New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#226 Yesterday 06:21:40
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,173
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
I have been seeing notions that electrolysis of water is becoming more practical.
This article suggests such a gain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le4tH9qHjrw
Quote:
Breakthrough: Hydrogen Finally Cheaper Than Gas?
German Science Guy
70.9K subscribers
It seems sensible that over time the technology will improve not get worse, as long as social structures for technology are stable.
This would support making propellants on Mars, but of course will matter in other places in space.
Of course I am thinking of "Water Stations".
A "Water Station" might have "Storm Shelters" for radiation storms, but when the supply of water stored on the "Water Station" was large, resort to such shelters might be less important.
Water tanks can double as "Farms", and if electrolysis is getting better the production of acetate and Oxygen should become more efficient.
Acetate does require Carbon of course so a "Water Station" should have some. Maybe even a lot.
So, a "Water Station" might cook up Methane also.
As for Iron Oxide, it might be stored long term, and with the other assets of a "Water Station", It should be possible to reduce the Iron Oxide with Hydrogen and either biological or heating methods. Then you could have Iron and water and then you could split the water to produce Oxygen.
The Iron can be propellant for Magdrive or Neumann Drive, or you could be able to make some types of Steel, depending on the ingredients available.
So bulk items to store at a "Water Station" might include water ,Carbon or Carbon compounds, Iron Oxide, and other smaller amounts of substances.
A "Water Station" could cook up a batch of propellants for a mission, "Just in time". "An old catch phrase).
This would avoid having large amounts of stored explosive substances that will require active cooling.
Ending Pending 
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 06:36:38)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#227 Yesterday 09:59:04
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,173
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
Returning to a concept of a in-orbit booster, I think it could be competitive with Nuclear-Thermal.
Nuclear-Thermal-Hydrogen will do much better than Hydro-Lox, we are told, to get humans to Mars more quickly. But that has to assume that
You transported huge amounts of Hydrogen from a source.to go to Mars you need it from Earth or the Moon. The Moon would have to be developed first, And then to return to Earth from Mars, you need a lot of Hydrogen from Mars. You probably will not be aerobraking into Earth's atmosphere with a nuclear fission drive.
Two things I retain from Dr. Robert Zubrin are:
1) If you have more power, rather than to take a faster trip, take more payload.
2) Use a path to Mars with a "Free-Return" option.
Humans and Cargo can be handled to some extent as separate things.
You probably want humans headed to Mars to have a "Free-Return" option. But you might prefer to add consumables to such a mission, as if you are forced to do a "Free-Return", you will need them.
Cargo in bulk could be done on ships that do not access the "Free-Return" option so they may be slower than that.
Also Cargo, might be brought to orbits of Mars using efficient electric rocket propulsions.
The "Star-Kicker" could be useful to launch a Starship that would have extra supplies to survive a 2 year "Free-Return". That ship would likely be for human transport. In such a case, the Star-Kicker may or may not be expendable.
Here is that video again that mentions "Star-Kicker": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqERiN848DY
Quote:
How SpaceX Is Solving Starship’s Moon Landing Problem
Space Zone
39.5K subscribers
In early implementation of missions to Mars, it would almost certainly be expendable and abandon to a Ghost orbit somewhere.
But depending on the existence and nature of "Water Stations". the "Star-Kicker" could be dropped off at a higher energy orbit "Water Station" somewhere. If might be refilled and then fly back to another location to be reused.
I might assert, that more than one "Star-Kicker" could be stacked. Presuming that the structure could endure the thrusting, you could have two or more "Star-Kickers", attached to a Starship. I am not sure what the mission would be to justify that but it could be an available service.
And then if you want to play games, you could convert "Star-Kickers" into drop tanks. You would have to pull the engines out of them and plumb pairs of them to mount sideways to a Starship. So, for instance three times the propellants and using the engines of the actual Starship to burn it all.
That may give access to the deep outer solar systerm, I am guessing.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 10:46:42)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#228 Yesterday 17:56:14
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,173
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
This video started to disappoint me about Neumann Drive and Magdrive, but later explains that they could be given nuclear power and be sized up, and indeed may well do what we could desire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRDSbr5Fit0
Quote:
Nuclear Reactors + Metal Thrusters: The Game-Changer for Cislunar Supply Chains
Space Startup News
He also supports lithobraking some metal scrap onto the Moon for future use.
Here is a description of the crater proposed for the lithobraking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_(crater)
Quote:
Poincaré (crater)
So, he seems to support some concepts that I support but he proposes nuclear reactors for the metal thrusters, (Nuclear Electric).
Scaled up Nuclear Arc Thrusters that use metals as propellants.
So, I am encouraged.
Ending Pending
Here is the parent site for the video: https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceStartupNews/featured
It looks like a good resource.
Here is a more detailed video about the Neumann Drive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFtwrP1lrJQ
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 18:20:27)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here
#229 Today 11:37:58
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,173
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
Here are two "Libraries" I would choose to consul.
1) Space Startup News: https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceStartupNews/featured
2) ANTHROFUTURISM: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Anthrofut … pc=EDGEXST
I am listening to an Anthrofuturism video where it is said that moving Oxygen from the Moon to LEO is not practical without a Lunar Mass Driver. I like having that defined.
But I would still hold hopes of supplying resources to a Low Lunar orbit Station and the "L1" location.
The other site: Space Startup News gives me the impression that Aluminum is a good propellant for Neumann Drive and Magdrive. Also that Lithium is not a good propellant. So, several companies will have reusable 1st stages, and the 2nd stages may or may not be reusable.
There is already concepts of a one-time Starship 2nd stage. For now, this is largely made of Stainless Steel. I think the Stainless Steel could also be used as a metal propellant, but Aluminum is likely preferred.
So, you could Launch a Disposable Starship 2nd stage to LEO, and fill its Cargo with Stainless Steel propellant rods or bullets. But it might make sense to fill it with Aluminum metal.
SpaceX is saying to make 10,000 ships a year. Well, some will be boosters, I am sure.
So then to make a one-time Starship 2nd stage why not use the Aluminum payload to reenforce its structure to the degree possible.
So, then the Ships are then towed to a salvage yard perhaps LEO+ in orbit, and the facility having the ability to use the Stainless Steel and Aluminum as materials goods. The ship would not have any formal Cargo. The Raptors and other desired parts might be returned to the Earth's surface.
So, a Starship that has a dry mass of 90 tons and a payload capacity of 210 tons to orbit (Disposable mode), would be actually a dry mass 300 tons of structure only. The Aluminum structure would allow less other materials like Stainless Steel.
The point being to in a most efficient mode lift metals to orbit from Earth. Much of the metal to be propellants, but some perhaps to be used in structures.
As the ships will not reenter the Earth's atmosphere, Stainless Steel may not be required for much of the structure. This would provide metals for electric propulsion as its primary objective. Metal Electric Propulsion may then allow moving canisters of substances that can be used to make combustion oriented propellants to higher orbits. Of course I favor Water, Carbon or Carbon Compounds, and Iron Oxides at this time.
So then to provide refilling stations at higher orbits in the Earth/Moon system.
Because the building of Partial Aluminum Starships would probably be done almost entirely with Automation/Robot, we might hope that their mass production would be relatively economic in result.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Today 12:06:24)
Is it possible that the root of political science claims is to produce white collar jobs for people who paid for an education and do not want a real job?
Offline
Like button can go here