OFMM General Discussions Archive

[fireballs619]

Even the Apollo program brought along a small satellite (Apollo 16 subsat for measuring the Lunar magnetosphere, launched from the SM...I think there's a scenario for it in AMSO)

Wait, so we are going to bring along some probes for the exploration of Martian moons? Just want to make sure I understand this.

 

[Izack]

Good point. Though maybe we can over time using the moons use a gravity assist to circularize our orbit.

The gravity on Phobos is so weak that a well-thrown baseball can achieve escape velocity. No chance at all of doing a gravity assist.

Plan be might be at a latter point towards the end of the mission the stack does a parking orbit burn to loose it eccentricity. Making it safe for a rendezvous.

Why not just decelerate it immediately? The higher the periareion velocity the more velocity the descent stage has to burn/aerobrake off (do you want to sit in a pod diving into the Martian atmosphere at 10-12km/s?). The primary goal of this mission is to land people and equipment on the surface of Mars. This objective trumps all possible secondaries. Thus, if it is easier to enter a normal LMO upon Mars encounter, it should by all means be done.

Wait, so we are going to bring along some probes for the exploration of Martian moons? Just want to make sure I understand this.

That's not up to me. It might be interesting provided our hands aren't already full by the time we get there, though.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

This is just me thinking (err, typing) out loud here, but...
I'd been thinking also about surface exploration, and depending on the landing site could be tailored accordingly. There is already an aircraft (UAV) available at the 'hanger that could be deployed for data gathering, manned and unmanned rovers, plus the blimps I'd mentioned (thinking of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series).
I've been tinkering with the blimp, what I've come up with looks nothing like the Goodyear blimp in any way, form or fashion. Just basically a group of gas-bags tethered together with a gondola slung underneath. I think at best it'd only hold a crew of 3, but it'd be cramped. I'm really not that good with meshes (these things are complicated) and the textures are rudimentary at best.
I'm not sure how to manuver them around either, I don't remember what they used in Mars...

For ground exploration I think something like the Azure rover would be perfect, if not a little fantastic. Plus it's probably too heavy to consider for now...

 

[T.Neo]

Would it be possible to use VASIMR? I'll admit I haven't read through the entire thread, but couldn't this be advantageous in terms of flight time?

If the initial "spiral out" phase of a VASIMR trajectory is undesirable, would it not be possible to have a hybrid system, using a sort of bimodal NTR to generate electrical power for the VASIMR and directly heat up propellant, with the same propellant being used for both propulsion systems?

 

[Izack]

VASIMR? I thought about it, but I didn't want to suggest it because when I tried [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3060"]this[/ame] one out, I couldn't finish the mission in a reasonable amount of real-life time (using a stack comprised of it, a small service module, an SSBB hab with altered mass to reflect the future OSHV, and an AMSO LM.)
Any engine we use will suffer from at least slightly off-center thrust, resulting in torque on the spacecraft, ergo the current pilot must keep the vessel pointed in the right direction without the use of autopilots (they just don't work with that many docked vessels.) With a VASIMR, a burn would take days of in-sim time, and the player wouldn't be able to time accelerate enough to get few that in an hour or two.

 

[Voyager]

Perhaps, could we do what the Apollo men did? We launch a couple of missions that orbit Mars and then come back as well as testing the landing module in space. And perhaps we could launch the stack in stages. We launch the return engines, and supply modules to Mars orbit first. Then perhaps we could launch the science laboratory, the habitat module, the Earth-Mars Engines, and the lander. Perhaps during the next launch window, the Earth-Mars Engines, the return engines, a new habitat module, supply modules, and finally solar arrays, for powering the in orbit laboratory.

 

[FSXHD]

Perhaps, could we do what the Apollo men did? We launch a couple of missions that orbit Mars and then come back as well as testing the landing module in space. And perhaps we could launch the stack in stages. We launch the return engines, and supply modules to Mars orbit first. Then perhaps we could launch the science laboratory, the habitat module, the Earth-Mars Engines, and the lander. Perhaps during the next launch window, the Earth-Mars Engines, the return engines, a new habitat module, supply modules, and finally solar arrays, for powering the in orbit laboratory.

And how are you going to assemble those with no humans performing the EVA's or operating a robotic arm? You can just have random modules floating in an orbit when they should be attached and used as part of the orbiter.

 

[Voyager]

Essentially the return engines and supply modules would be docked together by a small two man crew in the return engines. They would then set up the autopilot to head to Mars and leave in their CTV.

 

[Izack]

Essentially the return engines and supply modules would be docked together by a small two man crew in the return engines. They would then set up the autopilot to head to Mars and leave in their CTV.

Or we could just build the thing right here in LEO, and then ship it off, as per the current mission outline. The main problem I see with your idea is that once the main engine has been sent off to Mars, how the heck to we get everything else there? More engines? If so, then why build the first engine in the first place?

