New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#226 2026-01-16 06:21:40
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,179
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 (2026-01-16 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 2026-01-16 09:59:04
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,179
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 (2026-01-16 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 2026-01-16 17:56:14
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,179
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 (2026-01-16 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 Yesterday 11:37:58
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,179
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 (Yesterday 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
#230 Yesterday 13:07:51
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,179
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
So, a metal propellants 2nd stage could be done by many rocket companies. But at this time only SpaceX and Stoke Space (Eventually), can then bring some parts like engines back down for reuse.
A 2nd Stage "Starship" metals only could go to a low orbit and be then grabbed by a tug and brought to a LEO+ orbit. Upon reaching orbit the ship could consume the remnants of its propellants to produce water to condense and CO2 perhaps to compress.
The ship would then be a low explosion risk,
So, then this is a path to metal propellants as the substructure of a conveyance method for Earth/Moon and beyond.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 13:09:04)
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
#231 Yesterday 13:38:24
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,179
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
What I am looking for with a "Metal-Ship" is what might be the best price for unit of mass from the surface of the Earth to LEO, then an efficient way to have a tug bring it from LEO to LEO+ where it would be rendered into its best use.
Ideally it would all be Aluminum, but of course the more so the more modifications would be needed. But to start with maybe everything in the upper half Aluminum?
Then the Stainless Steel tanks to follow another path maybe as a Star-Kicker. The Raptors perhaps brought back down to Earth.
To concept of a Star-Kicker suggests that the booster would be discarded. But what if after it finished it's burn, it was repositioned to the nose of the Starship on route to the Moon that it just boosted, and then it would be carried as a metal propellant Cargo to a Moon proximate station such as perhaps "L1" or a Low Lunar Orbital station?
Then it would not be wasted. Raw materials extracted from the Moon might be used to furnish it so that it could be habitat for humans or robots. Or it could be rendered into metal propellants. Stainless Steel will be different than Aluminum as a propellant, but still in time the ability to render it into rods of pellets for Neumann Drive or MagDrive might be evolved.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 13:45:35)
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
#232 Yesterday 13:59:49
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,179
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
Now that I think about it, you could shrink the propellant tanks and extend the upper portion of the 2nd stage to be made of Aluminum.
Depending on desires you could make A shell of Aluminum your only cargo, but as it would also be able to serve as a cargo hold, I guess you could maybe bring something of value up inside of it. Maybe computer chips.
So then you would have the cargo, and the giant aluminum fairing to convert to a source of metal propellants. Then the smaller Star-Kicker, could still be used to help send a Starship to the Moon. Perhaps you could connect two smaller Star-Kickers to the back end of the Starship and rotate them to the nose when empty. The Star-Kickers perhaps might only have one engine left on them for transit to the Moon.
Ending Pending
The Stubby Star-Kickers brought to the orbit of the Moon, then might be given just enough propellants to land on the Moon themselves and become Lunar Base Structure.
So, the "Locomotive" would help kick a Starship to the Moon and would then themselves land on the Moon, possibly using Lunar Oxygen.
The Aluminum Fairings of very large size would be rendered into metal propellants in LEO+.
And you might have brought some cargo up in the fairings.
Most of the engines would be brought back down to Earth from LEO+, in a returning reusable Starship. You might just put one engine on the Star-Kicker that is fine tuned for travel to the Moon and a Moon landing.
So, really nothing wasted in a so called "Expendable Starship".
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 14:10:47)
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
#233 Yesterday 15:30:20
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,179
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
Perhaps I can improve on the post #232.
The Expendable, (Not Really) Starship, may have the standard "Locomotive" parts. The propellant tanks, and engines primarily.
The Fairings would be Aluminum if possible.
It could carry a cargo, the Aluminum being lighter than the standard Stainless Steel.
At LEO, the ship will react any remaining CH4 and O2 to create water, and store it and possibly to create CO2 and Store it. (Or dump it overboard).
A tug, possibly electric in nature would move the Starship up to LEO+ where a "Rendering" space station would exist.
