Thought experiment, continued

8/19/26:

This old post needs some updating... Things have changed a bit in the last 16 years. Elon Musk has nearly got his Starship operational. However, he will not do space solar.

Will anybody ever do space solar? If focus fusion works, the answer will be "no". No need for solar if you've got aneutronic fusion. Aneutronic fusion may be close. But maybe not. I'm invested in it now. So I'm plugging it a bit. They've got a fundraiser going on on Wefunder. Check it out, if interested.

It is necessary to disclose that I'm invested in it, by the way. Yep, I stand to make some money if it succeeds. So could anyone. Hint, hint.

11/16/10: The original post begins directly below:

This is a continuation of the thought experiment started yesterday.  Let's reduce
this down to just one car and the amount of solar panels you would need to produce
the electricity for that one car.  From my study of batteries, you can get about
3 miles per kilowatt hour with a battery.  This calculation is from my memory and
may not be entirely accurate nor up to date.  But this isn't exact, a round figure
will suffice for now.

The Chevy Volt has a 40 mile range for its battery pack.  Using the 3 mile per kwh
number, you would need about 13 kwh of power to drive with electricity.  Again, this
may not be exact, but it is using a figure from the real world in order to get a
rough estimate.

From this we can calculate how much solar panelling will be necessary in order to
produce the 13 kwh.  Using the web page from yesterday, we have 80 watts of continuous
power from a 1000 sq inch panel.  At 95% availability in geosynchronous orbit, the
panel will produce  (.95*80 watts * 24 hours)/ 1000 watt hours per kwh = 1.824 kwh.
Why 95% availability?  A solar panel in geosynchronous orbit at an altitude of
22,000 miles (approx) will be in the sun almost 95% of the time.  From this number,
we can now calculate the number of panels needed in order to produce the electricity
for 1 auto.  13 kwh/1.824 kwh per panel gives a little over 7 panels.

What would be the cost of these 7 panels?  This is about 49 square feet of panels.
From this webpage, we can calculate it (again a bit rough calc) it figures out
to be about 56 dollars per square foot.  So, 7*56 = 392 or about 400 dollars.

How long will it last?  Maybe it could last 30 years.  Perhaps that would be way
too optimistic.  Let's say 10 years.  Then the cost per year would be 400/10
which would be about 40 dollars per year.

Sounds pretty cheap, still.  What is the cost per kwh if you use electricity from
the wall plug?  At 10 cents per kwh, you and 13 kwh per day you get the following
.10*13*365= which is about 475 bucks per year.  The above solar panel configuration
would only have to be 1/10th as efficient in order to yield the same cost.

Is it worthwhile to launch from the moon?  You have to have the infrastructure in
place on the moon in order to make the solar panels and to put them into orbit.
That would take a considerable investment.  If you can get the costs down of
manufacturing the solar panels to anything near what it takes on earth, then what
you have left is the cost of launch.  How much would that be?  About 5% of what
an earth launch would cost.  Again, rough figures.  That would be about 10,000 *
5 percent or 500 dollars per kg.  You'll still have to do better than this because
7 solar panels would definitely weigh more than 1 kg.  The 10,000 number is based
upon shuttles which are expensive even for earth launches.

The launch problem still exists even on the moon, or at least in this example.
Can you do better than the 5% number?  Maybe.  It takes energy to launch from
anywhere.  Getting stuff off the moon would require an efficient way to use
energy for launches.  If you figure that out, you figure out this problem.

What about mass launchers?  It would only use energy and little to no fuel.  This
could be a start.  I pick this up again in a future post.

My Kingdom For A Horse

8/16/26:

Hmm. My "Kingdom" for a shower. After getting rather sweaty working on this latest project, I need to clean up!

Ok, I'll stop horsing around.

5/13/11: The original post is below:

The phrase is a little differently defined here than what I thought it would be.  But this post has nothing to do with Shakespeare.  The meaning I thought that may be applicable is this:  if a king had access to this, he may really be wiling to trade his kingdom for it because it was so valuable.  I use this phrase with respect to the idea that I've been batting about here: fusion propulsion.

The key here is recognition by way of little bits of pieces of information that convince me of its probable utility.  I found another today while  browsing the subject.  A pdf file produced by none other than Robert Bussard himself.  Perhaps the intuition came from listening to him speak on the matter before.  At any rate, the Isp for such a rocket appears to be near 1 million- yes 1 million.  An incredible number.  Bussard's paper gives little detail to this propulsion method, instead describing two other types.  Here is a snippet of the file here

Now, Bussard is referring to a polywell fusion device, whereas I am looking at a dense plasma focus.  Also, I've been thinking about a less than net energy device.  The thought occurred to me, why not mate it with an energy source as described above that will feed into the dense plasma focus in order to produce the reaction mass?  A possible energy source:  cold fusion device being worked on by Rossi Focardi.  In a short time, a device like this may be possible for deep space missions.

The ability to travel at will throughout the solar system may be worth a king's ransom indeed.

The Morning Summary, April 25, 2011

8/7/26:

This post originated here. It was cross-posted on the other blogger platformed blog, and retained here. That means they are separate posts now on different blogs.

