OFMM General Discussions Archive

[Bloodworth]

Is the wiki article an accurate summary the topic so far? I'd like to get in on this but 34 pages is a little hard to read, especially if there's an alternative.

Yes, to my knowledge the wikki is a fairly accurate summary. It gets updated frequently.

 

[Urwumpe]

Not griping, but when I proposed the mission, I suggested the use of the dg's or xr2's so that a) we would have a lander that most every pilot in the rotation knew how to fly, and b) so that we would not have to custom model EVERYTHING.

Well, the custom models are the bigger problem. More important is IMHO that the flight model of the lander does not have so much fairy dust, that the desired rest of the mission design becomes futile: A XR5 could do the whole Mars mission with reasonable payload, it is unrealistic enough for that.

 

[Columbia42]

A few ideas about the landers:
1) If someone knows where to find the source code (and has the knowledge to edit it) for the LM from NASSP or AMSO, we could fairly easily turn that into a good mars lander. (I know it would be a somewhat large project but the lander is an important part of the mission and I for one would like to see some accurate systems simulation so that it can be flown more realistically.
2) I like Salun's idea of separating the landers from the stack before MOI. I mean, since the landers already have heatshields, why not use them to enter orbit using aerobreaking?

 

[Bloodworth]

The problem with the Apollo LM is that the engines are nowhere near powerful enough to keep the vehicle from becoming a small smoking hole on the surface of mars. Even if the descent engine could handle the load you still have 2 problems left; the ascent engine would barely lift the ascent stage off the descent stage under martian gravity and two; the entire vehicle would collapse under its own weight under martian gravity. The Apollo LM was an EXTREMELY fragile vessel that was only meant to be able to support its own weight under LUNAR gravity. There's also the small matter of it not having been designed for atmospheric reentry...

The LM also gives us a maximum surface operations crew of 2...

 

[Alexw95]

if u guys give me some kind of idea of the lander i can make the mesh

 

[Izack]

if u guys give me some kind of idea of the lander i can make the mesh

From the wiki page that everyone should have read by now:

OSHV (Orbital and Surface habitation vessel)

• Proposed vehicles ( pending )

This module is the primary vessel where the crew will live and work during the entire mission. This module needs to be able to aerobrake and land on Mars. Support several crew for at least 2 years (with the help of service modules ext)
Design options:

• Environmental Control and Life Support Subsystem (ECLSS)
• Electrical Power Subsystem
  • Power generation
  • Power storage
• Landing system
  • Integrated landing system
  • External landing system
    • Skycrane
      • With inflatable heat shield
      • with rigid heat shield

In other words, no concrete design has been reached yet, but there is a general overview.
Remember, form follows function here. The vessel will be designed based on what it has to do. It's open to propositions, so feel free to post your ideas on the matter. Meshes will come once there is a concrete design to base them on.
If we build a ship before we have its purposes ironed out, we'll end up with an Orion. In other words, an complete failure.

1) If someone knows where to find the source code (and has the knowledge to edit it) for the LM from NASSP or AMSO, we could fairly easily turn that into a good mars lander. (I know it would be a somewhat large project but the lander is an important part of the mission and I for one would like to see some accurate systems simulation so that it can be flown more realistically.

The Apollo LM is nowhere near large enough to be the OSHV. Furthermore, it's built of half-century-old technology. I wouldn't mind if the finalised OSHV design drew from LM concepts or even the Altair concept, though. I remember an old von Braun concept that struck my fancy, but I can't seem to find it.

---------- Post added at 10:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

[...] and two; the entire vehicle would collapse under its own weight under martian gravity. The Apollo LM was an EXTREMELY fragile vessel that was only meant to be able to support its own weight under LUNAR gravity.

Well, it was built on Earth and didn't collapse there.

 

[Alexw95]

We could use the alitar mesh and costomize it to make it reuasble so we can transfer crew from the orbital station to the ground with pre enetry matnence in orbit

 

[Bloodworth]

Just remember, we need to be able to get between 10 and 20 people to the ground, so a 2 man vehicle is out.

and the LM was supported quite heavily while under earth gravity. While the body may have survived earth gravity, the landing gear would not, the LM was NEVER placed on its landing gear on earth.

 

[fireballs619]

I noticed in the wiki we have the need for 52 different textures for elements, none of which have developers. I have almost no texturing skill so i can't volunteer, but do we really need all of those?

 

[Bloodworth]

I noticed in the wiki we have the need for 52 different textures for elements, none of which have developers. I have almost no texturing skill so i can't volunteer, but do we really need all of those?

Many, if not most of them yes. One of the things that we will be doing on mars is mining and prospecting. This is both for supporting the project itself (water and fuel) and to establish viability of future missions (no those missions will not take place in the scope of OFMM).

