|
Post by Apotheon on Aug 21, 2018 0:40:08 GMT
If you don't understand the question, you can stay out of the thread. You have to make a valid question. Told you. What. The. Freaking. Infra. Structure. You can't simply ask what would be its dry mass. Dry mass for fuel depot and dry mass for orbital habitat varies like a hell. I've already addressed this. - Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit without payload
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with cargo
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with passengers
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with propellant
- Maybe a mix of the above if relevant
- Refuelling stations
Which is about all CDE can handle currently.
Also, theoretical questions that go into designing the above or that are outside the scope of CDE, such as the astronomical facts I've communicated above.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 21, 2018 0:46:15 GMT
You have to make a valid question. Told you. What. The. Freaking. Infra. Structure. You can't simply ask what would be its dry mass. Dry mass for fuel depot and dry mass for orbital habitat varies like a hell. I've already addressed this. - Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit without payload
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with cargo
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with passengers
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with propellant
- Maybe a mix of the above if relevant
- Refueling stations
Which is about all CDE can handle currently.
Also, theoretical questions that go into designing the above or that are outside the scope of CDE, such as the astronomical facts I've communicated above.
Don't call them infrastructure. They're vehicles. You can say transport system an infrastructure on Earth, but not in space, because transport is everything about space travel. For example, NASA don't call it's Deep Space Habitat an infrastructure, when it call Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway an infrastructure. I suggested you validate orbital depot system and storing cryogenic fuels more than anyone else in this thread, then asked you for the further information or conditions. Now you ask me to go out.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 21, 2018 0:48:02 GMT
You have to make a valid question. Told you. What. The. Freaking. Infra. Structure. You can't simply ask what would be its dry mass. Dry mass for fuel depot and dry mass for orbital habitat varies like a hell. I've already addressed this. - Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit without payload
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with cargo
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with passengers
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with propellant
- Maybe a mix of the above if relevant
- Refueling stations
Which is about all CDE can handle currently.
Also, theoretical questions that go into designing the above or that are outside the scope of CDE, such as the astronomical facts I've communicated above.
If I understand things correctly, you're trying to design these things in the list in CDE, right? Unfortunately, they all have no universal optimum design, nor can you accurately model them in this game. It depends on millions of factors, many of which CDE does not account. For example, let's take a rocket. What propellant are you using? Which engine would you like to use? How thick do you want your insulating foams to be? How sophisticated is your avionics and its mass? Batteries? What about grid fins and landing legs? Bottom line, the best I can help is tell you to go ask a rocket scientist.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Aug 21, 2018 1:23:31 GMT
Fluorine will burn almost anything, and if you use fluorine to burn a molecule containing hydrogen (H 2, methane, ...) you'll get hydrofluoric acid, which can dissolve pretty much anything. This is why none uses fluorine IRL, despite it having a performance superior to oxygen as oxidiser. I personally also don't use hydrogen as it tends to leak through the walls of your propellant tanks (which is why hydrogen isn't the best choice for any spacecraft that will float for extended periods of time before making their final burn, IRL RP-1 was preferred). For short duration burns (under 1 minute) on a terminal stage of a missile, I think Flourine-based fuel chemistries are fine. You'd store the liquid Flourine in a Teflonated cryogenic tank or something. The nozzle and engine dissolving from the exhaust won't matter because it'll impact it's target (or get blown apart by PD, or dodged) before it becomes an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Apotheon on Aug 21, 2018 13:22:56 GMT
I've already addressed this. - Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit without payload
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with cargo
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with passengers
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with propellant
- Maybe a mix of the above if relevant
- Refueling stations
Which is about all CDE can handle currently.
Also, theoretical questions that go into designing the above or that are outside the scope of CDE, such as the astronomical facts I've communicated above.
Don't call them infrastructure. They're vehicles. You can say transport system an infrastructure on Earth, but not in space, because transport is everything about space travel. For example, NASA don't call it's Deep Space Habitat an infrastructure, when it call Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway an infrastructure. I suggested you validate orbital depot system and storing cryogenic fuels more than anyone else in this thread, then asked you for the further information or conditions. Now you ask me to go out. Yes, it's civilian infrastructure for the purposes of this thread. Accept this or leave the thread.
