Debug: Database connection successful Multi-Ship Expeditions, Starboat & Starship, Other. (Page 8) / Interplanetary transportation / New Mars Forums

New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations via email. Please see Recruiting Topic for additional information. Write newmarsmember[at_symbol]gmail.com.

#176 2025-09-21 10:17:57

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 8,890

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

This article talks about Vertical and Horizontal landing methods for HLS on the Moon: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE  Quote:

Elon Musk REVEALED Starship's 2 Moon Landing Options...Which One?
YouTube
Future Space
1 views

I think that in the future, smaller landers such as B.O. product, might be used for Humans.

But the Stubby HLS, would be wonderful to be deployable to the Moon.

The process of landing HLS on legs and then tipping it over to Horizontal has been considered.

If HLS is not to leave the Moon then you have a large propellant budget.  Starship could hover (Unlike Falcon 9), and might ease itself horizontally into a tilted cradle already on the Moon.

That cradle would promote a controlled tipping.  Just for giggles lets say the cradle is 45 degrees, (But could be something else).  The Cradle would have air bags, and landing braces.

BZzLxgz.png

The Landing Cradle guides a partial topple.  Cradle #1 is encountered first, and the #2, #3, #4, so four bumps.

When the ship slides down catching hooks lock it to the pipe frame.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view … ajaxserp=0  Image Quote: wireframe-tetrahedron-02.jpg

So, initially the frame might be attached to a Stubby HLS, and landed with an intentional topple If it weighed only 50 tons, then a counterweight of 50 tons could be put on the other side of the rocket near the base.

Then after that you either remove the rocket from the frame to lay down horizontal, maybe attaching wheels to its tail end and using a wench after disabling the catch hooks, or you refill the ship, and it somehow launches.  Maybe it is put vertical before launching.

Yes, I know that you are paranoid about flinging regolith into orbit, but initially there will be no other structures to harm.  And you might somehow drop a plate to the surface of the Moon prior to this operation.

Anyway after you are set up you can create landing pads, and reuse the landing frame, as if the Stubby HLS goes to orbit, it will not take the landing frame with it.  The landing frame is intended for repeated reuse.

This is just an initial on a napkin display of possible options.

Ending Pending smile

Last edited by Void (2025-09-21 10:58:54)


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

#177 2025-09-21 11:13:10

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 8,890

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

As an amendment to the just prior post, a plate of expanded metal dropped just prior to landing might be suitable to reduce the ejection of regolith in a landing process.

https://www.bing.com/shop?q=expanded+me … 853DB80039
Image Quote: OPHS.HZ1QrdLtahT0RA474C474?w=592&h=550&o=5&dpr=1.3&pid=21.1

It might survive a drop from some few meters perhaps, and then the ship with angled landing frame might be able to land on it.

The metal would not be wasted, but recycled, and a proper landing pad made of regolith might replace it.

Ending Pending smile

Last edited by Void (2025-09-21 11:15:57)


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

#178 2025-09-22 09:55:39

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 8,890

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

So, could this work on other worlds, such as Mars?  https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 44#p234444  Quote:

That cradle would promote a controlled tipping.  Just for giggles lets say the cradle is 45 degrees, (But could be something else).  The Cradle would have air bags, and landing braces.

BZzLxgz.png

The Landing Cradle guides a partial topple.  Cradle #1 is encountered first, and the #2, #3, #4, so four bumps.

When the ship slides down catching hooks lock it to the pipe frame.

I understand that likely for human arrivals, you will want landing legs, at least at first.

A tilted landing frame would have to be brought to Mars within a cargo hold, I would expect.

My notion of mass cargo transport after initial setup would be a Starship tuned to Mars, which might make multiple flights up and down, to receive cargo from interplanetary ships that do not land.  This allows for Electric Rocket propulsion as the interplanetary propulsion method.

The wear on the heat shield of the ship would be reduced by coming in from Low Mars Orbit at a slower speed than for arrival from Earth.

The ships could position their metal wall portion towards the "Belly Flop" angled catch tower.  The angle desired can be calculated for best effect, and indeed cushions and possibly air bags could absorb the pressure of the belly flop.  This does not require as powerful of a nose engine as to allow for a horizontal landing.

Distributing the impact to the cushion devices, may allow for a lack of legs as dry mass, and may distribute the force of impact across the belly's larger surface area than the tail end of the ship.

The tanks themselves and the cargo walls, may even do some cushioning as well as they are inflated devices.  There would be some spring-like nature to such tanks.

From the angled catch position, the ship can then be tipped upright to relaunch or with wheels or skids attached, be pulled down the ramp carefully to have a horizontal position.

