NASA HLS (Human Landing System) Lunar Landers

[Lee Jay]

To give you an idea of how much, I did a quick analysis.  I live in a 654 home subdivision in Colorado.  A single SS fuel tanker launch will consume and provide enough natural gas to heat my entire subdivision, with 80% efficient gas furnaces, for 18 months, including providing hot water for everyone there for that period.  So, yes, a salvo as described (even if it's 8 launches or something) uses A LOT of fuel - enough for many thousands of homes for a year.

Musk's goal of 1M starship launches per year would then use enough natural gas to heat about a billion homes continuously. That's seriously problematic from a climate change perspective. Policy makers will presumably consider a habitable Earth for billions of people to be more important than a habitable Mars for thousands of people. SpaceX will therefore need to use carbon-neutral methane and avoid any significant releases of unburned methane since methane is a potent greenhouse gas.

Of course? That's literally the plan.

(Also, 1 million Starship launches is FAR on the high side of launch rates, i.e. 100 million tons IMLEO per year. Mars settlement can get by with 2 orders of magntitude fewer, and Musk more often uses 1 million tons IMLEO per year as the benchmark.)

To give you an idea of how much, I did a quick analysis.  I live in a 654 home subdivision in Colorado.  A single SS fuel tanker launch will consume and provide enough natural gas to heat my entire subdivision, with 80% efficient gas furnaces, for 18 months, including providing hot water for everyone there for that period.  So, yes, a salvo as described (even if it's 8 launches or something) uses A LOT of fuel - enough for many thousands of homes for a year.

Musk's goal of 1M starship launches per year would then use enough natural gas to heat about a billion homes continuously. That's seriously problematic from a climate change perspective. Policy makers will presumably consider a habitable Earth for billions of people to be more important than a habitable Mars for thousands of people. SpaceX will therefore need to use carbon-neutral methane and avoid any significant releases of unburned methane since methane is a potent greenhouse gas.

Of course? That's literally the plan.

It's also basically impossible to make that much carbon neutral cryogenic methane.  It's too much and the process is too inefficient.

[dglow]

It's also basically impossible to make that much carbon neutral cryogenic methane.  It's too much and the process is too inefficient.

Carbon capture offsets.

[DistantTemple]

It's also basically impossible to make that much carbon neutral cryogenic methane.  It's too much and the process is too inefficient.

Carbon capture offsets.

“It’s important that we not only capture CO2, but find valuable ways to use it,” said Ron Kent, Advanced Technologies Development Manager at SoCalGas, “and this study offers a cost-effective pathway toward making something valuable out of waste CO2.”

https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/making-methane-co2-carbon-capture-grows-more-affordable The paper unfortunately avoids prediction any costs, despite talking as if it will!!
Just fantasy thinking for a moment: If SX, EM or other approached the production of carbon neutral methane, the way EM and SX has approached Starship, and space transport, then immense plants fed by vast solar fields and batteries, could extract CO2 from the atmosphere, and convert it into CH4. Double win! Reduce CO2, produce green methane!
Smaller plants would operate at all large (stationary) CO2 producers.
(I have not (up to now) been a supporter of carbon capture etc. due to my perception that it is a distraction from producing less CO2). If cost and energy are the barriers, then maybe just a massive rethink, and shake-up, backed by money, vision, and extreme perseverance is needed.

[OTV Booster]

So the working assumption is that the depot for Artemus 3 will have no cryo cooler. Why is this?


Artemus 2 will need all the propellant infrastructure needed for 3 and SX/Elon Musk are not known for leaving well enough alone. I'd expect the Artemus 2 depot to be just barely good enough and be replaced for the crewed mission. Chilling the propellant is an obvious improvement. Easy? No. Possible? Yes.


The first stab at it will, in SX tradition, be just barely good enough. Too heavy and too low an efficiency. Assuming one tanker every six days and a total campaign of 18 tankers, and dropping boiloff from 10 tons  day to 8 tons a day, the savings would be 216 tons. That's only 9tons shy of  1.5 150 ton deliveries. All numbers are rectally sourced.


Factor in missed launch windows and other delays, it could save two tanker flights. Not perfect, but usable. The next one would do better. If Artemus 3 actually happens in two years this won't happen. What are the odds that it'll be delayed at least one year?


And I bet none of you actually saw my arms waving.

[Phil Stooke]

"Reduce CO2, produce green methane!"

Well, yes, but if you take CO2 out of the atmosphere to make methane, put in a rocket and burn it, it's back to CO2 again.  You have made no net difference.  Other approaches are needed to make a difference.

