Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.

Void · 2025-11-15 09:05:49

As always, I have the potential to be wrong.

I have been thinking about an "Upstairs Starship". This would be a Starship which typically does not land on the Earth but maybe at times might land on the Moon.

I am thinking that it would be made of "Ferroaluminum": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroaluminum

The Melting point would be 1250 C, I think, which is lower than Stainless Steel. But it is corrosion resistant.

It would have less weight and less inertia. So aerobraking to aerocapture might be possible. Of course, it would have to be refilled by a "Standard Starship".

The objective would normally be to not dive too deep into the atmosphere before skipping off, to keep peak heating down.

But it would not be forbidden to have supplemental protections such as tiles and active cooling. It might be possible to have ports in the belly what would allow fluids to be injected under the belly. Ideally this cooling method could also be used in navigation though the atmosphere.

The purpose of a machine like this would be to take possession of a package from a "Standard Starship" and bring it to a higher orbit.

This would probably be for freight.

It is possible that it could be in association with a Electric Rocket System.

This then would be a intermediary between a "Standard Starship", and an Electric Rocket System.

So, the "Standard Starship" might refill it with Methane and Oxygen but also perhaps an Argon/Xenon mix. The Electric Rocket System with large solar panels staying out of the atmosphere even at very high altitude would provide shade and cooling power to keep the boil-off problem under control.

Perhaps the Electric Rocket System, would not go as low as the ISS is to reduce drag. (Perhaps).

The "Upstairs Starship", then being linked to the Electric Rocket System could as a hybrid travel to an orbit of the Moon. To come back, the combination might separate at some point so that the "Upstairs Starship" could use air braking to get it down to take payload from a "Standard Starship".

And of course I am hoping that eventually the Electric Rocket System could be switched to a metal propellant such as Neumann Drive or Magdrive might allow.

In that case, refilling could be done at the Moon orbit. Both Metals propellants, and Oxygen.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-11-15 09:22:19)

Void · 2025-11-15 10:31:02

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE Quote:

SpaceX Revealed Starship-Dragon Combination Plan to Reach the Moon Faster than China & BO…
YouTube
GREAT SPACEX
44 views

I think it makes sense to separate the Lunar Space Station effort from the Moon Landing Effort.

Perhaps later then the two could be joined in some way.

In reference to my just prior post here, I am thinking that in the deep future, a "Upstairs Starship" might have its engines in its belly. This would allow it to fire its engines during aerobraking to protect it's belly from excess heat. The engines should be desired to be allowed to fire a reduced temperature mix, such as 90% Methane/10% Oxygen.

But when properly used, it may not be a problem to use the engines to travel towards the Moon, when in a vacuum.

Engines being in the belly, then they would also be suitable for landing on the Moon.

To get this thing to orbit it may need raptors in its tail, but upon reaching orbit those could be removed partially or entirely.

My notion is that this ship would not land on Earth ever again but might do repeated skips on the Earth's atmosphere. As this would take time, so a capsule return of crew would be appropriate.

Having a Starship escort a capsule both to and from the Moon, would give the capsule additional protections such as radiation protection in many cases.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-11-15 10:38:41)

Void · 2025-11-20 09:13:46

This video talks about a supersized V4 Starship, and towards the end, Starboat (Mini-Starship): https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=VAMGZC Quote:

Elon Musk Revealed Big Upgrade on Starship V4 Shocked NASA!
YouTube
TECH MAP
1 views

Starship>200 Tons Payload in reusable mode.

The blurb about Starboat is especially interesting to me. More or less an optional 3rd stage for the Starship system.

-Could be lifted to LEO fully filled with propellants by one Starship.

-Payload to Mars 5-25 Tons?

-2200 km point to point on Mars. (Using 100 tons of propellants)

-50-120 tons of propellants to get back to Earth.

-1/5th as heavy as a Starship.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-11-20 09:28:24)

Void · 2025-11-20 11:14:53

This post relates to the just previous post about Starship V4 and Starboat.

I may have a notion worth at least a look, which may make Starboat a much better option.

I think that if Starboat goes to Mars from LEO, it should be accompanied by a full Starship, landing only.

That is no intention to relaunch the full Starship. So, if the two were docked together in transit, this would greatly increase the comfort and safety of the travelers. Radiation protection may be better as you can impose the bulk of the full starship between the sun and the humans. The major Starship then can become part of a Mars infrastructure upon landing.

The above is all contemplated already.

If we had the assets for it, we might station a full Starship in orbit, to then accompany the Starboat back to Earth to offer similar protections and comforts. But unfortunately it is difficult to stop a Starship in orbit of Mars, and otherwise you end up refilling a whole Starship on the surface of Mars which is a burden we wish to avoid by doing a Starboat in the first place.

But I recalled a "Free Return" which could be used in the event that a mission to Mars had to be aborted prior to landing on Mars.