The concept of testing all the different modules in Earth orbit isn't such a bad idea, though. When Apollo did it, they did it because nothing like that had ever been done before, which isn't the case today. We have all the spaceflight experience we require right now, with Mir, Skylab and of course the International Space Station. Humanity now has the required flight hours for his pilot's license, you could say.
Of course, if we get to Mars and it turns out someone forgot to code RCS thrusters for the lander, we could be in a bit of a pickle, so preflight testing of all the modules is still an absolute must (even though it needn't be a group activity.)

 

[Urwumpe]

Why not? Am official maiden flight mission might still be glorious enough, that doesn't need to be secret.

 

[Izack]

~IMPORTANT~

I requested, and was granted permission for an OFMM section in the Orbiter forum, below OFSS. I don't want to make the decisions without group consent (dishonesty), so here they are:

Would you like to have the forum created through the OFMM social group? That way, the preexisting topics would be carried over (except for one, for technical reasons) and the discussions would remain private to those within the social group. The other option is to have the subforum created from a clean slate, with no restrictions on access.
Personally, I am in favour of the second option, as the social group hardly seems to get used, and a lot of the topics there are now moot. I initially thought it would be nice to have some 'quality control' on who could post and what not, but nothing is preventing anyone from joining the OFMM group, so that point is also moot.

This topic will be posted both here and in the social group, to make sure everyone sees it.

 

[Tex]

I initially thought it would be nice to have some 'quality control' on who could post and what not, but nothing is preventing anyone from joining the OFMM group, so that point is also moot.

If that's the case I recommend we just make the forum by itself. I assume you will be running the project? Who ever is in charge of running things will have the ability to moderate that forum. Note you wouldn't be a member of the O-F Mod team, you would simply have the ability to moderate threads and posts in that forum, stick threads, rename, etc.

 

[Izack]

Ah, no, I don't run it. BJ is the project lead, and Bloodworth is the founder.
I seem to be more like the head of public relations...:uhh:

Actually, looking at my earlier posts I seem to be acting more important than I am. :lol:

 

[Columbia42]

I requested, and was granted permission for an OFMM section in the Orbiter forum, below OFSS. I don't want to make the decisions without group consent (dishonesty), so here they are:

Would you like to have the forum created through the OFMM social group? That way, the preexisting topics would be carried over (except for one, for technical reasons) and the discussions would remain private to those within the social group. The other option is to have the subforum created from a clean slate, with no restrictions on access.
Personally, I am in favour of the second option, as the social group hardly seems to get used, and a lot of the topics there are now moot. I initially thought it would be nice to have some 'quality control' on who could post and what not, but nothing is preventing anyone from joining the OFMM group, so that point is also moot.

This topic will be posted both here and in the social group, to make sure everyone sees it.

I for one am in favor of the second option.

 

[Tex]

With content spread through out this thread and several topics in the social group, perhaps it's best if you guys pool the content from them all and come up with an idea of what and how many threads to create in the new forum.

I can make it so only those running the project can create new threads in the forum, but anyone would be able to post replies to those threads. If you prefer however, by default, anyone would be able to post threads in the forum and post replies as usual.

 

[Columbia42]

For reasons of not cluttering up the forum (like what has happened to this thread) I am in favor of only allowing those in charge to post new threads.

 

[Tex]

I went ahead and made the forum through the social group as it was easier to handle the permissions that way. It looks like all the discussions converted to threads successfully.

You can see the new OFMM forum on the home page under Orbiter Web Forum or from the OFMM social group as well.

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=96

 

[Izack]

I am also in favour, for the same reason.
We seem to be missing some VIPs though, so no decision is final yet...

EDIT: Seemed to have missed that last post. Thanks, Tex!
It looks like a small amount of weeding may need to be done, though. Many of the ideas there have been dropped (The MSS, for instance.) Also, my post about the O-F section is now totally irrelevant. :lol:
Another thing I noticed is that if OFMM stuff appears in the forum pulse, like "Operations and Technical Manual" just did, then it's going to confuse a lot of people.

 

[Bloodworth]

Wow! I'm still in shock over this. Watching my idea go from being a dream to a discussion, from a thread to several threads to being part of the forum itself...all I can say is...Wow! This is cool

It appears to have already been done, so my opinion is moot. As long as it works, we'll work with it

 

[Tex]

It looks like a small amount of weeding may need to be done, though. Many of the ideas there have been dropped (The MSS, for instance.) Also, my post about the O-F section is now totally irrelevant. :lol:

I can delete the MSS thread, I'll do a soft delete so it can be restored if you guys need it. I'll also remove the forum notice you posted.

Another thing I noticed is that if OFMM stuff appears in the forum pulse, like "Operations and Technical Manual" just did, then it's going to confuse a lot of people.

It should be easy to distinguish, look to the right side of threads in the new posts search or stats box to see the forum its from. If it bugs you guys enough you could always use OFMM prefixes for threads.