I noted firstly on the other blog this morning that folks may be interested in stats.

They're not reliable, and they've ceased to be of interest to me. But if anybody's interested, here's a stat for ya. Total views all time for this blog: 5,107,466

Make of that what you will.

Update to the reaction update, 8/9/26:

Here's one of the more clicked upon posts, which actually serves as an introduction to the blog: Brief review of concepts discussed on this blog.

4/25/11: The original post for the Boots and Oil Blog...

The statistics:

Time approx 4:30 am

Sitemeter; Mon. am. 4618; v. Sun. am 4599; 19 up 1 from Sun

Blogger: Sun. 83, up 24 from Sat. (59); overnight is 12 so far, compared with 21 this time yesterday.

Nothing to report on bids, nor sales, still zero on revenues, no clicks on Amazon.  Nobody appears to be clicking on the Products page nor on the Marketing pages.

New record for this blog on Blogger pageviews.

YouTube page: 848 v 847 channel views previously, 493 v. 492 upload views previously. Channel views improve by 1, upload views improve by 1.

It is gratifying to hit new records. On the other hand, the lack of marketing success is frustrating.

Update:

I think I am going to be lite with the blogging today. That's my agenda today. Just to think.


Update:

One thing I thought about was the Space Show yesterday. If you were to get large quantities of turpentine and nitric acid in orbit at a reasonable cost, that could be a plus. On the other hand, these hypergolics may be hard to find and to synthesize in space. It would be necessary to get this up there somehow. Once up there, they can be more useful than trying to store cryogenics. The big dumb rocket could send up buttloads of the stuff. Also, the Space Cannon concept may be able to send it up at a reasonable price.

Also, after I finished the above post, I started reading up on fusion. I may need to spend some time in these forums.

Update:

It is interesting to go back and look at previous posts like this.  It is all an education, just like yesterday.  I didn't know about Interorbital until I listened to the Space Show.  It is still a matter of getting educated on what's out there.

If I may interject a thought into these discussions.  Everybody is going at this in their own way.  But what if no single way exists?  That's a question that should be considered.  Take fusion, for example.  The fact that fusion can take place now is not in dispute.  The problem is getting it to do what we want.  But if we want to do something like generating electricity, it may not be possible by a direct approach.  Let's say if you wanted to use fusion for propulsion and then use that propulsion to emplace solar stations that would send energy back to the Earth.  But I don't think anyone is thinking that way.  Instead, they want to get it to produce net electrical power.  Maybe that isn't even necessary.  That's my point. 

Robert Ringer

5/19/26:

Just watched something about Ayn Rand on Tubi. This made me want to review what I had already written on that subject, because of a rule I have; which is this: do not re-invent the wheel.

But not all rules are always followed...

Anyway, I wrote that Robert Ringer ( in the 2010 section of this post) made me aware of Ayn Rand. That is not entirely true. I remembered seeing Ayn Rand on television in the 70's on the Phil Donhaue Show. So I already knew a little of Ayn Rand before reading about her in Ringer's book.

Let's say he made me MORE aware of her. Mainly of her importance in his own success, which he wrote about in his book.

That's it as far as Ringer is concerned. The Tubi show was more of a biographical whole of Ayn Rand, from her very birth to her death. You can probably find it on Tubi with a search function which Tubi has, which most likely direct you to the person of Ayn Rand. Just in case anyone is interested in her works.

Ayn Rand was considered by her opponents to be "controversial". To which Ayn Rand would probably say "so what"? Yeah, I'd have liked to have known her personally.

So that's that on that subject.

1/16/26:

 

Update:

  In this post, at the third paragraph or so, there was a mention of Leonard Peikoff, who wrote a provocatively titled book.   The title is The Ominous Parallels.

  I'm sure that I've read the book, and may have owned it.  I don't think I have it now, though.  I've largely forgotten about the book, except the names, obviously.

  There's a lot of mention about a rise of fascism in this country.  It has certainly gotten a lot of mention, but not this book.  If you want to discuss fascism, and what it actually is, you should at least have a philosophical basis for that discussion.  This book could provide some information on that topic.

  A study of history could be in order as well. In my opinion, too many people flap their gums without knowing of what they speak.

12/21/10:

Ringer is the guy who wrote "Winning Through Intimidation".  I mentioned this guy in an earlier post, but I can't remember which one offhand.   Or how to find it in my own blog.  But it is in here somewhere.

But my own disorganization aside, I recall writing that his book made me aware of Ayn Rand.  Eventually, I got around to reading "Atlas Shrugged", and another one of her books, "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal".  I can't say that I became an Objectivist.  But I can say that her works convinced me, even though I did not need all that much convincing.  When Ronald Reagan said that the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, it could have come out of my own mouth.

I read a book by Nathaniel Branden, who is or was an Objectivist.  And in an earlier version of this blog, back in 2004, I reviewed a book by Leonard Peikoff, who was closely allied with Ayn Rand.  So, I am familiar with that philosophy.  Not necessarily a fully fledged member of it.  This is not to say that I am against it in any way. I tend not to be a joiner, nor a Kool Aid drinker or any flavor.  I tend toward an independence that runs almost to an extreme.

