Author Topic: Art to Life Entertainment Challenge - Space 1999 Eagle (Read 1449 times)

Cherokee43v6 · « **on:** 09/11/2019 04:36 pm »

I am unsure if there might be any interest in this type of concept or not but I want to post a 'What If' challenge. (My thoughts are this could be a fun long-term project for High School or College engineering clubs)

The basic premise is: Is it possible to design a real working spacecraft around fictional spacecraft concepts.

This particular challenge is to design all the systems necessary to make the basic Space 1999 Transporter/Cargo Eagle a real ship. From the materials of the basic frame to the engine/thruster choices to the control and life support systems. The end goal being to have a workable design for a reusable Lunar Gateway based lander within the Space 1999 Eagle form factor (Nuclear rockets not required!).

The idea of the challenge is to use as much off-the-shelf hardware as possible. Black box systems with handwavium parts is a violation of the final challenge product but may be used as placeholders pending final design.

Internal design and layout does not have to mimic the show.

Lar · « **Reply #1 on:** 09/11/2019 04:53 pm »

Great project.

We know that dual axis landers have been proposed, the extension is to go bigger.. instead of everything mounted on tanks, there are multiple components on a frame.

Cherokee43v6 · « **Reply #2 on:** 09/11/2019 06:24 pm »

In addition to groups posting their projects here for review by our forum members I see two other uses for this thread.

1) Resource and reference point. (ie: If a group needs to know (or know where to find) the public specifics about a possible product or material they are interested in using)

2) A group could also form on here and work the project in the thread.

KelvinZero · « **Reply #3 on:** 09/22/2019 01:15 am »

I looked for a reference on the dual axis design. Found this
centaur-application-to-robotic-and-crewed-lunar-lander-evolution.pdf

One issue with the dual axis design is that the small landing rockets are intended for when the main tanks are empty, not for taking off fully loaded. I would suggest your most powerful rockets have to be the ones facing straight down and the big rocket nozzle at the back is perhaps some lower thrust, higher ISP in-space drive.

Rather than aiming for specific forms I had a more general vision of this concept a while ago: a hard SF universe for an audience used to soft SF tropes.. ie set in just this solar system and no gravity plates.

Quote from: KelvinZero on 09/10/2019 06:14 am

<< a tiny bit of description and a couple of examples here, specifically concerning spin gravity >>

For example I think you could have a flash-gordon/buck rogers type universe set in just this solar system, or even just the moons of one gas giant, eg Saturn. Each moon could be its own nation, plus the rings and some exploitation of Saturn itself. Travel times would be a couple of days or a week. Earth would be as far away and irrelevant as most people imagine Alpha Centauri to be.
I have never seen anything that shows people the real scope of the universe already within our proven reach. Pop scifi has created as sort of "waiting for warp drive" apathy.

A great resource of hardSF for the layman or budding SF writer is http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/
(haven't looked at it for a while and don't understand the new layout but there is a lot of stuff in there somewhere)

JAFO · « **Reply #4 on:** 09/22/2019 02:16 am »

Little bit O/T, but check this out for a giggle: https://www.scifiairshow.com/eagle-4

Cherokee43v6 · « **Reply #5 on:** 09/22/2019 05:05 am »

I definitely agree with the comment above about the lifting engines vs the main drives. My thoughts were the main drives might even be large scale Ion drives (scaled up from what DS-1 used). The lift engines would be selected based on the over-all weight of the structure plus the planned cargo capacity.

The sticking point right now is determining those figures. Would it take 4 Merlins or would 4 Kestrel's be enough at Lunar gravity.

Another thought I had, looking at the form factor, was to design the interchangeable pod section around the standard 40' shipping container.

Now this is not to say a Maersk box would fly on a rocket. Instead, the form-factor would be the basis for designing the pods which could then be transported using the existing freight infrastructure without having to design and build special transport equipment.

Although, for hauling basic, non-perishable equipment, the basic freight box could work. Box gets loaded on ground and launched to orbit (Starship?) where, perhaps using an unmanned cargo frame (non-lander) Eagle as a cycling freighter it is transferred to Gateway. It gets picked up at the gateway by an eagle lander and then left on the surface to be unloaded as needed/at leisure of the ground base personnel. Once empty (or reloaded with returnable samples) it is flown back to the Gateway where it is either sent into a disposal orbit or (if the return infrastructure exists) sent back to earth for reuse/return of samples.

To Mr. Scott, one of the first thoughts I had regarding the cockpit module of the Eagle was that it visually had a fair amount in common with Helicopter cockpits. Scale it back slightly and actually open up the sight lines down through windows below the pilot's feet to give them direct visual of the ground. With that thought also came the idea that the flight controls would be more in line with a Helicopter than a Jet as well. A 'collective' for vertical control with 'rudder pedals' for yaw and a stick for pitch and roll. Under that concept, the standard landing approach would be a little 'nose high', with lift-off beginning vertical before transitioning to a nose down attitude to gain forward momentum until the main drives could take over.