/sci/ - Science & Math

And what are those cylinder things on the "wings"?

>>2305434
Crew habitation modules

they use use reaction control systems during the flight to spin and create artificial gravity

>>2305430
I am not sure, but i might need more thrusters to adjust movement.

How the hell should we know how you're doing? If you need to ask 4chan for help, I hope this isn't really going into production....

How big is the habitation module? Sitting in a cramped capsule for the couple of days it takes to get to the moon is feasable, but that shit ain't gonna cut it on the way to Mars.

>>2305444
Yes im planning on putting them on the main part as well

This spacecraft is like 55% done

I still have to add
1.docking ports on the side of the main part
2.Communications hardware
3.windows
4.Solar panels
5.a lunar module docked on the front to act as a decent stage(whats the point of going to the moon if your not going to land on it)

>>2305446
its for my class at NASA

>>2305453
about the same size as an ISS module

Looks like a very sensible design. (Although, I don't think you'd really need artificial gravity just to go to the moon.) The only thing is that if you needed to pitch your rocket, the RCS thrusters would be too close to the center of mass to be effective. You probably want additional RCS thrusters on the front and back of the main rocket for pitch, and get rid of every RCS thruster that fires directly along the scaffold axis, as you'd never want to use those.

>> 2.Communications hardware
>>4.Solar panels

You may want to reconsider having the entire craft spin to produce artificial gravity (I think that's what you are doing). It is rather difficult to keep solar panels and radio antenae pointed at the Sun and Earth when the craft they are on is spinning.

When will the ships look like this.

>>2305473
>get rid of every RCS thruster that fires directly along the scaffold axis, as you'd never want to use those.
Just to amend that, you might want to use them for linear movement rather than rotation, but if you had RCS thrusters firing along that same axis but at the front and back of the main rocket, you could use them both for rotation and translation.

How does you vehicle simulate gravity for a mars mission? Remember, they're in transit for a minimum of 12 months there and back, and they won't have anyone to help condition them to mars gravity when they get there.

>>2305500
as soon as engineers lose their sense of proportion and build ships ten times the size they need

>>2305473
>Although, I don't think you'd really need artificial gravity just to go to the moon

Its for going to mars as well

>>2305473
Also I was thinking for the truss to be extend-able and retractable so that the crew habitation modules would be closer to the center of mass when you need to do the maneuvering. Then they would extend and start spinning after you get to a constant velocity. Then retract after to get where you want to go.

I have no idea how to design extend able and retractable trusses though.

and whats the scaffold axis Im kinda new to this.

>>2305485
The radio antennae orientation can be solved by keeping the antennae near the center of mass.

>>2305485
im putting them on the main part and the habitation modules to solve that problem

>>2305508

Don't know how much this would complicate things, but if you add a second set of counter-rotating weights, you could keep artificial gravity going at all times, and not have to worry about gyroscopic forces.

>>2305525
Don't use a fixed truss, use a flexible extendable cable. The centrifugal force will keep it taught. Each crew module acts as a counter weight to the other. This also makes it easier to launch and assemble... no EVA required, just some maneuvering of the modules latching the cable hooks into place. Kind of similar to what the Apollo lunar lander and command modules had to do after launch.

>>2305529
Pretty much this

Also I wanted to use nuclear thermal propulsion so it can cut that time down by quite a lot

>>2305485
On the long trip to mars, you could align your axis of rotation complete arbitrarily. So as long as the solar panels point straight forward or straight back, I don't see it as a problem. Keeping the antenna pointed at earth for communication would be a pain in the ass, that's true, but who wants to talk to those faggots anyway.

Just had an interesting idea. Once you do your main burn for trans-mars orbit, you deploy a separately powered satellite, that has its own solar panels for electric power, and has the earth antenna on it. It aligns with earth, and you then establish your gravity spin. You talk to the satellite with whatever short range bluetooth you like, and it beams signals to and from earth.

>>2305525
By scaffold axis, I mean the direction pointing along the truss toward or away from the main rocket. You'd never want to fire those for rotation, since they are pointing so close to the center of mass. For yaw and roll, it's good to have those RCS thrusters out there for "leverage" maximum torque. But for pitch, you'd want to have the thrusters at the ends of your main rocket for the same reason.

>>2305527
That would keep the antenna in the same place (which isn't really necessary). There's no way to keep the antenna pointed the same direction while you roll unless you face it directly forward or backward, but the antenna has to be so precisely aimed, that any wobble in your spin will screw you up. And you can either align your axis of rotation with the sun for power or the earth for communication, but not both.