It would be easy to dismiss me as a kook.  Perhaps that is what many people think.  If so, then so be it.  I can't be who I am by pleasing other people, and in the process, sacrificing myself for their approval.

I favor Capitalism, but I am not going to drink that Kool Aid either.  So, when I suggest that we use the external tank from the shuttle derived launcher, I feel it is in the spirit of Capitalism, but not necessary in the letter of it, down to the last dotted "i" and crossed "t".  To me, there is no need for that kind of purity of principle.  For I am a practical man.  Some have said "too practical", but it is what it is.

I mention these names so as to inform people of the direction from which I am coming.  With a few caveats sprinkled in.  For what it's worth, the last thing I would suggest is to keep a boondoggle or create a new one.  If I thought this is in effect of what I was proposing with these external tanks, I would drop the idea in a heartbeat.

Update:

One of the commenters yesterday asked why put up one of these big stations?

Here are 4 reasons:
1) To use it to generate artificial gravity.  Tethers could be used, but a solid structure could be better.
2) To use the huge volume for storage and habitation.  Machines could be installed as well to enhance capabilities.
3) Cheaper to reconfigure what is already in orbit as opposed to building it and launching it from Earth
4) Want to use it for deep space missions.  Take this station to the asteroids and mine platinum for profit.

Here are few more:
Testing techniques for in situ resource extraction using the ET's for that purpose.
Testing techniques for tethers while constructing the station.
Testing skills for managing artificial gravity systems.

Thoughts on a would be Moon base

 

Update, 2/9/26:

  Now he's talking.  That is, IF he's talking about doing this.   It is reported that SpaceX is moving towards establishing a moonbase, in order to support his Mars ambitions.

  The idea is even more credible given that Musk has found a way to make money in space.  While he is making money in space, he can mine the moon for resources, like oxygen.  All of this infrastructure has to be paid for, and an idea like the one Musk has for supporting AI datacenters in space; will go a long way in funding his Mars ambitions.

  The tweet is is included in the update, and begins directly below this scrollbox.

Elon Musk just announced a major strategic pivot for @SpaceX: the company is officially shifting its primary focus to building a "self-growing city" on the Moon.

The logic is centered on speed. While Mars missions are restricted by orbital alignments every 26 months, SpaceX can… pic.twitter.com/FVY4qBBKpH

— Mark Kretschmann (@mark_k) February 9, 2026

10/30/10:

I got an idea for this post this morning.   I was wondering if there's a way to quickly build a moon shelter and permanent base on the moon.  Not wanting to reinvent the wheel, I started to search for what was already out there on the web.  I came across this:  a pdf file on some proposed designs of a moon base.  It has occurred to me that NASA must have plans like these out the wazoo.   So, why haven't these plans ever been implemented?

A further search brought me to this a link about Gregg Easterbrook, who is a critic of manned space flight.  It would be wrong to blame him for the plans not being implemented.  I don't want to slam Easterbrook here.  Only to point out that the criticisms are too harsh.   It has to be balanced by something.  The manned space program needs a champion, like in the early days.   These days, the critics, like Easterbrook, have the upper hand.  To offset the critics, a there must be a champion of manned space flight.

Here's the article he wrote about the shuttle in 1980 ; it is fairly critical article and its tone turns out to be wrong in most respects, but it proved him to be prophetic in predicting failure as two shuttles were lost.  With the loss of two shuttles, his point of view gained ground.  But why did the Shuttles fail?  Was it design failure, or did some other explanation account for this?  To answer this question, it would take an extensive study the reports that came out of each disaster.  Basing it solely on memory, I suspect that a change in specifications led to both disasters.  If these specs weren't changed, perhaps both Shuttles could have survived.  The Shuttle wasn't an inherently unsafe design, if that is true.  To confirm that opinion would be out of the scope of this post.

In Easterbrook's 1980 article, he mentions that a permanent moon base was considered before deciding upon the shuttle program.  He says that a base would have been useless.  But the moon base would not be useless if it can solve the launch problem.  If men and materials can be launch into space at a reasonable cost and be done relatively safely, we can open up the solar system for business.  At one sixth the gravitational field of the Earth, getting to the near Earth asteroids would entail much less energy and consequently, much reduced cost for fuel.   Having a moon base that is self sufficient in terms of life support could mean multiple missions from the moon, before having to return to Earth- giving further savings.  And mining asteroids for fuel and metal ores could defray the costs of manned space flight.  They may even be able to turn a profit.

A Moon base needs a champion.  If the critics win, it may never be done.  At least, not by the USA.  Someone else could and probably will.  If that happens, American leadership in this field will go by the wayside.  Like many other things.  Isn't it time that this trend be turned around?