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

Quote:

Free-return trajectory
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Appearance hide
Text
Small
Standard
Large
Width
Standard
Wide
Color (beta)
Automatic
Light
Dark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sorry to interrupt, but we're short on time to hit our goal.
This Thursday, we ask you to join the 2% of readers who give. If everyone reading this right now gave just $2.75, we'd hit our goal quickly. $2.75 is all we ask.
Give $2.75 Maybe later
November 20: Knowledge is human.
We're sorry we've asked you a few times recently, but it's Thursday, November 20, and this fundraiser matters. We're nearing today's goal, but time's running out. If just 2% of our most loyal readers gave $2.75 today, we'd reach our goal quickly. Most people donate because Wikipedia is the internet we were promised: useful, free to use, and filled with reliable, human-created knowledge. If you agree, consider giving $25 or even just $2.75.
Give $2.75
Give a different amount
Maybe later
I already donated
Close
Sketch of a circumlunar free return trajectory (not to scale), plotted on the rotating reference frame rotating with the moon. (Moon's motion only shown for clarity)
In orbital mechanics, a free-return trajectory is a trajectory of a spacecraft traveling away from a primary body (for example, the Earth) where gravity due to a secondary body (for example, the Moon) causes the spacecraft to return to the primary body without propulsion (hence the term free).[1]
Many free-return trajectories are designed to intersect the atmosphere; however, periodic versions exist which pass the moon and Earth at constant periapsis, which have been proposed for cyclers.
Earth–Moon
The first spacecraft to use a free-return trajectory was the Soviet Luna 3 mission in October 1959. It used the Moon's gravity to send it back towards the Earth so that the photographs it had taken of the far side of the Moon could be downloaded by radio.
Symmetrical free-return trajectories were studied by Arthur Schwaniger of NASA in 1963 with reference to the Earth–Moon system.[2] He studied cases in which the trajectory at some point crosses at a right angle the line going through the center of the Earth and the center of the Moon, and also cases in which the trajectory crosses at a right angle the plane containing that line and perpendicular to the plane of the Moon's orbit. In both scenarios we can distinguish between:[2]
A circumlunar free-return trajectory around the Moon. The spacecraft passes behind the Moon. It moves there in a direction opposite to that of the Moon, or at least slower than the Moon in the same direction. If the craft's orbit begins in a normal (west to east) direction near Earth, then it makes a figure 8 around the Earth and Moon when plotted in a coordinate system that rotates as the Moon goes around the Earth.
A cislunar free-return trajectory. The spacecraft goes beyond the orbit of the Moon, returns to inside the Moon's orbit, moves in front of the Moon while being diverted by the Moon's gravity to a path away from the Earth to beyond the orbit of the Moon again, and is drawn back to Earth by Earth's gravity. (There is no real distinction between these trajectories and similar ones that never go beyond the Moon's orbit, but the latter may not get very close to the Moon, so are not considered as relevant.)
In both the circumlunar case and the cislunar case, the craft can be moving generally from west to east around the Earth (co-rotational), or from east to west (counter-rotational).
For trajectories in the plane of the Moon's orbit with small periselenum radius (close approach of the Moon), the flight time for a cislunar free-return trajectory is longer than for the circumlunar free-return trajectory with the same periselenum radius. Flight time for a cislunar free-return trajectory decreases with increasing periselenum radius, while flight time for a circumlunar free-return trajectory increases with periselenum radius.[2]
The speed at a perigee of 6555 km from the centre of the Earth for trajectories passing between 2000 and 20 000 km from the Moon is between 10.84 and 10.92 km/s regardless of whether the trajectory is cislunar or circumlunar or whether it is co-rotational or counter-rotational.[3]
Using the simplified model where the orbit of the Moon around the Earth is circular, Schwaniger found that there exists a free-return trajectory in the plane of the orbit of the Moon which is periodic. After returning to low altitude above the Earth (the perigee radius is a parameter, typically 6555 km) the spacecraft would start over on the same trajectory. This periodic trajectory is counter-rotational (it goes from east to west when near the Earth). It has a period of about 650 hours (compare with a sidereal month, which is 655.7 hours, or 27.3 days). Considering the trajectory in an inertial (non-rotating) frame of reference, the perigee occurs directly under the Moon when the Moon is on one side of the Earth. Speed at perigee is about 10.91 km/s. After 3 days it reaches the Moon's orbit, but now more or less on the opposite side of the Earth from the Moon. After a few more days, the craft reaches its (first) apogee and begins to fall back toward the Earth, but as it approaches the Moon's orbit, the Moon arrives, and there is a gravitational interaction. The craft passes on the near side of the Moon at a radius of 2150 km (410 km above the surface) and is thrown back outwards, where it reaches a second apogee. It then falls back toward the Earth, goes around to the other side, and goes through another perigee close to where the first perigee had taken place. By this time the Moon has moved almost half an orbit and is again directly over the craft at perigee. Other cislunar trajectories are similar but do not end up in the same situation as at the beginning, so cannot repeat.[2]
There will of course be similar trajectories with periods of about two sidereal months, three sidereal months, and so on. In each case, the two apogees will be further and further away from Earth. These were not considered by Schwaniger.
This kind of trajectory can occur for similar three-body problems. The problem is an example of a circular restricted three-body problem.
While in a true free-return trajectory no propulsion is applied, in practice there may be small mid-course corrections or other maneuvers.
A free-return trajectory may be the initial trajectory to allow a safe return in the event of a systems failure; this was applied in the Apollo 8, Apollo 10, and Apollo 11 lunar missions. In such a case a free return to a suitable reentry situation is more useful than returning to near the Earth, but then needing propulsion anyway to prevent moving away from it again. Since all went well, these Apollo missions did not have to take advantage of the free return and inserted into orbit upon arrival at the Moon. The atmospheric entry interface velocity upon return from the Moon is approximately 36,500 ft/s (11.1 km/s; 40,100 km/h; 24,900 mph)[4] whereas the more common spacecraft return velocity from low Earth orbit (LEO) is approximately 7.8 km/s (28,000 km/h; 17,000 mph).
Due to the lunar landing site restrictions that resulted from constraining the launch to a free return that flew by the Moon, subsequent Apollo missions, starting with Apollo 12 and including the ill-fated Apollo 13, used a hybrid trajectory that launched to a highly elliptical Earth orbit that fell short of the Moon with effectively a free return to the atmospheric entry corridor. They then performed a mid-course maneuver to change to a trans-Lunar trajectory that was not a free return.[5] This retained the safety characteristics of being on a free return upon launch and only departed from free return once the systems were checked out and the lunar module was docked with the command module, providing back-up maneuver capabilities.[6] In fact, within hours after the accident, Apollo 13 used the lunar module to maneuver from its planned trajectory to a circumlunar free-return trajectory.[7] Apollo 13 was the only Apollo mission to actually turn around the Moon in a free-return trajectory (however, two hours after perilune, propulsion was applied to speed the return to Earth by 10 hours and move the landing spot from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean).
Earth–Mars
A free-return transfer orbit to Mars is also possible. As with the Moon, this option is mostly considered for crewed missions. Robert Zubrin, in his book The Case for Mars, discusses various trajectories to Mars for his mission design Mars Direct. The Hohmann transfer orbit can be made free-return. It takes 250 days (0.68 years) in the transit to Mars, and in the case of a free-return style abort without the use of propulsion at Mars, 1.5 years to get back to Earth, at a total delta-v requirement of 3.34 km/s. Zubrin advocates a slightly faster transfer, that takes only 180 days to Mars, but 2 years back to Earth in case of an abort. This route comes also at the cost of a higher delta-v of 5.08 km/s. Zubrin writes that faster routes have a significantly higher delta-v cost and free-return duration (e.g. transfer to Mars in 130 days takes 7.93 km/s delta-v and 4 years on the free return), and so he advocates for the 180-day transfer.[8] A free return is also the part of various other mission designs, such as Mars Semi-Direct and Inspiration Mars.
There also exists the option of two- or three-year free-returns that do not rely on the gravity of Mars, but are simply transfer orbits with periods of 2 or 1.5 years, respectively. A two-year free return means from Earth to Mars (aborted there) and then back to Earth all in 2 years.[9] The entry corridor (range of permissible path angles) for landing on Mars is limited, and experience has shown that the path angle is hard to fix (e.g. +/- 0.5 deg). This limits entry into the atmosphere to less than 9 km/s. On this assumption, a two-year return is not possible for some years, and for some years a delta-v kick of 0.6 to 2.7 km/s at Mars may be needed to get back to Earth.[10]
NASA published the Design Reference Architecture 5.0 for Mars in 2009, advocating a 174-day transfer to Mars, which is close to Zubrin's proposed trajectory.[11] It cites a delta-v requirement of approximately 4 km/s for the trans-Mars injection, but does not mention the duration of a free return to Earth.