>>2305545
but then when you stop rotating you have problems

I could have a elevator inside the truss

I still think a retractable and extendable truss would be the best

Retractable trusses and cables seems like asking for trouble to me. I'd just go with a fixed design. Keep it simple. It's not like this is for atmospheric flight I assume. You can assemble it in orbit.

>>2305576
The official mars mission proposal uses a cable.

>>2305568
Thanks for your help

I was wondering are you rocket scientist or just an enthusiast

>>2305583
Source?

>>2305575
No, you retract the cable until the crew modules are directly adjacent to the center module, and lock them in place.

>>2305590
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Reference_Mission

You'll have to follow the citations from there to get the actual materials.

>>2305568
>I was thinking about putting the solar panels at the back of the habitation modules

>>2305594
Here's the PDF:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090012109_2009010520.pdf

>Just had an interesting idea. Once you do your main burn for trans-mars orbit, you deploy a separately powered satellite, that has its own solar panels for electric power, and has the earth antenna on it. It aligns with earth, and you then establish your gravity spin. You talk to the satellite with whatever short range bluetooth you like, and it beams signals to and from earth.

Great idea thats perfect

>>2305603
Whoops, that's just a presentation overview. Full PDF is here:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nas
a.gov%2Fpdf%2F373665main_NASA-SP-2009-566.pdf&rct=j&q=related%3Antrs.nasa.gov%2Farchive%2Fna
sa%2Fcasi.ntrs.nasa.gov%2F20090012109_2009010520.pdf%20NASA%20DRM%205&ei=Rw0mTczINpKmsQP28ZTnAQ&
amp;usg=AFQjCNGO9Skz6d7H5r_a8HG9rgpfdeAuxw&cad=rja

Looks like they removed the cable, I think, used to be in an earlier version. Not sure how they're solving the gravity problem now, gonna read the relevant bits.

NASA has classes?

Are the landers at all a consideration in this?

>>2305621
Aerospace engineering has mission design classes.

>>2305621
https://secure.spacegrant.org/

I would like to suggest a large blunt cone of ice up front, to protect against things.

Or a double layered hull with water in-between.

>>2305625
Yes im building that next

>>2305637
Like SpaceX's dragon?

>>2305587
Just an enthusiast. (I'm also an Orbiter 2010 enthusiast, which is great for getting you thinking about some of the practicalities of spaceflight)

>>2305639
I would guess that the mission requirements would have a huge impact on what they end up being.

>>2305657
I was thinking maybe we could import my spacecraft into orbiter

>By scaffold axis, I mean the direction pointing along the truss toward or away from the main rocket. You'd never want to fire those for rotation, since they are pointing so close to the center of mass. For yaw and roll, it's good to have those RCS thrusters out there for "leverage" maximum torque. But for pitch, you'd want to have the thrusters at the ends of your main rocket for the same reason.

So take off the thrusters on top and bottom of the habitation modules?

and put RCS's on the sides on the main rocket?

again im new at this

>>2305645
I was unaware it used an h2o shielding system. I am interested and wish to learn more

>Sketchup

>>2305619

They removed the cable? That's odd. I liked that part of Mars Direct.

Silly NASA making things expensive.

>>2305726
I was talking about its nose protector

>>2305758
>>2305730
Fuck you furry

this is better then your light sail with a turd behind it

>>2305695
You have 4 thrusters (or at least 4 nozzles) on the 4 sides of each crew module. I would keep 2 thrusters on each of the 4 sides. On the top and bottom keep the thrusters pointing forward and backward (these are for yaw or for fine-tuning forward or backward velocity). On the front and back of the crew modules keep the two thrusters pointing up and down (these are for roll [including artificial gravity roll] or for fine-tuning any vertical velocity).

Then on the nosecone and as far back towards the main engine as possible, you need one or more thrusters pointing up, and one or more pointing down, for pitch. (and could also be used for vertical velocity fine-tuning). Then you're just missing thrusters for fine-tuning left/right velocity, for which you could add thrusters on the left and right of the nose cone and engine. But you wouldn't use those for yawing, because the ones you have out on the top and bottom of the crew modules would be more efficient for yawing.

>>2305785

>mfw this devolves into a war between scia and coffee mug for control of mars, using interplanetary spaceships

This is a crude shop of op's pic, but this would be more efficient for roll and yaw correct? Maybe for pitch, a smaller truss in the front and thrust vector the main engine? That might be to complicated though. I guess it also matters wheither or not you want to have the same comtrol over pitch.

