OFMM General Discussions Archive

[Izack]

[removed]
Edit:

I have no idea what I was thinking. Not to self: don't go on forums when overtired and severely stressed.

 

[lennartsmit]

I think we need to keep it at least moderately realistic. First we need good, scientific research on mission goals and possible landing-spots.

Then we need a small space-station in orbit around Mars. This should be built up by separate launches, with modules that stay dormant until the launch-window opens. We could launch the modules with a derivative of the Ares V or a Saturn rocket.

Then, not in an unrealistically large stack, but with separate tugs, the modules would go to Mars. Supplies could go up in that same launch-window.

After the space-station is completed we could prepare a small Martian base that would later be used for human habitation.

After that we need a lander and a realistic spacecraft that can support crew for at least a year. We shouldn't use the DGIV or the XR series as landers as they are completely impractical and unrealistic for landing without a runway.

Just my two cent's but I hope to steer this project in the somewhat realistic.

 

[Ashaman42]

Surely it's better to have a bit of discussion and see what people want to do/how they want to go about it before going off half-cocked and getting things modelled/coded that may not even be used.

And if some people are making suggestions that maybe they could have worked out for themselves, well, does it really matter? It is a discussion forum after all. I know there are at least a few things I've understood better from talking them over rather than reading/googling them.

 

[Bj]

The loads for aerobraking are, at most, lower than the loads by propulsion.

Good to know

I don't find much more data on how much punishment they really take, but it seems you can generally say, that your spacecraft module will break before the bolts of the CBM.

Progress offers what 196 kN thrust? Though I doubt they would ever run at 100%.

And sorry, I find the cargo cult science in the thread a bit annoying. I might be a bit sarcastic right now, but let me put an conservative estimate: 99% of the posts in the thread are done by people, who couldn't even land on the moon, but who think that writing more posts and wild assumptions here is better than listening to the questions, suggestions and objections of those, who have the flight experience.

Hell, I can't really understand why we suddenly got the MSS, and I am completely lost why we have many posts already discussing the name for it. Instead of serious calculations, people need to discuss the most basic form of the rocket equation, without any of the really needed extensions to it. What goes on here? If the thread is about pushing the ISS into Mars orbit, we can be done in 25 seconds, write the scenario and be done with it. Sorry, I feel the focus of landing on Mars is completely lost to making screen shots and naming contests of a spacecraft, of which we still don't know, what we expect of it. I can't believe that a week had to pass, without any progress towards Mars, but with a lot of red tape being handed around. I can already see NASA landing on Mars before we have decided if we should paint the floor grass-green or mars-red. That is *garble*, absolutely *garble*.

Is that my fault? Urwumpe, look at who is exactly on this little project here. How many of them are addon devs? Counting from the social group, 2 good quality devs, + me(at about average skill dev)...

NASA = 100% engineers at 40 hours a week + budget = progress

OF = less than 1% can code like Artlav or you (counting the 700 some odd people that actually have 10 posts or more, not the 3,213 people that are < 10)

There is a fuzzy line between realistic and unrealistic
There is a fuzzy line between work and fun.
There is a thick hard line between possible and impossible.

What some might consider realistic is pure bogus for others. Some developing might be considered fun for some, would be a job for others.

For this project, the question becomes how to balance realistic and possible and being fun while using Orbiter for the simulator? Keep in mind the number of engineers and addon dev volunteers for this project...

Right now, for this project anyway, it would be impossible to create a realistic vessel using this crowd within any feasible timeframe. Given a year maybe I could pull together something worth anything, but till then.

I think the MSS was created only for the reason of having something to do because, 1. no feasible realistic lander cough: arrow, :cough, 2. sending a few modules into space, ship to Mars, deorbit some vessels, walk around a bit, return.... I think some of us have been there, done that. I have by myself already did that in a few hours. At least trying to send a larger mass to Mars would provide some pseudo-complexity.