[Lee Jay]

"Reduce CO2, produce green methane!"

Well, yes, but if you take CO2 out of the atmosphere to make methane, put in a rocket and burn it, it's back to CO2 again.  You have made no net difference.  Other approaches are needed to make a difference.

Well, in this case, some will end up in space and some on the moon.  Probably the most effective and expensive carbon capture scheme I've ever heard of!

[DistantTemple]

"Reduce CO2, produce green methane!"

Well, yes, but if you take CO2 out of the atmosphere to make methane, put in a rocket and burn it, it's back to CO2 again.  You have made no net difference.  Other approaches are needed to make a difference.

Well, in this case, some will end up in space and some on the moon.  Probably the most effective and expensive carbon capture scheme I've ever heard of!

(mainly replying to Phil Stoke) The discussion a few posts up was about the immense negative effect on global CO2 caused by "1000's" of StarShip launches. If exactly all methane used by starship was from CO2 taken from the atmosphere - then that part of the equation would exactly reduce StarShips CO2 footprint from immense to zero.
Then of course some is taken to orbit making it a slight net positive.

If such a large focus on CO2 to CH4 evolved a cost effective process and political will, then the same process could be used for other CH4 "needs", like plastic production, or replacing fossil CH4 for heating. So we now get an indirect net benefit.

[Paul451]

Artemus 2 will need all the propellant infrastructure needed for 3 [...]. I'd expect the Artemus 2 depot to be [...]

Artemis 2 depot? What?

[Lampyridae]

To give you an idea of how much, I did a quick analysis.  I live in a 654 home subdivision in Colorado.  A single SS fuel tanker launch will consume and provide enough natural gas to heat my entire subdivision, with 80% efficient gas furnaces, for 18 months, including providing hot water for everyone there for that period.  So, yes, a salvo as described (even if it's 8 launches or something) uses A LOT of fuel - enough for many thousands of homes for a year.

Musk's goal of 1M starship launches per year would then use enough natural gas to heat about a billion homes continuously. That's seriously problematic from a climate change perspective. Policy makers will presumably consider a habitable Earth for billions of people to be more important than a habitable Mars for thousands of people. SpaceX will therefore need to use carbon-neutral methane and avoid any significant releases of unburned methane since methane is a potent greenhouse gas.

Of course? That's literally the plan.

(Also, 1 million Starship launches is FAR on the high side of launch rates, i.e. 100 million tons IMLEO per year. Mars settlement can get by with 2 orders of magntitude fewer, and Musk more often uses 1 million tons IMLEO per year as the benchmark.)

I did a lot of digging and calculating, far more than necessary, but suffice it to say that present global biogas production can support about 5 000 Starship launches a year.

[DanClemmensen]

If exactly all methane used by starship was from CO2 taken from the atmosphere - then that part of the equation would exactly reduce StarShips CO2 footprint from immense to zero.

This is almost true, but needs a caveat. You need to worry about the CO₂ generated by the production of the capture infrastructure (making the solar panels or whatever) and by actual operation of that infrastructure, since it consumes lots of energy. Thus, you need more wind or solar build and run this system if you really want to be carbon neutral. You need to quit pulling any fossil carbon out of the ground.

It's still well within the capabilities of existing engineering and the existing economy, and the rate of efficiency gains is still high, so it becomes increasingly easier.  This same infrastructure can be used for the rest of our electrical energy needs. Furthermore, "green" methane is a precursor for "green kerosene", which permits carbon-neutral jet aircraft. Not as good as switching to electric, but we don't know how to do that economically, so it makes a good bridge.

The continued use of methane is a really bad idea for those applications where it can be avoided, because the stuff leaks a lot. But most leaks are associated with fossil methane production, and even 5000 Starships/yr will not add much at all to the non-anthropogenic sources.

[OTV Booster]

Artemus 2 will need all the propellant infrastructure needed for 3 [...]. I'd expect the Artemus 2 depot to be [...]

Artemis 2 depot? What?

Maybe I got the numbers mixed. The first, and uncrewed LSS landing.

[AmigaClone]

Artemus 2 will need all the propellant infrastructure needed for 3 [...]. I'd expect the Artemus 2 depot to be [...]

Artemis 2 depot? What?

Maybe I got the numbers mixed. The first, and uncrewed LSS landing.

I think the first (uncrewed) LSS landing might be termed LSS-Demo. That demonstration flight is not a part of the Artemis 2 mission. While in theory LSS-Demo could have been scheduled prior to Artemis 2, I believe it's most likely to occur between Artemis 2 and Artemis 3.