I seem to remember the makes of the X Plane flight sim also made a space sim. Might help?

>>2305798
I don't like third world stalker furries is all

>>2305808
>mfw they start duking it out with kinetic kill vehicles and meanwhile the rest of us build an interstellar ship to get away from them

>>2305814
Heres my model if anyone wants it

http://www.2shared.com/file/pe41az8p/Spacecraft.html?

>>2305815

>third world

Not ashamed of it, wasn't my doing.

>stalker

That was a joke. >implying I live in the US and can stalk Zubrin

>furries

To each his own.

Can we be fwiends again? :3

>>2305826

>>2305837
>Can we be fwiends again? :3

Fine just don't post furry pictures

>>2305853

IN YOUR THREADS

Outside the space threads it's all fair game

>>2305814
That should work too. I know the shuttle uses multiple redundant rcs thrusters. It might just be for safety in case one of your thrusters goes bad you can still hobble around.

Also when I submit this I have to upload it in image format

Anyone have a good free renderer for sketchup

>>2305861
Fine

>>2305880

your design has a very large flaw - the two crew capsules are not connected to each other, nor to the reentry capsule. So, you have to build everything twice, even the backup systems. This simply will not work.

take it from me; on any serious mission all parts where crew lives / works need to be connected to each other by pressurized paths. This is absolutely nonnegotiable. You might as well build 2 diffirent ships, which is basically what you have done. Problem is that if one of the ships has a problem, the other one is fucked aswell. So, the solution is to either make 2 ships, or make a bigger single ship. That way you have more efficient use of spare parts, better options for problem solving. And im not even talking how much easier it will be for the passengers to keep sane due to added companions and a bigger space.

talking about living space, assuming the capsule is dragon/ orion size, your habitat modules are way too small. Think twice as big.

biggest point, which will make the entire project unrealistic; the need to make a spacewalk along a spinning vehicle to get to your mates on the other side who just happen to have a problem.

total no-go on that.

>>2305898
anyways even though you won't say what country you live in can you at least say what continent?

Are you African?

>>2305910

Nope, and nope.

This - Hal 9000

>>2305906
There is no reentry I plan on this only being in space and staying in space

to get back to earth it will dock at a space station and you will get back to earth on a spaceplane, Dragon, Orion, whatever

also i could add a expandable and retractable passageway in between the trusses

For when the trusses expand and retract

>>2305906

cont'd:
next, the fuel. if you want an exploration system, you wont have enough fuel in a simple apollo / dragon like trunk. You want atleast something like a centaur upper stage, if to mars you want more fuel to take along. Where will you fit this?

also, Solar panels. Assuming you wont go past mars / asteroid belt with this design, you want solar panels. big ones, for something reusable and big like this. Where will you attach them? ( think one of the ISS trusses, possible 2 atleast ).
Add some hall effect trusthers or even VASIMR type engines for stationkeeping if reusable, which will spare you the fuels needed for manned stationkeeping.

next,
antennas - big ones. the idea of a semi sat is nifty, but you'd never actually do it, since it adds another link to a chain that can fail. So, you need antennas on the craft itself.

Also, you want the trusther fuel for manouvring outside of your pressurized hull. If your hull is even less than the outside of the sketch the pressurized living space will be WAY too small.

if you made the living spaces smaller to keep them the same diameter as the return capsule, there is no need; fairing spaces arent really a problem on these sorts of projects.

>>2305910
We all are, Scia. We all are.

Drop the trusses: they make you look like a civil engineer. A civil engineer - IN SPAAAACE.

>>2305937
>There is no reentry I plan on this only being in space and staying in space
then why does it have a pointy nose? no reason whatsoever

>also i could add a expandable and retractable passageway in between the trusses

thats a nice SciFi idea, but you'd never ever do this in reality. You want them nice and sturdy. Always pressurized. That way you can store more supplies and you dont have to worry that anything can fail.
The basic idea is here NOT to add any moving parts to a ship, since they can fail. Which in your case would be an immediate abort. The trusses cant extend, either. What if it gets stuck, something that happens quite a bit on these sorts of structures in space? instant abort, perhaps even loss of crew / vehicle if something goes really wrong. Make it sturdy, make it safe. KISS applies in space above all other things.

a solution to these problems without fucking everything up is simply to have only one side of the ship be pressurized. On the counterweight, have the big solar arrays, the antennas, the thruster fuel, all that jazz.

Then again. you'd never build a spinning ship for rotational gravity anyway. You'd just go the current ISS route, with a more stringent fitness program in place.

again, KISS. although it isnt as elegant as something spinning for gravitation, it works better and is easier, is cheaper and safer.

what are you looking for? realistic? look at NASA plans. Orion + a crew module the size of an ISS module with some solar arrays for the moon. the same + 1-3 Centaur upper stages for mars and getting back. If you just want some sci fi development, then I'll be on my way.

>>2305978
There are trusses on the ISS

>>2305985
>then why does it have a pointy nose? no reason whatsoever

easy docking and it looks cool

>>2305993
yes. but not any spinning ones, nor ones that retract, nor ones that have a pressurized living space in them.

nor have there ever been any in a ship that actually travels somewhere.

>>2306001
if you want to dock have the thing you're docking with have the pointy nose, since it'll be easier to have one pointy thing to which all the non pointy things dock instead of the other way around.

if this is about looks i'll get my realism out of this thread.

>antennas - big ones. the idea of a semi sat is nifty, but you'd never actually do it, since it adds another link to a chain that can fail. So, you need antennas on the craft itself.

add redundancy with multiple sats

>>2306016
looking cool is a secondary reason

>>2306020
redundancy is nice, but what if one of them hits your ship? how far away will they be? to have the power to stream a lot of data, it will need power, quite a bit. Which will make them bigger.
And then still, an antenna is easier. Why not simply place an antenna on the ship, and be done with it? how about 2 or 3, redundant systems and another redundant system using a diffirent technique? easier and cheaper, without the problems of moving all the "small sats" with you when you make a burn. Which means they will have a need for quite big thrusters, since they need to follow you.

>>2306028
bad engineer.

>>2306036
>>2306036
Good point

>>2306052
Ok think of it as an extra

it was never a main or important reason

>a solution to these problems without fucking everything up is simply to have only one side of the ship be pressurized. On the counterweight, have the big solar arrays, the antennas, the thruster fuel, all that jazz.

even if I do that how can I get from the habitation module to the main part?

>>2306055
is it in the spec or not? if it's in the spec, do you have a cost-benefit justification? unjustified "cool" will cost you single-digit-denominator fractions of your payload.

>You'd just go the current ISS route, with a more stringent fitness program in place.

but they still come back with a decent amount of bone loss

>>2306073
its not a spec

Im planing on putting a lunar lander docked there

>>2305985
also whats KISS?

>>2306068
the habitation module would be the main part. The middle would just be the point everything spins around, including the habitation module. You dock with the habitation capsule. The middle is perhaps just the engine. You have to despin to dock anyway - there is little reason why a ship should be symmetric if you dont plant to reenter.
To keep the two sides reasonably the same weight you could pump water from one side to the other and vice versa. same with fuel.

but as said, you dont really want to spin unless you can build some sort of all pressurized Ring station.
or, possibly the best way; find some medicine to counteract bone loss and muscle density. Or develop a set of exercises that counteracts it. perhaps a ring inside a habitation capsule, think 4 meters or so, where you would sleep in - once feet " down", once head " down" so your body will feel gravity for like 7 hours, atleast a bit.

I bet both solutions will be cheaper then making a spinning space ship, and the drugs will make you a shitton money on earth from farma companies aswell.

>>2305985
Ok no expandable and retractable truss just a normal sturdy truss

I can still put a pressurized passage between them though

>>2305898
OH FUCK NOW I KNOW THE FURRY SECRET HANDSHAKE

>>2306084
Ah, right. I forgot that you're doing something NASA-related.

Also I plan on using nuclear thermal propulsion and

>>2306099
I don't want to bet on something that has not been invented yet

Also I meant this as mainly a crew transport between earth and the moon

the rotation is there for mars and beyond

>>2306094
Keep It Simple, Stupid.

its true, and a lot of engineers tend to forget this. Even ones working at nasa! look at the clusterfuck that is Constellation, shuttle and orion. The russians have been historically way better at this: just look at this graph, and let that sink in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_%28rocket_family%29

look at the first stage. from 1957 till now. Just optimize, add more stuff instead of fucking everything over the second a new thing becomes possible. it still flies.

>>2306075
>bone loss
exactly, that's why I said more stringent. It's not like they'll have a lot to do during flights to mars. To the moon its not an issue at all. See previous post about drugs and other solutions.
because something doesnt work too well now ( and even 6 month ISS astronauts can walk on earth gravity on their 2nd day, most of the time - it'll be easier on mars gravity ) doesnt mean that you have to go radical and assume that we cant make it work better with minor drugs / better exercise.

>>2305906
What I would say to that, is put most your machinery and instrumentation one one side, which will act as a counterweight, and crew module on the other side. You'll obviously want space-walk capability in case you have to go fix something. But no reason to build two separate life-support systems. Or if you do have two separate life support systems, for redundancy, it's not unreasonable to connect the two with a pressurized service tube within the truss.

>>2305978
Don't listen to this hipster. Trusses are cool.

>>2306132
this'll be my last post here, dinner is ready.

I would then give you the advice to not fly the same thing towards mars and the moon. The requirements are VASTLY diffirent. For one, you dont need, and thus not want, any artifical gravity on the short trip to the moon. No spinning, then.

my idea of the internal spinning ring where you can sleep is the same as a whole spinning ship. If that is unproven, then so is the whole ship idea.
And nuclear thermal is entirely unproven. If you use it you will need large Radiators ( you'll need them anyway, by the way )

have fun now kids.

>>2305985
>You want them nice and sturdy. Always pressurized. That way you can store more supplies and you dont have to worry that anything can fail. The basic idea is here NOT to add any moving parts to a ship, since they can fail. Which in your case would be an immediate abort. The trusses cant extend, either. What if it gets stuck, something that happens quite a bit on these sorts of structures in space?

I agree with all this. KISS. Minimize moving parts. I think a permanent pressurized service tube is fine. But I don't think there's anything wrong with a spinning ship for gravity. The amount of time the crew will be here is unprecedented. The longest anyone's been on the ISS is 214 days. They'll be out there for years. It might not be strictly necessary to spin the ship, but I like the idea, and don't see a good reason not to do it. Also, in the interest of minimizing moving parts, spinning the whole ship is better than having a spinning subsection like in 2001.

>>2306180

I know your gone but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

Its been proven with fire tests and everything

>>2306036
As the anon who suggested the antenna sat, what I envisioned is this. The transfer orbit to mars takes about a year and a half. After the main burn, you deploy the antenna sat, perhaps out of the nose, so it flies right in front of you. Then you start your gravity roll. Then you play chess for a year and a half, with your communication capability. Then when nearing Mars to the point where you need to make correction burns, you stop your gravity roll, you grapple the antenna sat back into the nose, and now it acts like a regular aimable attached antenna for the rest of the way there.

Even if you need to make a correction burn in the middle of your 1.5 year trip, that just means you need enough RCS fuel to stop rotation, grab the sat, make the burn, redeploy, and restart the rotation. Heck, if that's the only thing you have to do in 1.5 years, it's not a lot of work. And it's not like it would take all that much fuel to start and stop the rotation once or twice.

>>2306180
>The requirements are VASTLY diffirent.
That's true. 3 days one-way versus 1.5 years one-way. It would obviously have to be built around the mars trip requirements. But of course, that doesn't mean you can't put it through its paces flying it back and forth to the moon. It's just way over-engineered for that job.

>>2305430

Whatever your design might be, the spacecraft should use propulsion technology that allows the crew to make the trip to mars in as little time as possible.

Chemical rockets should be automatical no-go for that. over 6 month trip would be immensely straining for the crew, and fuel reserves would be limited at best, if there even are any.

Personally, i think the trip should'nt even be until people at gather their shit and ditch the whole idea of using chemical rockets and ion-engines on deep space manned missions. It's not practical, and it's too dangerous for the crew, and overall success of the mission.

>>2305430

Whatever your design might be, the spacecraft should use propulsion technology that allows the crew to make the trip to mars in as little time as possible.

Chemical rockets should be automatical no-go for that. over 6 month trip would be immensely straining for the crew, and fuel reserves would be limited at best, if there even are any.

Personally, i think the trip should'nt even be considered until people at gather their shit and ditch the retarded idea of using chemical rockets on deep space manned missions. It's not practical, and it's too dangerous for the crew, and overall success of the mission.

Should the pressurized passage between the habitation modules and main be circular or Rectangular?

New picture

Hey I did my own space vehicle once

>>2306881
Looks like something you would find in EVE

>>2306602
circular, pressure vessels should always be circular.

are you just designing the structure, or do you have to do the systems as well?

>>2307080
Ok made it circular

and I have to design the systems

But I can state those im my design report I don't have to model it

>>2306881
Hey, you used to post on /ic/ before /3/ existed, right? I'm sure that's where I've seen that image before... I think you were asking for critique and explained how made it with some textures and what not.