sorindafabico
New member
I'll make some tests. Thanks!
Project Collins Lunar Station Development Thread
- Thread starter TMac3000
- Start date
I'll make some tests. Thanks!
sorindafabico
New member
How about use Canadarm attached to the station?
TMac3000
Evil Republican
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,773
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Flying an air liner to the moon
That's an RMS of some sort?
BruceJohnJennerLawso
Dread Lord of the Idiots
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,585
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Yessir. Canada just creates extra hardware to fly up on other countries rockets. I doubt we're ever going to even put a single person in space on our own budget.
TMac3000
Evil Republican
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,773
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Flying an air liner to the moon
WARNING: Basement-ish content ahead (maybe start a seperate thread?)
As long as you have a government that doesn't see a need to--or wants to, but has bigger fish to fry
In the U.S., our space program is going largley private, because our deficit has outgrown our GDP. And we have a lot of political problems to iron out before our government sends anyone into space. Hence no more Shuttle, and no more trips to the ISS on our own rockets
As long as you have a government that doesn't see a need to--or wants to, but has bigger fish to fry
In the U.S., our space program is going largley private, because our deficit has outgrown our GDP. And we have a lot of political problems to iron out before our government sends anyone into space. Hence no more Shuttle, and no more trips to the ISS on our own rockets
sorindafabico
New member
I suggested Canadarm because ISS AtoZ has it, behaves like SSRMS and can be added with Scenario Editor.
sorindafabico
New member
Well, let's develop the idea:
- We could set two attachment points (for placing Canadarm "3a" and "3b" on the station), each one close to a docking port. Useful to manage cargo (or even to attach ferry ships that won't dock for any reason) without doing an EVA. We would need a texture marking both attachment points, for obvious reasons.
The attached file has a sketch (sorry for doing it in Paint, I'm lazy today
). On the left, view from Z-axis. On the right, from Y-axis. The Canadarm points are on the same side (both XR2 and XR5 cargo bays stay to the same side when docked to the same docking port).
I suggested four attachment points (two mandatory). If you prefer to put the arms on the docking ports (gray points), don't forget to design the points allowing the arms bases to stay perpendicular to the station Z-axis. The gray points are good to save space for UCGO boxes.
====
About the size: if the station becomes too large, we can split it in two (or more) modules.
- We could set two attachment points (for placing Canadarm "3a" and "3b" on the station), each one close to a docking port. Useful to manage cargo (or even to attach ferry ships that won't dock for any reason) without doing an EVA. We would need a texture marking both attachment points, for obvious reasons.
The attached file has a sketch (sorry for doing it in Paint, I'm lazy today
). On the left, view from Z-axis. On the right, from Y-axis. The Canadarm points are on the same side (both XR2 and XR5 cargo bays stay to the same side when docked to the same docking port).I suggested four attachment points (two mandatory). If you prefer to put the arms on the docking ports (gray points), don't forget to design the points allowing the arms bases to stay perpendicular to the station Z-axis. The gray points are good to save space for UCGO boxes.
====
About the size: if the station becomes too large, we can split it in two (or more) modules.
Attachments
Last edited:
sorindafabico
New member
Regarding the Armstrong (?) suface base:
We could put CLS in the ecliptic plane. The equatorial inclination would be 1.54 degrees. This constrains a lot the options for the base site, BUT is good for interplanetary missions. Also, there's a few good places between 1.54 S and 1.54 N. Here's one:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinus_Medii[/ame]
A mare where the Earth is almost overhead. Also, it contains the landing site of Surveyor 6.
We could put CLS in the ecliptic plane. The equatorial inclination would be 1.54 degrees. This constrains a lot the options for the base site, BUT is good for interplanetary missions. Also, there's a few good places between 1.54 S and 1.54 N. Here's one:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinus_Medii[/ame]
A mare where the Earth is almost overhead. Also, it contains the landing site of Surveyor 6.
Last edited:
TMac3000
Evil Republican
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,773
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Flying an air liner to the moon
Hey, there's nothing lazy about Paint! I use it all the timeWell, let's develop the idea:
- We could set two attachment points (for placing Canadarm "3a" and "3b" on the station), each one close to a docking port. Useful to manage cargo (or even to attach ferry ships that won't dock for any reason) without doing an EVA. We would need a texture marking both attachment points, for obvious reasons.
The attached file has a sketch (sorry for doing it in Paint, I'm lazy today
I suggested four attachment points (two mandatory). If you prefer to put the arms on the docking ports (gray points), don't forget to design the points allowing the arms bases to stay perpendicular to the station Z-axis. The gray points are good to save space for UCGO boxes.
====
About the size: if the station becomes too large, we can split it in two (or more) modules.