Wanna scrap the MSS? OK great, now then the mission boils down to, moving Arrow to mars, deorbit, walk around a bit..... :dry:
Dont like the Arrow? OK great, now the mission boils down to making something that will work, any volunteers? :tumbleweed:

(I hope I am one of those 1%...)

Especially, even considering to your advantage that most people here have no university education on manned space mission design, I still feel that we have one day of discussion for just 5 minutes of using a pocket calculator. I would prefer the other way around. See that people really put effort into comparing alternatives or calculating how the flight manifest could work out for a while, before they go posting their findings for bringing the discussion forward.

YES YES YES

Want to know what I would like to see? Something like the constellation program except for Mars. Altered landing/launching vessels of course.

Whats everyone on this project think this project is about? Developing the craft using realistic technologies of today's working standards, or just flying to Mars with what is readily available. After reading posts from this thread, I would assume the former.

If however, you find this unacceptable, please start a separate project that is sole purpose is to create a AMSO/NASSAP/SSU type vehicle(s) that is dedicated to flying to Mars. I would like to join that project and help any way I could, though it would be limited to mathematics and simple coding. (and I an not being sarcastic on this either)

I am getting a bit frustrated here, and if people really decide to name even the toilet paper dispenser Colbert, I'll openly revolt. Colbert is a perfect name for the current state of the project. The hero of the under-performers, for a under-performing project.

I feel your frustration, I feel a replica of it M-F 7Am to 3:30PM when working with/for people at work that seem to have for brains.

This disagrees, Colbert though [insert word here] for [your definition] would fit perfectly.

First we need good, scientific research on mission goals and possible landing-spots.

OK, anyone have any science experiments they wanna do?

Then, not in an unrealistically large stack, but with separate tugs, the modules would go to Mars. Supplies could go up in that same launch-window.

Ok what should the modules consist of? Should this station be habitable? If so, we would need area for at least 2 years of food for # of astronauts, solar panels large enough to provide power for astronauts, radiators ext ext.. so just about the same as ISS but reconfigured.

After that we need a lander and a realistic spacecraft that can support crew for at least a year. We shouldn't use the DGIV or the XR series as landers as they are completely impractical and unrealistic for landing without a runway.

OK have any suggestions for the lander? At what stage is the design for this lander, contemplative?

Surely it's better to have a bit of discussion and see what people want to do/how they want to go about it before going off half-cocked and getting things modelled/coded that may not even be used.

Ah if only we where that ambitious.

And if some people are making suggestions that maybe they could have worked out for themselves, well, does it really matter? It is a discussion forum after all. I know there are at least a few things I've understood better from talking them over rather than reading/googling them.

No, small suggestions are fine, but darastic changes are really... like, lets go to the Moon, and after we have moved to Mars, as long as we are there, lets jump to Neptune...

 

[Pablo49]

And sorry, I find the cargo cult science in the thread a bit annoying. I might be a bit sarcastic right now, but let me put an conservative estimate: 99% of the posts in the thread are done by people, who couldn't even land on the moon, but who think that writing more posts and wild assumptions here is better than listening to the questions, suggestions and objections of those, who have the flight experience.

You can't possibly know anyone else's experience besides your own. Nor can you begin to guess at the reasons people post they way they do.

And Hell, I can't really understand why we suddenly got the MSS, and I am completely lost why we have many posts already discussing the name for it.

Um, we've had the MSS planned for quite some time. It was even in Bj's original General Mission Plans post. And it's planned to have it as one of the first things done, hence why we already have it going.

Sorry, I feel the focus of landing on Mars is completely lost to making screen shots and naming contests of a spacecraft, of which we still don't know, what we expect of it. I can't believe that a week had to pass, without any progress towards Mars, but with a lot of red tape being handed around. I can already see NASA landing on Mars before we have decided if we should paint the floor grass-green or mars-red. That is *garble*, absolutely *garble*.