Update:  So, how much M type asteroid worth?  This question is answered in Mining the Sky:


"As an example of the magnitude and economic value of space resources, we shall assay
the smallest known M asteroid and account for its market value.  That distinction
belongs to the NEA known as 3554 Amun.  Amun is only 2 kilometers in diameter, the
size of a typical open-pit mine on Earth, with a mass of ... thirty billion tons.
... the total market value of Amun ... $20.000. billion" -John S. Lewis
Mining the Sky, pp. 111-112

more info here
According to this: the feasibility of mining asteroids is close with present day technology.
Here is a site that I just found with plenty of info.  It is called spacefuture.com

Those are late nineties numbers, as the book was written then.  Prices have gone up.

I ran the numbers and each ton of the asteroid would be worth $667 at that time.
This would not seem worth the time orthe expense to bring all back.  I suppose you
would need to pre-process the ore before you brought it back.  Platinum at todays
prices would be about fifty million per ton.  The Altair lunar lander which was to
land men on the moon was supposed to be able to handle (in unmanned versions)
up to 15 tons of cargo.

"Aggressive venting: SpaceX's own fog machine"| SpaceX Starbase

 

  Author:  NASASpaceflight

  Description:  SpaceX Starship Updates, near the end of 2025.  SpaceX continues to demolish the original launch mount, and prepare to upgrade it in order to accommodate the latest designs of the Version 3 Booster, and Starship.

  

   
  

Angry Astronaut on that Mission to Mars thing

A Better Way Forward, he says

 

It Bob's Zubrin's updated Direct Mars concept, called Mars Direct 3.0

 

 

An adverse opinion of Elon Musk's Plans for Mars

Sabine Hossenfelder YouTube video, titled, "Why Musk is Wrong about Mars"

Comment:

There's been a lot of opinions about the subject, including my own. One thing to consider, however, is that many things once considered impossible are now commonplace. The trouble with those who argue that it is impossible are the ones who not always correct.

For now, it isn't possible. But advances keep getting made, and the answer isn't the slam dunk it was just a few short years ago. One of these days, it just might be possible. The real question isn't whether it is possible or not, but rather, if there's a will to do it. If there's a will to do it, there just may be a way.

Musk is going to do this on his own dime, so who's business is this anyway?

Oh, I forgot. Everything these days is everybody's business. We're all communists now. There's no private sector and no freedom.

Black fungus extremophile may aid in space colonization

Studied on the ISS



There may be a fungus in the future of space travel. It uses the radiation to convert it into chemical energy to sustain life. High radiation is a potential hazard for space travelers, so anything that is helpful in alleviating this hazard would be a significant development.

This Black Fungus Might Be Healing Chernobyl By Drinking Radiation—A Biologist Explains via @forbes https://t.co/O4pA33bFwg ---It is being studied for aerospace applications as well.

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) December 16, 2024

Morning Summary, 8/13 ( Islands in the Sky )

11/29/24:

The day after Thanksgiving.

It is Black Friday. Perhaps it is called that because it puts retailers "in the black". It's the biggest shopping day of the year, and it is the kickoff for Christmas season. Retailers are very happy about that, I'm sure.

I need to cut back on my food consumption. In my case, it can be called Fat Friday.

I'm still thinking about Zubrin's Direct Mars idea. His ideas are very conservative as compared with what Musk is planning, and executing. Musk will put hundreds of tons on Mars as opposed to tens of tons.

There will need to be an energy source. Interestingly enough, if methane can be found, it can become an energy source, and he won't need nuclear energy. Or not much of it.

An economic basis can be implemented on the basis of moving tradeable goods. What goods will Mars produce?





11/28/24 ( Thanksgiving Day ):

A good day that it is indeed. I pulled this old post out of the mix for a re-post. It includes an update to the original 2011 post, which was about a book, mentioned just under this 2024 update. The book is called Islands in the Sky, and includes Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct concept.

A quick glance and comment about the Mars Direct chapter: Since it appears that Musk is going to follow Zubrin's plan ( in the sense that it will be a Direct shot, as opposed to the Moon first, it makes sense to review Zubrin's ideas.

Zubrin's ideas include a nuclear thermal rocket. His concept is for a nuclear module which would dry mass out at 45 tons. That's interesting because Musk's Starship can carry that much and more. Therefore it is feasible to include that ship on one of Musk's launches to the Red Planet.

But there's no indication that this is a part of Musk's plans. If it is part of Musk's plans, Musk will need an okay from the government, which is a real sticking point. Unless Trump can get him a waiver. Such a nuclear powered upper stage can find great use onboard Musk's Starship. The concept was developed to near operational status during the Apollo Era ---only to be cancelled. (Nerva). Great days ahead! Enjoy that turkey and your football games, eh?

Updated (8/2011)::

With respect to the book, Islands in the Sky: Bold New Ideas for Colonizing Space, wikipedia has an outline of the chapters here.  I'm currently on a chapter about skyhooks and tethers, which I wrote about earlier.





8/13/11:

Good morning.

Yesterday, I did a few posts on SpaceX. I'd like to continue a bit with that here, and perhaps, if I think of it, a little more later on.

The interest in SpaceX dovetails a bit with the last book I read and discussed here this past week. It seems that Elon Musk wants to succeed where NASA failed.

