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 12-18-2011, 03:03 PM   #1
garyw
O-F Administrator
 
garyw's Avatar


Default Trajectory Office backroom



Welcome to the Trajectory Office backroom.

This thread is here to provide mission support for missions beyond Earth, mostly the staff here will be concentrating on Mars missions but they'll be able to lend a hand with a few other missions as well.

First question we need to have answered by our trajectory backroom guys - Can you please give us some launch windows to Mars + dV requirements?

Thanks guys!
garyw is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 12-18-2011, 05:11 PM   #2
Arrowstar
Probenaut
 
Arrowstar's Avatar
Default

Coming right up!

EDIT: Okay, here's what a few runs of the TOT gives me. I've done some analysis on the next three launch windows. They are as tabulated below.

Launch WindowDepart C3 [km^s/s^2]Arrival Speed [km/s]
12/10/2013 9.10513.28
3/7/20168.1229 5.0556
5/13/2018 7.74982.9746

Now, the actual departure dV will be determined by the orbit the spacecraft is in before the TMI burn. A very brief analysis seems to show that polar and/or retrograde (inclination around 110 degrees) orbits provide the easiest way to depart Earth. What I'll do, once we've settled on the launch date, is determine what a decent orbit to inject into is for each window.

At arrival, I'm thinking aerocapture maneuvers for everything but the comm sats (which may not be built for that sort of thing). If you can tell me how much dV those sats are capable of, I can find a trajectory that minimizes the arrival velocity to below that amount.

That all said, my recommendation for what should be launched to Mars and when is as follows:

OFMM-7/8 - 2013 window (2x launch vehicles)
OFMM-14/15/16/17 - 2016 window (4x launch vehicles)
OFMM-20/21/23 - 2018 launch window (3x launch vehicles)


Porkchop Plots
Below I've posted porkchop plots that show the required C3 energy (the hyperbolic excess speed squared) for the three Earth-Mars launch windows. These are merely a graphical representation of what was found in the table above and are shown mostly for the visually-inclined.

2013 Window

2016 Window

2018 Window

Last edited by Arrowstar; 12-18-2011 at 06:36 PM.
Arrowstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 02:36 AM   #3
Arrowstar
Probenaut
 
Arrowstar's Avatar
Default

Can I get some feedback on this from anyone else interested in doing trajectory work (and maybe the pilots, too)? Heck, if someone wants to run a "simulation" with Orbiter to verify, that would be quite appreciated.
Arrowstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 03:28 AM   #4
Wood
Orbinaut
Default

A couple of things:

Quote:
At arrival, I'm thinking aerocapture maneuvers for everything but the comm sats (which may not be built for that sort of thing).
I don't think that's going to work, the James Cook doesn't have a heat shield. I'm not sure what the Mars robotic landers are, but aerocapture makes sense for them.

Quote:
A very brief analysis seems to show that polar and/or retrograde (inclination around 110 degrees) orbits provide the easiest way to depart Earth.
I don't think that's a good idea at all. The payload penalty would more than cancel out any possible benefit, and KSC cannot launch into either polar or retrograde orbits. If there are any russian launches then I think about the same inclination as the ISS would be ideal, else somewhere between 28.5 and around 40 degrees inclination would be good.

Other than that, it looks good. I'll have a play with TransX in the next few days based on those dates.
Wood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 03:34 AM   #5
Cras
Spring of Life!
 
Cras's Avatar
Default

I would have guessed that the ideal orbit would be as equatorial as possible. The proposal that a retrograde orbit would be most ideal certainly caught me by surprise.

Why would the retrograde orbit/polar orbit benefit in the transfer?
Cras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 05:49 AM   #6
Arrowstar
Probenaut
 
Arrowstar's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wood View Post
 I don't think that's a good idea at all. The payload penalty would more than cancel out any possible benefit, and KSC cannot launch into either polar or retrograde orbits. If there are any russian launches then I think about the same inclination as the ISS would be ideal, else somewhere between 28.5 and around 40 degrees inclination would be good.
Fair enough. I didn't really like it either, but it was the way the numbers were coming out. In any event, I figured we'd launch eastward regardless as I'm sure our launch vehicles are capable of the C3 necessary to get us to Mars so long as they launch properly...

Thanks for the feedback!

---------- Post added at 12:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------

Cras: I couldn't tell you why specifically, it's just the way the numbers were working out. I may investigate that tomorrow if I get the chance.
Arrowstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 12-22-2011, 10:38 AM   #7
garyw
O-F Administrator
 
garyw's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wood View Post
 I don't think that's going to work, the James Cook doesn't have a heat shield. I'm not sure what the Mars robotic landers are, but aerocapture makes sense for them.
One could be fitted but no one seemed to raise this when the missions were up for discussion.

As for landers - why aerocapture? Why not direct entry?
garyw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 01:09 PM   #8
insanity
Blastronaut
 
insanity's Avatar
Default

Direct entry for the landers makes the most sense. I'll plug the numbers into TransX sometime (hopefully when I'm at work today) and see what I get in terms of a reasonable parking orbit from KSC (and WIN)
insanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 01:25 PM   #9
garyw
O-F Administrator
 
garyw's Avatar


Default

I figure that with direct entry it should be slightly easier to target the primary and secondary landing sites.
garyw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 01:26 PM   #10
Pipcard
mikusingularity
 
Pipcard's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyw View Post
 One could be fitted but no one seemed to raise this when the missions were up for discussion.

As for landers - why aerocapture? Why not direct entry?
I'm wondering how people can even do a direct entry (from a interplanetary trajectory) towards a specific landing site.
Pipcard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 02:24 PM   #11
PhantomCruiser
Wanderer
 
PhantomCruiser's Avatar

Default

Those TransX and IMFD ninjas can do it. I usually have to get into a parking orbit first.
PhantomCruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 12-22-2011, 02:38 PM   #12
garyw
O-F Administrator
 
garyw's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipcard View Post
 I'm wondering how people can even do a direct entry (from a interplanetary trajectory) towards a specific landing site.
Carefully?

Seriously though I don't see why you'd want to waste prop in slowing down into Mars orbit. Your goal for landers is to.... well, land so just hit the atmosphere and land.

Landing at a specific spot shouldn't be too hard, you'll need to be aware of timing more than anything because you'll see to make sure that the correct face of mars is presenting itself and/or that your angle is such that you don't overshoot your target.
garyw is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 12-22-2011, 02:41 PM   #13
Pipcard
mikusingularity
 
Pipcard's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyw View Post
 Landing at a specific spot shouldn't be too hard, you'll need to be aware of timing more than anything because you'll see to make sure that the correct face of mars is presenting itself and/or that your angle is such that you don't overshoot your target.
I'm wondering how people time that months in advance (in the simulation of course).
Pipcard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 02:44 PM   #14
garyw
O-F Administrator
 
garyw's Avatar


Default

Why would you? Any mission to another planet is all about breaking it into pieces.

First piece get into LEO.
Second pierce is the Mars injection burn.

After that you can fine tune the approach with Mid course correction burns.
garyw is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 12-22-2011, 02:47 PM   #15
Pipcard
mikusingularity
 
Pipcard's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyw View Post
 Why would you? Any mission to another planet is all about breaking it into pieces.

First piece get into LEO.
Second pierce is the Mars injection burn.

After that you can fine tune the approach with Mid course correction burns.
Still, a mid-course correction is a few or several weeks (or a few days) in advance.

Last edited by Pipcard; 12-22-2011 at 03:10 PM.
Pipcard 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 10:19 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


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

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.