So, with a relatively passive free return, the Starboat might need to launch from Mars orbit to meet up with a full Starship that is on a 2 year free return loop around Mars. That would doom them to 1.5 years though to get back to Earth.

But if the Free Return Full Starship were bent, by using an Oberth maneuver while passing by Mars, perhaps the trip back to Earth could be modified to be more survivable.

This could be important if it is discovered that some artificial gravity could help human health maintenance a great deal. A coupled Starship and Starboat might give that synthetic gravity.

So, a "Mars Oberth Starship" could swing by Mars and I hope that a Starboat could align with it for a return to Earth.

Of course, if the Starboat ends up alone because of a failure of the "Mars Oberth Starship". The return to Earth could be rather desperate, and marginal in hopes for success. But if the two can meet on a path back to Earth the inhabitants of the Starboat would have a potentially much more favorable transit situation.

The risks are approximately similar to the risks of using a Cycling Spaceship. But you would know before you launched from Mars if the Full Starship was on it's way and if it seemed to be functional during the Oberth burn. You might be able to abort the launch of the Starboat, if the Oberth burn did not go as required.

Copilot Search:

Like
Dislike
Images
Videos
The Oberth effect is a phenomenon in rocketry that describes how a spacecraft can achieve greater efficiency and speed when its engines are fired at high speeds, particularly during maneuvers near a gravitational body.
Definition and Explanation
The Oberth effect is named after the German physicist Hermann Oberth, who first described it in the early 20th century. It states that a rocket or spacecraft generates more kinetic energy when it fires its engines at high speeds compared to when it does so at lower speeds. This increased efficiency occurs because the kinetic energy (KE) of an object is proportional to the square of its velocity, as expressed in the formula $KE = \frac{1}{2} mv\^2$, where
m
m is mass and
v
v is velocity.
Wikipedia
+1
How It Works
When a spacecraft is in a gravitational well (like near a planet), it can gain additional speed by firing its engines while falling towards the planet. The gravitational pull accelerates the spacecraft, and when the engines are ignited at this high speed, the resulting increase in kinetic energy is greater than if the engines were fired at a slower speed. This principle makes the Oberth maneuver particularly useful for maximizing the efficiency of fuel usage during space missions.
Wikipedia
+1
Practical Applications
Powered Descents: During landings on celestial bodies, firing engines at high speeds allows for more effective deceleration and control.
1
Gravity-Assists: Spacecraft can use the gravitational pull of planets to gain speed. By timing engine burns during close approaches, they can maximize the Oberth effect and achieve significant velocity increases.
2
Multi-Stage Rockets: The Oberth effect is also crucial in multi-stage rocket designs, where upper stages can achieve greater kinetic energy than the total chemical energy of the propellants they carry.
1

3 Sources
Conclusion
The Oberth effect is a fundamental concept in astrodynamics that highlights the relationship between velocity and propulsion efficiency. By strategically planning engine burns at high speeds, spacecraft can optimize their energy expenditure, conserve fuel, and enhance mission capabilities, making it a vital principle in modern space exploration.
diversedaily.com
+1

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-11-20 11:36:05)

Void · 2025-11-20 11:45:59

Most who are here know that I am no Rocketman. My ability to understand orbital mechanics are limited.