Musk wants his Falcons to be fully re-usable, while the Shuttle was not. It so happens that I wrote a series of posts on re-using the external tank of the Shuttle, and it has occurred to me that this could be a principle that may come in handy, if Musk decides to use it.  Those in charge of policy during the Shuttle era decided not to employ the principle, you see.  That principle, in effect, would be in situ resourcing, with the spent second stage as a resource to be used, rather than discarded.

The Shuttle ET nearly reached orbital velocity.  That's what made the idea of re-using it a possibility.  I am assuming that the second stage of the Falcon nearly reaches orbital velocity.  Because if it does, this may be analogous to the Shuttle ET.  If not, it may not be practical.  If it is the same as the ET, it would take only a nudge to get it up to a stable orbit.  From there, you can find ways to employ the spent stage.  This would only be limited to one's imagination.

If it is not desirable to reuse the spent stage, then it will have to be brought back in such a way as to allow it to be reprocessed and used again for its original purpose.

I've thought about that too.  It would seem that there may be a way to do it if you could design a heat shield that could pop out when you need it for reentry.  You could accelerate it so that it could make one orbit around the Earth, then pop out the shield to keep it from burning up during reentry.  Parachutes could deploy when enough speed has been bled off.  Then splashdown, and recovery of the spent stage.

Or either way could be used, in case you don't want to leave it in space.  Since you are getting it up to orbit anyway, you could keep it there, or have the option to reenter and recover.

That's all on that subject.  I just received another book, which I could be reading today.  If it seems interesting enough to post about, I'll put up some posts on it.

Be good out there, and I'll be checking in later.

The moral of the story: "Don't be a puddle fish."

OK..

I wanted to write something intelligent in response, but I'm having a problem with that right now. My puddle fish instincts might be kicking in.

The Trillionaires of Mars by Devon Eriksen

Head Up, Young Man!

Read on Substack

Bucket brigades in space

Screenshot of delta v map from EML-2 to Low Phobos Orbit (Mars) : map via delta-v map on github

Just toying around with the idea of making a supply line that runs from Earth to Mars. At each node, cargo could be exchanged in order to make kind of a bucket brigade. You could pass along pre-fabbed materials from Earth, while grabbing up fuel at each step. There could be a staging area where these could accumulate while you wait for launch windows to open up.

Musk is planning to build hundreds of these starships. So he could just launch each one with some prefabbed materials to build whatever is needed. If you need to store materials at each node of the way, the first launches will go toward building that node so that it could support the next node, and so forth.

The goal should be to make the entire node structure as self-sufficient as is feasible. If you have a re-filling station, then perhaps the fuel could be made there with raw materials sourced from say Phobos, the Moon, the Earth, and Mars.

Updated with a few back of the envelope calcs and notes (please forgive the informality):

Using the gizmo mentioned above:

Some destinations and their delta-v's please:

These can get from Low Earth Orbit to Geosynchonous Orbit, and out:

Leo to Geo 3.91 km/s

Geo to EML-2 2.6 km/s

Moon to EML-2 2.3 km/s



Loxleo is a topic covered previously on this blog, click on the bolded link below to see:

LOXLEO to LEO ? km/s ; would have to supply it with power

@ EML-2 could intercept and capture near earth objects (asteroids) and return them for processing

can return asteroidal material to the lunar surface along with fuel obtained from phobos and / or mars

lunar surface could process the asteroidal material and make things with it either fuel or solar panels to be used for loxleo

Here's the delta-v's for the trips from the moon to Mars:

low phobos to EML-2 2.78 km/s

low phobos to lmo 1.243 km/s

lmo to Mars 3.6 km/s

phobos to Mars 4.848 km/s



A fully fueled Starship can make the trips, and possibly with exceptionally large cargoes. How 'bout them apples?

Screenshot of pdf file , which lists pages and pages of these asteroids that may be accessed for use in situ resourcing in support of deep space missions

Mining the Sky, Revisited

11/12/24:

If you could mine the moon, what would you want to mine the most? Would it be for precious metals? Or just rocket fuel? A review of Mining the Sky suggests solar power, with the panels constructed out of lunar materials. It would certainly be useful for getting a reason to go back to the Earth from the Moon.

For that matter, you could do BOTH. Send back fuel and materials used in construction of solar panels, or the panels themselves. They could be emplaced near GEO, and the recovery of a Starship for future launches from the ground, could be used for transport. You would probably want to bring Starships back to Earth for servicing and repairs.

But there's a lot of stuff on the moon that could be useful.

A special orbit could be used for getting back into Earth orbit, with a minimal use of fuel. The moon base could pay for itself.

Update:  The special orbit would be a High Earth Elliptical Orbit, which is similar to the one being used around the Moon for the Artemis program.  The delta-v from the lunar orbit to the earth orbit might be small.  This means less fuel needed to make the trips. .

11/11/24:

The political warfare of recent times has diverted us all from thinking more constructively about our problems. After reviewing the link in this post, I note how much that the hostility seems to distract from real problem-solving. It is a pity.

The reference here was barely mentioned. It so happens that I needed some information about how to extract large amounts of oxygen, as well as other useful materials from the lunar soil. But why re-invent the wheel? Did I not post about this very thing before? It turns out that this particular aspect I did not, or probably not post about it.

