Author Topic: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3  (Read 348146 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #360 on: 04/23/2015 01:20 am »
To explore, you need a truck (battery powered) and a way to recharge (large deployable solar arrays). Way better than using a rocket.
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 sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #361 on: 04/23/2015 01:57 am »
Could a cargo version of MCT haul large pieces of equipment like ground vehicles to the surface of Mars?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #362 on: 04/23/2015 02:12 am »
Could a cargo version of MCT haul large pieces of equipment like ground vehicles to the surface of Mars?
Yes.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2015 02:13 am by Robotbeat »
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 Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #363 on: 04/23/2015 02:24 am »

Could a cargo version of MCT haul large pieces of equipment like ground vehicles to the surface of Mars?

Why would you bother to have a cargo MCT if it could not? Ground rovers/excavators/haulers would be the primary payloads for early missions.

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #364 on: 04/23/2015 02:42 am »

???
Huh?  I never proposed that to be with a bottom heat shield.  That's for a biconic aeroshell shape with the engines on the aft.  So there is no need for consideration of engines going through a heat shield.  Did you not see the various pictures I posted?  Where did you get the idea I meant the engines would go through the heat shield?

For the record, I feel [personally] about 90% sure a biconic aeroshell will be the same of MCT, not these various ovoid giant capsule shapes where there will be the engine/heatshield issue.

Again....that's 90% is 100% my opinion.  :-)

Sorry about that, thought you were describing a alternative vehicle from the one in your sketches, a bi-conic that lands vertically on it's tail indeed has no heat-shield penetration issues (other then landing legs). 

Note though that the capsule configuration would almost certainly use the Dragon configuration of side wall mounted engines so again a monolithic heat-shield except for landing legs.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #365 on: 04/23/2015 02:49 am »

Could a cargo version of MCT haul large pieces of equipment like ground vehicles to the surface of Mars?

Why would you bother to have a cargo MCT if it could not? Ground rovers/excavators/haulers would be the primary payloads for early missions.
Indeed. The very first payloads, in fact. They need some sort of mining vehicle to extract water for ISRU of the propellant needed to send the MCT back to Earth.
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 nadreck

Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #366 on: 04/23/2015 03:31 am »
To explore, you need a truck (battery powered) and a way to recharge (large deployable solar arrays). Way better than using a rocket.

ground vehicles may be good for a few hundred kilometers, however you will want to have, in the first few years a dozen or more different sites where you can explore by ground vehicle. There will not just be one landing site, but many, hopefully before final decisions are made on where permanent installations will be made. Though I imagine the first site will be selected carefully enough to be worth building up and setting up landing pads, berms etc.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #367 on: 04/23/2015 05:11 am »
I could see an earth grader to make a level building site or landing site, by pushing soil in a berm between the building site and the landing site. 

I could see a hauler or dump truck type vehicle to carry soil with ice frozen inside for water processing and fuel making.

I could see a backhoe type vehicle for digging trenches for building semi-underground or underground.

I could see all of these using the same type frame and electrical drive based on Tesla technology.  I could also see them being coupled together like train engines to haul either ice or some type of Mars mineral like basalt, or other type of ore back to a processing center pulling connected cars.  Mining companies use these type trackless trains in Australia carrying ore to coastal towns for shipments. 

If each vehicle weighs 2-3 tons that adds up to a lot of vehicles and weight on an MCT. 

I could see a small crane used to lift and load items onto trucks or even underground cylinder type units to be buried underground for shelters/homes. 

I could also see two of everything for the sake of if one is broken down, or while one is charging during the daylight, the other one is being used.  Then the charged one is used the next day and rotated. 

I could also see the vehicles used as battery banks for night power after being charged during the day, especially during the 18 months that no shipments are sent to Mars. 

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #368 on: 04/23/2015 05:25 am »
I could see an earth grader to make a level building site or landing site, by pushing soil in a berm between the building site and the landing site. 

I could see a hauler or dump truck type vehicle to carry soil with ice frozen inside for water processing and fuel making.

I could see a backhoe type vehicle for digging trenches for building semi-underground or underground.

I could see all of these using the same type frame and electrical drive based on Tesla technology.  I could also see them being coupled together like train engines to haul either ice or some type of Mars mineral like basalt, or other type of ore back to a processing center pulling connected cars.  Mining companies use these type trackless trains in Australia carrying ore to coastal towns for shipments. 

If each vehicle weighs 2-3 tons that adds up to a lot of vehicles and weight on an MCT. 

I could see a small crane used to lift and load items onto trucks or even underground cylinder type units to be buried underground for shelters/homes. 

I could also see two of everything for the sake of if one is broken down, or while one is charging during the daylight, the other one is being used.  Then the charged one is used the next day and rotated. 

I could also see the vehicles used as battery banks for night power after being charged during the day, especially during the 18 months that no shipments are sent to Mars.

To reduce single point of failure, it would make sense to deploy several robotic vehicles that can do several of these tasks. More than sharing a common frame, have them be multi-purpose. Time is not of the essence, as long as they may slow progress there can be lots done between the launch windows.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #369 on: 04/23/2015 01:14 pm »
I was thinking that making the vehicles have common frame, motors, batteries and such, modular if you will, would allow for quick repairs if necessary.  Also since their batteries are fairly powerful, they can dub as power at night for the living and working units.  Solar can recharge them during the day and having double can be rotated out for power supply and working.  Robotics can do a lot, maybe with lots of cameras and be operated remotely by someone to extract water soil for processing. 

With vehicles, there probably should be a shop unit that a vehicle can be brought in to be worked on in a shirtsleeve environment.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #370 on: 04/23/2015 01:24 pm »
Ground vehicles are off-topic.
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 RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #371 on: 04/23/2015 06:00 pm »
Its not just about protecting the colony though, but also the spacecraft.

No it's MOSTLY about protecting the colony :)

I've already mentioned already landed and not readying for take off vehicles would be "sheltered" in individual revetment/berm structures.

I don't know if I mentioned it or not but the BEST practice is in fact to tow a launching MCT onto a launch pad surrounded by a berm to protect everything from debris of the blast off. You could do without the individual berms that way. You probably would need a large area that with a blocking berm for landing after which he MCT would be towed to the other side of the berm for unloading/loading and maintenance. Then its towed to the launch pad, fueled any crew passengers board and launch. Repeat with the next outgoing launch.

and making sure that you can set up more than one "camp" before you are building permanent berms, pads etc. to explore you need to land many places.

You all know a "berm" is simply a built up dirt wall right? "Revetments" are usually faced with something and reinforced but berms can be loose soil covered by a tarp. All your looking for is something to absorb and/or deflect debris from a take-off or landing rocket blast.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline nadreck

Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #372 on: 04/23/2015 06:13 pm »
Its not just about protecting the colony though, but also the spacecraft.

No it's MOSTLY about protecting the colony :)
We (ok at least me) are/is talking about protecting the craft that is landing from damage to it's engine/heathshield from impacts with 1cm sized gravel moving as much as 1.2km/s - one of the reasons why engines might be mounted on the outside and have a gimbal range from 0° from the vertical to 30° from the vertical (pointing out). That angling, and the fact that the engines are on the outer radius, also protects the landing site from being destabilized under the landing craft so that it can't take off without major earth moving, hoisting, etc.




and making sure that you can set up more than one "camp" before you are building permanent berms, pads etc. to explore you need to land many places.

You all know a "berm" is simply a built up dirt wall right? "Revetments" are usually faced with something and reinforced but berms can be loose soil covered by a tarp. All your looking for is something to absorb and/or deflect debris from a take-off or landing rocket blast.

Randy

Yes, but that will only be done if more traffic is going there, so it will probably be the 2nd or later MCT to that site location that caries the earth moving equipment to do that. 

My point is that I think the MCT has to be designed (and operated) to minimize the risks to the MCT and to anything already on the ground. Angling the engines outward, having them outside of the radius of the craft, and ensuring that landing orientation of engines puts already landed equipment at the least risk is needed before landing pads are built up at a site that will experience significant future traffic.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2015 06:14 pm by nadreck »
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #373 on: 04/23/2015 07:09 pm »
Its not just about protecting the colony though, but also the spacecraft.

No it's MOSTLY about protecting the colony :)

I've already mentioned already landed and not readying for take off vehicles would be "sheltered" in individual revetment/berm structures.

I don't know if I mentioned it or not but the BEST practice is in fact to tow a launching MCT onto a launch pad surrounded by a berm to protect everything from debris of the blast off. You could do without the individual berms that way. You probably would need a large area that with a blocking berm for landing after which he MCT would be towed to the other side of the berm for unloading/loading and maintenance. Then its towed to the launch pad, fueled any crew passengers board and launch. Repeat with the next outgoing launch.

and making sure that you can set up more than one "camp" before you are building permanent berms, pads etc. to explore you need to land many places.

You all know a "berm" is simply a built up dirt wall right? "Revetments" are usually faced with something and reinforced but berms can be loose soil covered by a tarp. All your looking for is something to absorb and/or deflect debris from a take-off or landing rocket blast.


I would seem that a small, deep crater with the center peak flattened out would likely be the best choice for this sort of launch pit.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #374 on: 04/23/2015 07:17 pm »
Amusing thoughts here;

     First, I would not be at ALL suprised if the MCT lander turned out to resemble the Aries 1B from 2001.  It's a simple design that lends itself fairly well to atmospheric deceleration, with an appreciable payload capibility.

     Also; it occures to me that Clarke and Kubrick may have been more prescient than anyone suspected.  Remember that the lunar landing facility for the Aries was built underground, in what appeared to be a large tunnel!  Can we say a spaceport and colony in a lava tube?  I thought we could...
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline sheltonjr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #375 on: 04/23/2015 07:23 pm »
I don't know if I mentioned it or not but the BEST practice is in fact to tow a launching MCT onto a launch pad surrounded by a berm to protect everything from debris of the blast off. You could do without the individual berms that way. You probably would need a large area that with a blocking berm for landing after which he MCT would be towed to the other side of the berm for unloading/loading and maintenance. Then its towed to the launch pad, fueled any crew passengers board and launch. Repeat with the next outgoing launch.

I have put some thought into this, and I do not think the MCT will be towable. The general consensus is the MCT will mass around 60-75MT. On Mars it will weigh 20-25MT empty.

I find it hard to conceive of light weight landing pads or legs being able to stand up to the lateral loads that towing would put on them. And some type of wheels that could castor would also need be added. After landing and unloading, perhaps the MCT could be jacked up and wheels placed under the landing pad or legs.

The tow truck would be light weight due to being transferred there by the MCT and would have very little traction. It could be ballasted by Mars dirt or all the iron meteorites laying around.

It will definitely make the logistics easier if the MCT can be towed around and reduce the need for pin-point landing accuracy. This adds another difficult requirement to the design of the MCT. 

Offline TripD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Peace
  • Liked: 851
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #376 on: 04/23/2015 09:41 pm »
Not sure that I agree with the notion of towing an MCT.  In lieu of this approach, perhaps a 'take them as you find them' plan might be better.  Essentially, you could jack up the MCT where it landed and either place blocks underneath, or just use some process to harden the ground at least temporarily for the next launch.  You would avoid any complications like getting stuck while being towed.

Later when landing accuracy is dependable, perhaps prefabbed landing pads with all the applicable infrastructure would be the norm.

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #377 on: 04/23/2015 11:30 pm »
If it has some residual fuel, perhaps MCT could "hop" to a new location by Raptor power.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #378 on: 04/24/2015 12:02 am »
Once landed, the first MCT could have some type of steel plating that could laid out on the ground for future landers to keep from kicking up dust and or earth moving vehicles to build berms around the lander.  Maybe just having the engines higher on the sides might be all that is needed. 

Offline Impaler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1283
  • South Hill, Virgina
  • Liked: 372
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #379 on: 04/24/2015 12:39 am »
I have put some thought into this, and I do not think the MCT will be towable. The general consensus is the MCT will mass around 60-75MT. On Mars it will weigh 20-25MT empty.

I find it hard to conceive of light weight landing pads or legs being able to stand up to the lateral loads that towing would put on them. And some type of wheels that could castor would also need be added. After landing and unloading, perhaps the MCT could be jacked up and wheels placed under the landing pad or legs.

The tow truck would be light weight due to being transferred there by the MCT and would have very little traction. It could be ballasted by Mars dirt or all the iron meteorites laying around.

It will definitely make the logistics easier if the MCT can be towed around and reduce the need for pin-point landing accuracy. This adds another difficult requirement to the design of the MCT.

I think you could just have a few small tow vehicles which each individually clamp too and jack up one landing leg.  Then they simply drive in unison, connected by steel rods if need be to prevent any chance of wrenching the landing legs with lateral loads.

I agree that simply having wheels on the landing legs and trying to tow the whole MC from one towing point is bad, it adds unnecessary mass and requires the vehicle to be stiffed and able to take loads from yet another direction which would add to the mass of its frame.  As much as possible the movement on the ground should be offloaded to specialized ground vehicles, just as we do with rockets on the Earths surface.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0