situation you can supposedly have a LEO cargo of 250 Tons.

Each launch might lift many Star links and some Argon, and maybe some refurbishment materials to make parts of a Starship more useful.

We could consider a static raft of Starships. I will make a drawing:

The Brown lines are solar panels, which may receive light from mirrors which can be very thin.

The ships may protect each other from some radiation. For GCR, Ship #3 might be the best protected. For Solar Radiation perhaps #4 or #5 might be better.

The solar panels may be a little protected from impactors, and also harsh radiation as the mirrors will not reflect hard radiation.

And I don't think we are limited to just 5 ships.

Not all part of all ships have to be pressurized, so for pressure protection #3 might be the best as impactors may likely hit something else on their way to #3.

The drawing is certainly not perfect and could be improved.

I am expecting that Argon Electric propulsion would be used from LEO. And It may be that parts of the ships could be used in Magdrive or Neumann Drive electric propulsions as propellants.

A primary downside is that the mirrors may provide larger atmospheric drag. But with electric propulsions then you may compensate. In fact you might be able to cannibalize whole ships which would provide additional radiation protection until they were converted to propellants.

If you wanted a spinning raft then you could accumulate centrifugal force, and use a slide-tether to launch things with that spin force.

The payload would start at the raft and would slide down the tether gaining momentum as it went.

But I have not created a drawing for that.

So, my point is, a whole lot is almost available to us with just the reuse of the Superheavy, and the repurpose of the Starship to make rafts.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-08-27 12:12:37)

Void · 2025-08-27 18:57:08

Referring to the previous post, I have a scheme for a "Spin Cast" payload launch system.

The payload is like a lure on a fishing rod. Starting at the center of spin.

The "Casting Rod", released from clamps might get a push from an electromagnetic launch device.

The "Casting Rod" with Payload will rotate on the "Swivel", and the "Fishing Line" is allowed out.

The "Payload" takes more and more of the inertia of the launcher, until it is extended full and some release mechanism, detaches the payload. (We hope it travels then in the manner desired".

The "Fishing Line" is reeled in as in a fishing rod, and then you need some mechanism to bet the rod back to the original position. As much of the spin has been taken by the payload, this may not be as hard to do as may be supposed.

I have not shown a mechanism to bring the "Casting Rod" back to a clamped position to take another payload.

Starships which are intended to be repurposed would be about 100 Tons of potential to store inertia. So, if you have strong cabling you could make a massive "Spinning Raft" to store energy.

One method of spin-up could be from electric rocket engines. But there can be other schemes.

The outflow of fishing line might be regulated by some method of "Drag" similar to a fishing rig.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-08-27 19:11:05)

Void · 2025-08-28 09:44:09

The question is not if we want a replacement for the Space Shuttle, where a flyback service is desirable and useful, but what in reality will be it's true cost.

I like the SpaceX effort to bring back Starships, and I expect that they will simply get better and better at it over time, but at this time, we don't really know how many repeats are possible, in reality at a reasonable price. It is necessary, particularly for return of materials and perhaps for orbital refilling, however we don't yet know the true long term relative cost.

So, to me it makes sense to have a parallel project of repurpose of Starship structure in LEO and beyond.

As I have said such craft in rafts, may provide space junk collision protection and some radiation protection, and to protect from thermal fluctuations. But if MagDrive and/or Neumann Drive work out at large scale, then after a term of service in that mode, they could be rendered into propellant pellets or rods, that could be stored in bags inside of a Starship as both radiation protection and propellant mass.

If it is economic to bring the raptors and other valuable parts back down to Earth by some means than that may make the method more desirable.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-08-28 09:51:22)

Void · 2025-08-28 10:11:43

For instance, if Starship will expand its diameter, and yet also keep the current diameter starships, then the larger Diameter Starship may be able to bring back an entire engine section of the smaller diameter Starship.

This would be a little like the logic for ULA's Vulcan where the tanks of the 1st stage would be disposed of after use, and then engine section and avionics would be brought back for reuse by some heat shield and landing method.

But in this case the Ships would be rendered into propellants, except for special parts like the Engine bay with engines.

Of course, that requires modified Starships.

Ending Pending

Void · 2025-08-28 18:51:08

I am thinking about accessories for the Starship such as a carry-in-cargo 3rd Stage.

Technically Star links will already be that as they have their own propulsion systems.

Diameter of Starship 9 meters / 30 feet. A new version may be significantly larger.

About NOVA again from Stoke Space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke_Space_Nova
Quote:

Diameter 4.2 m (14 ft)

I will grant that it is a small ship.

https://www.space.com/stoke-space-hoppe … ght-photos
Quote:

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7V4aW … 0.jpg.webp

A credible member here has opinioned that it could not do a return from the Moon with its existing heat shield. I have no reason to suppose that that opinion is wrong.