Ending Pending smile

Last edited by Void (2025-09-22 10:08:02)


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

#179 2025-09-23 07:35:11

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 8,890

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

I am not aware of who may be considering methods of landing on worlds with a greater partial vacuum by methods other than "Spaceship Stovepipe Vertical".

There has been some mention of horizontal landing experiments, China has been mentioned, and some whispers of consideration for a horizontal landing method for HLS on the Moon.

Of course I have previously suggested a angular landing option.  This was presented as a method to land on an angled sort of belly flop into an appropriate frame.

I think because SpaceX has made Falcon 9 "Spaceship Stovepipe Vertical" possible where it was previously impossible, notions of other landing methods are of course not explored much at all.

It has occurred to me that it might be possible to land a ship onto the side of a hill that has proper characteristics, instead of a completely artificial pipe frame that I have previously suggested.

A "Spaceship Stovepipe Vertical" landing has the advantage that your main engines can be fully employed, but the disadvantage that the engine bay has to have legs added or your engines will be smashed.  And the risk of uncontrolled topple is very undesired.  And the fluids in the container, will not be likely to slosh in a useful way, but to be dead weight against the direction of travel that is being stopped upon impact to the surface of a world.

JBwo8rY.png

A 90 degree landing allows the use of the Main Tail Engines to work with mostly vertical descent motion.  Unless you would land with extreme precision on tail end launch mounts previously placed on the surface of a world, then you need sufficiently substantial landing legs that can absorb the shock and avoid the potential for the stack to topple.

A 0 degree landing would take the Main Tail Engines mostly or entirely out of service, in that case you have to have auxiliary engines to land the ship.  Although you might have some horizontal motion, you would primarily be again working with vertical motion.  In this method because you don't have engine exhaust under every section of the ship you might have landing legs, or prepositioned cushions to help absorb the landing shock.  If it is not done correctly the landing shock might break the ship into pieces.

An angular landing might have both horizontal and vertical motion involved.  Also it might involve a "Tripping Impact".

A "Tripping Impact" might be imagined as a person running towards an inclined structure with airbags.  If the ankles impact a airbag first, then a "Tripping" event will occur.  But because airbags have been provided, a "Controlled Topple", can be implemented to reduce level of stress/damage.

Pause...........

So, Starship has the power to hover on it's raptors and even to "Crab" sideways a bit so you could "Trip" it into a "Controlled Topple", even without strong side thrusters.  But on the Moon it may use the "OLM" engines??? for final landing???

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/a … re/#page-2
Image Quote: Starship1.jpg

So, either way it might be able to come in with some horizontal and vertical motion to get into a controlled trip situation.

I think this might resemble a jet landing on an Aircraft Carrier.  Sometimes a net is used to help the landing of a aircraft with problems, I believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u5Ax35pcvw
Image Quote: maxresdefault.jpg

So, it seems to me that the NAVY has a lot to offer for this.

Airbags, springs, and even pneumatic or rocket engines might buffer the impact.

So, could this work on other worlds, such as Mars?  https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 44#p234444  Quote:

That cradle would promote a controlled tipping.  Just for giggles lets say the cradle is 45 degrees, (But could be something else).  The Cradle would have air bags, and landing braces.

BZzLxgz.png

And hooks are needed to keep the captured rocket from sliding down to ding the main engines on the tail.  I have shown hooks in the above drawing.

So, all of this would be so that you could land a rocket without landing gear, onto "Landing Cradle".

So then you have to consider that on occasion you will get an explosion that will blow up your "Landing Cradle", so you have to not have excessive value invested into the "Landing Cradle", but make it just good enough.

Pause..........

In calculating what is good enough, you can consider the "Spring" features of the HLS, and also the effects of "Slosh".

Pause.........

Spring effects of the ship would be both linear and of the circumference of the ship.  It exists probably but certainly had "Yield Limits".   The ship has a small amount of self-protection but then methods of reception to the "Landing Cradle" need to give the remaining necessary protection.

But there is also "Slosh" of any liquids in the ship.  This could be bad for the engines, but also could be helpful as then the whole ship does not stop all at once, but any liquid or object not well secured will slosh or bounce.  Done correctly this could help to keep the ship from damage during the catch.

Well, that is what I have so far.  I think it might be pretty good.

Obviously, this is not for the first landings but for resupply.

After a successful catch, then the options are to set the ship upright to 90 degrees for refill and relaunch or to pull it to horizontal 0 degrees to be converted into habitation.

Ending Pending smile

Last edited by Void (2025-09-23 08:44:55)


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

#180 2025-09-24 07:41:05

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 8,890

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

Perhaps in time some sort of legless landing method will be provided on other worlds.

Now, for my own amusement I want to play with the Lunar HLS.

This could be the existing plan for it or the Stuby substitute.

I will point out that NASA seems to be thinking short term as always, I am thinking longer term.