I've already addressed this. - Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit without payload
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with cargo
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with passengers
- Ships capable of going orbit-to-orbit with propellant
- Maybe a mix of the above if relevant
- Refueling stations
Which is about all CDE can handle currently.
Also, theoretical questions that go into designing the above or that are outside the scope of CDE, such as the astronomical facts I've communicated above.
If I understand things correctly, you're trying to design these things in the list in CDE, right? Unfortunately, they all have no universal optimum design, nor can you accurately model them in this game. It depends on millions of factors, many of which CDE does not account. For example, let's take a rocket. What propellant are you using? Which engine would you like to use? How thick do you want your insulating foams to be? How sophisticated is your avionics and its mass? Batteries? What about grid fins and landing legs? Bottom line, the best I can help is tell you to go ask a rocket scientist. I can tell you're no scientist in reality. Of course, CDE isn't realistic... literally absolutely nothing is realistic besides reality. I'm only interested in designing what's possible within the scope of CDE, just like someone playing KSP is only interested in designing what's possible within the scope of KSP, and just like someone working at NASA with designing stuff like the Discovery II is only interested in designing what's possible within the scope of their study group capabilities (Williams 2005). Also, I didn't ask "what is the best spacecraft"? I didn't ask for one single answer. If someone asks you a question with more than one answer, don't insult their intelligence by telling them it has more than one answer. Generalise, if you can and if you can't, give more than one answer, or at least give any valid answer and any of those alternatives are better than pointing out the obvious. What propellant? ANY! Propulsion? ANY! (Available in CDE)
For instance, can anyone design a ship that can go to Mars that's better (*) than the Apomartian I've included in the original post? And by "better", since certain of you guys are anal for the specifics, can mean lower dry mass, wet mass, dry cost, wet cost, propellant mass, propellant cost, less dV, less acceleration, smaller size, or just anything you find interesting! And please don't ask me what I mean by "go to Mars"... Earth 250 km circular orbit to Mars 200 km circular orbit... point A to point B... you can go any time you want, whether Earth and Mars are far apart or close and you can use the Moon or Sun as a gravitational slingshot, or Deimos or Phobos, or whatever you want.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Aug 21, 2018 13:56:34 GMT
I can tell you're no scientist in reality. This tone isn't constructive. Of course, CDE isn't realistic... literally absolutely nothing is realistic besides reality. Realism isn't binary. Some things get closer to realism/reality than others. While flawed, CoaDE makes an attempt at realism. I'm only interested in designing what's possible within the scope of CDE, just like someone playing KSP is only interested in designing what's possible within the scope of KSP, and just like someone working at NASA with designing stuff like the Discovery II is only interested in designing what's possible within the scope of their study group capabilities (Williams 2005). Plenty of people 'roleplay' or try to construct as realistic as possible in CoaDE and KSP. And many studies try to place their results into a broader context. Also, I didn't ask "what is the best spacecraft"? I didn't ask for one single answer. Vague questions or statements get vague responses. Who knew. If someone asks you a question with more than one answer, don't insult their intelligence by telling them it has more than one answer. Sometimes people think there is only one answer to their questions. Someone stating your question has multiple possible answers doesn't necessarily does that with malice. Generalise, if you can and if you can't, give more than one answer, or at least give any valid answer and any of those alternatives are better than pointing out the obvious. I agree. What propellant? Water FTW. Though seriously, ideal propellant is simply a consequence of availability and the chosen propulsion system. Water NTR's have an unimpressive performance. ANY! Propulsion? Laserthermal, magnetoplasmadynamic, VASIMR, solid core NTR are all pretty decent with their pro's and con's. ANY! (Available in CDE) Choice in CoaDE is fairly limited. For anything beyond a certain size, NTR's and MPDT's are probably the best choice in game. The best one depends on whether acceleration or delta-v has a higher priority. For instance, can anyone design a ship that can go to Mars that's better (*) than the Apomartian I've included in the original post? And by "better", since certain of you guys are anal for the specifics (specifics are important, and there is no reason for such a stigma against buttfun), can mean lower dry mass, wet mass, dry cost, wet cost, propellant mass, propellant cost, less dV, less acceleration, smaller size, or just anything you find interesting! And please don't ask me what I mean by "go to Mars"... Earth 250 km circular orbit to Mars 200 km circular orbit... point A to point B... you can go any time you want, whether Earth and Mars are far apart or close and you can use the Moon or Sun as a gravitational slingshot, or Deimos or Phobos, or whatever you want.
|
|
|
Post by Apotheon on Aug 21, 2018 14:05:46 GMT
I can tell you're no scientist in reality. This tone isn't constructive.
