OFMM General Discussions Archive

[Izack]

You're not very optimistic for the future of spaceflight, are you? :lol:
Seriously though, I think 2082 or 2129 may be good ideas, as Mars will come quite close to Earth in those times (0.373564 AU in 2082 and 0.37327582 AU in 2129)
It's not really that important, though. It's not like we're wasting fuel by coasting farther. It's an executive decision anyway.

You think we can finish planning by 2110? :lol:

 

[Pablo49]

Hey, at least we don`t have to worry about funding.

 

[Bj]

Hey, at least we don`t have to worry about funding.

If USA still existed in 2110 maybe there would be a race to Mars type of thing with Iran/North Korea, (assuming they haven't been nuked or self obliterated themselves) then maybe USA will give the best program all funding to reach Mars ASAP. :thumbup: ...or

Ok, here is an executive decision. Official start date for the mission (not necessarily the launch) is Feb. 1st 2110. This will set the start date far enough in the future for the technology to be feasable yet not so far as to make it totally sci-fi.

Wow, you have some real optimism for future space flight I hope this kind of technology would be available around 2040-2050.

I see a problem though. If I remember right I though Orbiter destabilized with UMMU at high(er) dates.

http://orbiter.dansteph.com/forum/read.php?f=2&i=14442&t=14442

-Bump&jump with UMmu or cars with future date (eg 2050)
this is due to an orbiter bug already submited to martin:
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/project.php?issueid=200
Solution: set date to 2001.

I just did a quick test, and at 60FPS year ~2040 started destabilizing. ie, walking was either bouncing or send spiraling from Earth at 500AU/sec.

Just food for thought. :tiphat:

I`m highly disappointed no one else wanted `Pablo is Awesome`. I suppose Prometheus is the second best. So it get`s my vote.

:lol:

 

[Izack]

That image makes me want to vomit...even if it is the future of spaceflight.

I, for one do not want to be sent off Mars at 500AU/s. Perhaps we can just forgo Orbiter's date and keep our own? I know the planets won't be in the right positions, but it's better than "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for m-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
:rofl:

 

[Pablo49]

We can just assume this is an alternate history kind of project. Assuming that technology by this time would be more advanced. This is more about simulating the tasks themselves, not when exactly they would happen.

 

[Izack]

This is sort of random, but what is the best way of controlling a stack? So far I've been using the Tranzit, and it does a superb job (very very slow turning, though.) It even uses its RCS properly to rotate the whole stack, not just itself. However, is there a better way to do this? Perhaps more than one service module (Tranzit)? Is this where Vessel Stack could come in handy?
Also, I still haven't managed to get the NERVA in: game always fails to load saying there's no vessel class called 'nerva2'.

 

[Bloodworth]

Ok, Im willing to bend on the date, but here is my reasoning (as stated before). I honestly do not believe that a manned mission to mars will HAPPEN in the next 50-75 years. We have not even been able to get back to the moon in the last 35 years and that is, what, 1/100,000th of the distance to mars! I do believe that it will happen eventually, but I am not overly optimistic that it will even happen in my lifetime (and frankly 41 ain't that old anymore).

As far as scenario is concerned, I've been practicing at that time period and have had no problems. I simply launch a scenario, open scenario editor, add whatever vessels I want and just before I save the scenario I set the date; I don't attempt to warp that sort of timespan. I think the issue is when you have scenarios that try to last more than x span of time. I could be wrong though.

 

[Izack]

(and frankly 41 ain't that old anymore).

My grandpa's getting on 70, and he can beat me at soccer, and I'm 18. These sure are interesting times... (Of course, I'm also a total nerd who spends more time in Orbiter than he does outside.)

I'm going to try testing the date as well. You may be right about the date thing.
However, I had thought before that the problem was with the system that determines where the planets are. As time goes on, the system gets less accurate and the planets may 'jump' around a few meters. The same thing happens to vessels when you get a few parsecs away from the Sun.
Anyway, this puts tremendous force on whatever unfortunate UMMU is on the surface, sending him out of the Solar System.
On that note, being banished from the Solar System at 50C seems to be a trend around here...

 

[Bloodworth]

We can just assume this is an alternate history kind of project. Assuming that technology by this time would be more advanced. This is more about simulating the tasks themselves, not when exactly they would happen.

While I agree with everything you've just said, part of simulating the tasks is the actual flights. How exactly THEY play out depends on where in their orbits they are, which is determined by the date. I have nothing against starting the mission in the present, I just thought it would be better to start at a later one. If there actually IS an issue with using later dates (actually STARTING at a later date, not simply time warping there) then it was a bad idea on my part and I will circular file the later date idea in a heartbeat.

 

[Izack]

While I agree with everything you've just said, part of simulating the tasks is the actual flights. How exactly THEY play out depends on where in their orbits they are, which is determined by the date. I have nothing against starting the mission in the present, I just thought it would be better to start at a later one. If there actually IS an issue with using later dates (actually STARTING at a later date, not simply time warping there) then it was a bad idea on my part and I will circular file the later date idea in a heartbeat.

I suggest having a look-see at THIS page, which has a list of dates and the distance of Mars from Earth at those dates (for oppositions and closest approaches.)
2003 had a pretty close approach, comparable to many of the later dates.

