Author Topic: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT  (Read 47251 times)

Online lamontagne

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4266
  • Otterburn Park, Quebec,Canada
  • Liked: 3837
  • Likes Given: 716
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #60 on: 06/13/2016 04:45 pm »
Image of the connector, would mostly be needed for changes in direction in a multicomponent assembly.
It might be shipped as is, since it is basically a mini container itself, or perhaps as a set of shell parts to be assembled.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #61 on: 06/13/2016 04:53 pm »
A few more stiffeners added
If you make the spaceframe 6 sided, it wastes a bit more space around the cylinder than an 8 sided one, but the containers can be packed much more easily as a regular hexagon tiles a surface, but a regular octagon does not, it leaves square shaped hollows.

I like rectangular containers better, and will again advocate for standard 20 foot sizes that are compatible with the current terran system. we want there to be so much freight that avoiding transship repack or difficulties interfacing with terran container handlers becomes important.

Why on earth (!) would you need to be compatible with Terran containers? So they fit on trucks, or trains, or ships?  No reason to do that, and very likely to damage the containers anyway. Make the containers fit the task, not the task fit the containers.

And as for measuring in Feet - I though the world had got over using imperial for things like this?

20 foot containers are a worldwide standard[1]. I didn't set it. I'm just aware of it... you can measure them in mm if you want. But people worldwide refer to them that way.

As to why conform to a terran standard? To avoid transshipment. There is PLENTY of reason to fit on trucks, trains or ships IF you posit millions of people living on Mars and the concomitant freight traffic you'd see.  YMMV. And making them stackable and interlockable efficiently is important. 

1 - The TEU:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-foot_equivalent_unit .. more on intermodal containers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container
« Last Edit: 06/13/2016 04:55 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #62 on: 06/13/2016 05:05 pm »
It will still cost on the order of $100-1000/kg to ship stuff to the surface of Mars, even with full-scale colonization. That means it's worth putting stuff in much lighter containers, more optimized for Mars.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #63 on: 06/13/2016 05:08 pm »
It will still cost on the order of $100-1000/kg to ship stuff to the surface of Mars, even with full-scale colonization. That means it's worth putting stuff in much lighter containers, more optimized for Mars.
Maybe. Perhaps these lighter containers are then mated to a more rugged frame they can ride inside of, when they are on Terra. Because I'm thinking ahead to millions of tonnes/year level traffic and you want to do almost anything to avoid having to unload and reload things.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #64 on: 06/13/2016 05:10 pm »
At the very least, use carbon fiber shipping containers. They're 42% lighter than aluminum containers, which are themselves lighter than steel. The difference in cost is only about $5000.
http://compositesmanufacturingmagazine.com/2014/04/can-carbon-fiber-composites-future-material-shipping-containers/

You'll save at least a ton or so, which works out to just $5/kg, easily worth it. Don't haul heavy steel shipping containers to Mars. Mars has a lot of iron already.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Liked: 360
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #65 on: 06/13/2016 05:27 pm »
I think ISOtainer compatibility is silly because of the weight thing, but also because the moldline of these containers is going to be a limiting factor on all sorts of infrastructure.  We don't ship mining equipment in 8'x8x20' boxes.  We especially don't ship pressure vessels in a packed down configuration to be assembled onsite.

Also, 8'x8'x20' is used less often in shipping than 8'x8'x40'.

In cross section, a 15m diameter full-diameter MCT system would fit six cylindrical/hexagonal/octagonal containers of diameter <5m.

The big question is how you integrate them - do they come with heatshielding?  Are they reused?  How do they reach the ground?

And very significantly: How does the cargo departing and propellant being spent modify the center of mass during entry events?  Because having the CoM in the wrong place at any part of the mission is going to mean you aren't permitted to reenter, and it's going to move more and more the lower the dry mass of the empty MCT;  Conversely, the higher the dry mass the worse payload mass fraction you'll get reaching low Earth orbit.  Do you use a propellant depot made of cargo pod tanks?  There's a whole family of questions here.
« Last Edit: 06/13/2016 05:34 pm by Burninate »

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #66 on: 06/13/2016 05:36 pm »
Unlike the Moon, Mars has lots of available carbon. So ISRU manufacture of carbon-carbon containers on Mars would be more easily accomplished than an aluminum one.  Just ship the resins.  Possibly use some aluminum by vacuum deposition on the inner surface for increasing pressure integrity or for handling cryo liquids like LOX. Would not require a lot and the aluminum feedstock could also be shipped. Result would be more containers for a lot less total weight and volume used in shipping.

The intent is to initially start being able to manufacture habitats and storage locally using same designs and materials that the containers are built from. So this means picking materials for the container that are easily obtainable early in the colonization process. Later new designs using other materials with new shapes and sizes not previously shippable would be possible. This also means that in the long run its not the weight that is so important for the containers but what and how they are made. Later after the colony has started being able to use ISRU for their own container manufacture the ones being shipped from Earth can change to a new material (lighter) to increase effective cargo shipped. This also means that the most important item for containers are their shape size and fittings, not the materials they are made from. The materials can change but not shape, size and fittings.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #67 on: 06/13/2016 06:05 pm »
As far as manipulation of containers on the Mars surface (or on the Moon for that matter), a self deploying crane (it basically crawls out of the one of the first MCT's to land) which is a self contained rover like vehicle but is very tall and has the single item lift capability of >100mt mass (on Mars weight is only >33mt). It has services capability for the attached containers to provide them power and cooling. You could even use it to transport a crew container full of people, so that no one leaves the crew compartments to get to the base the crew containers are moved to the base. No crew transport vehicles are needed. Also with these lift capabilities the crane can also move empty MCTs (contingency, decommissioned, broken, etc) from the launch and landing field to a storage/processing area.

Such a crane is primarily contingent on standard containers to make its design simpler as well as the robotic programming for most actions. If the MCT is designed such that the nose opens to the at most two sides and the connections attaching the container to the MCT are the same on the MCT as the lift point connections on the top of the container the crane just connects to the these same MCT connections in order to lift and MCT.

This crane would be the complete Mars infrastructure for the manipulation and movement of not only containers but also landed MCTs. With other special purpose attachments the crane could do other heavy lift and movement tasks in between synods. An open top container for transport of regolith.

The crane can raise and lower its height for stowage/protection during adverse weather (dust storms) or for other tasks.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #68 on: 06/13/2016 06:19 pm »
My ideas keep coming.

If you ship a exploration/scientific container capable of housing a scientific team (100mt of habitat and scientific instrumentation equipment), the crane can then transport them far out and away from the base on a year+ total out and back journey between the use of the crane for MCT servicing. AT a speed of just 10km/hr for 10hrs per Mars day that is a distance away from the base of up to 1,800km. 8)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #69 on: 06/13/2016 06:34 pm »
Unlike the Moon, Mars has lots of available carbon. So ISRU manufacture of carbon-carbon containers on Mars would be more easily accomplished than an aluminum one.  Just ship the resins.  Possibly use some aluminum by vacuum deposition on the inner surface for increasing pressure integrity or for handling cryo liquids like LOX. Would not require a lot and the aluminum feedstock could also be shipped. Result would be more containers for a lot less total weight and volume used in shipping.

The intent is to initially start being able to manufacture habitats and storage locally using same designs and materials that the containers are built from. So this means picking materials for the container that are easily obtainable early in the colonization process. Later new designs using other materials with new shapes and sizes not previously shippable would be possible. This also means that in the long run its not the weight that is so important for the containers but what and how they are made. Later after the colony has started being able to use ISRU for their own container manufacture the ones being shipped from Earth can change to a new material (lighter) to increase effective cargo shipped. This also means that the most important item for containers are their shape size and fittings, not the materials they are made from. The materials can change but not shape, size and fittings.
Actually, the matrix material (some sort of thermoplastic) may be easier to make on-site than the carbon fiber.


Here's a few firms that have polyolifin production SBIR grants, just announced recently:

http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/16/sbir/phase1/SBIR-16-1-H1.01-8453.html
http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/16/sbir/phase1/SBIR-16-1-H1.01-8191.html
http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/16/sbir/phase1/SBIR-16-1-H1.01-8380.html
http://sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/16/sbir/phase1/SBIR-16-1-H1.01-8046.html
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline apirie98

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #70 on: 06/13/2016 07:05 pm »
I'd like to suggest that whatever container design that is developed might be sized (and shaped) to tessellate in the large hypothetical cargo hold of a BFS as laid out above but ALSO be sized to fit inside the payload fairing of the F9/FH system.

Currently the fairing is sized for payloads up to 4.6m in diameter (according to the F9 user guide) but I'd propose that it may be possible to squeeze something like a 5m diameter (corner to corner) hexagonal structure into an outer shell that has the same external dimensions as the current fairing - or at least shares the 5.2m external diameter to retain commonality.