How as the landing on Mars objective been lost? Note the lack of screenshots being posted, aside from very early posts showing different stack ideas before we had anything planned, there hasn't been waves of screenshots like you imply. There has been one MSS shot, which was posted by me because it is my job to design it, so logically I came up with a design and posted it for review. If anyone else, who wasn't supposed to, started throwing up random shots, then we would have an issue.

And about the names, for the most part they have been little comments tacked onto the ends of posts. And anyone who has really been working on this project hasn't made any posts that were only on that subject. You act like we have abandoned everything just to name the MSS. A sentence at the end of a post doesn't derail everything.

lennartsmit[/B]]Then, not in an unrealistically large stack, but with separate tugs, the modules would go to Mars. Supplies could go up in that same launch-window.

Personally, I have mentioned before in the MSS thread about having the MSS (or whatever final station we choose) be launch is like mini stacks, with a handful of module each.

Note: Apparently I forgot to hit post hours ago before I went AFK, so anything I post is probably outdated. Edit shall come shortly, most likely.

Edit: As noted by Bj:

I think the MSS was created only for the reason of having something to do because, 1. no feasible realistic lander cough: arrow, :cough, 2. sending a few modules into space, ship to Mars, deorbit some vessels, walk around a bit, return.... I think some of us have been there, done that. I have by myself already did that in a few hours. At least trying to send a larger mass to Mars would provide some pseudo-complexity.

I agree. With as many people as we have wanting to fly missions for this, having the MSS gives us some filler, and more to work out that just deorbiting vessels and walking around (Well put btw). Personally, I used to have a Orbiter install solely for a Mars mission, I've been all over Mars. Why tag team something we can easily do ourselves, and probably easier? The only thing besides the MSS that OFMM has to offer besides the usual flag planting and base building is the resource gathering.

 

[Urwumpe]

You can't possibly know anyone else's experience besides your own. Nor can you begin to guess at the reasons people post they way they do.

Ok, lets assume all people here are smarter than I am: When do they start to show it? I know I am not the brightest light on the tree, so it should be easily possible to best me, but the progress has become homeopathic. People only do, what they can do easily: Discuss superficial decorations. Anything, that sounds like work, is avoided. That is something what has destroyed already a few hundred high-school projects, but which sucks badly in the real wild world.

Um, we've had the MSS planned for quite some time. It was even in Bj's original General Mission Plans post. And it's planned to have it as one of the first things done, hence why we already have it going.

Exactly - it appeared in just one early suggestion and then absorbed 99% of the discussion. I don't give a damn on what you want. I also want a mahagoni counter in the hab and whisky in the bar. What counts is what we actually need to get the job done - and for me the job was getting a surface base on Mars from the beginning. I feel already pretty disturbed that people even suggest that building the MSS is much better as building cyclers. Even a quick math check would oppose this. The MSS is a resource hog currently. It keeps people from doing what is really needed at the time.

Also, I think working for 15 months on Mars surface is better than waiting 15 months in Mars orbit for the next assembly stage, and watch Mars from close. Yes, I say that as role-playing game fanatic. What would be needed one day would be a fuel station in Mars orbit, that is right (Unless in-situ fails). But if you plan to assemble this one first and then from time to time do flags and footprints, you are on the road to hell. A Mars space station will need water, food and fuel, and the best place to get this would be the surface of Mars.

I won't do flags and footprints, I want the full package. And I also won't do a OFSS in Mars orbit only for pleasing under-performers. I can already see Space station modules being lost in space, because people suddenly realize that they failed the Mars orbit insertion and can't correct the orbit plane. It sounds all easy if it is not you who has to do it. A mars surface base has the tiny advantage that you need to wait maximal 12 hours before you get the next chance for landing nearby.

Also, before this goes on forever and pushes my black body radiation into the X-Ray range:

Basic rocket equation:
[math]\frac{m_0}{m_1} = e^{\frac{-\Delta v}{w}}[/math]

Rocket equation with structural mass fraction for stage (i):
[math]\lambda^{(i)} = \frac{m_0^{(i)}}{m_1^{(i)}} = \frac{e^{\frac{-\Delta v^{(i)}}{w^{(i)}}}- \sigma^{(i)}}{1-\sigma^{(i)}}[/math]

payload mass fraction [math]\lambda^{(i)}[/math] of multiple stages combined:
[math]\lambda = \lambda^{(1)} \cdot \lambda^{(2)} \cdot ... \cdot \lambda^{}[/math]

---------- Post added at 10:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

Edit: As noted by Bj: I agree. With as many people as we have wanting to fly missions for this, having the MSS gives us some filler, and more to work out that just deorbiting vessels and walking around (Well put btw). Personally, I used to have a Orbiter install solely for a Mars mission, I've been all over Mars. Why tag team something we can easily do ourselves, and probably easier? The only thing besides the MSS that OFMM has to offer besides the usual flag planting and base building is the resource gathering.

I disagree strongly. And if you have been to Mars, did you ever try landing precisely? Or why are you talking like building a *garble* space station in Mars orbit is the best of the world? A space station can also be done ourselves individually... how impressive. Doing five Mars transfer missions in one window, while you also do surface operations, that needs workforce, because juggling five balls alone is already hard enough, than to also do this while vacuum cleaning your kitchen floor.

A mars space station will only be a collection of frustration. So close, and so far away.

What you want is not OFMM, what you want is "OFSS:Mars edition"

 

[dougkeenan]

 

[Urwumpe]

dougkeenan: Ok, you got me. My spelling correction has no clue about furniture. :lol: Didn't know that "mahagoni" is written "mahogany" in English.

But "Do you know where you're going to?" is really a valid question for the thread...

 

[Pablo49]

Also, I think working for 15 months on Mars surface is better than waiting 15 months in Mars orbit for the next assembly stage, and watch Mars from close. Yes, I say that as role-playing game fanatic. What would be needed one day would be a fuel station in Mars orbit, that is right (Unless in-situ fails). But if you plan to assemble this one first and then from time to time do flags and footprints, you are on the road to hell. A Mars space station will need water, food and fuel, and the best place to get this would be the surface of Mars.

Thing is, we were going to build it in LEO, so we could move it to Mars without sucking up all of our launch window. I never implied that we would sit up on orbit and every now and again go and plant some flags. I have always seen it has having the MSS in addition to all of our ground operations. I have not seen it stated otherwise.

I won't do flags and footprints, I want the full package. And I also won't do a OFSS in Mars orbit only for pleasing under-performers. I can already see Space station modules being lost in space, because people suddenly realize that they failed the Mars orbit insertion and can't correct the orbit plane. It sounds all easy if it is not you who has to do it. A mars surface base has the tiny advantage that you need to wait maximal 12 hours before you get the next chance for landing nearby.

I agree, I don't want to just do flags and footprints either. Personally, I'm excited for us to go out find resources, gather them, handle the logistics and such, definitely the best part. As for missing an orbit insertion and you gave as an example: that would also include getting any ship into Mars orbit, be it MSS modules or not. Obviously people who couldn't get into the proper orbit wouldn't fly those missions. We have plenty of people wanting to fly missions, and I am sure we will find people who can fly the more advanced flights.

I disagree strongly. And if you have been to Mars, did you ever try landing precisely? Or why are you talking like building a *garble* space station in Mars orbit is the best of the world? A space station can also be done ourselves individually... how impressive. Doing five Mars transfer missions in one window, while you also do surface operations, that needs workforce, because juggling five balls alone is already hard enough, than to also do this while vacuum cleaning your kitchen floor.

I have been to Mars, and yes I did precision landings. I don't see why you have to doubt me without cause, I have no reason to say it if it wasnt true. I also know we can do stations individually too, and I know it is not particularly impressive. I am not talking about it like it is the best thing in the world. We do not have to have it, nor do we have to not have it. Personally, I would like to see it.