 

[Wolfer]

Here's my take on how the stack should roughly be laid out:

This particular configuration has about 5.7 km/s of dv, which should be more than sufficient if we make fuel for the return trip at Mars and if we aerobrake for the orbit insertion (The heat shield would be at the front). Also we can rotate it along the laterla axis to produce artificial gravity. Note that the cargos would be placed in the DGIVs/XR2s payload bay and some could be placed on the truss section and the habitat module with the radiators.

 

[Ashaman42]

For what it's worth I also think Prometheus is a good name.

Do people want me to make a fuel version of the GDI miner? Shall I just change the output or shall I whip up a new mesh?

Bearing in mind that the mesh/texturing on the miner were not my work so would probably end up with a quality more like the ore mill I'm making (see the GDI refinery thread for pics).

 

[Bj]

As far as scenario is concerned, I've been practicing at that time period and have had no problems. I simply launch a scenario, open scenario editor, add whatever vessels I want and just before I save the scenario I set the date; I don't attempt to warp that sort of timespan. I think the issue is when you have scenarios that try to last more than x span of time. I could be wrong though.

Doesnt matter if you 'time warped there' or not. As a matter of fact, I set the date by scenario editor up to year 9999 and it still was stable. Confused, I saved and went back to re-read the post from Dan. I restarted Orbiter (in year 9999) and just started moving forward, when I was ejected from this sol. Going back in the same way, I tested year 2050. Though instead of ejection, I was simply scooting along the earth choppy like at about 50m/s.

While I agree with everything you've just said, part of simulating the tasks is the actual flights. How exactly THEY play out depends on where in their orbits they are, which is determined by the date. I have nothing against starting the mission in the present, I just thought it would be better to start at a later one. If there actually IS an issue with using later dates (actually STARTING at a later date, not simply time warping there) then it was a bad idea on my part and I will circular file the later date idea in a heartbeat.

I agree the Earth/Mars relationship changes between years, though I think we are technologically incapable of simulating the proper year. Unless this becomes an entire re-write of Orbiter, its really not going to happen unfortunately.

Do people want me to make a fuel version of the GDI miner? Shall I just change the output or shall I whip up a new mesh?

Bearing in mind that the mesh/texturing on the miner were not my work so would probably end up with a quality more like the ore mill I'm making (see the GDI refinery thread for pics).

Fuel version? Yes please. I dont think the 'rock' output would look entirely accurate. Though you could just change the output mesh to the oil drum or something.


--------
As far as I see it, we have a few options.
Either

1. Accept a more current date (ie 2015)
2. Change the destination. (eg the Moon)

Running off of option 2, the Moon has a better chance of being reached by the end of 2020 provided it has funding. Technically, we are capable of reaching it now(since we have already been there), it just needs funding and the proper vehicles built. On the same side, the time frame willnot matter as much, since the moon will still be circling the Earth at the same distance (in Orbiter anyway) as year 2100.

 

[Izack]

The Moon? We've already done 14 pages of Mars planning...it's not that much of a setback that we have to switch suddenly to the Moon.

Wolfer, I like your stack. What addon is that on the back? It looks sort of like a Shuttle ET with gray foil. At any rate, it's better than mine.

 

[Bloodworth]

Ok, we appear to have a majority concencus. The name of the project is officially Prometheus. The only suggestion I can come up with for a mission patch is that it should include a flame (in recognition of prometheus).

It looks like my idea of a start date was a bad idea. I would still like it if we could shoot for the 2050 launch window; if not, I have no real issue with 2003.

Ashaman42: Yes, absolutely. We will need the fuel once we are there, especially given the ferry missions to get cargo/crew from the ships to the ground and vice-versa.

 

[Ashaman42]

Fuel version? Yes please. I dont think the 'rock' output would look entirely accurate. Though you could just change the output mesh to the oil drum or something.

I meant more about changing the actual miner mesh, for the output I was just planning on having the miner(fueler) output DanSteph's standard space fuel cargo (pretty sure this is ok but will check first).

However this will mean that the rock miner and fuel miner will look the same, though I guess we'll be able to identify which is which based on the kind of cargo stacking up near it.

 

[Urwumpe]

Did somebody say "moon"? Where are we here, a pony club?

We choose to go to Mars, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

 

[Bloodworth]

Did somebody say "moon"? Where are we here, a pony club?

We choose to go to Mars, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

Agreed...In spades!

 

[Bj]

The Moon?

Then that only leaves option 1. :thumbup:

I meant more about changing the actual miner mesh, for the output I was just planning on having the miner(fueler) output DanSteph's standard space fuel cargo (pretty sure this is ok but will check first).

However this will mean that the rock miner and fuel miner will look the same, though I guess we'll be able to identify which is which based on the kind of cargo stacking up near it.

Hmm, well I'm OK with it either way, but might the fuel cargo from UCGO be too small? 1048kg of fuel per cargo container is a lot, but the Arrows tanks carry 800,750kg and the DGIV carries 9600kg. Only 9 cargo tanks for DG, but ~800 for Arrow... Maybe it would be better for larger drums for the Arrow.

So the drum would take like 15 minutes to create in Orbiter time and a different miner would take 30 sec to make UCGO fuel cargo. Or something similar. Whats everyone else think? I think waiting for 800x fuel to spawn would be way too long and tiresome.

 

[Bj]

Alright, this is what I am envisioning for the needed buildings. (Obviously this is a rough sketch I drew, anyone can do whatever as always)