Author Topic: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT  (Read 21934 times)

Offline mfck

  • Office Plankton Representative
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Israel
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #120 on: 10/24/2016 02:42 AM »
How many F9 PLF volumes could one place in radial layers inside the BFS volume? Could someone kindly sketch that in a CAD program?

Offline TripD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 502
  • E. Clampus Launchus
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 247
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #121 on: 10/24/2016 03:11 AM »
I did a quick compare using the scale reference provided by Dante80. 

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #122 on: 10/24/2016 03:44 AM »
So, 3 PLF worth (plus some extra room) if you actually still have a propulsion section, right?

Offline mfck

  • Office Plankton Representative
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Israel
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #123 on: 10/24/2016 10:34 AM »
So, 3 PLF worth (plus some extra room) if you actually still have a propulsion section, right?

Yep, too little too bother, I guess.

If you rotated them horizontally, you'd get, what, six,  maybe nine, but you'd had too much of a "hammerhead"?

I did a quick compare using the scale reference provided by Dante80.

Thanks, exactly what I had in mind. (No likes on Tapatalk :( )
« Last Edit: 10/24/2016 10:37 AM by mfck »

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #124 on: 10/24/2016 04:55 PM »
So, 3 PLF worth (plus some extra room) if you actually still have a propulsion section, right?

Yep, too little too bother, I guess.

If you rotated them horizontally, you'd get, what, six,  maybe nine, but you'd had too much of a "hammerhead"?

I did a quick compare using the scale reference provided by Dante80.

Thanks, exactly what I had in mind. (No likes on Tapatalk :( )

Well, it would still have a potential use. Though it sounds like Elon isn't interested in using ITS to launch payloads other than the tankers / spaceships. If they did built one which was a propulsion section plus some kind of retractable fairing mechanism, it could launch pretty much anything up to and including B330 or similar sized space station modules, couldn't it? You could possibly even launch 3 regular payloads though accounting for the change in CoM would be tricky after releasing each payload if you have to do any burns to get from one payload's intended orbit to the next.

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2030
  • Likes Given: 1495
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #125 on: 10/24/2016 07:55 PM »
Keep in mind that the volume of the PLF and the volume of the payload inside the PLF are different.

The difference in volume is in part a function of how the PLF separates. If you don't have an actual PLF.

So you model the internal payload adapter and per payload outlines, which are smaller, with mechanism relevant buffer between - much smaller.

Your largest payload would be adjacent to the "door". It would open, tilt over the adapter and extend to allow the  same separation plane (ON THE SIDE), follow the same separation sequence as before, retract the mechanism, rotate next payload into position, and repeat (following orbital vehicle adjustments).

Hardest part of this would be the payload adapter's power/signal/other requirements, as well as any payload isolation requirements. Estimate 15-10 large, 10-20 medium, and 50+ small payloads per flight in this manner.

Other issues with this would be planning the flight profile for such to reach desirable orbits. Most likely to reach non adjacent, highly different inclination/phase/apsides, multiple lunar encounters and weeks of flight would be required, which would not be zero cost or low radiation exposure (many transits through the Van Allens).

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #126 on: 10/24/2016 11:08 PM »
This bump is to document several items.

That pressurized cargo will be within the ITS habitat and not need a larger pressurized container. At least not initially in the all in one Cargo/Crew ITS specified.

That unpressurized containers would be ~ 3X3X5 m pie shaped so that they will fit in a 12m diameter ITS and also fit through the small side opening for loading and unloading these containers. ~11 containers would fit in the ITS per cargo level.

Although these containers may not be very large compared to the ITS they should be large enough to pack fully assembled items like large (compared to current rovers on Mars) rovers/construction robots.  Each container would have ~22.5m^3 of volume. If the unpreasurrized containers are stored on 2 levels with 22 of them total to house 150-200mt of cargo then each would hold 6-9mt which would be about the right weight for a large rover/construction robot. A container full of solar arrays to deploy on the surface at 20kg/m^2 would be an array of 300m^2 that would produce a max output of ~7.5KW+. Possible array would look like a flower with petals. With each petal being 3m wide at the edge and ~5m long.

This would make for a very badly volume constrained system, your looking at interior volume in each container only twice the size of a Dragon capsule but trying to put MANY times more useful mass into it then has ever been done.  Space cargo is just much lower density then most people realize and that's why Dragon has only flown with about 2 tons inside it.  A density of around 200 kg/m^2 is a more reasonable density to aim for rather then the 350-400 your calculations project.

