Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Space Flight Simulator > Orbiter Web Forum > OFMM
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

OFMM Discussions for the OFMM project.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-16-2010, 06:33 PM   #16
fireballs619
Occam's Taser
 
fireballs619's Avatar
Default

Looks good to me. Do you know its mass? Do you think we would have room for two?
fireballs619 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 06:35 PM   #17
Izack
Non sequitur
 
Izack's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fireballs619 View Post
 Looks good to me. Do you know its mass? Do you think we would have room for two?
It's 21 500kg, unfortunately (crossposting led to me not seeing the quantifications until a second ago.)

Although, are you sure 500kg is a good mass limit? It's a little on the scrawny side.
Izack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 06:38 PM   #18
fireballs619
Occam's Taser
 
fireballs619's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Izack View Post
 It's 21 500kg, unfortunately (crossposting led to me not seeing the quantifications until a second ago.)

Although, are you sure 500kg is a good mass limit? It's a little on the scrawny side.
No I knew it wasn't a good mass limit when I posted, but I was going off of the Apollo Lunar rovers. I wasn't sure how much space we were going to have when all was said and done, so i picked a small one to be safe. If you think it'll fit, it looks perfect to me.
fireballs619 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2010, 06:38 PM   #19
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

I think #2 is prescribing already a solution for technical problems, you should leave this away, since it doesn't help in the design. Also it says nothing about how robust the rover actually is. Better describe it in terms like "Mean time between failures" or "maximum speed in rough terrain, fully loaded". The rough terrain is still something that needs to be defined, but there could be easily made tests that confirm how much punishment the suspension would have to take.

Setting a maximum mass for it is OK, since this is the interface for the orbital operations, but 500 kg might be a bit low. At least for serving as long-distance pickup truck. Maybe you should then describe the limitations as "maximum velocity in terrain by payload mass" and define some example values that should be achieved.

Also, I would say you should have a remote control feature, that can be used such, that either you can command the vehicle by a remote control package while you have the rover in sight (like a RC car), or by making the rover follow another rover.

Last edited by Urwumpe; 06-16-2010 at 06:42 PM.
Urwumpe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 12:51 AM   #20
lennartsmit
Orbinaut
Default

How about using something like this: Mammoet Kamag

It's not really fast it can carry more then 100 tonnes whilst weighing only 15 tonnes.
That's a mass:load ratio of 1:8! We could make a light version of this with some more speed.

The UCGO container that has just been released can come in very handy for transport for us.
An automated version of this kind of vehicle is already being used in the harbour of Rotterdam.
lennartsmit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 01:09 AM   #21
fireballs619
Occam's Taser
 
fireballs619's Avatar
Default

The mass:load ratio is fantastic, but will we need it? If these rovers are going to be used as exploration vehicles, I doubt we will need to carry 100 tons with us. Perhaps these would assist in initial base construction, but I think it would be somewhat overkill for exploration. Note: I'm trying to decide on more specific quantification's still.
fireballs619 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 01:22 AM   #22
lennartsmit
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fireballs619 View Post
 The mass:load ratio is fantastic, but will we need it? If these rovers are going to be used as exploration vehicles, I doubt we will need to carry 100 tons with us. Perhaps these would assist in initial base construction, but I think it would be somewhat overkill for exploration. Note: I'm trying to decide on more specific quantification's still.
That's why I proposed a light-version with a smaller m:l ratio, higher speed and less weight of the vehicle itself. Or we could size down the whole thing by a factor 10 which gives us one ton of vehicle against roughly 10 tonnes of load.

==edit==
Sorry, didn't read your post properly. I didn't know it was also going to be an exploration-rover.

Last edited by lennartsmit; 06-17-2010 at 01:25 AM.
lennartsmit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 01:25 AM   #23
Bj
Donator
 
Bj's Avatar

Default

Quote:
500 KG
That's only about the size of a forklift. Though that might be good depending on what this is going to be doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Izack View Post
 It's 21 500kg,
Woh
Good looks, but it might be a little spendy with its weight.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 Also, I would say you should have a remote control feature, that can be used such, that either you can command the vehicle by a remote control package while you have the rover in sight (like a RC car), or by making the rover follow another rover.
What about using r-control already supplied with Orbiter, or should it be more limiting..

Quote:
Originally Posted by lennartsmit View Post
 How about using something like this: Mammoet Kamag

It's not really fast it can carry more then 100 tonnes whilst weighing only 15 tonnes.
That's a mass:load ratio of 1:8! We could make a light version of this with some more speed.

The UCGO container that has just been released can come in very handy for transport for us.
An automated version of this kind of vehicle is already being used in the harbour of Rotterdam.
A light version of this might work, but I have to ask first: if Mars doesn't have any paved roads, how well will a weighted wheeled vehicle work on sand + rocks?