What you want is not OFMM, what you want is "OFSS:Mars edition"

Again you seem to forget that MSS was not, nor ever was going to be the main focus of OFMM. You seem hung up on that.

Either way, we are getting derailed with this. If we are to scrap the MSS, lets start really discussing the alternatives and move forward.

 

[Urwumpe]

Just as excuse: I did not intend to disqualify you, but to remind you on the Mars landings as challenge.

Either way, we are getting derailed with this. If we are to scrap the MSS, lets start really discussing the alternatives and move forward.

No, what I am talking about is finally, and with the needed discipline, discuss the requirements of such a MSS or what ever we are going to use for the task. We still have not a single good manifest of what we are going to transport when with how many spacecraft. I don't expect final numbers, but at least a good first-order estimate that we can design the MSS for the payload mass and flight activities.

I have a first phase mars base nearly sketched out, including some semi-automatic green houses for providing an initial crew with food and some additional oxygen (I doubt that we can best the failure of Biosphere II). Currently I am at a crew size of 8, but I think a larger crew of <16 would make sense. This is just first phase, for the first 18 months on Mars. The second phase could already see a small growth of the crew.

The latest MSS design sketches had also been just a modular something in Mars orbit and not even something that could act as cycler station, that was maybe luring me to the wrong conclusions.

 

[Pablo49]

Fair enough, the clarification is appreciated.

Hm, by semi-automatic, what do you mean? Like sending them to Mars before astronauts, so there is food ready on arrival or they operate themselves? Or something different? Can you upload the base sketch (assuming it's finished)?

Eh, I didn't know what was really expected from the MSS when I threw that concept together, so it was very rough, and I expected it to be changed and have comments made, but none were.

 

[Izack]

Just as excuse: I did not intend to disqualify you, but to remind you on the Mars landings as challenge.

It's more like my excuse. There's too much stuff suddenly going on for me to be able to maintain an adequate amount of meaningful input for a project this complex. When I joined in, I was thinking we would just think something up, throw interesting ideas around, then fly a few sims over a few weeks, not conduct an enormously complex engineering endeavour. You guys even want to contact NASA, for Christ's sake. Are we playing with a simulator or are we forming a new space agency?

Of course, reading my other post again makes me cringe at my own melodrama. This is what happens when you post with an uptime of 34 hours, sustained by energy drinks. -barfs-
Anyway, ignore it. If we can treat this like the game/sim it is it can be very fun and not a crash-course in engineering, aeronautics, astrodynamics and perhaps theoretical physics.
End rant. Thank you and good night. :goodnight:

 

[Urwumpe]

Hm, by semi-automatic, what do you mean? Like sending them to Mars before astronauts, so there is food ready on arrival or they operate themselves? Or something different? Can you upload the base sketch (assuming it's finished)?

No, actually just that not all tasks need to be done by astronauts, but that manual action is needed. For example irrigation can happen automatically, but harvesting or planting seeds not.

Once the base sketch is done, I can upload it, I have still some small details that don't work together (eg where and how to install a nuclear reactor), also I am not sure yet how much "farm" land an astronaut needs for getting completely self-sustained and now much he needs if only 50,75, 90% sustainment-level is needed (eg, 50% of the food is from Mars, the rest is from Earth)

Also I would like to get a map as background... :lol:

---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------

Here is the map of how I imagine the first phase of the Mars base so far:

The whole image is about 500m x 500m large, I included two areas for landing/launching spacecraft and one for the reactor (for which I am still not sure how to install it best).

The central hab/command module is the biggest massive structure, with 10m diameter, the greenhouses around the base are semi-rigid, which means they are a soft-skin kept stable by both internal pressure and a rigid framework. I left away an airlock from the current "sketch" of them, because it might make sense to not have one, but instead either have a tent-like airlock that gets installed additionally, and later connect the green houses to nodes and tunnels that permit entering the green houses without EVA.

