Chris, and I'll report my own post so Chris reads it. You seem to know things about SpaceX's Mars plans. Is it true you've kept some of it to yourself or is it all in L2?
I'm confused, what's going on on Mexico?
What do you think?Kaoru
This is just an over-complicated design IMO. There is no need for a hatch at the bottom like that. And all that around the engines - the exhaust deflector housing - is going to need some *SERIOUS* active cooling to not melt during Raptor burns. Simplify. Remove the bottom hatch/tunnel. Remove the tunnel in the middle of the tanks. Increase tank volume.It looks like you decided on 4 raptors in such an arrangement early on (with engine cowlings - why?) and you don't want to let go of it. That shape doesn't make much sense.
I have a hard time envisioning a Mars base constructed with elements limited in size by having to pass through a tunnel such as the one in your plans.
The train idea is interesting, and you've obviously quite a attached to it. But I don't think the added complexity and compromises is worth it.
If an inflatable unit can fit the tunnel, is the lander going to be high enough for it to turn 90 degrees after exiting the spacecraft to get out? If some items can't make the 90 degree turn, they would have to be offloaded from the top via a crane. Then weight and balance can become a problem. Maybe if the fuel is placed higher, payload at the bottom, with people at the top, and they can come down the tunnel.
Quote from: Oersted on 04/13/2016 03:38 pmI have a hard time envisioning a Mars base constructed with elements limited in size by having to pass through a tunnel such as the one in your plans.If you look at the dimensions of BEAM, it's not small by any standard (once expanded) but small enough to pass thru my modeled tunnel. My thoughts stem from the requirement in building any habitat, either here on Earth or Mars, is that your materials have to be transported to your job site. Here on Earth we have the luxury of heavy machinery. On Mars, you're not going to have that luxury thus moving building materials is going to be manual labour which in turn means the size/weight will have to be limited. Using BEAM like components is like using IKEA flat packs, some assembly required... Since a BEAM like component will fit thru the tunnel with a simple lift/pulley (or magnetic lift) system, you eliminate heavy equipment (like a crane, cargo doors, ramps). With a small motorized dolly, building a habitat from small modules is more practical but time consuming.Since your going to be on Mars for awhile, time to move and assemble a lot of small modules/components is not an issue... You'll have plenty of time. This is why my model speculates that it (the service module/lander) will be a temporary habitat while on surface.Kaoru
Quote from: kaoru on 04/13/2016 04:40 pmQuote from: Oersted on 04/13/2016 03:38 pmI have a hard time envisioning a Mars base constructed with elements limited in size by having to pass through a tunnel such as the one in your plans.If you look at the dimensions of BEAM, it's not small by any standard (once expanded) but small enough to pass thru my modeled tunnel. My thoughts stem from the requirement in building any habitat, either here on Earth or Mars, is that your materials have to be transported to your job site. Here on Earth we have the luxury of heavy machinery. On Mars, you're not going to have that luxury thus moving building materials is going to be manual labour which in turn means the size/weight will have to be limited. Using BEAM like components is like using IKEA flat packs, some assembly required... Since a BEAM like component will fit thru the tunnel with a simple lift/pulley (or magnetic lift) system, you eliminate heavy equipment (like a crane, cargo doors, ramps). With a small motorized dolly, building a habitat from small modules is more practical but time consuming.Since your going to be on Mars for awhile, time to move and assemble a lot of small modules/components is not an issue... You'll have plenty of time. This is why my model speculates that it (the service module/lander) will be a temporary habitat while on surface.KaoruWhile your right that standardized cargo modules that can be linked together to form habitats, your size is much too small. The BEAM module is a mere 2.36 m in diameter and 1.7 tall when compressed for a volume of ~7.5 m^3. ISS cargo has a fairly low average density so your looking at many dozens of such modules needing to be unloaded from each ship and then linked together. As these modules are already too large to be moved by anything other then cranes their is every incentive to go bigger as the usefulness of the modules increases as well as the speed of unloading.I favor a module size comparable to a TEU shipping container which is 6.1 m x 2.44 m x 2.59 m totaling 38.5 m^3 roughly 5 times larger then BEAM when compressed and about twice as large as BEAM when expanded. If a module this size expanded with the same ratio as BEAM the resulting interior space would be 80 m^3 a very generous and spacious habitat indeed.Containers this size will necessitate a side door and a cargo bay of around 500 m^3 in which containers can be stacked and secured by bolting them to structural hard-points as in modern containerized cargo on ships, planes, trains etc etc. This is very similar to the Space Shuttle which had 300 m^3 internal cargo bay and similar hard-point mountings. Cargo would be loaded/unloaded by a gantry crane in the roof of the cargo bay and extends out to clear the edge of the vehicle. First a flat bed truck is unloaded, then modules are unloaded onto the truck which take them away.Remember we need to think about the entire SYSTEM in MCT including logistics of ground transportation on Mars, we can't just dump stuff right at the landing site, we need the habitat a safe distance of a few miles away.