A lunar base proposition

 

This post will be an excursion into the imagination. That's because it will be not done, but it may be fun to think about. It will be about a scenario in which the Starship could be used as a device to deliver a Moon-base from which other Starships might be serviced on their way to and from Mars. There's definitely going to be a Starship flying to the Moon. Since they're going anyway, why not build it to do something really amazing?

Let's start out with the proposition that a single Starship could deliver over 50 tons to the lunar surface. It could not do it and leave, however. If it leaves, it may be able to deliver about 25 tons. This is the likely plan. But if the Starship was left there, could somebody still get home? Why, of course. But how?

The Apollo astronauts got home by taking off from the Moon in a device that weighed in at only 10k pounds. Since that is only about 5 tons, then that leaves just about 50 tons of cargo inside the Starship. That cargo could be set up to do some support work for the continuing project to build out a lunar base. But how to get a space ship inside the Starship? You'd do it like the Apollo program did. You'd place it on top of the thing, and launch off the top of the Starship into lunar orbit.

The Starship is already going to need engines to soft land on the lunar surface. That's so it won't dig out a big hole like it did at Starbase recently. The SuperDraco engines could be used to get the top part of the Starship off the surface as well. It will need some fuel, so the little ship needs to be big enough to hold the necessary volume of fuel needed. If it weighs 10 tons (twice as much as the lunar ascent module during Apollo), it will need 10 more tons of fuel in order to get to orbit. Basically, it will detach from the Starship, and so the top of the Starship will fly and leave the bottom part behind. Just like the old times.

Perhaps the nose cone could be made detachable?  Then use it as a return ship.

So we can get astronauts on the surface, and get them back. We can leave the Starship there with whatever equipment we want, and let that equipment operate in support of future missions. Let's leave the future missions aside for the moment. What could these devices do?

You'd like to be able to use in-situ resourcing to make stuff on the surface. This will keep you from having to bring stuff from the Earth, which is inconvenient to say the least. Eventually, you may want to bring the Starship back into service, so you'd like to build some habitat on the lunar surface, while the Starship can work in that capacity until you do so. Once the habitat is built out, that frees the Starship to fly again. But to do that, you'll need some fuel. The Starship will need methane and oxygen. Oxygen is abundant on the Moon, but you have to work at getting some. Oxygen is also useful for people to breathe. Oxygen will come in handy. How to make some?

The moon isn't made of cheese, but a lot of it is oxygen.  Plus a few other things.

There are certain types of printers that could take lunar regolith, and melt them into useful shapes. That's how you can make habitat. You can make oxygen in a similar way. All of these activities take energy, which may be supplied from solar panels. It may even be possible to make solar panels on the moon. Whatever you can't make will have to come from Earth. The idea with in-situ resourcing is to keep these transported items to a minimum. The more you can make on the Moon, the less you need to bring from Earth.

So we have a starter list of things that could be brought along on the first trip. The first trip will pave the way for the next trip, and so on and so forth. With enough trips, it may be possible to bootstrap yourself into a capable lunar base. If you make enough oxygen, you can bring along a little methane, and that will enable you to reclaim the first Starship. If there needs to be many more, you can reclaim them one at a time. Therefore, no need to discard any Starship. It can be reused again and again, just like it was intended.

If the base can be made capable enough, the Starships could start delivering fuel (oxygen) into lunar orbit. It may make sense to do that, as the Moon has plenty of oxygen, and oxygen is needed to run the Starship engines. If you can get far enough along, the fuel can be parked along the way to Mars. From there, it could support Mars landings. When the Starships arrive at Mars, it can bring along fuel to replenish the bases at Deimos and Mars orbit. There'd be "gas stations" all along the trip, you might say.

Propellent depots @ LEO, GEO, LLO (low lunar orbit)

Propellant depots @ Mars orbit, Phobos and Deimos

It could take plenty of fuel to land the Starship on Mars. Why not do a fill up at Deimos beforehand? Or you could use Deimos to deliver more cargo to the surface of Mars. More fuel means more capability. Sending it all the way from Earth will severely limit what you can bring along. As with the Moon, in-situ resourcing could allow you to make all of your fuel, and that could be transported back to the lunar "gas stations" along the way back to Earth. It works the other way too. The more fuel available, the more capability you'd have. Perhaps a gas station could be built on Deimos as well. While you are at it, one at Phobos may come in handy. It all depends upon what's available at these two Martian moons as to what you could make out of the material there.