But I think I may see a way to do something that is a bit new.

In the case where the NOVA went to the Moon and the shield traveled with it, it might be left in Lunar orbit while the NOVA would land on the Moon. Then be reattached for the trip back to Earth.

I have not provided propulsive means to transfer the NOVA to and from the Moon. That would be extra.

Ending Pending

An atmospheric entry mode is suggested in the drawing. Returning from the Moon, the Shield is added to the ship as shown.

The "Footprint" is larger than that of the NOVA, which may help. The NOVA will ride in the wake of the forward heat shield.

The thrusters for the NOVA might be assistive in cooling. One possibility I have in mind would be a high Oxygen Mix, which of course would be like a cutting torch, possibly. But if the shield is of a material that resists Oxidation on it's inner surface, it might work. The pressure and heat of the exhaust might be milder than that of a cutting torch. The heat quenched by a lot of Oxygen perhaps. Of course I am thinking of Lunar Oxygen as a coolant.

But dilutant gasses such as Argon, Nitrogen, CO2 could be added to the mix. So, you would do a little combustion and then add a lot more Oxygen, Argon, Nitrogen, or CO2.

The shield will have to detach in the atmosphere after the heating is over. It may have been manufactured on the Moon or lifted to orbit in a Starship.

It might be one time use, or just perhaps might be outfitted with a parachute to land like a Falcon 9 Fairing.

Last edited by Void (2025-08-28 19:16:00)

Void · 2025-08-29 13:33:28

If a heat shield scheme similar to the one in the prior post might have value, consider the moons of Mars, Phobos and Deimos. Quote:

But I think I may see a way to do something that is a bit new.

They can supply Oxygen which is going to be a maybe for a coolant. But if they do have Carbon, then they could supply CO2 as a Dilutant.

The NOVA is expected to burn Hydrogen and Oxygen, but if you could add extra Oxygen or perhaps better yet, CO2, as a dilutant then the output might not be unreasonably corrosive.

Perhaps it could work. I you could make the under-shields out of the materials of Phobos and Deimos, then even better as you could make those shields as large as you want to.

My suggestion is to transport the bulk of cargo to Mars orbit by electric propulsion and the get it down to the surface by a means like this, if it can prove to work.

The deorbit is a considerably lower speed than to come in from I.P. Space.

Granted, I see this as the continuation, not the start.

The stars need to be cargo Starships that can survive the whole trip direct, more or less.

Ending Pending

*Methane also could be a fuel or a dilutant.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-08-29 13:44:47)

Void · 2025-09-01 17:25:47

I found out a little more about Magdrive.

An aim is to get high thrust while retaining the high efficiency of electric rockets in current use.

It can use almost any metal as a propellant, including space debris. (I formerly read that it could use Iron, Aluminum, and Copper).

I believe that they are doing very small testing in space at this time.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-09-01 17:34:55)

Void · 2025-09-01 19:39:31

I have been working on the idea of space manufacturing and various notions for Starship that might be compatible with it.

In current notions of Reusable Starship, there is an idea that a cargo of 150 tons could be lifted to LEO.

So, I am just guessing, if 50 of those tons could be for the raw materials needed in each flight, and you exchanged that for 50 tons of manufactured materials, that might leave you with 100 tons of coolants. I am speculating that if you have 100 tons for cooling on entry, you have rather improved means to keep the ship in good shape.

Coolants could be Methane, Oxygen, Water, CO2, Nitrogen, or Argon, perhaps.

On the other hand, if you did a single use Starship to orbit, the claims are 250 tons maybe even 300 tons cargo to orbit and then the dry mass of the Starship as well if you could find a use for it.

Going with the value of 50 tons of feed materials up, along with the balance of the budget of 200 tons, you might lift a cargo capsule with the Expendable Starship.

Cargo Dragon weighs 11.5 metric tons. Well suppose you lift 4 of them to orbit, to carry manufactured materials back, 46 tons for that. But let's call that 50 tons. So, you have 150 tons of lifted cargo left over.

Maybe you could make a single larger capsule of 50 tons to simplify things. It might have parachutes and airbags. Maybe even retro thrusters.

We all know that I am not a rocket scientist, but for entertainment, at this point we have a non-returnable Starship with a 50 ton Capsule in its cargo bay. We are lifting 50 tons of raw materials up to our space stations, to feed the manufacturing. This then leaves 150 tons to do other things I believe.

The Mega-Capsule does not have to be as sophisticated as Cargo Dragon is. Starship will dock with the space station and drop off 50 tons, and 50 tons will be put into the Mega-Capsule. Starship then goes suborbital, but ejects the Mega-Capsule, and then pushes itself back to orbit.

So, Cargo Dragon can be used 5 times. I know that it is costly to reuse, but I am just Having a look at this. It may be possible that the Mega-Capsule could bring back 50 tons of manufactured goods and maybe a full set of raptors and avionics.

