OFMM General Discussions Archive

[Bloodworth]

You know guys if we're gonna do this. Do you think it would be a good idea to say tell say NASA or ESA what were doing? Lets face it a bunch of teenagers and space enthusiasts doing a real time Mars Mission. Highly unlikely but may in small ways they could even help us out with the project. NASA's always interested in new ways to get good PR

When I first read this I thought "ehh, they would never be interested. They'd read it, laugh at it, delete it." The more I think about it though, it might have some merit. The worst that would happen is exactly what I thought. However, what if we actually got a real astronaut interested in the project? Or someone from mission control? That would be on hell of a fait acompli(sp?). Who knows, they might be willing to loan us one of their computer geniuses to rehash orulex so that it actually works. That would make the ground operations a lot more interesting. I agree however, that before we even consider such a thing that we at the very least need to have a formalized plan to show them (though it should not be finalized in the event that someone there DID actually take interest, contacted us and said "this part will never work and heres why...").

 

[Urwumpe]

Let me put it in short words : What do we have to loose?

NASA wouldn't bite us, in the worst case NASA does nothing at all, in the best case, NASA supports us the best they can (what ever this might eventually mean).

 

[Bj]

Stage one

Good idea to setup COMSATs around Mars, we can do these with the Ares I think. Would the Carina 2 Satellite work or you thinking something else?

Here is the thing though with launching separate vessels. If we launch one stack at a time (or otherwise not within the same month or so), we would have to wait for the next launch window to open, which could be a while.

About the Moon base; I think that would be rather difficult since the Moon has such a slow spin, it would mean 1 month of continuous LOS, then 1 month of nothing. Unless you where on the pole then it might work out properly depending on the tilt and whatever.

Stage Three

1. Lunar Orbit Construction dock.(LOCD)

So we are going to push each individual module past LEO into a Lunar orbit and construct around the Moon? What about all the launchers?

if you look at Ares V - 160,000kg to LEO, or 71,100-60,000kg to TLI. Much less weigh carried per launch meaning more Ares launches, meaning more (virtual) money (each engine, vehicle construction, ext).... a lot of dead weight and fuel to break into LEO. Better, I think to launch to LEO, then with a reusable engine push all the joined modules to Mars.

2. Moon Base Control(MBC)

So is anything wrong with Huston? Why do we need to try to make a mission control on the Moon? This would become one really ambitious project

3. Mars Ship.

I agree there, the Arrow, DGIV/XR2 is a little more past our technological capabilities now. We even have yet to make a true SSTO rocket. Thing is, unless we get some good modeler volunteering right now, and willing to make 2 ships at XR2 quality (both code and mesh) it would be rather difficult to simulate this in Orbiter. *(hint hint)* The best lander would look like Uwumpe's drawing a few posts back.

Sound's like a very good idea. If this plan is accepted I'd like to provide some meshes for the satellites..

Hey can you make some good satellite meshes? That would be nice.

perhaps leave a memorial plaque at the sites.

Good idea, a plaque would be easy, just really an indented box. Its just a matter of what to what to write for them.

Let me put it in short words : What do we have to loose?

NASA wouldn't bite us, in the worst case NASA does nothing at all, in the best case, NASA supports us the best they can (what ever this might eventually mean).

Best they can? :hmm: I'm not sure we would get anything out of it, actually I am not sure of the goal at all. Really its not that hard to get a unrealistic vessel anywhere, (ie Arrow, DGIV/XR2 with alternate settings) so I think the greater challenge would to actually make our own vessels that would actually have more realistic Mars landings.

 

[Columbia42]

I think contacting NASA is a great idea (anyone got their email:lol However if we want to do that I think we should build our Mars mission out of (semi) existing technology (otherwise why would NASA be interested?) To this end I propose something like the Mars DRA 5.0 plan I posted earlier. (I know it's somewhere around here. Urewumpe is right about the post count getting huge). I have already developed an Ares V rocket and I think Cymrych is working on some other vehicles from that document.