Having said that, I agree that we will likely see several versions of fuel depots being placed in orbit. The first one used by the LSS-Demo will be able to crudely get the job done while later depots will see improvements that reduce boil-off used by later Artemis and Mars missions.

[OTV Booster]

Artemus 2 will need all the propellant infrastructure needed for 3 [...]. I'd expect the Artemus 2 depot to be [...]

Artemis 2 depot? What?

Maybe I got the numbers mixed. The first, and uncrewed LSS landing.

I think the first (uncrewed) LSS landing might be termed LSS-Demo. That demonstration flight is not a part of the Artemis 2 mission. While in theory LSS-Demo could have been scheduled prior to Artemis 2, I believe it's most likely to occur between Artemis 2 and Artemis 3.

Having said that, I agree that we will likely see several versions of fuel depots being placed in orbit. The first one used by the LSS-Demo will be able to crudely get the job done while later depots will see improvements that reduce boil-off used by later Artemis and Mars missions.

I would not be surprised to see depots having only single use until the design is mature. Better cryo cooling on each iteration at a minimum.

[woods170]

Artemus 2 will need all the propellant infrastructure needed for 3 [...]. I'd expect the Artemus 2 depot to be [...]

Artemis 2 depot? What?

Maybe I got the numbers mixed. The first, and uncrewed LSS landing.

The HLS Option A UNcrewed Starship demo mission does not have an Artemis mission number. It will instead have an HLS mission designation.
The HLS Option A crewed HLS demo mission is part of Artemis 3 but will also have its own HLS mission designation.

Confusing? Yes, but that's NASA for ya...

[Ben Baley]

So the working assumption is that the depot for Artemus 3 will have no cryo cooler. Why is this?


Artemus 2 will need all the propellant infrastructure needed for 3 and SX/Elon Musk are not known for leaving well enough alone. I'd expect the Artemus 2 depot to be just barely good enough and be replaced for the crewed mission. Chilling the propellant is an obvious improvement. Easy? No. Possible? Yes.


The first stab at it will, in SX tradition, be just barely good enough. Too heavy and too low an efficiency. Assuming one tanker every six days and a total campaign of 18 tankers, and dropping boiloff from 10 tons  day to 8 tons a day, the savings would be 216 tons. That's only 9tons shy of  1.5 150 ton deliveries. All numbers are rectally sourced.


Factor in missed launch windows and other delays, it could save two tanker flights. Not perfect, but usable. The next one would do better. If Artemus 3 actually happens in two years this won't happen. What are the odds that it'll be delayed at least one year?


And I bet none of you actually saw my arms waving.

I've got a bit of a nit to pick.

You consistently seem to use Artemus when referring to the Artemis program.

Artemis; Greek goddess of the hunt, twin to Apollo, later associated with the moon

Artemus; worshiper of Artemis

I assume it's some sort of auto correct artifact and I wouldn't have mentioned it but I noticed it a while ago and now every time I see it it's like having a splinter shoved under my nail. 

It'd be appreciated if you could use the accurate spelling in the future thanks,    I won't mention it again 

[chopsticks]

So the working assumption is that the depot for Artemus 3 will have no cryo cooler. Why is this?


Artemus 2 will need all the propellant infrastructure needed for 3 and SX/Elon Musk are not known for leaving well enough alone. I'd expect the Artemus 2 depot to be just barely good enough and be replaced for the crewed mission. Chilling the propellant is an obvious improvement. Easy? No. Possible? Yes.


The first stab at it will, in SX tradition, be just barely good enough. Too heavy and too low an efficiency. Assuming one tanker every six days and a total campaign of 18 tankers, and dropping boiloff from 10 tons  day to 8 tons a day, the savings would be 216 tons. That's only 9tons shy of  1.5 150 ton deliveries. All numbers are rectally sourced.


Factor in missed launch windows and other delays, it could save two tanker flights. Not perfect, but usable. The next one would do better. If Artemus 3 actually happens in two years this won't happen. What are the odds that it'll be delayed at least one year?


And I bet none of you actually saw my arms waving.

I've got a bit of a nit to pick.

You consistently seem to use Artemus when referring to the Artemis program.

Artemis; Greek goddess of the hunt, twin to Apollo, later associated with the moon

Artemus; worshiper of Artemis

I assume it's some sort of auto correct artifact and I wouldn't have mentioned it but I noticed it a while ago and now every time I see it it's like having a splinter shoved under my nail. 