The Locomotive will be repurposed as a Star-Kicker to be a booster for a Starship headed beyond LEO+ Perhaps some of the Raptors will be removed.
The Cargo will be removed from the Aluminum Fairing.
The Aluminum Fairing will be rendered into rods of pellets for Neumann Drive or Magdrive respectively.
The Star-Kicker will be used to boost a Starship to an objective likely with human crew in the Starship, needing fast delivery.
The Star-Kicker will be abandoned into an orbit, most likely of Earth.
A Metals(Aluminum) Electric Rocket will on it's way to the Moon perhaps, intercept the abandoned Star-Kicker and grab it and take it to Lunar orbit or maybe "L1".
Although it is said that Lunar Oxygen lifted by rocket to LEO would not be economic, I am hoping that it may be more likely that Lunar Oxygen lifted to Orbit by rocket will be practical. So, the Star-Kicker will be filled with enough Lunar Oxygen to land.
Methane will have to also be provided. Perhaps Hydrogen from the Moon and Carbon from Earth for that?
The Star-Kicker will land on the Moon and become an addition to the Infrastructure on the Moon.
I do desire that eventually a mass driver will be possible on the Moon, but before that, this system in this post might assist the build up of the Infrastructure on the Moon to justify the cost of building a mass driver.
Anyway, if Starship Expendable (Not Really) can be mass produced perhaps this scheme will prover worthwhile at least for a time.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 15:47:17)
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
#234 Yesterday 16:47:29
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,179
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
This is an experiment. I stumbled onto a live discussion of metal drives. I don't know if it will play later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk_JtVzNvIk
Quote:
Space News Live 41
Space Startup News
5.4K subscribers
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 16:48:30)
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
#235 Yesterday 23:00:20
- Void
- Member
- Registered: 2011-12-29
- Posts: 9,179
Re: Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other.
I appreciate that dudes information. There is good news and there as bad news. The bad news first.
The Metal Electric Rockets are energy pigs. Nuclear Fission seems to be desirable if you want to do any serious orbital changes.
Solar is limited, perhaps practical for station keeping.
But I do still look for an exception on that. I think that if you had solar power stations on the Moon and beamed laser power to such a machine, the thrust/mass ratio would be better than just on board solar.
As another factor this also could be true for solar power plants in orbit of Mars made from the materials of Phobos and Deimos.
The good news is a process of selecting The Least Ugly Propulsion System.
Nuclear Thermal is uglier than it might seem, because "Where do you get the Hydrogen?".
Yes Starship could lift Liquid Hydrogen to LEO, but it is a volume pig.
And if you get to the Moon, can you get enough Liquid Hydrogen from the Moon to come back?
Similar, if you go to Mars. OK, you have to make and store sufficient Liquid Hydrogen? Can your ship land on Mars and take off from it using Nuclear Thermal?
So, I see Nuclear Thermal as ugly.
Nuclear Thermal with water is about as good as rocket's using a combustion process. Can you land on Mars, can you take off without making the place more radioactive?
So, Nuclear Thermal with water is ugly also.
Nuclear Electric might use Argon, and it might get Argon from the Earth, Mars, and maybe the Moon. Maybe. So, it isn't that pretty.
Nuclear power could be used to cook up combustible rocket propellants, and that can work if you want a fairly quick trip, but it is not that efficient.
Nuclear Electric with Metal Propellants is an energy pig but is efficient with propellants. But it is mostly too slow for human passengers.
So, this seem to be the prettiest option available:
Nuclear power could be used to cook up combustible rocket propellants, and that can work if you want a fairly quick trip, but it is not that efficient.
Nuclear Electric with Metal Propellants is an energy pig but is efficient with propellants. But it is mostly too slow for human passengers.
* With the modification that solar power could also cook up chemical propellants.
So, none of them are as pretty as we might want but the combination of options in the quote shaded area is the only one worth dealing with, I think.
Good to know though.
The Chemical and Nuclear Electric Metal options can enhance each other.
I think the dude is right.
Ending Pending
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 23:16:51)
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