Keep in mind that the 150 tons incursionary (But you need to drop the capsule to sub-orbit with some of that), but you may have gotten all that value. and you can recycle parts like raptors back down.

Granted the ride down in the capsule may not suit fragile cargo but may suit the bulk of it. If you have fragile cargo that can go down, in a reusable Starship or a Dream Chaser, we might hope.

And I still have my eye on the non-reusable Starship, to convert it to other uses in orbit such as space stations and propellants for things like Magdrive.

If someone wants to correct my math, I am open to corrections in my thinking.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-09-01 20:03:37)

Void · 2025-09-02 09:41:37

Just a little bit of fun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc74FbJ … utit%21%3F Quote:

SpaceX Reveals Flight 10 secrets! New Starship Master Plan Analysed!
What about it!

My impression in part, is that progress on the heat shield is rather good.

So, many good things! And Neutron.

Well, I prefer their accomplishments to my speculations, so I am quite happy.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-09-02 09:44:31)

Void · Yesterday 08:07:36

This is an interesting but substitute video for what I was seeking: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … 0c0a2a764e
Quote:

Elon Musk's Shocking Nova Starship Refueling Plan Just Leaked—NASA Is Furious!
YouTube
SpaceX Report
2.3K views

I don't think that NASA is furious though.

This is what I wanted: "1h ago, Future Space, Elon Musk REVEALS: Nova-Class Starship...Bypasses Refueling Tech!"

Well, I cannot seem to get that video. The other above is rather close to it in content.

It seems to me that Starship may become 4 or more distinct processes to achieve space goals.

I am very much for that.

I would suggest that a 3rd stage could be for Cargo, or a different version could be assistive to transferring humans to and from the Moon.

I hope this does not require the expending of the 1st stage, I don't think they were clear about that.

I hope that the 2nd stage can be repurposed in some sort of orbital situation.

Ending Pending

I would think that a NOVA concept with modification might allow for 1 orbital refueling to make it more effective. This would not be too ridiculous for Lunar purpose fulfillment. And for one refilling you could avoid the need to bring the Starship 2nd stage back though the atmosphere all together.

If you did 1-3 Stage Cargo to the Moon you would "Abandon" two 2nd stages to orbit (For possible repurpose).

Then do another dual set to facilitate human travel to the Moon. That would also 'Abandon" two 2nd stages to orbit. (For possible repurpose).

You might try to make some kind of a space station out of the four repurposed, Starship 2nd stages.

If NASA is still running it's hardware then I guess you could involve it as well.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 08:25:21)

Void · Yesterday 08:57:57

I like the information in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In2iNBa … =ALPHATECH
Quote:

Elon Musk officially declared Starship Metal Heat Shield ''USELESS" after Flight 10 Reentry...
ALPHA TECH

I would like to suggest what I would call "Wag Cooling". This would primarily be used for a case where you intend to send a Starship to Mars and leave it there.

In such a scheme, you would use ablative undercoating that already exists for Starship, with as few tiles as possible.
Then you could have a liquid such as water inside of each of the portions of the ship. The ship as it entered would tip side to side, distributing the water over the insides of the interior windward surfaces.

We are already intending to land using propellants from the header tanks, so the contamination of the Oxygen and Methane tanks may not be a huge concern. Their reuse will be in question however.

While if might be possible to dump steam out at high pressure from the windward side, the leeward side would provide a rather substantial vacuum which could help in cooling.

It may be possible to do this with the Cargo Compartment, but perhaps because it is conical and not cylindrical, a water absorbing felt could be placed on the interior of the hot surfaces, and water would be sprayed as required to keep a wet surface during reentry.

Of course hot steam in the Cargo Compartment might put constraints on what and how things could be carried as cargo.

I believe that Starship can handle 6 bars pressure so that might be very hot steam, but it does not have to be.

Many Starships are going to be wanted to make habitats out of so if they are going to be burried under regolith, this sort of heat shielding might be more practical, I feel.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 09:14:09)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2025-08-16 12:32:56

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

#127 2025-08-17 09:24:32

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

#128 2025-08-17 10:36:09

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

#129 2025-08-17 17:57:29

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

#130 2025-08-18 14:56:56

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

#131 2025-08-19 12:55:28

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

#132 2025-08-27 11:47:00

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

#133 2025-08-27 18:57:08

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

#134 2025-08-28 09:44:09

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

#135 2025-08-28 10:11:43

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

#136 2025-08-28 18:51:08

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

#137 2025-08-29 13:33:28

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

#138 2025-09-01 17:25:47

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

#139 2025-09-01 19:39:31

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

#140 2025-09-02 09:41:37

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

#141 Yesterday 08:07:36

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

#142 Yesterday 08:57:57

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

Board footer