But I did re-locate the book I had, and began to consult it. The exact information is not readily apparent yet, but there are ways to extract the materials desired. At least, I am sure of such existence that it must exist somewhere in the literature. Or, it will have to be dredged up somehow.

If you are going to go back to the moon to stay, you're going to need this information. As for the Starship, it is the vehicle needed to transport a large amount of cargo to the lunar surface. This could provide the start to getting a base established that can be expanded in time so that it can do the trick.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the potential exists to extract huge amounts of cargo that could be lifted off the lunar surface with this Starship. I will review the book further to see if I can find more detailed answers for my questions.

The book was a real inspiration. It was nearly forgotten. There's a lesson somewhere in there for anybody to take note of. I know that I have.

11/15/21:

A stroll down memory lane here. This was one of the early influences upon the writings in this here blog way back when. Elon Musk may want to go to Mars, but he may want to visit the moon first. The reason being is that the moon has resources that can be used for his Mars ambitions. Mining the moon for its resources is on par with the spirit of that book.

The moon has abundant amounts of oxygen. It may not be made of cheese, but there's plenty of other good things there. One thing that just came to mind is that the solar wind could be responsible for the water on the moon. What if it was possible to mine vast stretches of the lunar surface for its particles coming via the solar wind? Would it be enough?

Over the course of time, yes. But over the time scales that we live in, which could be a matter of days or weeks, maybe not. It could be made up for, maybe, with the use of the materials at hand, which could capture the charged particles which can be used as a resource.

The solar wind exerts a definite pressure. It is the pressure of charged particles traveling at high velocities. This may be the reason for the water traps on the moon. The highly charged hydrogen nuclei could've been initially trapped and converted into water with the oxygen available on the lunar surface. In cold places where there is no sun, the water froze, and couldn't escape. It accumulated over time. It is believed that there could be vast resevoirs of water trapped in these permanently shaded craters.

I was also thinking that since these are electrically charged particles, could it be possible to mine them for electricity? The particles could induce an electrical current if they could be concentrated somehow. It may also be possible to collect them in the metal hydride devices discussed in an earlier post. The hydrogen could be mined to produce electricity and water.

With these resources, you could leverage them into additional resources, such as food. It is much less energy intensive to launch from the moon than from Earth. If there is sufficient reason to stop at the moon on the way to Mars, it may be worth it.

Bring stuff back from Mars, starting with carbon

11/5/24:

Looks like there's at least one error in my spreadsheet. Well, I didn't think it was 100% down the line perfect. It's not my profession after all.

The main idea stands, though. It really would pay to take stuff off Mars since you have to return the Starships anyway. Just ditching them on Mars seems like a big waste, and ultimately you will increase the number of launches needed to get your cargo and crew in place on Mars.

11/4/24:

Some calculations from a spreadsheet. Not very convenient these days on Google platforms because they are so nosy.

The point will become clear from this excerpt ( hopefully if it's readable enough).

Starship/Heavy Version 3 (originally assumed 110 tons, increased here to 200 tons)

Left side-----------------------------------right side

comparsion to LEO and from refilled Starship in space

90 ton payload or 200 ton empty weight Assume dry mass for calculating delta v for right side

wet mass ton______2300__________________wet mass ton_______________2300

dry mass ton______200 __________________dry mass ton_______________800

isp_______________380 __________________isp secs__________________380

grav const m/s^2__9.81__________________grav const m/s^2___________9.81

delta v m/s____9104__________________delta v m/s________________3936

Note that the Starship Version 3 can nearly get to orbit by itself! However, it would be an empty vessel. Not very useful, eh?

However, if you refill it, it can propel itself to another destination. Let's say you are on Mars, and you want to come back to Earth. It takes about 3.8 km/sec to get to Mars orbit from its surface. As is seen above, you can lift 800 tons to Mars orbit from the surface. A lot more than from Earth.

What this shows is that you can put more mass onboard on the surface of Mars, and get it to orbit as compared to doing it on Earth.

Plus you don't need the booster.

It therefore makes sense to send something back from Mars, which means cargo deliveries from Mars is desirable.

What could that cargo be? One thing could be pure carbon for delivery to the Moon. The Moon may not have much carbon, and you can make useful things out of carbon. One useful thing would be methane for rocket propulsion.

If you can make methane on the Moon, you can use the weight savings for more cargo delivered to the Moon. You can also deliver methane to lunar orbit, and beyond.

That's because you can lift even more cargo from the surface of the Moon. Even more still from a LaGrange point. What use would it be at the LaGrange point? You could refill there and store the methane for flights to other destinations.

The Quickest Way to make humans a multi-planet species

But it has a catch. Any method will have a catch, as well. So why not?

Here's the catch. You'd have to perfect and develop aneutronic fusion energy. Aneutronic fusion energy will dramatically increase the odds of success. One of Musk's big problems that has to be solved is energy. With aneutronic fusion, there will be little need for vast quantities of fuel.

Not to mention the fact that aneutronic fusion can lead to more advanced rocket engines that can do far more heavy lifting needed to make this dream a reality.

The catch may prove to be too hard, but there's a lot of people working on it already.

