Orbiter Forum Lunar Station

[garyw]

Like this?

I'd have to say no to that. You still need to send a vehicle up to collect the pods. Waste of energy in my mind.
If you want an orbital base why does it have to be crewed? As part of my VSA I'm setting up an automated lunar orbit fuel depot. The tanks will be shipped from Earth but the fuel will come from the moon via crewed Shuttle-A vehicles.

 

[n122vu]

I'm a little unclear here. Are we talking about building a lunar space station, in LLO, or a lunar surface base?

 

[Bonanza123d]

A lunar Space Station. It will be i think in a inc of 80 and a low orbit. I don't want it to get in a lunar node and then get escape velocity. This orbit will be good enough at least for launch windows and other things. The reason why i have a surface base is for final assembly of gravity sensitive parts and due to the high inclination, it would be inefficient to make the trip direct to the moon then needing to do a plane change, then do an orbit alignment. It would be a lot for one crew to do. On top of that, the trips for the moon will be using containers containing the parts for space savings. So ultimately we will need a surface base on plain with the earth on the moon. Hence why i am using Wideawake International for the missions.

 

[Arrowstar]

The most important thing to decide is where to put the station's orbit. What is it going to be used for? Lunar surface excursions is the obvious reason.

Earth return pretty much as to be priority one, I would think. If you can't get back during an emergency, you have no where to go. Granted, Earth is 3 days away, so maybe there's an alternate idea? But exploration should only be considered from the vantage point of safety (IMHO).

 

[Bonanza123d]

The orbit will not be that high, so technically you could use a improved lander to get to the surface. The station will have these. The main purpose of the station is for a better setting at the universe and refueling of ships for interplanetary moves like higher delta v for the gas giants.

 

[Pinguinboy]

Well, IF you are going to start it, then I'm in, I'll be pleased to help you if I get something else to do than launching and flying, I'm not good with that. :lol:

 

[C3PO]

Granted, Earth is 3 days away, so maybe there's an alternate idea?

There's nothing you can do about that without a lot of handwavium, and that's much better then 2 windows/month.

 

[T.Neo]

There's nothing you can do about that without a lot of handwavium, and that's much better then 2 windows/month.

Actually... you can already make the travel time much better if you have a relatively small increase in dV (even one or two km/s, we're not talking hundreds of km/s here).

 

[Ark]

A lunar Space Station. It will be i think in a inc of 80 and a low orbit. I don't want it to get in a lunar node and then get escape velocity. This orbit will be good enough at least for launch windows and other things. The reason why i have a surface base is for final assembly of gravity sensitive parts and due to the high inclination, it would be inefficient to make the trip direct to the moon then needing to do a plane change, then do an orbit alignment. It would be a lot for one crew to do.

...Is there not a way to plan your orbit insert to land you in-plane? With IMFD you can set up your orbit insert to cross any base of your choosing, so isn't there a way to use some part of IMFD to insert into a chosen plane?

EDIT: Played around with BaseApproach earlier today and figured it out. Just use the GEO mode and bump up the target latitude until your inclination will match the target. I used it to hit Luna-OB1's polar orbit with a fair degree of accuracy, and I imagine it would be even easier and more fuel efficient in a lower inclination. It's easy enough to insert into the right inclination without stopping in orbit and doing a plane change. The only issue I ran into is that in polar orbit the Lunartransfer MFD refuses to perform a burn home, though it might do it for the two windows a month that polar orbit allows.

EDIT2: Problem. Only works right when the target LAN is 360 degrees. Probably because default longitude for BaseApproach is zero. Any ideas on how to use that function of BaseApproach to hit the right target orbit? Obviously it can be done.

 

[Arrowstar]

Actually... you can already make the travel time much better if you have a relatively small increase in dV (even one or two km/s, we're not talking hundreds of km/s here).

I would argue that even one or two extra km/sec is a lot for any normal spacecraft.

 

[Bonanza123d]

We now have the following staff positions open to the public:

Moon Mission Manager - Based out of the new base we are building

Station Designer


I also now have some critical updates. Due to the modules being built on the moon for space saving, we will have mutable phases for the missions. Phase 1 will be assembly of the base on the moon. The ships available for this phase will be 2 XR2s (With UCGO Platform) and 2 DGIVs The base on the ground will be the size of the base in orbit around the moon. That would be large. Phase 1 will contain 30 missions for supplies. In the meantime, the fleet's XR5 will undergo flight testing and is not cleared for flight until the last mission of the Phase 1 flight. Phase 2 will be assembly of the station. I am seeing about planning 2 stations, One in the prograde direction, and one in the retrograde direction for easy accessibility and fuel efficiency. I want to know what inclination would be the best to set it on and if prograde and retro. Any Ideas?

I also have the group now available

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/group.php?groupid=89

 

[Bonanza123d]

I think i will create large crate like UCGO base parts that will be large. These parts will probably be only carried up by the one XR5 Prototype that we have.

 

[Kveldulf]

I think i will create large crate like UCGO base parts that will be large. These parts will probably be only carried up by the one XR5 Prototype that we have.