 

[Bj]

I think contacting NASA is a great idea (anyone got their email:lol However if we want to do that I think we should build our Mars mission out of (semi) existing technology (otherwise why would NASA be interested?) To this end I propose something like the Mars DRA 5.0 plan I posted earlier. (I know it's somewhere around here. Urewumpe is right about the post count getting huge). I have already developed an Ares V rocket and I think Cymrych is working on some other vehicles from that document.

This is getting rather long, anyway you mean this post

http://orbiter-forum.com/showpost.php?p=168568&postcount=123

Your right about using almost existing technology though, its just a matter of getting some modelers to work on it and any other necessary development. Until that happens... *(hint hint)* :tiphat:

 

[Columbia42]

Right now I'm working on two other addons however I might be able to make time to do a little modeling for some of the ships (Although I'm not too good at modeling I could probably do an NTR cargo ship or something along those lines.)

 

[Salun]

Good idea to setup COMSATs around Mars, we can do these with the Ares I think. Would the Carina 2 Satellite work or you thinking something else?

Here is the thing though with launching separate vessels. If we launch one stack at a time (or otherwise not within the same month or so), we would have to wait for the next launch window to open, which could be a while.

About the Moon base; I think that would be rather difficult since the Moon has such a slow spin, it would mean 1 month of continuous LOS, then 1 month of nothing. Unless you where on the pole then it might work out properly depending on the tilt and whatever.





So we are going to push each individual module past LEO into a Lunar orbit and construct around the Moon? What about all the launchers?

if you look at Ares V - 160,000kg to LEO, or 71,100-60,000kg to TLI. Much less weigh carried per launch meaning more Ares launches, meaning more (virtual) money (each engine, vehicle construction, ext).... a lot of dead weight and fuel to break into LEO. Better, I think to launch to LEO, then with a reusable engine push all the joined modules to Mars.



So is anything wrong with Huston? Why do we need to try to make a mission control on the Moon? This would become one really ambitious project




I agree there, the Arrow, DGIV/XR2 is a little more past our technological capabilities now. We even have yet to make a true SSTO rocket. Thing is, unless we get some good modeler volunteering right now, and willing to make 2 ships at XR2 quality (both code and mesh) it would be rather difficult to simulate this in Orbiter. *(hint hint)* The best lander would look like Uwumpe's drawing a few posts back.




Hey can you make some good satellite meshes? That would be nice.




Good idea, a plaque would be easy, just really an indented box. Its just a matter of what to what to write for them.




Best they can? :hmm: I'm not sure we would get anything out of it, actually I am not sure of the goal at all. Really its not that hard to get a unrealistic vessel anywhere, (ie Arrow, DGIV/XR2 with alternate settings) so I think the greater challenge would to actually make our own vessels that would actually have more realistic Mars landings.

I like how you think.

Really the concept behind the MBC is to give us a lower gravity to launch our ship from. And Frankly. Something to do. See once the Ship leaves earth its gonna be 7 months before much else needs to be done. With a moon base it gives the project a new series of things to keep interest in the project. MBC resupply. Station building. Lunar exploration missions.

As for the Thing of building the Mars ship in orbit and launching it to the moon. The ting is much of the fueling requirements for the ship would be set up on the moon.

Still you bring up a great point about the weight issues. So I propose a sort of compromise. The is Launching modules into LEO. Say first four are launched. Put together in orbit. A temporary modular engine is attached the the front five sections are launched to the moon. Center section. Engine launch aft section constructed and launched. So Were not launching the whole thing at once nor going bit by bit. Sending up half a dozen parts at once.

 

[Izack]

I'm sorry I've missed the last few days of planning. Reality had me busy...
It looks like I've been left in the dust, but I'll make myself useful in the meantime by keeping compiling all the data so far (saving all the important posts, etc.) and perhaps adding to the Orbiterwiki page. Perhaps I could be the official book-keeper. :lol:

 

[Bj]

I'm sorry I've missed the last few days of planning. Reality had me busy...
It looks like I've been left in the dust, but I'll make myself useful in the meantime by keeping compiling all the data so far (saving all the important posts, etc.) and perhaps adding to the Orbiterwiki page. Perhaps I could be the official book-keeper. :lol:

Which reminds me,

Check out the OFMM wiki page;
http://www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/OFMM


If I left any important parts out then you could add them please :thumbup:

 

[Dambuster]

I'm all for contacting NASA, provided this is properly-done (and Bj, you're doing a brilliant job so far :thumbup!