I'm this close from banning anotherfirefox from the thread, so don't talk to me about "constructive". The thread has had about seven constructive replies.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 21, 2018 14:18:38 GMT
I'm this close from banning anotherfirefox from the thread, so don't talk to me about "constructive". The thread has had about seven constructive replies. That must take my posts account the relative strong/bad point about several possible orbits around Earth, pointing out how life support are relevant in given time scope, what would be better orbital fuel or not, possible transition between Earth and Mars you can take, how can you store your precious fuel SO THAT YOU CAN BUILD YOUR INFRA. Want to say there's no life support or such blah blah in CDE so not wanna consider those? Fine, if that's how you play this game I'm absolutely happy with it. You picked the wrong forum tho. They do nothing with Science and Technology. I apologize if that's the case, but still you have the responsibility choosing wrong forum so that made me waiting your specific condition with several hundreds of Scientific and Technological papers from real rocket scientists.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 21, 2018 14:37:18 GMT
I can tell you're no scientist in reality. Of course, CDE isn't realistic... literally absolutely nothing is realistic besides reality. I'm only interested in designing what's possible within the scope of CDE, just like someone playing KSP is only interested in designing what's possible within the scope of KSP, and just like someone working at NASA with designing stuff like the Discovery II is only interested in designing what's possible within the scope of their study group capabilities (Williams 2005). Also, I didn't ask "what is the best spacecraft"? I didn't ask for one single answer. If someone asks you a question with more than one answer, don't insult their intelligence by telling them it has more than one answer. Generalise, if you can and if you can't, give more than one answer, or at least give any valid answer and any of those alternatives are better than pointing out the obvious. What propellant? ANY! Propulsion? ANY! (Available in CDE) For instance, can anyone design a ship that can go to Mars that's better (*) than the Apomartian I've included in the original post? And by "better", since certain of you guys are anal for the specifics, can mean lower dry mass, wet mass, dry cost, wet cost, propellant mass, propellant cost, less dV, less acceleration, smaller size, or just anything you find interesting! And please don't ask me what I mean by "go to Mars"... Earth 250 km circular orbit to Mars 200 km circular orbit... point A to point B... you can go any time you want, whether Earth and Mars are far apart or close and you can use the Moon or Sun as a gravitational slingshot, or Deimos or Phobos, or whatever you want. Yeah, yeah, I admit I am stupid and don't understand what is going on and what you guys are talking about, didn't have time to check what I wrote and its impacts, nor checking what is your intentions here. Though, I am quite certain on one thing here, it's that you should calm down. It's not smart to try to put out fire by throwing in more fuel.
|
|
|
Post by Apotheon on Aug 24, 2018 20:55:21 GMT
I'm going answer a few things in more detail here: The easiest thing to think of is orbital cryogenic fuel depot: Never put it in low orbit, no needs and they'll boil off much faster. Interesting. My main propellants are methane and oxygen, which don't appear to suffer strongly from this.In any case, LEO is not a good idea. Note that US is gonna abandon ISS at LEO and going to build one at even farther, Earth-Moon L 1 point. Getting into orbit around Earth is not such a problem: You can use vast infrastructure we already have on the ground. Getting to another body is the problem. I doubt this, personally. Anyway, I'm using LEO as a starting point until I can identify a better starting point. Maybe everything would be shot from the surface straight up into high orbit, or a lagrange point, or a station somewhere even further out, and no ships would ever really come close to Earth, but I'd need a bit of data on that first.