The arms are a great idea
The module is almost ready--I'm going to make the main body smaller and add 5 more cargo slots. I should have some more time to work on it this weekend
---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 AM ----------
That location sounds fine. In fact, I prefer equatorial locations for all my travels, because they require less dV to reach. I had to choose a polar location on Mercury for obvious saftey reasons, but for this mission and the Ganymede and Europa sites, lower latitudes=better.
Last edited:
TMac3000
Evil Republican
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,773
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Flying an air liner to the moon
Okay, I am reviving this thread to let everyone know I have made some changes to the cargo module. I've reduced the size by 20 cm in the X and Y axes (Z axis=forward). Now it should fit in a Vanguard bay
sorindafabico
New member
It looks very nice :thumbup:
It would be very cool if we can launch it and start to build the surface base before Odyssey's trans-jovian injection.
Three little questions:
1) There are three "straps" in three sides, but one side is lacking one - different plans for this fourth side? If the problem with it is the placement in Vanguard's payload bay, we can make it deployable like a solar array. Or...These "straps" can be even covered with solar cells!
2) Are the docking ports fitting XR series size? (AFAIK, ~1 meter of diameter - I can't measure them) If the measurement I did in Anim8or is correct, it's a little bit smaller.
3) We need at least two attachment points for both RMS - I think they can be between the "straps" and the edges. What do you think?
It would be very cool if we can launch it and start to build the surface base before Odyssey's trans-jovian injection.
Three little questions:
1) There are three "straps" in three sides, but one side is lacking one - different plans for this fourth side? If the problem with it is the placement in Vanguard's payload bay, we can make it deployable like a solar array. Or...These "straps" can be even covered with solar cells!
2) Are the docking ports fitting XR series size? (AFAIK, ~1 meter of diameter - I can't measure them) If the measurement I did in Anim8or is correct, it's a little bit smaller.
3) We need at least two attachment points for both RMS - I think they can be between the "straps" and the edges. What do you think?
TMac3000
Evil Republican
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,773
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Flying an air liner to the moon
1) The straps around the sides are locking bars to hold the cargo in place. And putting solar cells on them is a great idea! The blank side was for a mounting point to the command module. For some reason I was thinking you wanted to mount it that way. Making the cargo racks deployable would be tricky...A better bet would be to carry the module and the cargo racks up on two separate missions--basically assemble the entire module in LEO. If we do that, then I can see having four racks
2) I'll change the size of the docking port again. It's roughly in the 1 m area, a little smaller I think. I'll try setting it to exactly one meter.
3) Sounds good. There's about half a meter of space between the edge of a rack and the edge of the module.
2) I'll change the size of the docking port again. It's roughly in the 1 m area, a little smaller I think. I'll try setting it to exactly one meter.
3) Sounds good. There's about half a meter of space between the edge of a rack and the edge of the module.
sorindafabico
New member
My idea is add further modules in the docking ports. Rack assembling in orbit (LLO or LEO?) is nice and could work pretty well.
TMac3000
Evil Republican
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,773
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Flying an air liner to the moon
Okay: I have split the system into two modules--the core module itself, and the rack, of which we can add four.
I added the two RMS attachment points above the docking ports. Notice also: I added four small docking ports around the sides of the module. These are designed to attach to the small docking port on the rack, for assembly purposes. I also retained the locking bar around the cargo rack.
We can loft the core first, and then two racks each in separate missions, for a total of three flights. We can assemble the system in LEO and use a Shuttle-D to tow it to the moon, or we can make three lunar trips and assemble it there. You're the Project Coordinator for CLS, so its your call
I added the two RMS attachment points above the docking ports. Notice also: I added four small docking ports around the sides of the module. These are designed to attach to the small docking port on the rack, for assembly purposes. I also retained the locking bar around the cargo rack.
We can loft the core first, and then two racks each in separate missions, for a total of three flights. We can assemble the system in LEO and use a Shuttle-D to tow it to the moon, or we can make three lunar trips and assemble it there. You're the Project Coordinator for CLS, so its your call
sorindafabico
New member
I was felled by a strong flu, I am temporarily unable to focus seriously on something... But I'll give response in the coming days
I like modular stations. Anyway, we need to evaluate the Shuttle-D to see if it has delta-v and thrust requirements, or we can use a Vanguard.
I like modular stations. Anyway, we need to evaluate the Shuttle-D to see if it has delta-v and thrust requirements, or we can use a Vanguard.
TMac3000
Evil Republican
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,773
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Flying an air liner to the moon
You got what I had?:blink:
Damn, this flu bug has got a serious blast radius:lol:
---------- Post added 06-11-13 at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was 06-10-13 at 06:52 PM ----------
So now that I've finished the mesh for the cargo module, just pass me the design requirements for the next piece of the station, and I'll start meshing it
Damn, this flu bug has got a serious blast radius:lol:
---------- Post added 06-11-13 at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was 06-10-13 at 06:52 PM ----------
So now that I've finished the mesh for the cargo module, just pass me the design requirements for the next piece of the station, and I'll start meshing it