ISTM that something along these lines would allow F9/FH to stay relevant in the event that these containers become an in-space standard. Admittedly it's not exactly Mars-optimised but there's no reason why sizing for existing launch vehicles has to preclude effectiveness on Mars.
"It's Quite Big"  - Elon Musk

Online lamontagne

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4266
  • Otterburn Park, Quebec,Canada
  • Liked: 3837
  • Likes Given: 716
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #71 on: 06/13/2016 07:38 pm »
As general information, all you ever wanted to know, and quite a bit more, about containers, can be found in a web site called 'The container handbook".  From german insurers concerned about container damage.

I think it is unlikely that there will be much intermodal transportation of containerized materials to Mars.  Containers on Earth are designed for cheap use and are at best spray proof.  The quality required for space cointainers are orders of magnitude greater.  And the launch costs remain high, so bringing up cheap containers makes no sense. 
So it is more likely that materials and equipment will be shipped to packaging buildings (staging areas) where specialized crews will transfer them and pack them adequately into space containers.  These are probably very likely to be repurposed as habitats if they go to another planet, unless in situ building proves easier than expected.  fuel depots seems another likely usage, if the piping isn't too difficult to do.

A question I have is the level of radiation protection the containers should provide.  None?  Variable? Radiation protection is heavy, so perhaps the containers should be designed so radiation protection, perhaps in the form of water, can be added latter.  As the containers probably aren't as much volume constrained as mass constrained, it might make sense to have double walls with open cell insulation than can be saturated with water?











Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #72 on: 06/13/2016 07:38 pm »
I'd like to suggest that whatever container design that is developed might be sized (and shaped) to tessellate in the large hypothetical cargo hold of a BFS as laid out above but ALSO be sized to fit inside the payload fairing of the F9/FH system.

Currently the fairing is sized for payloads up to 4.6m in diameter (according to the F9 user guide) but I'd propose that it may be possible to squeeze something like a 5m diameter (corner to corner) hexagonal structure into an outer shell that has the same external dimensions as the current fairing - or at least shares the 5.2m external diameter to retain commonality.

ISTM that something along these lines would allow F9/FH to stay relevant in the event that these containers become an in-space standard. Admittedly it's not exactly Mars-optimised but there's no reason why sizing for existing launch vehicles has to preclude effectiveness on Mars.
Once MCT is flying often the F9/FH would likely stop. There would be only a short time where containers that could be used on all three (15mt 4+m diameter container (use 7 on an MCT) or 2 on an FH with a long faring). Plus the reason behind using containers on F9/FH is that there is a cis-Lunar destination where they could be unpacked prior to the full operation of the MCT. Which is not that likely being that most of the proposed station expansions and usage require a 100mt launcher capability to get the elements up to make a F9/FH sized container useful.

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #73 on: 06/14/2016 12:09 am »
Containers are not strong in torsion, the single wheel arrangement proposed would twist them out of shape.
They are always handled and supported using spreader beams, than hold them at their ISO corners, so the forces are always normal.  Even on trailers, they are actually supported by a small structural frame beneath the container.

In an MCT architecture, they would be handled by cranes with spreader beams, as they are on Earth.
I expect there would be shorter half length versions as well.

If you mean "single wheel" as in the render I posted, that was just one unit. You'd hook one (or potentially two, 90 degree to each other) at each corner, so you'd have at least 4 (and possibly 8 ) wheel-sets to carry them. The assumption that the load can be carried from the ISO attachment points in the corners is based on the fact that's where they'd be lifted from normally (at least for shorter containers like 20ft - longer containers sometimes are lifted from ISO points inboard of the ends, but I don't think we'll be fitting 53' containers on MCT)
« Last Edit: 06/14/2016 01:22 am by Lar »

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #74 on: 06/14/2016 12:20 am »
On the subject of maintaining exact ISO container compatibility or using ISO containers directly - I don't think this is likely to happen. The cost of moving things from the container that brought the goods to the spaceport into a space-going container is not significant compared to the savings of using optimized containers for the purpose of space travel and mars surface operations.

However, using ISO container style attachments can leverage existing production infrastructure and know-how, without having to reinvent the wheel. Carbon composite or perhaps fancy lightweight aluminum variants etc are surely more likely to be used than regular steel for these containers, even if they do adhere directly to ISO sizes.

I do think the 20' size is reasonably close to a good overall size (since you could fit 4 next to each other in a 15m diameter with several meters of space around for structure, cargo doors (if they open by moving inwards and sliding around the inside like an inside out van door), etc. Would likely end up not being exactly ISO sized, might be taller, might be shorter, might by wider, narrower, etc, but the 20' container is a pretty good starting point.

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #75 on: 06/14/2016 01:02 am »
At the very least, use carbon fiber shipping containers. They're 42% lighter than aluminum containers, which are themselves lighter than steel. The difference in cost is only about $5000.
http://compositesmanufacturingmagazine.com/2014/04/can-carbon-fiber-composites-future-material-shipping-containers/

You'll save at least a ton or so, which works out to just $5/kg, easily worth it. Don't haul heavy steel shipping containers to Mars. Mars has a lot of iron already.

That's what I said back when I introduced the idea, the ISO standard is for a SHAPE and a load-bearing capacity for the container so it can be stacked, the actual materials and mass are completely customizable and we would naturally use the lightest possible ones for any space-flight application.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #76 on: 06/14/2016 03:15 am »
Part of the whole point about the shipping containers is that they somewhat protect the cargo inside. This way, the containers don't need a roof. They can be moved around during rain or snow or wind. They don't need to be constantly protected from the elements.

I personally think you'd want the containers at least partially pressurized, maybe even with some semi-passive thermal shielding (or carefully chosen paint). This way they can be left outside totally exposed to vacuum and even the harsh sunlight of space and the dusts of Mars. You could have, say, an BFS launch a bunch of these things into LEO, they can be stacked and interlocked. Multiple loads. Say, 6 BFS landings worth (600t). Then a single BFS can dock with the stack, boost from LEO toward Mars, do a small aerocapture or propulsive maneuver for capture. Then the MCT leaves the stack in Mars orbit, goes to the surface with one payload, drops it off, refuels, goes back up, repeats the process.

The advantage there is that you can use one MCT per couple synods for multiple payloads. And in this could be extended by refueling in high orbit, allowing you to send like 10 or 20 MCT landings' worth per MCT. Again, it'd take like 2 synods per round-trip, but by stacking the cargo like this, you could vastly increase the amount of cargo you could send per MCT in its lifetime.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Retired Downrange

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Turks & Caicos Islands
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 153
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #77 on: 06/14/2016 03:48 am »
If the containers were developed as Robotbeat suggests above... They could include some integrated solar panels.

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #78 on: 06/14/2016 03:53 am »
I do think the 20' size is reasonably close to a good overall size (since you could fit 4 next to each other in a 15m diameter with several meters of space around for structure, cargo doors (if they open by moving inwards and sliding around the inside like an inside out van door), etc. Would likely end up not being exactly ISO sized, might be taller, might be shorter, might by wider, narrower, etc, but the 20' container is a pretty good starting point.

Perhaps it would be useful to size any new Cargo MCT standardised container so that it fits inside an ISO container? That way the former can be easily shipped around on Earth where necessary while minimising any loading/unloading between the two systems. (I'm assuming there will be little need to ship an ISO container to/from/on Mars!)

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Standardized container cargo system for Cargo MCT
« Reply #79 on: 06/14/2016 04:56 am »
Part of the whole point about the shipping containers is that they somewhat protect the cargo inside. This way, the containers don't need a roof. They can be moved around during rain or snow or wind. They don't need to be constantly protected from the elements.

I personally think you'd want the containers at least partially pressurized, maybe even with some semi-passive thermal shielding (or carefully chosen paint). This way they can be left outside totally exposed to vacuum and even the harsh sunlight of space and the dusts of Mars. You could have, say, an BFS launch a bunch of these things into LEO, they can be stacked and interlocked. Multiple loads. Say, 6 BFS landings worth (600t). Then a single BFS can dock with the stack, boost from LEO toward Mars, do a small aerocapture or propulsive maneuver for capture. Then the MCT leaves the stack in Mars orbit, goes to the surface with one payload, drops it off, refuels, goes back up, repeats the process.

The advantage there is that you can use one MCT per couple synods for multiple payloads. And in this could be extended by refueling in high orbit, allowing you to send like 10 or 20 MCT landings' worth per MCT. Again, it'd take like 2 synods per round-trip, but by stacking the cargo like this, you could vastly increase the amount of cargo you could send per MCT in its lifetime.

That's been my mission architecture for the last year but with SEP performing all in-space transport, it will be slow yes, maybe a whole synod to move the cargo block but the LEO launch mass can be 80% cargo and 20% propellants rather then 10% cargo and 90% propellant under a chemical architecture.

At Mars the landing craft BFS stays at Mars a whole synod and if it can manage a 1 week turn-around it can do 100 surface to orbit cycles.  The vehicle probably needs to return to Earth for major refurbishment and will miss a synod or 2 before it goes back into service, assuming only 1/3rd active work over a 30 year vehicle lifespan still yields 1000 payloads to the surface.  This blows the single-synod direct architecture out of the sky because such a vehicle could do only around 15 payloads in the same lifespan.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1