It'd be appreciated if you could use the accurate spelling in the future thanks,    I won't mention it again 

+1 ^^

[OTV Booster]

So the working assumption is that the depot for Artemus 3 will have no cryo cooler. Why is this?


Artemus 2 will need all the propellant infrastructure needed for 3 and SX/Elon Musk are not known for leaving well enough alone. I'd expect the Artemus 2 depot to be just barely good enough and be replaced for the crewed mission. Chilling the propellant is an obvious improvement. Easy? No. Possible? Yes.


The first stab at it will, in SX tradition, be just barely good enough. Too heavy and too low an efficiency. Assuming one tanker every six days and a total campaign of 18 tankers, and dropping boiloff from 10 tons  day to 8 tons a day, the savings would be 216 tons. That's only 9tons shy of  1.5 150 ton deliveries. All numbers are rectally sourced.


Factor in missed launch windows and other delays, it could save two tanker flights. Not perfect, but usable. The next one would do better. If Artemus 3 actually happens in two years this won't happen. What are the odds that it'll be delayed at least one year?


And I bet none of you actually saw my arms waving.

I've got a bit of a nit to pick.

You consistently seem to use Artemus when referring to the Artemis program.

Artemis; Greek goddess of the hunt, twin to Apollo, later associated with the moon

Artemus; worshiper of Artemis

I assume it's some sort of auto correct artifact and I wouldn't have mentioned it but I noticed it a while ago and now every time I see it it's like having a splinter shoved under my nail. 

It'd be appreciated if you could use the accurate spelling in the future thanks,    I won't mention it again 

Sorry for the pain and I appreciate the input but if you're depending on my spelling of ANYTHING, you're playing a loosing game. Sorry.


May I recommend a pair of gloves?

[Robotbeat]

Its not just CO2 emissions, there is also damage to higher atmosphere. This is something that needs lot more research.

Most of those Mars launches would just be for fuel to get from LEO to Mars. There are good reasons why Blue, ULA and others want to use lunar and asteriod fuel for BLEO trips.

I mean, SpaceX already wants to use Mars fuel for getting the ships back... You could just do more of that and send the Starships back to LEO fully fueled and stocked up.

[Robotbeat]

To give you an idea of how much, I did a quick analysis.  I live in a 654 home subdivision in Colorado.  A single SS fuel tanker launch will consume and provide enough natural gas to heat my entire subdivision, with 80% efficient gas furnaces, for 18 months, including providing hot water for everyone there for that period.  So, yes, a salvo as described (even if it's 8 launches or something) uses A LOT of fuel - enough for many thousands of homes for a year.

Musk's goal of 1M starship launches per year would then use enough natural gas to heat about a billion homes continuously. That's seriously problematic from a climate change perspective. Policy makers will presumably consider a habitable Earth for billions of people to be more important than a habitable Mars for thousands of people. SpaceX will therefore need to use carbon-neutral methane and avoid any significant releases of unburned methane since methane is a potent greenhouse gas.

Of course? That's literally the plan.

(Also, 1 million Starship launches is FAR on the high side of launch rates, i.e. 100 million tons IMLEO per year. Mars settlement can get by with 2 orders of magntitude fewer, and Musk more often uses 1 million tons IMLEO per year as the benchmark.)

To give you an idea of how much, I did a quick analysis.  I live in a 654 home subdivision in Colorado.  A single SS fuel tanker launch will consume and provide enough natural gas to heat my entire subdivision, with 80% efficient gas furnaces, for 18 months, including providing hot water for everyone there for that period.  So, yes, a salvo as described (even if it's 8 launches or something) uses A LOT of fuel - enough for many thousands of homes for a year.

Musk's goal of 1M starship launches per year would then use enough natural gas to heat about a billion homes continuously. That's seriously problematic from a climate change perspective. Policy makers will presumably consider a habitable Earth for billions of people to be more important than a habitable Mars for thousands of people. SpaceX will therefore need to use carbon-neutral methane and avoid any significant releases of unburned methane since methane is a potent greenhouse gas.

Of course? That's literally the plan.

It's also basically impossible to make that much carbon neutral cryogenic methane.  It's too much and the process is too inefficient.

Please, take a physics or chemistry course. It's not any kind of "impossible."

[Robotbeat]

"Reduce CO2, produce green methane!"

Well, yes, but if you take CO2 out of the atmosphere to make methane, put in a rocket and burn it, it's back to CO2 again.  You have made no net difference.  Other approaches are needed to make a difference.

Well yeah, but having no net difference is the whole point.