However, I have some other useful concepts down.

This post should be regarded as a continuation of the two previous posts. #203 and #204.

In 204 I suggest the possibility of a "Mars Oberth Starship" to assist a Starboat to return to Earth from Mars. As with cycling spaceships, however you face a great danger if your deep space acquisition between the Starboat and the "Mars Oberth Starship" fails.

In early days of Mars this danger might need to be faces.

But if the method is sensible, then what if you had 3 each "Mars Oberth Starship's" doing the Oberth burns, and 3 each Starboats?

your danger is perhaps considerably reduced. If you have one or two Starships that are successful, and any of the Starboats are successful, then you may have survivors.

That may sound dire, but if the Starboats are simply on their own, then they must execute their burns correctly or be in a dire situation anyway.

If one Starboat is off course, there is a chance that a "Mars Oberth Starship's" could have resources to alter course and intercept the "Lost" Starboat.

Anyway as is often true, there can be safety in numbers.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-11-20 11:55:10)

Void · 2025-11-22 11:54:14

I support something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jem-N0fYSs
Quote:

SpaceX's Genius Solution on Dragon to the Moon with Starship Revealed!
GREAT SPACEX

I really think that they should split HLS into a Stubby HLS and a full-sized cargo ship.

More than Stubby they could reduce the cargo capacity of the Stubby HLS and maximize cargo on the cargo ship.

I like their plan where the HLS returns to Earth orbit.

As for the Cargo ships, just leave them on the Moon.

Ending Pending

Depots sent to Lunar orbit then eventually could be made into a Lunar Space Station.

The risks of explosions in refueling in space may be less than for on the surface of Earth, as if you have a Methane leak, you have no air to combust it in. But of course there are dangers anyway. Going to the Moon is risky in any case.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-11-22 12:01:35)

Void · 2025-11-22 12:22:32

In relation to the just prior post, I think that if you make a crew HLS with minimum cargo capacity, you could afford to put legs on it, and make it relatively topple proof.

Then land it on the Moon and make landing pads for the Cargo Ships. Maybe you could land those on their skirts if they have good landing pads.

So, the alternate Land a Crew, make landing pads. Get your diversity issues cleaned up, as there are sure to be good crew to do the job from various backgrounds.

Leave.

Land several Cargo Ships.

Return the Crew.

Make a Lunar base.

Begin doing deep research, such as extended biology on the Moon and resource acquisitions, and more scientific samples.

Ending Pending

Void · 2025-12-22 09:54:25

Calliban made a post here: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 54#p236354

Void · 2025-12-22 09:55:38

Calliban made a post here: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 54#p236354

In this topic: "Index» Interplanetary transportation» Propellant Sourced from Moon"

I made some posts:
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 77#p236377
GW Johnson gave some cautions: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 87#p236387
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 90#p236390
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 90#p236390

I am moving here to get out of the way and to explore possible ways to augment the Starship processes related to the Moon by using local raw materials on the Moon.

1) The earliest possible assistance with Lunar Raw Materials could come from processing Iron and Oxygen. Magnetic Iron is thought to compose .5% of the Lunar regolith. It may have some Oxygen bonded to it. So, robots could collect it magnetically and it could be processed to yield an alloy of Iron, and Oxygen, I hope. Doing that, then you get two propellants. Oxygen for the Starship to refill on the Moons surface, and an Alloy of Iron (I hope), that could be used in MagDrive, or Neumann Drive, to escort resources to and from Earth orbits and Lunar orbits.

2) The next level would involve Iron and Oxygen again, but in this case the very Oxidized non-magnetic versions of Iron.
As I understand it from Anthrofuturism this may be the low hanging fruit. https://www.youtube.com/@Anthrofuturism
They teach that while we use Carbon to extract Iron (And Oxygen)) from ores on Earth, on the Moon Hydrogen could do similar, and would be regenerative for the Hydrogen. That is is you import Carbon to the Moon and use it to process Iron out of "Ores", you leave some behind with each refining event, in the slag. But apparently with the Hydrogen you can recover what you put in and can accumulate more even because Lunar regolith has some Hydrogen in it.
https://sites.wustl.edu/meteoritesite/i … unar-soil/
Quote:

The iron content in lunar regolith varies significantly depending on the region and sample.
In highland regions, the maximum concentration of metallic iron is estimated at about 0.7 equiv. wt%, while in mare regions, it can reach approximately 1.0 equiv. wt%.
1
The average iron content in lunar soils ranges from 4.7% to 10.9% for highland samples and 14.3% to 19.8% for mare samples.
1
Lunar regolith is primarily composed of iron particles, which can be found in agglutinate glass and on individual soil grains.
1
These findings highlight the variability in iron content across different lunar regions and the importance of sample analysis for understanding lunar geochemistry.
2 Sources

So, at that point then you can manufacure water from Hydrogen and then split the water to recover the Hydrogen for reuse, and the Oxygen for breathing or propellant.

And I expect that you can recover the reduced Iron from the Slag.

Then the Slag can be cast into bojects that might be useful for some purpose.

3) At the point where a lot of Hydrogen may become available from a mineral deposit such as Ice, the use of Hydro-lox engines will become practical, provided such Hydrogen does exist in desired quantities. This could make it practical to use the 2nd Stage of Stoke Space on the Moon.