The process thus far described was done once before in the Pacific War with Japan. The concept is called "island hopping". Rather than trying to conquer all of the Japanese holdings, it was decided to hop from one strategic location after another in order to bypass a lot of Japanese along the way. It was a flanking maneuver as opposed to a full frontal assault. As with the Pacific War, an "island-hopping" technique could be employed. Instead of islands it could be orbits around Earth and Mars, plus moons such as Earth's moon, the Martian moons--- Phobos and Deimos.

It's all in a matter of feasibility and will. If it is feasible, then does the will exist to do it?

Going straight to Mars may be more feasible, but it was fun to think this one up. Perhaps it could work. But it won't come overnight. There's a lot of building to do to make those bases work. The idea is intriguing. Perhaps it is worth studying more, yes?

The opportunity hiding in plain sight

 

The opportunity hiding in plain sight

A deeper dive into Handmer's link, given yesterday. Looking at the chart, it shows the advantages of setting up fuel depots to refuel the Starship.

First, let's decode that chart. I highlighted the cargo mass in yellow, the supporting launches needed in green, and the mass/launch ratio in red. Thus, the triads of numbers can be easier to read and decode. For example, from Low Earth Orbit (LEO), 25 tons could be delivered to the lunar surface. It would take 13 launches of the Starship to do this, and each launch would average out at 1.9 tons per launch.

Note that with each tweek of the parameters, more cargo can arrive at the Moon per launch. It would thus behoove anybody who would want to develop the Moon to consider these possibilities. At the cost of about a hundred launches, an enormous amount of cargo could be delivered. It gets better as you go along, because once the capability is built up, the flow per launch could be increased. At any rate, a very capable base could be established in such a manner.

But NASA seems more interested in the simplest things. A few tons to the lunar surface won't accomplish nearly as much as millions of tons. Shoot, you could have a small city on the lunar surface with that much stuff.

It's hard to say what Musk would think of this, since he is more interested in Mars. Imagine parking a thousand Starships on the Moon, and then launching to Mars with most of your reaction mass coming from the lunar regolith. This would really leverage things a bit. Eighty percent of the reaction mass is oxygen, which can be obtained from mining the lunar regolith. That's eighty percent that doesn't have to come from the Earth, and that is a bunch of launches that won't be needed from the Earth.

It may not save costs, as launches from Earth could get pretty cheap. But perhaps it could speed things along a bit. It takes fewer launches to refuel from the lunar surface than from the Earth. A Starship sitting in lunar orbit could be refilled in two launches, rather than several, and it would be have less delta V to get to Mars from lunar orbit. Or more delta V to make the trip shorter in time.

If the trip could be made quickly enough, a round trip could be possible in just one launch window. That would help a lot. For example, a trip to Mars could take 7 months. If it were to be shortened, then a round trip in 7 months would get your Starships back for the next trip in two years. It takes two years for each launch window to Mars. A round trip in one launch window gets all your Starships back so that you can be ready for the next trip when it opens in two years. Otherwise, your Starship is marooned on Mars waiting to get back for the next load of passengers. It would be a slow process.

There are other possibilities on the Moon. Maybe you could BUILD Starships there. Imagine not having to launch from Earth AT ALL. Or launching from Earth a lot less.

Anyway, that's the opportunity that knocks. Who knows if anyone will answer.

Handmer's blog: "Starship is a very big deal"

A very interesting website obtained through the AI chatbot

 

A very interesting website obtained through the AI chatbot

The chatbot is useful in finding new websites. This site is doing what I started to do, which is to analyze the Starship Lunar lander being funded by NASA. The website is so interesting that I had to mention it on this blog.

There is an opportunity here, but it is not clear that the opportunity will be realized. The opportunity is that the Starship can send massive amounts of cargo to the moon and to bring some back. Moon rocks may not be all that interesting, but refined materials for sale could offset the cost of the mission. Something to think about.

Here's the link: Lunar Starship and unnecessary operational complexity

"The deaths that we saw, I’m afraid, were medical malpractice at best and murder at worst."

Behind the Black blog's Link: Essays and commentaries regarding the recent COVID madness. 

Comment:

There were those who tried to fight back against the madness, but sadly, people did not want to pay attention.  If there is any justice, might it be visited upon those most responsible for the damages that they caused.