 

[Izack]

Which reminds me,

Check out the OFMM wiki page;
http://www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/OFMM

Hoo boy! I can't really top that. Very well done, Bj!

For contacting NASA, I'll go with the majority here and say we should have a comprehensive plan before we think about doing that. If we impress them enough, maybe it will shame them into actually going to Mars! :lol:

If only, if only...

 

[Urwumpe]

I personally think assembly a space station in Mars orbit is not the best choice since it distracts a lot of resources for the primary goal of actually landing on Mars.

And I like the Cycler idea, this would be really cool to have, especially since you would need at least six cyclers for a complete system. And assembling a cycler would be far more "different" to OFSS, compared to just doing the same on another planet.

 

[Bloodworth]

Well done on the wiki BJ, this thing is starting to gain momentum

 

[Pablo49]

And I like the Cycler idea, this would be really cool to have, especially since you would need at least six cyclers for a complete system. And assembling a cycler would be far more "different" to OFSS, compared to just doing the same on another planet.

I seemed to have missed this Cycler being mentioned before. Can you explain please?

 

[Urwumpe]

I seemed to have missed this Cycler being mentioned before. Can you explain please?

Lets link to the original: http://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/rocket_science/aldrin-mars-cycler/

There are already more types of Mars cyclers, ballistic and non-ballistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler

Ballistic mars cycles need absolutely no propellant for their work, they are held in their orbit by repeated swing-by maneuvers at Earth and Mars. They don't enter an planetary orbit, so docking/undocking from them requires a lot of propellant, but you can reuse them, so you actually save a lot of mass for many mars missions. For just one "Mars direct", a cycler would be futile.

 

[Izack]

I don't think anyone wants to be doing this for the next couple of years, so the cycler idea sounds like an unnecessary complexity, although interesting.

 

[Pablo49]

That is an interesting system. I still prefer the stack-MSS system. The building missions may be redundant for OFSS members, but we have nonOFSS members involved here too (Like me! ). I also like the idea of having a permanent presence in orbit.

 

[Bloodworth]

Yes, I think that the station will be a good idea, but we have to rotate the crews down to the surface. How would you like to train for years for a mission, fly 100 million miles to mars and be told that you have to camp your butt on a station in orbit? Personally, I think I'd take a walk out an airlock...

 

[Pablo49]

Well of course we`ll do crew changes. Every so often resourcea have to be brought from the service to the station to be transfered to ships going back to earth. Crews can go back up with the cargo and new crews can go down.

 

[Bj]

Continued discussion from community section:

Ive seen it like that, and seen it as a stack that drops its MSS modules and picks up cargo and returns its engines back to earth. Either way the stack would be far too large if it tried to move the MSS in one go. (as discussed in the Stack thread and in the main thread)

OK some quick calculations,

I am getting from this
Delta-v_budget

That it will take approximately 6.12 km/s DV from LEO to LMO.

The Nerva2 has

EMPTY_MASS=42000
FUEL_MASS=58466
MAIN_THRUST=1500000
ISP = 16500
Using Tsiolkovsky equation;

[math]\bigtriangleup v = (16500 * 9.81)ln\frac{58466+42000+\theta}{42000+\theta}[/math]

This is assuming no droptanks.

Now, I plug this into graphing calculator online and get this;

which I think is entirely wrong because as the mass of the cargo increases, the DV should be less.

So with Graph calc, its looking more like it should but its numbers are way off.

I entered it exactly as;
(16500 * 9.81)ln((58466+42000+x)/(42000+x))

Why is this graph so far off? Math wrong or numbers off?