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #127 on: 10/24/2016 11:16 PM »

Other issues with this would be planning the flight profile for such to reach desirable orbits. Most likely to reach non adjacent, highly different inclination/phase/apsides, multiple lunar encounters and weeks of flight would be required, which would not be zero cost or low radiation exposure (many transits through the Van Allens).

If you have enough payloads, if you sent up a tanker to refuel the payload deploying spacecraft, you then would have tons of prop to make lots of orbit changes, right? if nothing else, could you deploy multiple GEO sats directly into their final orbital slots, then moving on to the next one's slot (by lowering/raising the orbit etc). The question is whether this is still at all economical or not ...

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2030
  • Likes Given: 1495
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #128 on: 10/24/2016 11:35 PM »

Other issues with this would be planning the flight profile for such to reach desirable orbits. Most likely to reach non adjacent, highly different inclination/phase/apsides, multiple lunar encounters and weeks of flight would be required, which would not be zero cost or low radiation exposure (many transits through the Van Allens).

If you have enough payloads, if you sent up a tanker to refuel the payload deploying spacecraft, you then would have tons of prop to make lots of orbit changes, right?

Not quite - there are orbits that you can't possibly reach from other orbits. And there are ones that are cost/ delta-v prohibitive. Handling multiple payloads is far from easy.

Quote
... if nothing else, could you deploy multiple GEO sats directly into their final orbital slots, then moving on to the next one's slot (by lowering/raising the orbit etc).

Sure, but then there's the launch scheduling problem - not all geostats are ready at the same time, to be delivered all at once. Or the ones going to SSO, or various other arrangements. And, there's an economic incentive to not waiting - being on orbit is when a sat starts paying back its significant costs.

Quote
The question is whether this is still at all economical or not ...

Yes. If parts of this do become economic, then still more services that aren't now ... might.

Like when you're out seeding new geosats, you might be able to retrieve ... marginal ones. To begin with, not worthwhile. But if you corner the market consistently, then piggybacking on a similar mission, might allow you some room for "business development" of space satellite market futures.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 675
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #129 on: 10/25/2016 12:44 PM »

Other issues with this would be planning the flight profile for such to reach desirable orbits. Most likely to reach non adjacent, highly different inclination/phase/apsides, multiple lunar encounters and weeks of flight would be required, which would not be zero cost or low radiation exposure (many transits through the Van Allens).
...
It's not really that difficult for a lot of payloads. Just launch different flights to reach common inclinations and apogees: a large majority of commercial launches would be to a few general inclinations: SSO, ISS, GTO.

It's relatively easy to reach any GSO slot from the same original GTO by timing perigee raise. It's also relatively easy to put a group of LEO birds in one constellation plane and migrate them to other planes as needed.

Edit: fixed quotes.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2016 08:46 PM by envy887 »

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #130 on: 10/25/2016 07:55 PM »
If you have enough payloads, if you sent up a tanker to refuel the payload deploying spacecraft, you then would have tons of prop to make lots of orbit changes, right?

Not quite - there are orbits that you can't possibly reach from other orbits. And there are ones that are cost/ delta-v prohibitive. Handling multiple payloads is far from easy.
Well I meant in similar orbits, i.e., all in the same / similar plane so your not making plane changes, just adjusting your orbit between deployments enough to Hohmann transfer or similar to the next payload's location. But as you said ...
Quote
... if nothing else, could you deploy multiple GEO sats directly into their final orbital slots, then moving on to the next one's slot (by lowering/raising the orbit etc).

Sure, but then there's the launch scheduling problem - not all geostats are ready at the same time, to be delivered all at once. Or the ones going to SSO, or various other arrangements. And, there's an economic incentive to not waiting - being on orbit is when a sat starts paying back its significant costs.
Fair point, even Arianespace has enough trouble getting two payloads to get together, I'm sure three is even more (and non-linearly) difficult to coordinate.

Quote
The question is whether this is still at all economical or not ...

Yes. If parts of this do become economic, then still more services that aren't now ... might.

Like when you're out seeding new geosats, you might be able to retrieve ... marginal ones. To begin with, not worthwhile. But if you corner the market consistently, then piggybacking on a similar mission, might allow you some room for "business development" of space satellite market futures.

Probably would need those sats designed for retrieval, since it's unlikely they can fold up their solar arrays. Though with a few manipulator arms and such you might be able to install upgrades or swap failed hardware on a satellite bus that was built with such repair / upgrades in mind... and those might be something they need to design for moving cargo between BFS to get a whole 450t of payload onto one craft.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1237
  • Likes Given: 85
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo ITS
« Reply #131 on: 06/17/2017 07:12 PM »
Bump since this topic has been in discussion in other topics.
« Last Edit: 06/17/2017 07:13 PM by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Tags: