Iron Hill Project Thread

[TMac3000]

Chronus test flight scheduled for this Friday.

Sorindafabico will be flying, with Mattyv as copilot.

This will be a simple once around the Earth, reenter and land. While in orbit, you'll need to run dianostics on all the major systems, and make sure she's ready for the December flight.

Scenario will be posted Thursday night. Chronus is parked inside the VAB, and the Azure is over near the runway, so you'll have to walk to the ship.

Takeoff is tentatively scheduled for 03:00 UTC Sep 15/23:00 EDT Sep 14. I'm flexable Let me know if you need to change it

 

[sorindafabico]

The schedule is a bit late, it would be better around 22-23 UTC.

 

[TMac3000]

Done
18:00 UTC
We're not trying to go anywhere specific, so there's no launch window to worry about

 

[sorindafabico]

An idea about the next mission's ferry flights: we can launch from Wideawake. It has a low latitude (8º degrees), so, we won't need to perform plane corrections.

---------- Post added at 05:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 AM ----------

Here's a draft of a Mercury IMS, lacking tanks, engines and 2 of 4 RCS modules:

From RIGHT to LEFT: docking port, control module, antenna and cupola, hab module, life support modules (3 hydroponics, 1 H2O-O2), MCS (unecessary, i'll change it to a storage module), solar panels (generating about 120 kW in Mercury orbit), radiators and Main Cooling System (MCS).

The total mass of these modules is 93000 kg.

Issues:
- The system display says the panels are overheating, but they are still generating electricity. I don't know if it is a bug.
- The ship will probably need a nuclear generator for the early stages of the trip, adding mass. Its consumption is ~100 kW. We can use more solar panels too (adding dead mass when close to the sun, but still can be better).
- We can use thermonuclear propulsion, but the mass ratio for a round trip would be between 6 and 7 using Gas Core NTR. VASIMR allows much better mass ratio but we have to learn how to navigate with it.

We can optimize the design and/or make specific modules (if we have time) or simply use the Arrow in december.

 

[TMac3000]

I love it!:thumbup: How long would it take to put together?

Perhaps save this one for the Deep Six project?

Also, it occurs to me that Discovery does not yet have the new hover engines. I'm thinking of installing them in LEO by space walk this time, since we would have to really rip into gear to be ready for another lunar mission by November...

 

[sorindafabico]

The time we'll spend assembling this craft depends on room in XR5 cargo bay - I don't remember its cargo capacity to LEO, but I think we can launch 100 mt tons if the bay has room for it.

The Deep Six ship would be different - electrical power generated by reactors instead of solar panels, less cooling modules...

Before decide about the final shape of the ship and if it will be used on Iron Hill, we must choose the engine type - i'm trying to learn about ion drive, but I wouldn't use it without some practice. I'm more confortable with NTRs, but they need more fuel mass.

If we use Discovery instead of an IMS in december, we can use it on a third trip to Mercury, as a proof of concept for Deep Six.

 

[TMac3000]

Sounds good:thumbup:

I like your last option. Let's use Discovery in December (we need to get those new Odyssey-style hovers installed), and use the IMS to carry the C-Crew, God only knows when (I'll have to check CTS and see what works)

 

[sorindafabico]

There's a window in April, but the C-crew won't go to Jupiter (well, they can send their clones =p).

 

[TMac3000]

Okay, according to CTS, here's what we're looking at for a schedule:
A-Crew departs Mercury 10-20-2012, arrives Earth 02-04-2013

B-Crew departs Earth 12-19-2012, arrives Mercury 04-03-2013
B-Crew departs Mercury 06-09-2013, arrives Earth 09-23-2013

IMS (no name yet) departs Earth 09-12-2013, arrives Jupiter 06-06-2016

So the IMS will leave Earth about two weeks before Discovery's homecoming.

And we'll have three whole years to squeeze in a third Mercury mission (perhaps send the A-Crew back, minus myself?) while the IMS is in transit. It's going to get a little crazy, running two projects at once, but there's no reason we can't do it

Best window for third Mercury trip: 12-1-2013 to 03-15-2014

 

[sorindafabico]

IMS (no name yet) departs Earth 09-12-2013, arrives Jupiter 06-06-2016

We can reduce the travel time with high ISP engines.

---------- Post added at 02:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 AM ----------

My draft is growing insanely huge. Here's the ship with the best NTR avaliable in IMS today (Gas Core NTR, ISP 25000 m/s, T/W ratio = 10). These four huge tanks provide "only" 14 km/s of delta-v - the round trip Earth-Mercury-Earth needs about 50 km/s. Initial acceleration is already below 1G.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Oh, put my name on the list. I'm sure you'll have lots of tables to arrange and spaces to walk out there on Europa. :tiphat:

Who knows, I may even figure out how to work one of these spacey-craft by then :beathead:

Rick

If I might offer some thoughts. Ive been thinking lately that for our VSA "rules", we stick mostly to tech/designs that are at least possible within some of our lifetimes. IMS obviously should fit that category, and I think we can make an exception with the Arrow freighters, but for the XR fleet and the DGIV, we should use close to realistic configurations. I think the project can still be interesting, but flying SSTO spaceplanes that can do a Jupiter trip and back with fuel left over doesnt feel like it will provide really interesting insights into the future of space exploration. If we do it this way, we might even discover a mission plan that could be used for real Mars flights eh?

And one other idea: Maybe we can put out a request in the community for 2-3 people to act as our "SimSup", ie introducing reasonable glitches into the scenario, so as to test reacting to a crisis. Simsup would have to PM last scenario user for the SCN file, and insert any "suprises", so as to make the reaction genuine.

What do you think?

---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------

We can reduce the travel time with high ISP engines.

---------- Post added at 02:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 AM ----------

My draft is growing insanely huge. Here's the ship with the best NTR avaliable in IMS today (Gas Core NTR, ISP 25000 m/s, T/W ratio = 10). These four huge tanks provide "only" 14 km/s of delta-v - the round trip Earth-Mercury-Earth needs about 50 km/s. Initial acceleration is already below 1G.

Definitely lacks the arrow freighters look, but I guess ugly works too :lol:

With regards to the Mercury trip, I heard about the DeltaV Issues before. Because theres no atmosphere to aerobrake with, and the encounter speed also has to be so high, most space agencies have found it very difficult to probe mercury. If we want to shake down IMS, I would suggest maybe a Venus mission instead?

 

[Felipi1205]

Just put my seat in this mission, right? I'm not having too much time in the last months, but soon I'll have some free time again!

 

[sorindafabico]

With regards to the Mercury trip, I heard about the DeltaV Issues before. Because theres no atmosphere to aerobrake with, and the encounter speed also has to be so high, most space agencies have found it very difficult to probe mercury. If we want to shake down IMS, I would suggest maybe a Venus mission instead?

I like the idea.

Venus Orbiter/Lander?
Venus Flyby?
Venus Flyby/Lander?

 

[TMac3000]

With regards to the Mercury trip, I heard about the DeltaV Issues before. Because theres no atmosphere to aerobrake with, and the encounter speed also has to be so high, most space agencies have found it very difficult to probe mercury. If we want to shake down IMS, I would suggest maybe a Venus mission instead?

That's a very good idea In fact, I'd like to do a series of Venus missions at some point, with the goal of building a space station there.

But for now, let's focus a Venus flyby, just to prove the concept to the Orbiter community. We can also do the robot lander

BTW, what about a heat shield for the IMS?

---------- Post added at 08:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------

Just put my seat in this mission, right? I'm not having too much time in the last months, but soon I'll have some free time again!

Ah, so that's why I haven't heard from you about that second Scopas trip:yes:
Don't worry, I'll do the driving Saturday, then pass the scenario to you. What I'd like you to do is set up the relay at Scopas, then get a screenshot of me, you, and RickD standing around the equipment, and post it in the screenshot thread

 

[sorindafabico]

Bad news: I can't be on Chronus test flight (IRL obligations). Best reschedule to Sunday night.

Sorry guys

 

[TMac3000]

Sunday night it is:yes:
Same time?

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Okay, according to CTS, here's what we're looking at for a schedule:
A-Crew departs Mercury 10-20-2012, arrives Earth 02-04-2013

B-Crew departs Earth 12-19-2012, arrives Mercury 04-03-2013
B-Crew departs Mercury 06-09-2013, arrives Earth 09-23-2013

IMS (no name yet) departs Earth 09-12-2013, arrives Jupiter 06-06-2016

So the IMS will leave Earth about two weeks before Discovery's homecoming.

