Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 27, 2020, 07:20:40 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Project Apollo - NASSP 6.4.3 released!
http://nassp.sf.net
25068 Posts in 2094 Topics by 2267 Members
Latest Member: Apollo Next
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Meadville Space Center
|-+  Orbiter Mars Direct
| |-+  Planning (Moderators: Iceversaka, smoothvirus)
| | |-+  Mars ERV Truck (SP-100 Deployment Ideas)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Mars ERV Truck (SP-100 Deployment Ideas)  (Read 12008 times)
Iceversaka
Moderator
Full Member
****
Posts: 30


2727315 Iceversaka@hotmail.com Iceversaka Iceversaka
View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2006, 11:38:20 PM »

Hey Terry,

Sorry I haven't responded sooner.

I think the idea Dennis had was the best one to go with.

There are several reasons the truck cannot go in the same bay as the reactor.

1. It would add greater unbalance to the ERV.
2. It would reduce the flexability of the truck to act in another manner for the crew and the goals of exploration and/or construction when they arrive.
3. It would mean the truck is smaller and we would have to eliminate the plow/blade idea.

My responses are off the top of my head and I haven't really taken the time to build my arguments because real life is getting in the way again.

I'll try and respond more later.

Seth
Logged

Warm Icepack
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 9


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2006, 11:10:31 PM »

if not a full fledged drivetrain, can the reactor at least be given some wheels? I say this because I think the lift and carry to the site may be a problem.
I am also somewhat hesitant to suggest this, given I have helped hook a jeep to the back of a motor home. It is a pain-in-the-arse process to link two vehicles together, and requires several lurching stop-start-reverse adjustments typical of a new driver learning to parallell park.

However, would this not be a better option, to back the reactor-trailer thing into a hole in the ground, then shovel sand over it as opposed to lifting a multi-ton reactor with a light truck (the embarassment if the truck flipped over on mars), placing said reactor on truck, lifting off and placing in hole with the same truck.

All of this makes me lean towards the shaped charge idea again...

EDIT: on reflection wheels would still present the massive suspension problem. Back to square one then...
Logged

"The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
aftercolumbia
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2006, 05:04:59 PM »

From Orbiter and I-war experience, and watching so many truck drivers dock their trailers, I can attest to the fact it would be easier to do this on the ground than on orbit, and most other plans rely on orbital docking over Mars.

Also, burying the reactor is problematic, as its proper operation depends on being able to reject waste heat.  It should be possible to run it in the open during the high powered propellant production phase, and then bury it after, when a smaller amount of power is needed  There is an environmental thing too.  If it is buried under Martian dirt, there is more Martian dirt to absorb neutrons and become radioactive.  With the reactor unburied, many of those will radiate into space, or at least into the sky, where if absorbed, the isotopes so produced would be scattered all over the planet in a much more diffuse and safer manner.  Carbon and oxygen radioactive isotopes are much less dangerous than the ones from iron...and there is a lot of iron in that dirt too.
Logged
Iceversaka
Moderator
Full Member
****
Posts: 30


2727315 Iceversaka@hotmail.com Iceversaka Iceversaka
View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2006, 05:19:52 PM »

Quote from: Warm Icepack

EDIT: on reflection wheels would still present the massive suspension problem. Back to square one then...


Not only that, but there really is no room in the reactor bay for anything else.

It's already tight around the reactor housing. Don't forget there is also a 1km spool of high capicty wire in that bay as well.

Terry, I don't know where you are getting the idea of orbital docking over Mars....this really has nothing to do with the truck at all.

I think it would be possible to run the reactor on the surface. It would have to be laid on its side, and rolled to an orientation, or have the pointy nose of the thing lifted off the ground so the radiators could be attached. A small folding tublar assembly should do this effectively.

I might not run quite as effecient for long term nuclear fuel use, but then again its only for ERV fuel production. And it doubles as a on-flight verifiction phase as well, prior to burring.

So this sounds good to me.
Then a small drill and shape charge should do the trick.

I think we have ourselfs a viable plan at this point.

Any objections?
Seth
Logged

aftercolumbia
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2006, 04:45:27 PM »

Terry, I don't know where you are getting the idea of orbital docking over Mars....this really has nothing to do with the truck at all.

 Bangs Head  Duh!  Yuck!  Zip Lip  What? I'm never going to figure out how this happens so frequently...I was comparing docking trucks with docking spacecraft...not suggesting it.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!