Interesting but seems very very complexe,to add to the difficulty this will have to be done 5 times to get to Mars....................can't we just attach an external tank like for space shuttle?
For me (IANARS or E) is the active cooling (and it's energy requirements) for sub-cooling the O2 and CH4. Yes, the issue exists at the ISRU production for return, but it also seems likely to be required for the propellent accumulation before TMI.Transfer is part of the issue, though the pressure gradient discussion in OP is enlightening. But accomplishing and maintaining the subcooling densification will require something more than just venting gas, I would think.
Quote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 12:32 pmInteresting but seems very very complexe,to add to the difficulty this will have to be done 5 times to get to Mars....................can't we just attach an external tank like for space shuttle? At work I outlawed the use of the words "just" and "simply" when proposing alternative ideas.You're not allowed to grade your own work...
Quote from: meekGee on 07/27/2020 02:15 pmQuote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 12:32 pmInteresting but seems very very complexe,to add to the difficulty this will have to be done 5 times to get to Mars....................can't we just attach an external tank like for space shuttle? At work I outlawed the use of the words "just" and "simply" when proposing alternative ideas.You're not allowed to grade your own work... You're right to point out to the vocabulary it might be deceiving, for me "Just" and "simply" means proven technology have been in use for a while."Complexe" means that it's at the early stages of concept has to be put in practice in reliable manner.
My idea is not to have a crew in an outbound for Mars Starship waiting and having to have 6 tankers dock and transfer fuel.My idea is to put tankers in orbit with refrigeration equipment and some solar panels for power. Then fill the tankers with other tankers. Then the outbound crewed ship can dock only once to a full tanker and then go. So essentially orbital tankers will become fuel depots for only one stop and fill to go per Starship. Orbital tankers can be filled at reasonable pace during the off synods. Then you have several full orbital tankers that can be used for any outbound Starships to the moon or Mars. SpaceX could also let others license their technology to fill tankers with their rockets for a mission they want to do in deep space. For massive flotillas of Starships bound for Mars colony during the 6 month synod when Mars is closest to earth, fuel depots of some sort is the only way to save time. Using Starship tankers would be easy without building anything new. Starship will be a do-all spacecraft. Tanker, fuel depot, moon lander, Mars lander, satellite orbiter, cargo carrier. Modified for whatever is needed.
Quote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 02:51 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/27/2020 02:15 pmQuote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 12:32 pmInteresting but seems very very complexe,to add to the difficulty this will have to be done 5 times to get to Mars....................can't we just attach an external tank like for space shuttle? At work I outlawed the use of the words "just" and "simply" when proposing alternative ideas.You're not allowed to grade your own work... You're right to point out to the vocabulary it might be deceiving, for me "Just" and "simply" means proven technology have been in use for a while."Complexe" means that it's at the early stages of concept has to be put in practice in reliable manner.So.. it's proven to be prohibitively expensive? Starship is anything but a Shuttle repeat. It's the anti-shuttle. Consider each element in isolation, fine, but certainly don't give it points just because it was used in shuttle..Remember Starship has to land on Mars and take off again, then re-enter Earth. Are you "just" going to keep docking with new tanks all the time and throwing them away afterwards?Refueling is fundamental to any mode of transportation, and compared to other challenges like, say, launch and EDL, it's relatively easy.
Quote from: meekGee on 07/27/2020 02:58 pmQuote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 02:51 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/27/2020 02:15 pmQuote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 12:32 pmInteresting but seems very very complexe,to add to the difficulty this will have to be done 5 times to get to Mars....................can't we just attach an external tank like for space shuttle? At work I outlawed the use of the words "just" and "simply" when proposing alternative ideas.You're not allowed to grade your own work... You're right to point out to the vocabulary it might be deceiving, for me "Just" and "simply" means proven technology have been in use for a while."Complexe" means that it's at the early stages of concept has to be put in practice in reliable manner.So.. it's proven to be prohibitively expensive? Starship is anything but a Shuttle repeat. It's the anti-shuttle. Consider each element in isolation, fine, but certainly don't give it points just because it was used in shuttle..Remember Starship has to land on Mars and take off again, then re-enter Earth. Are you "just" going to keep docking with new tanks all the time and throwing them away afterwards?Refueling is fundamental to any mode of transportation, and compared to other challenges like, say, launch and EDL, it's relatively easy.I'm from those who consider Starship as a mean to get to Mars and beyond, the primary goal is to get to Mars, getting it cheap getting it reausable getting it through re-fueling or external tanks, this is for me a secondary issue that could be worked out, it must be some interim solution to get to Mars, but to get it in the 2030's IMHO we must get some compromises..