 

[Izack]

I noticed in the wiki we have the need for 52 different textures for elements, none of which have developers. I have almost no texturing skill so i can't volunteer, but do we really need all of those?

Currently I'm trying to make a general template for those cargo modules, so that for the most part it will just require slapping a different name on each label. So far I've had little success, because of inexperience, time constraints (work, other projects, the usual) and most importantly procrastination, for which I apologise. I'll try to speed things up this weekend and maybe get a design posted.

 

[fireballs619]

Currently I'm trying to make a general template for those cargo modules, so that for the most part it will just require slapping a different name on each label. So far I've had little success, because of inexperience, time constraints (work, other projects, the usual) and most importantly procrastination, for which I apologise. I'll try to speed things up this weekend and maybe get a design posted.

Didn't mean to sound pushy or anything. I thought we were going to have unique textures for each, which would require copious amounts of time. Your idea is much more efficient.

 

[Izack]

No offense taken.

I was positive someone posted a revised cargo list somewhere in this thread, but I can't find it. Which brings me to thinking...
I think we need a few different threads now. This one's been unmanageable for quite a while now. Maybe the mods could set up our own little section? (Pretty please?)

 

[fireballs619]

Maybe the mods could set up our own little section? (Pretty please?)

pleaaaaassssee?

We do have the social group, where we can make threads. It doesn't seem like many people check up on that though...

 

[Urwumpe]

There is a fine NASA handbook that is very useful reading for anybody who plans a bigger project:

http://education.ksc.nasa.gov/esmdspacegrant/Documents/NASA%20SP-2007-6105%20Rev%201%20Final%2031Dec2007.pdf

We should expand the "mission" paragraph by having real mission goals according to NASA standards: The goals should be, if possible, quantifiable and verifiable.

This means - the goals should have a set quantity that needs to be achieved, and it should be possible during the mission, to check that the objectives are achieved.

For example, instead of "establish habitation areas for astronauts" we should write how much habitation area we want to create for how many astronauts.

 

[Izack]

I'm working on one now. I have work today so I'll post it this evening, assuming no one beats me to it.

It'll be rather drab, in Arial with no pictures (other than diagrams) because I want it printable.

I expect 10-14 pages, give or take.

 

[Columbia42]

The problem with the Apollo LM is that the engines are nowhere near powerful enough to keep the vehicle from becoming a small smoking hole on the surface of mars. Even if the descent engine could handle the load you still have 2 problems left; the ascent engine would barely lift the ascent stage off the descent stage under martian gravity and two; the entire vehicle would collapse under its own weight under martian gravity. The Apollo LM was an EXTREMELY fragile vessel that was only meant to be able to support its own weight under LUNAR gravity. There's also the small matter of it not having been designed for atmospheric reentry...

The LM also gives us a maximum surface operations crew of 2...

When I said we should modify the LM, I guess what I really meant was that I would like to see a design similar more to the Altair than the LM however I would like to have some accurate systems simulations and I think that the control panels etc. would probably be similar between both vehicles. Therefore, if we could modify the LM code so that it would behave like the Altair yet retain its realism and basic design, it would save time as opposed to creating a whole new ship.

 

[Urwumpe]

...I would like to have some accurate systems simulations and I think that the control panels etc.

I am against this, what ever we do, it should NEVER exceed the complexity of a XR-Vessel or AMSO, because otherwise, we would

a) need years to develop things
b) need years to teach all pilots to fly it.

Ideally, we should maybe have a common base class for all our DLL based vessels, that like for the XRs implements a lot of common stuff and allows to just adapt it to something else.

Personally, I would even prefer if the subsystem simulations focus on the ground operations and survival of the crew, and does not go to extremes with navigation or electrical power stuff.

 

[Voyager]

Perhaps, we could launch a scouting mission to find where we are going to set up the base. I say we should put a flag there, till we set up modules.

 

[Urwumpe]

Perhaps, we could launch a scouting mission to find where we are going to set up the base. I say we should put a flag there, till we set up modules.

Do you know about launch windows?

If you travel from earth to Mars, you have in the best case 3 month of time on Mars, before you may return to Earth, either by flying past Venus during the Earth-Mars transfer or back. If you don't do that, the launch window from Mars to Earth is closed when you arrive there and you need to wait 18 months before it opens again (synodic period).

That is why flags and footprints are on Mars even more stupid than on the Moon: You can't do a short stop there. Even the shortest possible stop (already using DG-style technology) takes 2 weeks - the fuel demands to launch "out of window" increases exponentially with the time you are away from the lowest energy transfer window.

PS: if you think the orbit plots are too old: The launch window dates of Earth and Mars repeat approximately every 15 years.