One of those people is Erick Lerner, and his Focus Fusion device. He is getting close to the make or break part of his experiments. If these experiments succeed, this catch will have been largely caught. The only fuel needed would be water and boron. Since these are readily available, and there's little to no radiation waste, there is little problem here if you can just get to net energy.

It may help Lerner if he had more funding. Perhaps Elon Musk could consider funding his research? Update: I guess I should disclose that I own one share on Focus Fusion's Gofundme page thing.

How can we "free Mars"?

updated @ 12:27 PM *

8:28 AM

Mars is locked into a permanent deep freeze. This information may show a way to terraform Mars so it would be more like Earth. Hence the Total Recall angle.

But it's more immediate contribution would be to make traveling to Mars feasible. A trip home from Mars would require tons of fuel in the form of methane and oxygen. SpaceX's rockets are powered thusly, but there's no source of fuel on Mars. There's no infrastructure in place to produce this fuel, but this could provide the most efficient start.

Mars' theorized clays could be the "terbinium" mines that could be unlocked to make Mars' skies turn blue. Whoa!  * Update: Mars' toxic regolith can be cleaned through the use of microbes that can use it, with free oxygen as a by-product! This could be quite significant, because the free oxygen can burn the methane in order to produce energy as well. Mars is very cold, and it will take a lot of energy to power a colony.

Study shows Mars' early thick atmosphere could be locked up in the planet's clay surface https://t.co/sbD565UDWT via @physorg_com Comment: This is very interesting because it may be a more efficient way to obtain fuel for return trips to Earth from Mars. Paging SpaceX.

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) September 27, 2024

An economic start for Mars colonization

For over 30 years, I made my living in the delivery business. One thing that I liked to do was the over the road runs. However, they aren't all that profitable, because nearly all the runs had nothing that came back. The point is that you don't want to come back empty. This allows me to segue into the spacefaring business that may develop as a consequence of Elon Musk's inventions of affordable spaceflight.

But Mars traveling won't be nearly as affordable if there are too many inefficiencies. The question arises, then, as to what to do about ships that travel to Mars. What do they bring back to Earth? Anything? Or is it a one-way trip? If there's going to be a viable existence on Mars, there needs to be some commerce. Otherwise, why go there at all?

As mentioned in a previous post, and in earlier posts, there's going to be a need for off-world resources. The cost of launching from Earth is still going to be too much, even if Musk's dreams come true. He may get costs down to the point where it makes sense on a per-launch basis, but will people accept all these launches that will be necessary to support his endeavors? SpaceX is going to face obstacles enough. These kinds mentioned here may be avoidable altogether if a source of fuel can be sourced from Mars itself.

Mars indeed can be sourced for this fuel. Mars has plenty of water. Unfortunately, there's a deep gravity well on Mars. Is it possible to do better elsewhere? Well, Mars has two moons. It may be profitable to find out if there's a water source on these moons. Getting to and from Phobos and Deimos is a lot easier than the same from the surface of Mars.

If water is found, then how to transport it? Water is inconvenient in its phases. It only exists as a liquid in a narrow temperature band. Would a better solution be available? Perhaps a mixture of ammonia and water? There's plenty of nitrogen on Mars. Perhaps even some ammonia. Indeed, a lot of water too. The most precious resource is hydrogen. Everything it seems can come from the surface, but is that always desirable? There's that pesky traveling while empty problem again. But these problems could be ironed out.

You cannot make methane without hydrogen. Water can be your hydrogen source. Ammonia could be brought along as well. It can be a good anti-freeze for the water. Therefore, you could bring an aqueous ammonia solution as your return cargo from Mars. Perhaps the carbon dioxide can be frozen too. Dry ice is more dense than the gas. You want to be as efficient as possible. In a cramped and limited space, less is more when it is more dense.

Methane could be made wherever it is needed. Space stations could serve this purpose. Trade with the Martian surface could bring needed materials from the surface. There's that sticky problem about traveling empty though. What goes down to the surface? Maybe the Earthlings and a bit of whatever can be sourced from the two Moons.

You have two-year launch windows from Earth. Therefore, you need to be busy between the launch windows. Making tradeable goods and preparing them for the journey back to Earth could bring value to their existence on Mars, and the two moons.

If you cannot bring an economic benefit to being there, you can only be an economic burden upon the enterprise. In a pinch, you could find yourselves cut off from supplies. That wouldn't be a good thing so far away from everything. 

Dogs chasing cars isn't so good for the dog

Number 5 in the series. The previous post is here.

Since the big success of IFT-4, I've been somewhat fixated on space colonization. I'm getting all Star-Trekkie here. The possibilities that could be opening up has my mind spinning. So here's another post in the series. It will be number 5 in the series.

What's whirling around my brain at the moment are these questions: Does Elon Musk know what he's making? If he's got it, will he be like the dog chasing the car? Will he know what to do with it once he has it?

I watched about 20 minutes of Tim Dodd's most recent interview of Musk. He wants to build thousands of Starships. What? Let me posit this. There's no way that thousands of Starships are going to be launched every day on this planet. People are going to start opposing it.

Why does he need 200 tons in orbit with every launch? He needs it for fuel to go to Mars. Therefore, he needs as many ships as he can build. Now consider this: he has to use up 5000 to 6000 tons of fuel on each launch in order to get that 200 tons of fuel to orbit. This isn't going to happen. People are going to say "wait a minute".

Instead of doing that, he needs to go off-world for fuel. That would be Venus. Last night, I plugged my idea into a spreadsheet with the rocket equation scenarios programmed in. From LVO ( Low Venus Orbit) to HEO (High Earth Orbit), you could bring along 700 to 800 tons of mined Venusian atmosphere which can be converted to rocket fuel. You could possibly do this without having to land on Venus at all. Just skim off the top of its atmosphere, and then rocket it up towards HVO. From there, it only takes a small push, and it's off for Mars or Earth. Capture orbits for these destinations don't require a lot of fuel due to low Delta-V requirements.

You can push along the fuel to these locations and use them as staging points. From HEO (High Earth Orbit), you could send a passenger craft that could hold upward of a thousand people each. They could go in comfort in a well shielded and rotating space habitation that could protect them from the major hazards of long duration space flight. That would be radiation and micro gravity. Somebody traveling on a Starship for months is going to be in rough shape when they get there. You may want to consider other options. An off-world source for fuel could drastically reduce the number of launches needed from Earth. People might consider a trip to Mars if they don't get killed in the process.

You don't need a lot of fuel to get from HEO to HMO ( High Mars Orbits). Consequently, one Starship can be like a tug to push along one big space hab for the long journey to Mars. Also, one Starship could be like a big space tug that ships lots of fuel from Venus to these same staging points. The Starship can use these staging point to fuel up and drop off passengers.

Musk's idea of using the Starship to do all these tasks by itself is unrealistic. He's likely to get a lot of people killed that way. They'll die of radiation sickness of body injuries due to micro-gravity. The space habs will solve that problem. Then Starship could specialize in what it does best. That would be getting a lot of mass to somewhere fast, and to get back to low Earth orbit and to Earth itself for more passengers and CARGO. CARGO would mean building those large space habs, and to provision them. Starship could also bring people and cargo back from Mars. It would be a commercial prospect that could fund the whole enterprise. The Earth could rest easier without all those launches.

That's what's been spinning around my noggin lately. Will Musk insist on using the Starship in ways that do not take full advantage of its capabilities? We'll see.

End of series (for now).  Update:  The series will have to end with this post.  Too little is known about the atmosphere of Venus, and the necessary technology is not available.  Therefore, it is too speculative to continue much further.  Update:  You still have the moon, which has oxygen.  Another possibility are the moons of Mars.  Plus the asteroids.  Venus could supply plenty of carbon dioxide, but you need water in order to have hydrogen for making the methane.  Update:  NEXT!

Anti-matter space drive concept

Starship could open up a new realm of possibilities. This concept could be enabled provided that Musk is successful. There are enormous opportunities just waiting to be exploited. Oops. Exploitation is a dirty word these days.

NO DILITHIUM CRYSTALS, THOUGH: Antimatter Could Unlock a Radical New Future of Interstellar Travel https://t.co/Al3g763Jwo Comment: These ideas are fun to think about. Now that Starship could become operational soon, this could become feasible.

— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) February 24, 2024

Mad man, Genius, or both?

Marcus House: How is SpaceX Starship Revolutionizing Our World!? The Epic Future Awaits!



Predictions are hard, especially about the future. Thus said the baseball great, Yogi Berra. One thing Musk has, it's this rather expansive and hopeful view of the future. But is it just dreamy, or a realistic possibility? He is well on the way to achieving at least a partly successful goal. First things first, though. He has to get the Starship into orbit. He has to get it to deorbit safely. Once he gets to that point, he will have achieved what a few others have already achieved.

But he wants far more. In order to make this economically viable, the Starship must be fully resusable. This will make each launch cheaper. When that is achieved, he intends to launch frequently. This too, will have the effect of making each launch more affordable. That's because each launch will be amortized over the many launches that are planned for each reusable vehicle. There will be a fleet of these ships. Each will be built inside of a factory. The factory is geared up to mass produce each ship. Of course, mass production lowers costs per ship. Consequently, Musk has conceived of, and now is in the process of executing, an economic plan to make a new profitable industry that will enable the colonization of new worlds. A heady achievement, if realized.

Is this madness? Or is it genius? Such may have been said about many things that we now take for granted. For a brief time in the late 19th and early 20th century, this kind of material progress was common place. Indeed, back in the beginning of the human presence in space, it was considered the normal thing that humans would colonize other worlds. However, in the last 50 years or so, human material progress has slowed down. It is thought that we may have reached humans' "limits to growth". Perhaps Musk will show a way that will disprove that, and a new burst of progress will be realized.

So, is it all just a dream? Perhaps. Or, perhaps there is a more suitable goal that we don't know about yet. Perhaps this, or perhaps that.

We could be living a dream come true. Others may say we may be end up in a living nightmare. Time will tell. I say, onwards and upwards. To our future. May it be a bright one.