The Starship Lunar Lander Q-and-A with the AI chatbot

Updated 5-24-23: Detachable nose cone

This is a video of the idea of making the nose cone of the Starship detachable, and using it to land on the moon. It is the idea I expressed in the previous update.

This video doesn't discuss making the nose cone into aluminum as opposed to stainless steel.

Here's the video, which is slated to start at about 4:20 into it, and which describes the idea. It's from the Terran Space Academy channel...

Updated, 5/24/23:

After a lot of trial and mostly error, I think I've finally figured out how the Human Landing System ( SpaceX's Starship Lunar Version) will work. It would seem to be a bit dicey, though. It may be better if the cargo is reduced by a substantial fraction in order to give plenty of safety margin.

Then why not do further reductions? It probably won't happen like this, but the Starship Lunar Version won't be going back down to Earth anyway. Therefore, why not do a few more things to it in order to reduce mass? The raptor engines are almost completely useless in the lunar configuration anyway, so why not divide the ship into two pieces, and ditch the raptor engines in orbit?  Also, the Super Dracos can be used for all of the maneuvers in cis-lunar space. The Super Dracos are necessary anyway, since the raptors will dig a hole into the surface where the ship is attempting to land.

Another radical change would be to make the ship aluminum instead of stainless steel. An all aluminum ship will be more costly to build, of course. It would be more of a "one off" construction, so this isn't likely to happen. But if you're going to ditch the raptors for the lunar landing, then why not go a little further?  Another possibility would be to keep the configuration the same as far as the raptor part of the Starship, but aluminum in the cargo and crew areas.

Aluminum is much less dense than stainless steel, so substantial savings can be achieved. Let's say the 140 ton empty weight could be reduced to say 35 tons. In such a scenario, it would be a much more capable system for its mission. Also, the refueling could be reduced to just one trip, if that much. For instance, the weight savings could go into the added fuel needed for the Super Dracos.

I haven't run the numbers on that, so it is pretty speculative at this point.

The problem is that an empty Starship weighs 140 tons. All of this weight gets dragged around, and it really adds to the mass needed to land on the moon, and to return to lunar orbit. A much lighter ship means a lot less fuel would be needed. It could still be quite a capable system, which could deliver an impressive amount of cargo to the lunar surface. Also, there is some risk to the mission of using cryogenics for a mission. The Super Dracos use hypergolics, which would not need cryogenics.

The downsides are added costs and some added time to develop a new system.

 5-23-23, Update:

I suspect the numbers given by the chatbot are incorrect.  If not, then my calculations are wrong.

the original post follows...

The Starship Lunar Lander Q-and-A with the AI chatbot

A speculation would have it that the Starship will use the Super Draco thrusters to land softly on the moon, as opposed to the too powerful raptor engines. The raptors will dig a big hole in the ground---not good.

There will need to be several refueling launches to fill up the Starship for its journey to the moon. It will need just about all of it to land on the moon, and to deliver payload. Up to 100 tons of payload.


One caveat here is whether or not I performed the calculations accurately, or whether the chatbot gave correct answers.

The following chatbot session was to derive the info needed to plug into the rocket equation in order to see if there will be enough fuel to make the trip. The answer appears to be yes.

bno blog Q: How much thrust does a super draco rocket engine generate?


Bing AI Chatbot A:

Each SuperDraco engine produces a maximum thrust of 16,400 pounds-force (73 kN) in vacuum. However, the engines are throttled to 15,325 pounds-force (68.2 kN) of thrust to maintain vehicle stability.


bno blog Q: How much fuel can the SpaceX starship carry in it's fuel tanks?

Bing AI Chatbot A:
According to Wikipedia, the SpaceX Starship has a total propellant capacity of 1,200 t (2,600,000 lb) across its main tanks and header tanks. The header tanks are better insulated due to their position and are reserved for use to flip and land the spacecraft following reentry.


bno blog Q: What is the delta v for the Starship from low earth orbit to the lunar surface?

Bing AI Chatbot A:
According to Space Exploration Stack Exchange, the delta-v required to get from a lunar transfer orbit to a near rectilinear halo orbit is about 1.5 km/s. The delta-v required to get from low Earth orbit (LEO) to the Moon is about 3.2 km/s. Therefore, the delta-v required for the Starship from LEO to the lunar surface would be approximately 4.7 km/s.

bno blog Q:In order for the Starship to go from the lunar surface to a near rectilinear halo orbit requires how much delta v?

