I can make a larger fuel cargo easily enough, will have a look at the weekend, how big should we go? Both size and mass -wise. Not sure what our lifting capacity from Mar to orbit will be.
Using the ET as a rough estimation of LOX/LH2 mass/volume ratio, it has 358.69kg of propellant per cubic meter.
Alright, this is what I'm envisioning; containers like
this (for ground fuel containers) would be good as semi-permanent structures. While the miner can produce smaller drums that can be used for packing fuel to orbit.
Now I am starting to think that for the 'smaller drums' we can actually use the fuel cargo supplied with UCGO. Since like ~9 of them will fill up the fuel tanks of DGIV, they should be enough. Anyway, if we had to haul them, we would have to make them fit in cargo bays and well, more hassle then I think its worth and redesigning the wheel I think.
Summary: the miner should produce UCGO fuel cargo for simplicity sake.
The larger drums (since I am assuming, alteration of Arrows hover engines to permit landing) should fill up 800,750kg of fuel with say, 5 drums.
Assuming 1.25:1 ratio for width/high large drum size and 160,150 kg for drum,
(don't mind my scribbles)
[MATH]\pi hr^2 = [/MATH](volume of container)
[MATH]2r=1.25(h)[/MATH]
[MATH]\pi h(0.625h)^2 = .39\pi h^3[/MATH]
[MATH]~.39\pi h^3 = ~446.49[/MATH] ( = (1/5)/358.69 of 800,750kg)
So the large drum should be;
h = ~7.14
r = ~4.46
Now then, I think either we can do 2 things, be realistic and set the miner (or other vessel) to have fuel containers fill as a function of time, or we can just have the oil drums set to act as UCGO fuel stations.
- The mars spacecraft should be modular, but should not require at the same time excessive LEO assembly phases. More than 4 modules per mars transfer would be painful.
- Dilemma:I would like the technology to be closer to todays reality, but I can see that this would also prevent many less than advanced players from taking part. So, I would suggest that a DG-Tech Mars vehicle would be better. A NERVA looks good, but is maybe already too hard for some.
This would assume that we are developing a new realistic multistage Apollo like vessel capable of Mars landings and returns. I am all for it, but I think it would take more time then most is willing to wait... unless I am wrong. :shrug:
- A program patch would be nice, but is currently the most useless thing in the queue. We need to get things started so the program is running, and then, when all the dangerous decisions are behind us, we can talk again about the decorations.
:hesaid:
- Before we decide on which vehicle we use, we should know what the vehicle(s) will transport. Thus, I think the task for the weekend should be: "Plan how the first Mars expedition should look like, how many consumables they need to survive there, and how it can get transported". This includes making suggestions how the mars base will look like in the first 18 months or how it evolves in that time.
- Remember: There will be a few weeks of an open launch window on Mars, that permits us to transport material there and let spacecraft directly fly back to Earth before the return window closes for 18 months. After it closes, the permanent expedition crew that is left on Mars will have to survive on what is on Mars, no resupplies possible. And I am sure, we want to call such a thing a base and not a tent city for some days before all go away for months.
- I am also sure, we don't want to fast forward until the Earth-Mars window opens again. So, we need so meaningful missions on Earth and Mars that fill the gap.
I thought we kind-of already got an idea of whats coming along?
post141
Its just a matter of writing up something that the UMMU have to be doing during the stay there.
About mission windows, while I get they are limiting, what if we dont really go for the 'most fuel efficient manner.' If the stack or any other ship has enough Delta V supply to get to a planet at the most direct, fastest and least efficient possible methods, why not cut out the months of wait and launch imminently? -so long as you have it in the delta V budget of course.
- We also need to decide first, how the crew gets to Mars and how they leave it: On the same vehicle as they used for landing (Apollo like) or use a Earth Return Vehicle (Like Mars Direct)? Swap spacecraft or not? Mars Orbit Rendezvous?
AFAIK, so far we have 2 vessels, the stack which is doubling as the station and the Arrow(with smaller craft included)
Just checking around OH, we really don't have any 'realistic' vehicle capable of a Mars journey. Everything is unrealistic SSTO vessels.
- For not loosing the paperwork in Forum&Social Groups, let me suggest (like always) to use OrbiterWiki for gathering the important information. I would say it is the best tool for the documentation job.
Excellent idea as always.
- Instead of many people talking endlessly against each other, there should be a direction. So, let me suggest a very simple method of making sure work gets done, instead of just talking about it: Delegate responsibility. We have heard enough opinions now, and I think we all agree that this is a great forum project. Now, the talking can cease, and the metal has to be cut.
Cutting metal now...:chainsaw:
Who's delegating? If anyone doesn't mind, I volunteer be the project manager for this and delegate sub-portions of the project.
I should have known that.