--
As long as we are quantifying objectives, are we planning on carrying cargo, or UMMU or is it supposed to be built for speed?
Bj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 01:25 AM   #24
fireballs619
Occam's Taser
 
fireballs619's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lennartsmit View Post
 That's why I proposed a light-version with a smaller m:l ratio, higher speed and less weight of the vehicle itself. Or we could size down the whole thing by a factor 10 which gives us one ton of vehicle against roughly 10 tonnes of load.
The more I think about it, the more I like it. We would need to factor down, but the overall design is good, but it would need increased speed. Do you know of any site with specs on this thing, or is that pic all you have? If it meets current criteria, it could be a contender. We will see once all quantification's are laid out.
fireballs619 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 01:42 AM   #25
lennartsmit
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bj View Post
 A light version of this might work, but I have to ask first: if Mars doesn't have any paved roads, how well will a weighted wheeled vehicle work on sand + rocks?
It won't.

The only thing that would work is some kind of tracked vehicle.
I think this would apply to all vehicles bigger then about 500 kg we intend to use.

---------- Post added at 03:38 ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by fireballs619 View Post
 The more I think about it, the more I like it. We would need to factor down, but the overall design is good, but it would need increased speed. Do you know of any site with specs on this thing, or is that pic all you have?
That link in my post wasn't for decoration

I'll post it again for you: Mammoet Kamag

See this for more variants.

---------- Post added at 03:42 ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 ----------

Here's more about the one on the picture: Info
lennartsmit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 01:43 AM   #26
fireballs619
Occam's Taser
 
fireballs619's Avatar
Default

I want to clarify that I set the 500 kg limit with things along the lines of this in mind. It seems though that we are leaning more towards this type of craft. I would still prefer the former option, as I don't see up doing any activities to far from the base that would require copious amounts of cargo being transported. My vision for the SMEV was a small, lightweight vehicle that could be used to travel out from the base to preform scientific experiments at different locations. For this, we would not require too much cargo, and therefore not a huge load. If we will, however, be requiring cargo transport far from the base, I will raise the Mass limit.
fireballs619 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 01:46 AM   #27
lennartsmit
Orbinaut
Default

This is the manufactures brochure:Producer
The specs are on the last page.

---------- Post added at 03:46 ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by fireballs619 View Post
 I want to clarify that I set the 500 kg limit with things along the lines of this in mind. It seems though that we are leaning more towards this type of craft. I would still prefer the former option, as I don't see up doing any activities to far from the base that would require copious amounts of cargo being transported. My vision for the SMEV was a small, lightweight vehicle that could be used to travel out from the base to preform scientific experiments at different locations. For this, we would not require too much cargo, and therefore not a huge load. If we will, however, be requiring cargo transport far from the base, I will raise the Mass limit.
Seems like a good idea because, as you said, we won't be venturing out of the base alot.
lennartsmit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 02:05 AM   #28
fireballs619
Occam's Taser
 
fireballs619's Avatar
Default

O.K. The specs give me a mass of about 25 000 kg and a load of 60 000 kg. Simplified that would be about 5:12 (m:l), which is really good. If we reduced it down, say by a divisor of 100, we would have 250 kg to 600kg. That could work for our needs. It would of course have to meet the other criteria, and I don't know how versatile this thing is. If we are going to go the smaller, lightweight route, I would recommend against this, on the concern of versatility. Perhaps a similar design is best.
fireballs619 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 03:19 AM   #29
Izack
Non sequitur
 
Izack's Avatar

Default

Now that I think about it, the Azure doesn't look like it should weight 21 tonnes... 6-7 tonnes maximum based on its size. If it were electric-powered it would need to be lightweight. ANyway, it's a bust, so onwards and upwards.

Why aren't we straying far from the base, exactly? I'm sure there would be interesting geological features to explore, especially if we were landing near a massive geological feature like Valles Marineris or Olympus Mons. Remember, this isn't Apollo, a quick hop there with a tiny ship and a short visit. This is a months-long trip and a year-long operation. There needs to be something to do there, or else it will be a total waste of money.
Also, the mission has to stay interesting to be worthwhile to the pilots. Hangin' out in a big pod for 18 months analysing the same old rocks doesn't seem like a very interesting project. If the OFMM users are going to keep interest in it, a change of scenery once in a while would at least serve to alleviate some boredom.

Speaking of scenery, so far Orbiter's groundside scenery consists entirely of a large flat brown plane on which you project a shadow. I assume meshes can be made of the landing area? (there's already one of Olympus Mons somewhere out there, I think).
Izack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2010, 03:24 AM   #30
fireballs619
Occam's Taser
 
fireballs619's Avatar
Default

I guess I wasn't thinking in the big picture. There will be expeditions far from base, which could benefit from a somewhat larger SMEV. In this scenario, I favor the Azure over the Kamag, simply because the Kamag is strictly cargo oriented. I was thinking for the longer trips an atmospheric vehicle or sub orbital ship would be used.
fireballs619 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Space Flight Simulator > Orbiter Web Forum > OFMM


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:11 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.