And we'll have three whole years to squeeze in a third Mercury mission (perhaps send the A-Crew back, minus myself?) while the IMS is in transit. It's going to get a little crazy, running two projects at once, but there's no reason we can't do it

Best window for third Mercury trip: 12-1-2013 to 03-15-2014

You know IMS probably isnt going to follow standard launch windows at all, assuming were using continual thrust right? You mentioned trajectory drawing before, I think, have you ever been able to get the one on OHM that uses MATLAB to work? Ive tried before, but my computer goes wacky when I try to download the libraries it needs.

And, by the way, I was wondering what you think of my earlier post regarding the VSA format, & having glitches thrown at us?
:thumbup:/:uhh:/:thumbsdown:

 

[TMac3000]

You know IMS probably isnt going to follow standard launch windows at all, assuming were using continual thrust right? You mentioned trajectory drawing before, I think, have you ever been able to get the one on OHM that uses MATLAB to work? Ive tried before, but my computer goes wacky when I try to download the libraries it needs.

And, by the way, I was wondering what you think of my earlier post regarding the VSA format, & having glitches thrown at us?
:thumbup:/:uhh:/:thumbsdown:

Ah, yes. I meant to get around to that in my last post. I think it's mostly a good idea, as I want this to be realistic. I might also make an exception for the XR series, as they have much more realistic fuel economy than the DG-4, which IHP has never used anyhow. Heck, we could even switch to Deltas or Arianes if you want.

Also, I promise I'll get around to setting that logo for the B-Crew group. For some the reason the computer won't let me post it as a URL from the Orbiter Forum. Do you have a PhotoBucket link or something you could send me?

One more thing--I bet you'll love this idea. We're kicking around some ideas for a mission to Europa, and I'm thinking of docking a Shuttle-D to our IMS ship and using it as a lander. What do you think?

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------

You know IMS probably isnt going to follow standard launch windows at all, assuming were using continual thrust right? You mentioned trajectory drawing before, I think, have you ever been able to get the one on OHM that uses MATLAB to work? Ive tried before, but my computer goes wacky when I try to download the libraries it needs.

Yes, I will need to practice my continuous thrust navigation, assuming you guys want me to be pilot. I'll be getting that straightened out over the next few months.

I've never tried MATLAB. I looked at downloading the Trajectory Planning Tool once, but the size of the d/l scared me away. That thing is almost as big as some Orbiter installations!:blink:

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Ah, yes. I meant to get around to that in my last post. I think it's mostly a good idea, as I want this to be realistic. I might also make an exception for the XR series, as they have much more realistic fuel economy than the DG-4, which IHP has never used anyhow. Heck, we could even switch to Deltas or Arianes if you want.

Also, I promise I'll get around to setting that logo for the B-Crew group. For some the reason the computer won't let me post it as a URL from the Orbiter Forum. Do you have a PhotoBucket link or something you could send me?

One more thing--I bet you'll love this idea. We're kicking around some ideas for a mission to Europa, and I'm thinking of docking a Shuttle-D to our IMS ship and using it as a lander. What do you think?

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------


Yes, I will need to practice my continuous thrust navigation, assuming you guys want me to be pilot. I'll be getting that straightened out over the next few months.

I've never tried MATLAB. I looked at downloading the Trajectory Planning Tool once, but the size of the d/l scared me away. That thing is almost as big as some Orbiter installations!:blink:

Dont know anything about photobucket, can you download the one I posted earlier on the IHP thread, and repost in your albums?

I would be honored to have my Shuttle-D used like that, but I cant promise that it will be OHM release ready, even by 2014 :lol:.
If youre sure, I can consolidate the project as is, get it ready for use in the project and make it available to our project members. My concern is with the CTD you mentioned earlier on the Dev thread. I dont have the faintest idea what causes it, and it would be rather hard to request help from the community for "unkniwn issues". If you can find anyone willing to review the source, it would make me much more comfortable with releasing it publicly.

 

[TMac3000]

Never mind about the logo. I got it done Head over to social groups and check it out

I'm still trying to establish a pattern with those CTDs. Once I can do that, I might be able to pinpoint what's wrong...