Since the greenhouses would be "pretty" light it would be possible to relocate them by astronaut power. I calculate with 2 greenhouses per astronaut.

The hab/command would be between 4 and 6 levels high, with the lowest full level containing airlocks and rover garage. The lowest level below the rover garage would contain support gear, like waste tanks, batteries, etc. and is only partially pressurized. the next levels would contain workshops, laboratories, crew quarters and the base command center/communication on the top level, including astronomical gear, that could be used during Mars transit for navigation.

Later extensions would be either using the same hull as the Hab/Command module, or be cylindrical modules of smaller diameter, that will be dug below mars soil.

The idea is to make the base slowly look more and more like Olympus is in Orbiter already.

 

[T.Neo]

Is there any possibility of covering at least the habitation modules with regolith as radiation shielding? How would such a structure be constructed?

And the greenhouses- would they not suffer from durability issues if they are lightweight enough? What would the requirements for a "tent-like airlock" be?

Would there be a possibility of either solar or wind power to at least augment the power of the reactor?

 

[Urwumpe]

Is there any possibility of covering at least the habitation modules with regolith as radiation shielding? How would such a structure be constructed?

I think I mentioned it briefly... yes, as extension, by using cylindrical modules that are just covered with soil.

And the greenhouses- would they not suffer from durability issues if they are lightweight enough?

Not more than rigid structures. Flexibility is as much desired pretty often as stability, the best is the right balance between both. The central module is just rigid in my design for rising high above the surface and provide a good overview of the base, as well as later allowing line-of-sight radio links over a bigger area.

What would the requirements for a "tent-like airlock" be?

Large enough for two astronauts, easily installed or removed, powered by and takes atmosphere from the module it is attached to (alternatively cable connection to another module and gas bottles), can be stored in a UCGO box. The rest is TBD.

Would there be a possibility of either solar or wind power to at least augment the power of the reactor?

Solar power and wind power would be pretty weak on Mars. Solar power could be used as augmentation, but for powering the whole base, you would quickly need huge arrays. And especially for the green houses, you would need extra power since the light on Mars would be much weaker than on Earth and not all edible plants like that.

 

[Pablo49]

I pictured the Mars greenhouses similar to what you described. I agree on that being the best course.

Covering modules with martian soil was mentioned before, and again I agree.

How would we simulate construction of the artificial dunes? Or would we just have them there as part of the base from the start and just pretend we did it?

 

[Urwumpe]

How would we simulate construction of the artificial dunes? Or would we just have them there as part of the base from the start and just pretend we did it?

We could produce also the dunes like the rocks in AMSO, would also be possible. Pretty much vessels of their own, we could use a DLL for moving and manipulating them...

 

[Bj]

Wow leave for a day and...

Alright just staying outta this little scrap, I am gathering we are removing MSS? Has the vessel of choice for Earth-Mars trans been decided/altered? AFAIK its still the Arrow...

Anyway, nice grounds layout picture Urwumpe, though it looks like most of the buildings/materials will have to be modeled.

 

[Urwumpe]

Anyway, nice grounds layout picture Urwumpe, though it looks like most of the buildings/materials will have to be modeled.

It is not like we can download the "Mars Base Building Blocks" from Greg Burch already. Of course it won't be as easy as building a space station.

Yes, that is a weakness of my plan, but because of that, we are still sitting here, discussing how to make things better. I think some modeling/add-on development is necessary for getting things running, the question is, how much is really needed. I just want to push things really forward, instead of just sitting around here, complaining about the lack of direction in the project. You wanted to be program leader, now try to stay on top of the wave.

Maybe as we are the first to really do this, we have the duty to make things easier for later exoterrestrial bases.

 

[Izack]

Maybe as we are the first to really do this, we have the duty to make things easier for later exoterrestrial bases.

To boldly go where it has not been made convenient by others to do so before...