UCGO has limitations on the size of the cargo containers. From the documentation:

The size of the cargo must absolutely fit in a 1.3m x 1.3m x 1.3m max bounding box. Authors of cargo containers are not allowed to exceed this size.

 

[garyw]

I also now have some critical updates. Due to the modules being built on the moon for space saving, we will have mutable phases for the missions. Phase 1 will be assembly of the base on the moon.

If this were real world that would require an awful lot of infrastructure to be lofted from Earth to the moon. It would be cheaper to loft the finished product.

The ships available for this phase will be 2 XR2s (With UCGO Platform) and 2 DGIVs The base on the ground will be the size of the base in orbit around the moon. That would be large.

Why does the base have to be large? It should be as large as it needs to be and no more. Larger than it should be is just asking for problems.

Phase 1 will contain 30 missions for supplies. In the meantime, the fleet's XR5 will undergo flight testing and is not cleared for flight until the last mission of the Phase 1 flight.

30 missions just for supplies? That sounds like a heck of a lot of missions. Will these be lofted from Earth? Why hold back the XR-5? STS had four test missions and they are still learning things 133 missions later.

Phase 2 will be assembly of the station. I am seeing about planning 2 stations, One in the prograde direction, and one in the retrograde direction for easy accessibility and fuel efficiency. I want to know what inclination would be the best to set it on and if prograde and retro. Any Ideas?

two stations = double the cost. having one in prograde and the other in retrograde is a silly idea. You gain nothing from it except double costs. The only place I can think of where you have two objects orbiting prograde and retrograde are the stero satellites around the sun. For the moon it really doesn't add up.
I'd go for a single station around 600km above the equator or in an inclination that's above the lunar base. It keeps you away from mascons and give you reach from moonbase to the station and gives the station an escape option if required.

 

[Bonanza123d]

If this were real world that would require an awful lot of infrastructure to be lofted from Earth to the moon. It would be cheaper to loft the finished product.



Why does the base have to be large? It should be as large as it needs to be and no more. Larger than it should be is just asking for problems.



30 missions just for supplies? That sounds like a heck of a lot of missions. Will these be lofted from Earth? Why hold back the XR-5? STS had four test missions and they are still learning things 133 missions later.



two stations = double the cost. having one in prograde and the other in retrograde is a silly idea. You gain nothing from it except double costs. The only place I can think of where you have two objects orbiting prograde and retrograde are the stero satellites around the sun. For the moon it really doesn't add up.
I'd go for a single station around 600km above the equator or in an inclination that's above the lunar base. It keeps you away from mascons and give you reach from moonbase to the station and gives the station an escape option if required.

Ok then. No double station. The XR5 will be late due to development and building the space craft will span a lot of the missions. I am going to have 2 total XR5s available but for every 10 missions. I will probably down grade the amount of missions to 15. The XR5 will fly the final mission which will contain the main assembly building. Expect custom textures for the hangars and other spacecraft. I will make airlock like gates that will conform to the DGIV and XR2. I am not a add-on developer so it will be hard to get it started.

 

[garyw]

Ok then. No double station. The XR5 will be late due to development and building the space craft will span a lot of the missions.

Why not launch the missions when the spacecraft are ready otherwise you end up with something that's like skylab waiting for a shuttle to dock but ultimately crashes and burns because of delays.

I am going to have 2 total XR5s available but for every 10 missions.

That makes some sense if you want to include turnaround times.

I will probably down grade the amount of missions to 15. The XR5 will fly the final mission which will contain the main assembly building.

Can I suggest a programme document? Something that lays out what you want to achieve and how you will achieve it be it 5 mission, 15, 30 or 150. If you lay out what it is you are trying to achieve and the goal of each mission it'll make a lot more sense and you'll know exactly how many missions you'll need. It'll also make it a lot more interactive for people wanting to get involved as they'll know exactly where their mission fits into the grand plan.
Finally, it's not very exciting to fly resupply, resupply, resupply.... then boom, XR5, station up, lets go home for tea.

Expect custom textures for the hangars and other spacecraft. I will make airlock like gates that will conform to the DGIV and XR2. I am not a add-on developer so it will be hard to get it started.

Why not plan out the mission first before getting stuck in developer hell? If I recall correctly, OFMM fell apart because it got stuck in a development nightmare.

 

[Wood]

My advice:

Don't over-complicate things, keep it simple. An equatorial orbit would simplify launch/return windows and the like.

Use an existing base on the Moon, or don't use one at all. There are several addons that add nice lunar bases and trying to build both at once seems overly complicated.

Use existing addons. The Ariane 6 is capable of launching large modules to Lunar orbit, with the default autopilot, no less. Neesys and Eranda, for example. The XRs and the DGIV are very nice ships and there is no need to have custom textures ready before starting. Slapping a simple logo on the sides shouldn't be too difficult anyhow, have a stab at it, but don't get bogged down with it.

Go fly some missions and post screenshots of how they went. Draw up a plan of what missions you want to fly, then fly them and see how they are.

 

[Bonanza123d]

Ok then... I will see about the missions shortly. I just am having issues regarding the ISS modules not working properly when trying to get them launch vehicle capiable