Bing AI Chatbot A:
According to Wikipedia, the Lunar Gateway space station is planned to be deployed in a highly elliptical seven-day near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) around the Moon. Spacecraft launched from Earth would perform a powered flyby of the Moon followed by a NRHO orbit insertion burn to dock with the Gateway as it approaches the apoapsis point of its orbit. The delta-v required for this maneuver is about 1.1 km/s.

....discussion ends...

bing ai chatbot 5-21-23

 

---bing ai chatbot 5-21-23---

bno blog Q: Can religious belief based upon the Shroud of Turin be epistemologically justified?

BING AI CHATBOT, A:
The Shroud of Turin is among the most well-known relics believed to be connected with Christ's Passion. Venerated for centuries by Christians as the burial shroud of Jesus, it has been subject to intense scientific study to ascertain its authenticity, and the origins of the image.


While some people believe that the Shroud of Turin is real because they take comfort in thinking there is a tangible relic from Jesus’s body, others believe that it is a religious icon reflecting the story of the Christ, not necessarily the original shroud.


It is unlikely that anyone already convinced of the Shroud’s authenticity would have his or her mind changed by a presentation of disputable facts.


I hope this helps.

bno blog Q: What are some other religious relics?

BING AI CHATBOT, A:


Examples of religious relics include teeth, bones, hairs, and fragments of objects such as fabrics or wood. The most important Christian, Buddhist, and Muslim relics are objects associated with the religions' founders.


Some examples of Christian relics include the True Cross of Jesus, Holy Nails, Seamless robe of Jesus, and Sandals of Jesus Christ.


I hope this helps.

bno blog Q: Can religious relics be considered as empirical evidence?

BING AI CHATBOT, A:
Empirical evidence is evidence that is observable and verifiable by anyone. Religious relics are not empirical evidence because they are not observable or verifiable by anyone. They are objects of faith and veneration.


I hope this helps.

bno blog Q: Define what is meant by a "bone of contention".

BING AI CHATBOT, A:
The phrase "bone of contention" refers to a particular point that no one can agree upon, and is the primary issue of disagreement between two people or groups over an extended period of time. The phrase alludes to two dogs fighting over a single bone.


I hope this helps.

bno blog Q: Is it fair to say that what consists of empirical evidence can be found to be inconsistent?

BING AI CHATBOT, A:
Empirical evidence can be inconsistent if the data is not collected or analyzed properly. However, empirical evidence is still considered the most reliable form of evidence because it is based on observation and experimentation.


I hope this helps.

bno blog Q: Who is to judge if the data is not collected or analyzed properly?

BING AI CHATBOT, A:
The data is judged by the scientific community. The scientific community has established standards for data collection and analysis that are used to determine whether data is reliable or not.

I hope this helps.

bno blog Q: How is this scientific community determined with respect to it's membership?

BING AI CHATBOT, A:
Membership in the scientific community is generally a function of education, employment status, research activity and institutional affiliation. The scientific community is global and diverse. The diversity of the scientific community helps facilitate specialization and provides different points of view that lead to diverse investigations, invigorate problem solving, and balance biases.


I hope this helps.

bno blog Q: How does the scientific community determine what's true or false?

BING AI CHATBOT, A:
The scientific community determines what's true or false by testing hypotheses through observation and experimentation.  The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation.


I hope this helps.

bno blog Q: Is the scientific community infallible?

BING AI CHATBOT, A:
The scientific community is not infallible. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. The scientific community is diverse and includes many "sub-communities" working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant.


I hope this helps.

bno blog Q: If the scientific community is not infallible, then is it fair to say that it is subject to error?


BING AI CHATBOT, A:
Yes, that's correct. The scientific community is subject to error.

bno blog Q: What are the possible reasons for errors made by the scientific community?

BING AI CHATBOT, A:
There are many possible reasons for errors made by the scientific community. Drafts, temperature changes, light/dark differences, and electrical or magnetic noise are all examples of environmental factors that can introduce random errors. Physical errors may also occur, since a sample is never completely homogeneous. Understanding and identifying what contributes to errors that cloud scientific processes may be key to improving the robustness of scientific findings.


I hope this helps.

...end of discussion...