Quote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 03:09 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/27/2020 02:58 pmQuote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 02:51 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/27/2020 02:15 pmQuote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 12:32 pmInteresting but seems very very complexe,to add to the difficulty this will have to be done 5 times to get to Mars....................can't we just attach an external tank like for space shuttle? At work I outlawed the use of the words "just" and "simply" when proposing alternative ideas.You're not allowed to grade your own work... You're right to point out to the vocabulary it might be deceiving, for me "Just" and "simply" means proven technology have been in use for a while."Complexe" means that it's at the early stages of concept has to be put in practice in reliable manner.So.. it's proven to be prohibitively expensive? Starship is anything but a Shuttle repeat. It's the anti-shuttle. Consider each element in isolation, fine, but certainly don't give it points just because it was used in shuttle..Remember Starship has to land on Mars and take off again, then re-enter Earth. Are you "just" going to keep docking with new tanks all the time and throwing them away afterwards?Refueling is fundamental to any mode of transportation, and compared to other challenges like, say, launch and EDL, it's relatively easy.I'm from those who consider Starship as a mean to get to Mars and beyond, the primary goal is to get to Mars, getting it cheap getting it reausable getting it through re-fueling or external tanks, this is for me a secondary issue that could be worked out, it must be some interim solution to get to Mars, but to get it in the 2030's IMHO we must get some compromises..Why does there have to be an interim solution?
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/27/2020 03:13 pmQuote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 03:09 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/27/2020 02:58 pmQuote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 02:51 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/27/2020 02:15 pmQuote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 12:32 pmInteresting but seems very very complexe,to add to the difficulty this will have to be done 5 times to get to Mars....................can't we just attach an external tank like for space shuttle? At work I outlawed the use of the words "just" and "simply" when proposing alternative ideas.You're not allowed to grade your own work... You're right to point out to the vocabulary it might be deceiving, for me "Just" and "simply" means proven technology have been in use for a while."Complexe" means that it's at the early stages of concept has to be put in practice in reliable manner.So.. it's proven to be prohibitively expensive? Starship is anything but a Shuttle repeat. It's the anti-shuttle. Consider each element in isolation, fine, but certainly don't give it points just because it was used in shuttle..Remember Starship has to land on Mars and take off again, then re-enter Earth. Are you "just" going to keep docking with new tanks all the time and throwing them away afterwards?Refueling is fundamental to any mode of transportation, and compared to other challenges like, say, launch and EDL, it's relatively easy.I'm from those who consider Starship as a mean to get to Mars and beyond, the primary goal is to get to Mars, getting it cheap getting it reausable getting it through re-fueling or external tanks, this is for me a secondary issue that could be worked out, it must be some interim solution to get to Mars, but to get it in the 2030's IMHO we must get some compromises..Why does there have to be an interim solution?Because time is ticking and SX plans are too ambitiuos (IMHO) for the timeframe, and it's like a black hole money siphoning endeavor.
Quote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 03:09 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/27/2020 02:58 pmQuote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 02:51 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/27/2020 02:15 pmQuote from: Star-Dust on 07/27/2020 12:32 pmInteresting but seems very very complexe,to add to the difficulty this will have to be done 5 times to get to Mars....................can't we just attach an external tank like for space shuttle? At work I outlawed the use of the words "just" and "simply" when proposing alternative ideas.You're not allowed to grade your own work... You're right to point out to the vocabulary it might be deceiving, for me "Just" and "simply" means proven technology have been in use for a while."Complexe" means that it's at the early stages of concept has to be put in practice in reliable manner.So.. it's proven to be prohibitively expensive? Starship is anything but a Shuttle repeat. It's the anti-shuttle. Consider each element in isolation, fine, but certainly don't give it points just because it was used in shuttle..Remember Starship has to land on Mars and take off again, then re-enter Earth. Are you "just" going to keep docking with new tanks all the time and throwing them away afterwards?Refueling is fundamental to any mode of transportation, and compared to other challenges like, say, launch and EDL, it's relatively easy.I'm from those who consider Starship as a mean to get to Mars and beyond, the primary goal is to get to Mars, getting it cheap getting it reausable getting it through re-fueling or external tanks, this is for me a secondary issue that could be worked out, it must be some interim solution to get to Mars, but to get it in the 2030's IMHO we must get some compromises..Why do you think that after figuring how to build a reusable heavy launcher, orbital fueling will be any sort of issue, or an issue big enough to warrant something as problematic for reuse as an external tank?
Source? Or just for throwing shade at SpaceX instead of refueling technique discussion?You are at it again