It seems almost strange to me that NASA decided to go with converting a Mars ship to work on the Moon.  But that is good as I think prosperous results could become available from it.

Here, although legless landings could be considered eventually for now, I am going to suppose landing legs.

Pause............

I have said before that I am in favor of splitting Lunar HLS into the "Locomotive" and then the Cargo/Cabin section.

It is not logical to land a huge Lunar Starship, HLS on the Moon then launch it, and abandon it in orbit somewhere.

Logical would be to Land it and keep it on the Moon as potential shelter.

But how to get people up off of the Moon?  Well, it you have a Standard or Stubbly Lunar HLS and land it for cargo carry and leave it there that is valuable, but does not get the humans back up to orbit.

But what if you took the "Locomotive" of one and plunked a capsule on to it?  That is get rid of the fairings, of the Cargo/Cabin and plunk a capsule onto it.  Orion or Dragon.

You may leave the Fairings for the Cargo/Cabin somewhere, maybe LEO to have further use.

Orion is heavy but deep space ready.  Dragon is lighter but not alone deep space ready.

Two of the faults of Dragon are radiation protection and insufficient consumables.  But if you have the Locomotive of a Starship with you, I feel that the radiation problem is quite improved.  And you likely have room for more consumables.

Orion: https://www.space.com/5900-orion-apollo … nshot.html
Quote:

About 31,000 pounds (14,000 kg)
The Orion capsule is approximately 16.5 feet (5 meters) in diameter and 10.8 feet (3.3 meters) high. When empty, it weighs about 31,000 pounds (14,000 kg) and has a habitable volume of 692 cubic feet (11 cubic meters). It will be used for crewed missions beyond the Moon.
Space.com
+1

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index … ic=53283.0
Quote:

Approximately 17,000 pounds
The Dragon capsule weighs approximately 17,000 pounds (about 7,700 kg) without cargo. The launch mass of Dragon 2, which includes cargo, is around 9,500 kilograms (approximately 20,900 pounds).

OK, there is some sloppy "Apple and Orange" factor here I bet, but it seem like for Dragon you could include an extra 14,000 pounds of consumables and radiation protection if needed.

Step #1, launch the Locomotive with Fairings to Orbit, possibly including a capsule on board.

Step #2, dispose of the Fairings or send the to salvage somewhere.

Step #3, fill the Locomotive with propellants.  This should be a significantly reduced amount, I would hope.

Step #4, with humans on board launch to the Moon.

Step #5, land on the Moon directly, next to an already landed Lunar HLS.

Step #6, do to surface missions.

(Ideally): Step #7, refill on the Moon, possibly only LOX.

Step #7, Launch directly to Earth.

Step #8, Separate the Locomotive from the Capsule, and do a Capsule return to Earth.

* I would like a heat shield for the Locomotive so that it could airbrake several times into the Earths atmosphere to be reused, but in early missions it can be abandoned.

Ending Pending smile

Yes, you can associate this with a Lunar Space Station if you want to, but at additional cost of course.

I make note that Platinum Family Metals may not be at the poles (Or might be), so polar landings might not be the only interest.

With modern recycling water from the Lunar Poles is not as necessary as it might have been in the 70's.  Time to update thinking???

Ending Pending smile

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Art … _356285358
Image Quote: Artist-rendering-of-current-design-of-the-Starship-HLS-concept-Original-image-credit.ppm

Ending Pending smile

So, you now could make it "Stubby" as per Tim Dodd, and reduce the tank size, maybe even the number of Raptors.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … dc0f2c8c61

Quote:

SpaceX's new Shorter & Better Starship Option to Go Back to the Moon REVEALED!
YouTube
Space Zone
78 views


Ending Pending smile

So, this is more of a set of questions, that might have some merit to consider.

If you wanted to bring some Platinum Family Metal samples back this might be a better way.

And if you want to transfer a small crew to and from a polar Moon base it might also be efficient.

Blue Origin's Blue Moon was a bit like this, without the capsule.


https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-unveils-lunar-lander/
Image Quote: bluemoon-bezos.jpg

But of course, it would be Metha Lox of the Starship Raptor variety.

Ending Pending smile

Last edited by Void (2025-09-24 08:42:35)


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

#181 2025-09-24 09:48:30

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 8,890

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

To condense the previous post down, it seems to me that the function of landing Cargo on the Moon and Humans on the Moon should be separated.

Either the contemplated or Stubby Starship could land on the Moon and stay there with cargo, or a combination of a Starship "Locomotive" and capsule could land with people.

SpaceX is planning to make 1000 ships a year???  So maybe not that out of the question.

In the case of a solar storm, which could be lethal, the "Locomotive" which is the propellant tanks and engines, could be pointed at the sun, with the capsule, being pointed away from the sun.  This may be protective, particularly on the way out to the Moon, as some Oxygen and Methane will be retained for landing and lifting off from the Moon.