But I feel that we also could have a look at putting Stoke Space Hydro-lox thruster technology onto the Starship.
* So you could take a Starship to a "Chop-Shop" and do some add on.
In my posts elsewhere I suggested that you could put wrap-around Hydrogen tanks to encircle the raptor engine bay. The Starship already has an Oxygen tank so you don't need Oxygen tanks added, unless for some other reason you choose to. Then mou could use the Stoke Space multiple nizzle scheme for a set or wrap around engine nozzles that burn Hydro-Lox. This would broaden the base of the Starship.

Then you might employ one time landing legs assemblies to broaden the footprint more. The one-time leg assemblies would be composed of materials that will be desired on the Moon. Carbon, Plastics, and substances for alloying metals are some candidate materials.

The leg assemblies could be used more than once, I suppose but by leaving the assembly behind it is a delivered cargo of useful materials and you don't have to expend propellants to lift it to orbit again.

So, how this might work is the modified Starship would be filled with Oxygen and Hydrogen but probably not Methane on the Moons surface.
Hydrogen being a troublesome fuel that wants to boil off, the Moons surface could host an active cooling facility for it.
The Hydrogen loaded and the Oxygen loaded, the ship would launch from the Moons surface and intend to consume all of the Hydrogen. It may also9 use Methane in raptors or smaller Metha-Lox engines. All of the Hydrogen would be burned up before all of the Methane was burned up. So, now that you are in Lunar orbit you don't have to worry about the Hydrogen boiling off. It is all used up.

Now that the ship is in Lunar Orbit, it may be refilled with Methane from Earth, perhaps delivered by Neumann Drive or Magdrive.
Now the ship may land on the Moons surface again. Provided that a set of landing legs as described before are attached.

Cargos such as as Oxygen and Iron alloys could be brought up. The Iron Alloys are for Neumann Drive and Magdrive.and perhaps to build structures. The lading legs are the main cargo to deliver to the Moons surface, but other cargo could become downmass as well.

4) When regolith processing becomes sophisticated enough to generate fine Aluminum Powder, and if sufficient Hydrogen resources exist than the use of Alice Rockets may be considered instead of the Hydro-Lox Engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALICE_%28propellant%29
As I visualize it these could be solid rocket process, and could be filled and attached to the Starship to assist it to orbit. The advantage would be that you don't have to work with Liquid Hydrogen. During launch from the Lunar surface they would burn out and the Raptors would finish the Starship to orbit.

There could be three options of what to do with them when they are burned out.
a) Expend them to crash to the surface. (I don't like that).
b) Expend them to orbit to be converted into Magdrive or Neumann Drive propellants.
c) Keep them attached to the Starship and land the assembly back to the Moon using raptors. Then they could be reused. (I like this best).

5) Make solid rockets similar to Alice but using a paste of LOX and Aluminum powder. I do not know if these could be prevented from exploding, however.

6) Mass Driver of a SpaceX invention.

So these are all "Matter Projection Methods". But I have suggested a possible progression of capabilities that I think may fit into the settlement of the Moon.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-12-22 10:52:10)

Void · 2025-12-26 08:10:32

I like this: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE Quote:

Space Tugs and Propellant Stations: Firefly's Blueprint for a Cislunar Supply Network
YouTube
Space Startup News
4 views

I think that the concept of crashing used propellant cartridges onto the Moon to recycle the Aluminum is rather interesting. "Poincare Basin" is mentioned for a crash location at about 8.23 in the video track,

So, the "Backbone" of it at first would be some kind of electric rocket moving Hypergolic propellants to refill stations, it sounds like. But later other liquid propellants that are subject to boil-off might be supported as well.

That makes me wonder if the propulsion method can be combined with that of Starship or other ships using Oxygen and Hydrogen or Methane. I presume that Starship is a major candidate to lift the firefly hardware and propellants to orbit, but then perhaps the Firefly thrust systems could be used to help move Starship from place to place.

That then modifies the travel process if it can be done at that scale.

Endind Pending

.

Last edited by Void (2025-12-26 08:35:06)

Void · 2025-12-26 08:54:18

Looking at Firefly's propellant methods, caused me to think about the Dragon Draco engines:

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

SuperDraco engines
The SpaceX Dragon spacecraft utilizes SuperDraco engines for its launch escape system, providing fault-tolerant propulsion. These engines are part of the SpaceX Draco family and are designed to be fired many months after fueling and launch due to their storable hypergolic propellant. The SuperDraco engines combine the functions of both a reaction control system and a main propulsive engine, offering increased reliability for the spacecraft. They are used on crew transport flights to low Earth orbit and were also projected to be used for entry, descent, and landing control of the now-canceled Red Dragon to Mars. The SuperDraco engines are capable of delivering over 100 times the thrust of the original Draco thruster engines, making them a significant advancement in SpaceX's propulsion technology.
Wikipedia
+2

And then there is this, for deorbit of the ISS: https://www.space.com/spacex-dragon-iss … n-revealed
Image Quote: f8uHfASTFsNTmzqfm9BoXP-970-80.jpg.webp
Quote:

artist's impression of a cone-shaped spacecraft, powered by solar arrays, firing its engines while docked to the international space station. the curve of earth and black of space is visible behind
Artist's impression of the SpaceX Dragon variant that will serve as a deorbit vehicle for the International Space Station. (Image credit: SpaceX)

So, you would have Metha-Lox of some vendors, and Hydro-Lox of other vendors, and electric propulsion. and Hypergolic propulsions.

So, that might provide some interesting options.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-12-26 09:01:24)

Void · 2025-12-30 11:59:57

I have been trying to evaluate the potential of MagDrive. This seems like a good introduction: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE
Quote:

Scientists Test Revolutionary Space Thruster: Space Metals as a Fuel to Go Where No One Has Gone
YouTube
NASA Space News
32K views

https://magdrive.space/

Like other electric thrust systems, this one might suffer from the inertia of the power plant it needs. That could be solar panels or a nuclear reactor.

But if lasers could beam power from a power station to solar cells on the Magdrive, the efficiency can be rather good as I understand it. These solar cells would be tuned for the frequency of the laser beam. So, that could reduce mass and so reduce inertia.

SpaceX is considering one time use tanker Starships to support Lunar Activities. It is said that they can lift 250 to 300 tons of cargo to LEO.

The dry mass of the starship is perhaps 80 to 120 tons. So, maybe estimate 100 tons.

So, that is about 350 to 400 tons of metals to LEO.

And Magdrive is said to have an ISP of about 2000, which might be 5 times as good as raptor?

So, if that were sort of true, then ignoring the complications of Apples/vs/Oranges, perhaps the equivalent of 2000 tons of propellants in LEO while flying just one tanker ship to LEO.

So, a scheme where you might push depots of various propellants to Lunar orbits, and also various orbits of the Earth/Moon, might extend the capability of the Starship system quite a lot.

And if metal propellants can be got from the Moon for a reasonable cost, this would extend things even more.

I wonder if Starships on the Moon, refilled with Oxygen on the Moon and lifting Metal payloads, could then be refilled in Lunar orbit with Methane from Earth. I wonder if that would be worthwhile?

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-12-30 12:24:19)

Void · Yesterday 11:05:18

So, I am continuing to be interested in the concepts that Firefly projects, and that of Magdrive and Neumann drive. Those and of course the heavy lift capabilities in development such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab Plus ULA?

The idea of depots in CIS Lunar Space, is growing. Blue Origin has the notion of actively cooled Hydro-Lox, and some have speculated on low boil off methods for SpaceX Metha-Lox.

I am wondering about stored Jet fuel and water. We already think about generating Oxygen and Methane on Mars from CO2 and Water.

Could you do it in Lunar Orbit, using Jet Fuel and Water? I said Jet fuel, but really, I indicate fuel for Merlin Engines. That fuel and water are low risk for boil off. They are the Low Maintenance companions, I think. Using Magdrive or Neumann Drive you might slowly move depots of them to a Lunar proximity, while having low maintenance costs for the preservation of the fuel and water.

Could you split the Hydrogen off of the water to produce Oxygen and then add that Hydrogen to the "Jet Fuel", to produce Methane?
Perhaps some kind of solar hot process might do that? I know that it might want to produce other Hydrocarbons, but I would have a look at it.

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

Melting point −47 °C (−53 °F; 226 K)
Boiling point 176 °C (349 °F; 449 K)

So, it seems that in CIS Lunar Space, it might be possible to store both the Jet Fuel and Water as gel or ice. Neither one has a very high vapor pressure I expect. I think that makes them low maintenance.

And that brings up some interesting possible options as to if you could push either one of them out of a spaceship in the night side of the Moon during a landing event and then recover the substances before they evaporated. That way your landing legs do not have to be as strong. There could easily be locations on the Moon which will have no Carbon or Hydrogen to make fuel with. Oxygen is fairly ubiquitous on the Moon.

But my primary interest is in a orbital depot in proximity of the Moon where Jet Fuel and water can be refined into various propellants.
Propellants for a Merlin Engine.
Propellants for a Hydro-Lox Engine
Propellants for a Metha-Lox Engine.

I will note that the stored products, "Jet Fuel" and Water will make good radiation protection. So, the Merlin engines perhaps should be respected a little more as you can perhaps use "Jet Fuel" and Water as shielding before you use them for propellants. Yes, you can do that with Methane and Hydrogen also but then you are suffering boiloff and cryogenic burdens.

The Jet fuel might also be subjected to electrolysis, if necessary to produce various materials.

Firefly intends to transport hypergolic propellant as I seem to recall. I think that they could transport "Jet Fuel" and Water.

Also, it may be that water from the Moon will be worth lifting up to Lunar orbit, so then all you would send to Lunar Orbit would be Jet fuel.

In case you are new to this topic this post, #212, describes Magdrive: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 13#p236713

So, if it can all work as I hope it can this would be a very good tool kit for expanding into Space.

We also might consider if "Jet Fuel" could be transported to Phobos and Deimos, using Magdrive. The two moons almost certainly can yield Oxygen so there would be no need to send water. So a refilling method could be established in Mars orbit, I feel.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 11:35:17)

Void · Yesterday 11:50:10

This is an amendment to the just prior post #213.

Question? Why would you not make Lunar Landers out of Falcon 9 2nd Stages?

IF Firefly/Magdrive can resupply a fuel depot/maker in proximity to the Moon, you may be able to refill Falcon 9 2nd stages and put legs on them an use them as landers.

I think if you put enough cargo on them then you could throttle the engines so that you don't have to do a hoverslam???

Or so what if you do a Hoverslam and it works that is just fine.

The 2nd stages are made of a Lithium/Aluminum alloy, I believe and so they are relatively light.

You could attach the cargo to the landing legs so that the device will not be topple prone.

The Merlines Carbon up with use, but you would only be using them one time to land. You could reuse those want to LEO, or you could bring fresh ones up with Starship, and ship them to Lunar proximity with Magdrive.

