Landing StarShip Horizontally

[magnemoe]

13 hours ago, Nothalogh said:

A fuel tank and a hab module are structurally indistinguishable

Hab modules are insulated. Yes you would want inuslation if you want to store fuel and oxidizer over long time on Mars anyway. 

[kerbiloid]

And if they used aerospike, they could just extend for a couple of meters the internal part of the huge nozzle, and have all elevators and communications inside the ship.

Edited October 8, 2019 by kerbiloid

[farmerben]

Ok so now we have two main design goals.  1. Reenter the Earth's Atmosphere, land and be ready to fly again in about a week.  2.  Land on the moon and act like a burrowing tortoise.

Off the top of my head, almost every feature optimized for one goal is a poor fit for the other.  To me the Starship is the next generation of space shuttle.  It might be able to land on the Moon and even Mars and that is a cool feature, but not worth using much even if we have it.  

Modules that are perfect for the Moon can be carried in a cargo bay, and the Earth specialized vehicle can return to lift another cargo.

[Thor Wotansen]

I don't think anyone will be using a Starship as a source for building material, unless it is deemed unfit to fly again because of a rough landing that damaged the engines or something.  Besides, you'd want a lot more mass between you and the surface of the moon, for radiation shielding.  More likely we'll be using things like a Bigelow inflatable module, or an inflatable concrete building.  If indeed the Starship can soft land 150t on the surface of the moon, delivering earth regolith moving equipment won't be an issue, especially if you're committed to moving in for the long haul.  Andy Weir's book Artemis has a pretty decent outline of what a moon base might become, although I'm more in favor of burying it under a few meters of regolith, especially the farming area.

[DDE]

On 10/7/2019 at 7:37 PM, Dale Christopher said:

I’ve seen a few people proposing ways to use starship as a permanent base once at its destination but this concept seems to overlook one of the main purposes of starship. It’s intended to be reusable.

Using them as a base is reuse. Back when BFR had a singular, primary mission, Zubrin suggested that bringing the whole shebang back to Earth was ridiculous and that the vehicle should be split into a Mars lander/base and a reusable Earth departure stage, with the occasional base module including a smaller ERV for the handful of quitters.

[magnemoe]

On 10/8/2019 at 8:30 PM, Thor Wotansen said:

I don't think anyone will be using a Starship as a source for building material, unless it is deemed unfit to fly again because of a rough landing that damaged the engines or something.  Besides, you'd want a lot more mass between you and the surface of the moon, for radiation shielding.  More likely we'll be using things like a Bigelow inflatable module, or an inflatable concrete building.  If indeed the Starship can soft land 150t on the surface of the moon, delivering earth regolith moving equipment won't be an issue, especially if you're committed to moving in for the long haul.  Andy Weir's book Artemis has a pretty decent outline of what a moon base might become, although I'm more in favor of burying it under a few meters of regolith, especially the farming area.

Agree with one exception, stripping down an cargo version to make an fuel and oxidizer storage makes plenty of sense. 
Yes you have to insulate this but that is fairly easy for an static tank. 
For hab modules and stuff no. 

[Thor Wotansen]

10 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Agree with one exception, stripping down an cargo version to make an fuel and oxidizer storage makes plenty of sense. 
Yes you have to insulate this but that is fairly easy for an static tank. 
For hab modules and stuff no. 

That's fair, although it might be more cost effective to just send 150t of starship ring sections curled up tighter in the cargo bay, and weld it in situ into whatever you need.  Insulating it will consist of shading it from the sun and any reflected or re-radiated energy and sticking a little cryocooler on it with a big honking radiator.  Even a fairly low powered unit would be very effective in an application like that.  With 150t of soft landed cargo you'd be ale to get far more in the cargo then you'd get from the ship itself.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Thor Wotansen said:

That's fair, although it might be more cost effective to just send 150t of starship ring sections curled up tighter in the cargo bay, and weld it in situ into whatever you need.  Insulating it will consist of shading it from the sun and any reflected or re-radiated energy and sticking a little cryocooler on it with a big honking radiator.  Even a fairly low powered unit would be very effective in an application like that.  With 150t of soft landed cargo you'd be ale to get far more in the cargo then you'd get from the ship itself.

A valid point, more work however, Assumed insulating was simply using an outer shell using the body of the cargo bay with an insert and some extra materials. 
Yes its work but its just putting adding metal plates with an offset, it don't need to be airtight or anything so you could do this without welding, just plug things together if cargo bay was designed for it as in bolted in place, bring extra pieces you need like the cryocooler system unless present.  
With segments you has to weld the body of an starship wearing an space suit. 
But yes more effective you could even tapper the segments, this way they don't take up much room during transport