A "Locomotive" with enhanced capsule on it would be the least topple prone version I can think of particularly if it is the "Locomotive" of a "Stubby" Starship.

You would not land the human bearing device on the Moon, unless the Cargo ship had successfully landed without a topple.

Ending Pending smile

The "Locomotive" could also be used to land with robots to grab some geological samples and then go back to orbit as well.  This would allow widespread research of the Moon.

Ending Pending smile

Last edited by Void (2025-09-24 09:55:41)


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

#182 2025-10-01 20:02:44

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 8,890

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

I believe that this is going to be massively important: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0tMViyxxcw
Quote:

At 18 He Took On Space Energy! Satellites, Lasers & the Next Frontier

Over The Horizon

The basic notion is power plants in orbit that send laser power to spacecraft.

At first to satellites, but later for large ships.  This then to power electric propulsions without having to carry the solar panels with.

The wavelength of the laser will apparently efficiently transport power to the spacecraft with rather good efficiency as it is a certain frequency that the solar cells are tuned for.

Obviously this is going to eventually allow the movement of freight Earth Orbit<>Moon Orbit.

Fantastic!

Ending Pending smile

Last edited by Void (2025-10-01 20:06:45)


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

#183 2025-10-04 13:10:03

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 8,890

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

This is very good news!

https://orbitaltoday.com/2025/09/30/eur … -starship/
Quote:

Home > Space > Europe Bets on Reusable Rockets with $47M Deal for “Mini-Starship”
Europe Bets on Reusable Rockets with $47M Deal for “Mini-Starship”
Space
30 September 2025

I hope they make it so that it can ride to orbit in a SpaceX Starship as an alternative to their own 1st Stage.

I hope that they make it so that SpaceX can refill it.

Then it might make a good Moonship, maybe even a good Marsship.

Good stuff.

Ending Pending smile

Last edited by Void (2025-10-04 13:12:15)


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

#184 2025-10-04 13:30:47

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 8,890

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

In the prior post, it seems Europe is interested in a Mini-Starship.

They should think to contract with SpaceX to build a factory in Europe for the mass production of such.

Ending Pending smile


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

#185 2025-10-05 11:39:25

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 8,890

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

It is my opinion that it could be that SpaceX, and others may end up lifting water and Carbon from Earth to space stations where it can be cooked into propellants.

The water can serve as radiation shielding and/or a method of aquiculture in orbit.  The Carbon could also serve as radiation shielding.
It may be that eventually Oxygen will be brought to LEO from the moon, maybe from NEA's.

So, the water and Carbon could be "Cooked" into propellants at a "Just In Time Rate".

I think that most people don't comprehend how much in the way of space station mass Starship could establish in LEO and higher orbits.

The "Stubby Starship" makes sense.

The booster for Lunar Injection could be filled and put into a "Freezer" to avoid boiloff.  Then the Stubby brought up to orbit and filled and then a crew could be installed into a "Stack".

To me this will make more sense than to do 6 to 7 refills to the Stubby of Methane and Oxygen.  Both water and Carbon will be much easier to store than a bulk of Methane and Oxygen stored during filling.

Of course until the space stations for this are established, it would be directly Methane and Oxygen.

If electric propulsions were to prove effective it might be that eventually Water and Carbon might be obtained from other sources than Earth.

Anyway, it might drift in the direction I have suggested.

We also have the possibility of direct cooked propulsions from Water.

From post #182:

I believe that this is going to be massively important: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0tMViyxxcw
Quote:

At 18 He Took On Space Energy! Satellites, Lasers & the Next Frontier

Over The Horizon

The basic notion is power plants in orbit that send laser power to spacecraft.

To me this indicates that you could "Directly Cook" a propulsion method. 

Steam is one possibility.  While it is not the most efficient, it might reduce on board mass will allowing water to protect humans and machines.

Direct cooking of Hydrogen and Oxygen from water.  You would have a big water tank and a small Hydro Lox engine.  You could cook up your propellants in small quantities and burn them.  You avoid boil off issues and have radiation shielding while water is on board.

So there would be a large number of solar power plants in orbits, that could send power to these vehicles with lasers.  So, you are not dragging the large inertia of large solar panels to differing orbits.  And your tanks may be just water tanks, so perhaps not as heavy as for Methane, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Etc.

As for "Electric Ion Rockets", Argon-Xenon are said to be good.  Also, we may hope that Neumann Drive and Magdrive can run on things like metals and Carbon as propellants.

This apparently will probably work as a network for the Earth/Moon solar subsystem.

Ending Pending smile

Last edited by Void (2025-10-05 11:57:55)


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

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB