Author Topic: Modelling Mars (Read 226790 times)

mike robel · « **Reply #260 on:** 03/10/2015 03:14 pm »

These are very cool Ron.

Archibald · « **Reply #261 on:** 03/10/2015 04:29 pm »

I'm very tempted to create a powerpoint with the pictures and Simple minds "Don't you forget about me" as background music.

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #262 on:** 03/10/2015 05:05 pm »

That would be amazing. I am working on 3 more launch photos, plus two I haven't posted yet. I am waiting until March 21 for that.

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #263 on:** 03/13/2015 03:01 am »

I realized the picture in post #241 with the VAB showed Pad 39B and it should have a Saturn VB tanker on it. So it does now! A tiny Saturn VB!

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #264 on:** 03/13/2015 01:28 pm »

It seams like every time I flip through this book, I find something I have missed. Now it is two lunar module engines on the MS-II used for course corrections. I have several extra LMs around, but I noticed their engines were very close to the size of these extra OMS engines. I glue them onto a little block of plastic, and then covered the entire aft end of the MS-II in thermal foil....otherwise know as chrome plumbers tape. The fuel tanks for the engines would be beneath that.

I also added some camera pods. The most important voyage in Human History is sure to be well documented! Two aft cameras and a pod on the interstage that has three different views.

I will have to update the rendezvous view from the tanker, now.

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #265 on:** 03/14/2015 10:01 pm »

Actor Rolf Saxon voiced Astronaut Phil Stone in the BBC audio of Voyage. Here is Astronaut Phil Stone before his Moonlab flight.

Bob Shaw · « **Reply #266 on:** 03/14/2015 10:13 pm »

Great work, Ron - and here's an idea (if you have time): at least some of the LUT cranes should have had an ASTP style pole on it, for the same reason it was there in our 1975. Any of the 'instantaneous' rendezvous missions would have needed one, and I'm sure adding such a detail would be trivial!

(ducks and runs)

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #267 on:** 03/14/2015 10:36 pm »

Ah, that is true. I will have to take a look for that. I also realize that I would really need an entirely new LUT and MLP because these Apollo-era ones would be way too heavy with a Saturn VB with 4 SRBs strapped on. But it really looks cool!!!

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #268 on:** 03/14/2015 10:51 pm »

Here we go! I like this because it helps give you the sense that it isn't in "our" universe!

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #269 on:** 03/14/2015 11:27 pm »

Thanks, Bob, I went back and updated the previous pictures! And I am work to update the ones for next weekend, too!

mike robel · « **Reply #270 on:** 03/15/2015 01:07 am »

Bob, I don't understand the connection between the "ASTP Pole" and an instantaneous rendezvous. I always thought it was lightning protection.

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #271 on:** 03/15/2015 01:16 am »

Quote from: mike robel on 03/15/2015 01:07 am

Bob, I don't understand the connection between the "ASTP Pole" and an instantaneous rendezvous. I always thought it was lightning protection.

That went right past me when I read it. Good question.
(found it: See the end of page 3 and beginning of page four of this document) You don't want lightning to damage anything when you have to launch on March 21!

BTW, I forgot Phil Stone is bald....

mike robel · « **Reply #272 on:** 03/15/2015 01:53 am »

Interesting, but all our launches would be in plane and not require instantaneous rendezvous, except maybe the Ares Launch, but it would be critical only due to the Mars Injection Burn.

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #273 on:** 03/15/2015 10:53 am »

It still gives better protection, but most launches were in the winter, not really lightning season, but we still get storms year round. But better safe than sorry, there was a tight launch cadence to maintain. Since it was there in the shuttle era, it fits with me using the NASA worm instead of the meatball, and looks just different enough.

mike robel · « **Reply #274 on:** 03/15/2015 04:52 pm »

I'm not disputing the need for lightning protection, we definitely need that.

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #275 on:** 03/15/2015 05:44 pm »

Yes, we would both be aware of that need! LOL.

And I just think it looks cool!

Bob Shaw · « **Reply #276 on:** 03/15/2015 06:25 pm »

Quote from: mike robel on 03/15/2015 01:53 am

Interesting, but all our launches would be in plane and not require instantaneous rendezvous, except maybe the Ares Launch, but it would be critical only due to the Mars Injection Burn.

Would all Ares elements not be co-planar with each other once orbited, but not in-plane at launch due to the length of time between successive launches, which would allow the launch site's axial tilt to change?

Just asking, this is something I'd never previously considered as an issue. Perhaps the Saturn Vb would have had sufficient excess capacityt to allow a post-launch dog-leg in any case...

Ronpur50 · « **Reply #277 on:** 03/15/2015 08:30 pm »

All of the elements were launch to be placed in orbit as close to the Skylab Workshop, so as to allow assembly crews to work from there.

Mike and Bob will have to tell me what that means as far an in-plane orbit would be.

I assume this orbit would allow a Trans Mars Injection burn?

mike robel · « **Reply #278 on:** 03/16/2015 01:01 am »

In the opening, the launch commentator states the window is due to the need "to be in plane with the cluster to enable the docking, is imposing a tight window on today's launch."

On one of the night shuttle launches, we saw the ISS go directly overhead, looking like it was smack dab on top of the launch pad.

Bob Shaw · « **Reply #279 on:** 03/16/2015 06:48 pm »

Quote from: Bob Shaw on 03/15/2015 06:25 pm

Quote from: mike robel on 03/15/2015 01:53 am
Interesting, but all our launches would be in plane and not require instantaneous rendezvous, except maybe the Ares Launch, but it would be critical only due to the Mars Injection Burn.

Would all Ares elements not be co-planar with each other once orbited, but not in-plane at launch due to the length of time between successive launches, which would allow the launch site's axial tilt to change?

I got this wrong.

The Earth doesn't wobble about in space, as I realised last night. I came at this from a *very* wrong direction!

Now, where were we...?