My second question: what is the ideal way to move between Earth, the Moon, and Mars? - Earth-Moon costs a minimum of 4.14 km/s dV (5% more than the 3.94 km/s in dV maps) at 0.35 G of acceleration (more acceleration doesn't save dV, but less acceleration wastes it).
- Moon-Mars costs a minimum of 3.41 km/s (3.58 km/s with 5% extra) at 0.125 G acceleration.
- Earth-Mars costs a minimum of 5.71 km/s (6.00 km/s with 5% extra) at 0.35 G acceleration.
- I'm no super trajectorizer, so maybe someone else can improve on this with advanced special trajectories.
- Earth-Moon-Mars trajectories may be relevant, because it only costs you three days and you can fly a smaller ship between the Moon and Mars.
You may want to see this also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_NetworkThis is great. Normally, you'd want to consider bulk cargo transfers (like phosphorus), specialized/priority cargo transfers (like reactor fuel rods), and personnel transfers; all in each direction. Bulk cargo needs primarily low cost. Priority cargo needs primarily flexible launch schedules, secondarily low time. Personnel needs primarily low time, secondarily low cost. Having very high exhaust velocity helps all of these requirements, btw. Unfortunately, I don't understand magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters yet. The stock ones are worthless, so I guess I'll have to design my own or steal one. Fluorine will burn almost anything, and if you use fluorine to burn a molecule containing hydrogen (H 2, methane, ...) you'll get hydrofluoric acid, which can dissolve pretty much anything. This is why none uses fluorine IRL, despite it having a performance superior to oxygen as oxidiser. I personally also don't use hydrogen as it tends to leak through the walls of your propellant tanks (which is why hydrogen isn't the best choice for any spacecraft that will float for extended periods of time before making their final burn, IRL RP-1 was preferred). For short duration burns (under 1 minute) on a terminal stage of a missile, I think Flourine-based fuel chemistries are fine. You'd store the liquid Flourine in a Teflonated cryogenic tank or something. The nozzle and engine dissolving from the exhaust won't matter because it'll impact it's target (or get blown apart by PD, or dodged) before it becomes an issue. Do fluorine-hydrogen mixes destroy the nozzle, generally speaking? In that case, it sounds impossible to use for rockets, which is worse than I thought.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Aug 24, 2018 21:07:00 GMT
Do fluorine-hydrogen mixes destroy the nozzle, generally speaking? In that case, it sounds impossible to use for rockets, which is worse than I thought. The combustion product of hydrogen and fluorine is hydrofluoric acid, which can dissolve almost anything. Some materials can be passivated when treated with fluorine, forming a protective layer and preventing further combustion. Hydrofluoric acid dissolves this layer. This is the reason fluorine tanks have to be perfectly dry before being filled. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Aug 24, 2018 21:52:12 GMT
Do fluorine-hydrogen mixes destroy the nozzle, generally speaking? In that case, it sounds impossible to use for rockets, which is worse than I thought. Do fluorine-hydrogen mixes destroy the nozzle, generally speaking? In that case, it sounds impossible to use for rockets, which is worse than I thought. The combustion product of hydrogen and fluorine is hydrofluoric acid, which can dissolve almost anything. Some materials can be passivated when treated with fluorine, forming a protective layer and preventing further combustion. Hydrofluoric acid dissolves this layer. This is the reason fluorine tanks have to be perfectly dry before being filled. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acidAgain, a rocket engine that only needs to last 30 seconds or so (the terminal stage of a missile) seems just fine. It takes hydrofluoric acid a non-trivial amount of time to eat through materials anyways...
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Aug 25, 2018 7:47:59 GMT
Again, a rocket engine that only needs to last 30 seconds or so (the terminal stage of a missile) seems just fine. It takes hydrofluoric acid a non-trivial amount of time to eat through materials anyways... True, but I can imagine hydrofluoric acid at 1000+ K and high pressure will be a tad more reactive than at 'normal' circumstances. All I wonder about is how long it would take to weaken the chamber enough to cause it to crack. If the game would take this into account, you would be forced to add a thicker buffer zone the longer your engine is expected to run. I have no idea if this would be significant or not for an engine that runs a little over a minute.
|
|