Ending Pending

You could make the Falcon 9 system fully reusable in a way by selling Lunar landings using Falcon 9 modified 2nd stages to land in various places on the Moon for surveying purposes. This could be supported by a Starship that stays in Lunar orbit and then may return to Earth.

Ending Pending :

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 12:03:23)

Void · Yesterday 14:52:24

Well (th) I will entertain your query: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 55#p236755
Quote:

For Void re Falcon 1 landing on the Moon ....
I don't know the answer to this, and would be interested if you can find out.
My question is inspired by your recent post about possibly using Falcon 9 upper stage as a Moon lander.
Can the Falcon 9 upper stage land on the Moon?
How does the Falcon 9 upper stage land on Earth?
If the Falcon 9 upper stage cannot currently land on Earth, what would it take to give it that ability?
Is it technically feasible? I assume it must be because others than SpaceX have landed on the Moon.
In reading my question, I realized you might be thinking of the first stage as a Moon lander,. and that is why you suggested sending the stage to orbit using a Starship?
May I have your permission to revise my question? Can the Falcon 9 first stage land on the Moon?
Does the Falcon 9 use GPS to know it's position when it is landing? Does it use radio signals from the ground at the landing site to help it determine it's position?
Does the software in the Falcon 9 first stage use the force of gravity in computing burns?
Would the software have to be modified?
These are all interesting questions that our readers might appreciate your investigating.
There are really two questions there, because your post specifically suggests the second stage.
Question? Why would you not make Lunar Landers out of Falcon 9 2nd Stages?
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here

Questions from (th):

Can the Falcon 9 upper stage land on the Moon?
How does the Falcon 9 upper stage land on Earth?
If the Falcon 9 upper stage cannot currently land on Earth, what would it take to give it that ability?
Is it technically feasible? I assume it must be because others than SpaceX have landed on the Moon.

At one point Elon Musk was considering making it into a "Mini-Starship". That was abandoned in order to focus on much larger sized Starships. The 2nd Stage of Falcon 9, I believe is of an Aluminum/Lithium Alloy which is lighter than Stainless Steel, except that the heat shield would be much heavier than for Stainless Steel. The 2nd Stage of Falcon 9 would burn up very fast in the atmosphere without a very, very good heat shield. Therefore the Falcon 9 2nd Stage does not land on Earth at all but is either abandoned to a higher orbit, or sent to burn up in the atmosphere.

The Falcon 9 1st stage if it does land does a "Hover Slam". It is a very tricky maneuver where somehow, they can calculate exactly how to throttle the engine down and when to shut the engine off. If they calculate wrong the engine cuts off too soon and the ship crashes. If they cut the engine off too late, the ship rises up again and then crashes. They cannot throttle the engine down enough to simply hover.

Starship and Superheavy can both hover, which is an improvement.

It would not be practical to get the Falcon 9 1st stage into LEO on it's own power. Perhaps some sort of Starship could lift it to LEO, but I am not sure that that would have a value.

The reason I am interested in bringing the Falcon 9 2nd Stage to Lunar orbit and then filling it and then landing it is that is is otherwise a throw away item. Although the Merlin Engines coke up after a while, I am hoping that it would have one more burn in it, if it was a used engine. One more burn to land some robots or other instruments to a location. Maybe supplies to a base. It itself could be valuable at a base for its metals.

Let's suppose that we had a propellants depot in Lunar Proximity. You might use electric rockets to deliver RP-1 and water to it from LEO.
The depot would be capable of cracking the water into Oxygen and Hydrogen, in a quantity suitable to fill one Falcon 9 2nd stage. Then you could land it. (I have not stipulated any use for the Hydrogen Yet).

It would seem that the 2nd stage would have an even worse problem with throttling down the engine to land on the Moon, but that might be corrected by loading it down with a sufficient amount of Cargo. Legs would have to be added to the assembly, I propose that they be made of materials wanted on the surface of the Moon, perhaps of Carbon and Plastics as much as possible.

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

Another interesting use for such a 2nd Stage would be to boost a Starship back to Earth from Lunar Orbit. Merlins are not as efficient or powerful as Raptors, but there propellant "RP-1" can be stored and transferred much better than Methane.

Water Similarly could be transferred to a Lunar Proximate Depot much easier than Oxygen.

In both the case of RP-1 and Water, the vapor pressures being low at low temperatures you would not need active cooling during transfer by electric rocket. This is a benefit because electric propulsion is slow and if you had to have active cooling hardware on the ship it would be excess mass, and would demand some of the electric energy budget. If you had to spend tha extra electricity, then you have to have larger solar panels or a larger nuclear reactor, which then adds even more mass.

But if you bring RP-1 and water to a Lunar Proximate space station which largely holds position then that station can have a very large power supply which you might manipulate the propellants. In the case of Falcon 9 2nd Stage, the RP-1 just has to be warmed up a bot to be fluid enough to pump, The water can be split into LOX and Hydrogen. Since the Station does not move much it can have a massive power supply with a lot of inertia and can then be used to prevent the boil-off of the LOX.

We might microwave the Hydrogen to provide propulsion for station keeping.

Let's consider "L1" for the Station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point
Quote:

Sorry, that is the Sun/Earth L1 not the Earth/Moon L1. I will seek a more appropriate diagram.

This perhaps: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2882/1
Image Quote:

Starship might be able to grab used Falcon 9 2nd stages from LEO, and bring them to a electric tug which would bring them and "RP-1" and water to the station at "L1". The Station at "L1" would warm the "RP-1" for filling the Falcon 9 2nd Stages. It would also crack the water into LOX and Hydrogen. The Hydrogen might be used for Station keeping, being ejectred for propulsion from a VASIMR engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_ … sma_Rocket

Some station keeping is needed at "L1" as it it a bit unstable.

Now this leaves the question, would then Falcon 9 2nd Stage have enough power to go to the Moon and actually land with a payload? Well, I am not sure. If not, then the Station needs to be in the orbit of the Moon, closer into it. In which case the Hydrogen thrust will also be wanted.

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

For the case of Hydro-Lox spacecraft the same method could be used but just with Water, no RP-1.

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

In the case of Starship and other Metha-Lox methods, I am hoping that the station can take Hydrogen from the water and use it to cook the RP-1 into Methane. Not entirely confident for that.

But if you did have used Falcon 9 2nd stages you might use them to boost Starship while burning RP-1 and LOX>

But of course, Merlins get Carboned up.

I think that shipping a stable hydrocarbon and water to a processing refilling station might make sense. I already explained why that could be compatible with electric propulsion such as Magdrive or Neumann Drive. You might also ship Carbon or Dry Ice to get the proper balance of Carbon, Oxygen, and Hydrogen atoms to create the various propellants with.

I hope that that helps (th).

Ask for more if you like.

Ending Pending

Ending Pending.

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 15:55:04)

Void · Today 09:24:13

Orbital Water Platforms:

Expanding a bit on previous posting, It seems to me that water as a cargo to orbit could be rather ideal to a large extent.

A Starship lifting water, is less explosive than a Starship lifting extra Methane and Oxygen. So, there may be a degree of increased safety at a Earth Launch pad.

Water being liquid at temperatures often compatible with humans also has utility as it can shield from radiation and you also can use it to grow food. Growing food in it gives some complications to then make propellants but it could be done.

In cracking the water to make propellants you would perhaps get an Oxygen imbalance that you could use. Let's say you would split the water to Hydrogen and Oxygen continually. You might use some of the Hydrogen for station keeping or even to move the platform a little bit.
I am presuming that a high temperature thruster could be used to expel a trickling stream of Hydrogen for that purpose. So then you would accumulate LOX into tanks.

So, ignoring other means of transport for the moment and concentrating on Starship, you also be able to bring Carbon in a form usable but of a form that will not cause dust explosions if launch goes badly. Then if you do not want to dump all the Hydrogen produced you may make Liquid Methane from some of it.

So, water and Carbon Feedstock would be relatively benign in nature. And both may be useful for radiation shielding.

But such a platform may service a Stoke Space 2nd stage also, if you elect to make and store Liquid Hydrogen.

Some locations for such platformer might be LEO+, GEO, L1, and Lunar orbits.

Keep in mind that I am thinking that for many of these Magdrive and/or Neumann Drive would be used in transporting bulk cargos like water and Carbon. Neither Water or Carbon will require active cooling, I expect, so that makes the task easier.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE
Quote:

Stoke Space Second Stage: High Performance and Reusable within 24 Hours of Landing
YouTube
Space Startup News
5.4K views

"Andromeda"

https://www.stokespace.com/introducing-andromeda/
Quote:

Introducing Andromeda, our rapidly reusable high-performance upper-stage rocket engine
Updated design upgrades performance, simplicity, and rapid reusability.

I have wondered if a "Supersized" Andromeda, might be lifted by SpaceX Superheavy.

But perhaps it is better to keep it small as then the batch of Liquid Hydrogen you have to maintain ot refill an Andromeda, would be of a smaller and more manageable size.

I think that there might be some advantages in refilling a ship in the vacuum of space outside the Earths atmosphere. Perhaps less risk of explosions from Hydrogen spills/leaks.

So, there would be a distinction between ships intended to lift Water, Carbon, Metal Propellants to LEO+ and ships intended to navigate further out.

The further out ships might have smaller propellant tanks, and so less dry mass from the container and from that which is contained. These might refill at LEO+, GEO, L1, and Lunar Orbits, and indeed on the surface of the Moon. They also might not normally land on the surface of the Earth.

While at first all the Water, Carbon, and Metal Propellants will come from the Earth, eventually some may come from the Moon, and then later even from Photos, Deimos, Asteroids, and Mars.

Again Water, Carbon, and Metal Propellants could be kept benign during long trips to the Earth/Moon from those remote locations.

Ending Pending

This alternate Moon formation theory is of some interest. It may suggest a different history and perhaps a different nature of raw materials on the Moon that can be made into resources.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo … r-AA1SkA7u Quote:

What really created the moon? Scientists say it’s not just one impact, but this many!
Story by Sarah Jones • 2w •
3 min read

That is interesting, so what if the far side and near side materials are largely from two different objects? And then perhaps some materials from the Earth?

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Today 10:04:03)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2025-11-15 09:05:49

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

#202 2025-11-15 10:31:02

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

#203 2025-11-20 09:13:46

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

#204 2025-11-20 11:14:53

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

#205 2025-11-20 11:45:59

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

#206 2025-11-22 11:54:14

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

#207 2025-11-22 12:22:32

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

#208 2025-12-22 09:54:25

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

#209 2025-12-22 09:55:38

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

#210 2025-12-26 08:10:32

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

#211 2025-12-26 08:54:18

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

#212 2025-12-30 11:59:57

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

#213 Yesterday 11:05:18

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

#214 Yesterday 11:50:10

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

#215 Yesterday 14:52:24

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

#216 Today 09:24:13

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

Board footer