Large scale colonization ship

Calliban · 2021-06-14 15:19:00

Whilst large scale colonisation ships will no doubt be constructed in the longer term, there would appear to be a market for smaller scale ships that can be assembled in orbit and refuelled and victualled using Martian propellant and food. The short term goal is to reduce the cost of passage by using the Starship as a rapid turn-around vehicle at each end of the trip and developing a dedicated transfer vehicle for trips between LEO and LMO. This would achieve the majority of delta-V using low thrust ion propulsion. Chemical propulsion may be needed to reduce speed when approaching gravity wells.

Ultimately at the Earth end, we want Starship to transport only human beings and advanced technical payloads from Earth surface to Earth orbit. All consumables for both outbound and inbound flights should come from Mars. At the Mars end, Starship upper stages can function as SSTOs, transferring propellant and food to orbiting ships. Ideally, Starships would operate continuously, ferrying people and materials from the surface to space stations in orbit of the two planets, which would then fill the ships prior to launch windows opening.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-14 15:26:04)

kbd512 · 2021-06-14 17:57:46

Calliban,

Since ordinary Aramid fibers could support a space elevator connected to the surface of Mars, ideally we would not expend any propellant to go to and from the surface of Mars. That reduces the wear and tear associated with interplanetary reentries, reduces the energy expenditure for return propellant, allows return propellants like Argon to be made in space, and permits purpose-built interplanetary transport ships to remain in space. If we could source Argon or Nitrogen or Oxygen from the atmospheres of Earth and Mars and use a space elevator at Mars, then there's no need for tanker flights and no need to make propellant from scratch using precious water resources on Mars. A Mars space elevator would be a revolutionary technology for surface colonization.

RobertDyck · 2021-06-14 22:29:17

Calliban,
thank you for contributing. Robert Zubrin and his partner David Baker developed Mars Direct in 1990. That plan included aerocapture in to Mars orbit. Not direct entry, like Mars rovers have done, but aerocapture. I think that's a good idea. My plan for the Large ship is to use aerocapture at each planet. That greatly reduces propellant needed to enter planetary orbit. It has often been said that total propellant from the surface of Earth to Mars orbit is less than to Lunar orbit. That only works if you use Mars atmosphere for aerocapture.

The last thermal blanket design that NASA's Ames Research Center developed, was DurAFRSI. It wasn't installed on Shuttle because there wasn't time before Shuttle was decommissioned. But it has been tested on X-37. The last thermal blanket used by Shuttle was AFRSI, which was a quilt with fibreglass on the bottom, 99% pure silica fibre fabric on top. Filled with 99% pure silica fibre batting. DurAFRSI used Nextel 440 for both top and bottom, with Saffil batting. For an aerodynamically smooth surface, DurAFRSI has a mesh of Inconel sewn onto the quilt, and Inconel foil brazed onto the mesh. My idea is to use just Nextel 440 fabric for aerocapture. It's already identified as a reliable reusable heat shield. A shield for aerocapture doesn't have to withstand all the heat of entry, just enough to skim the atmosphere for aerocapture.

I am concerned, though. Elon's Starlink could put so many satellites into Earth orbit, so close together, that aerocapture into Earth orbit many not be safe.

Also realize I intend the main engine use for injection into transfer trajectory would be open cycle gas core nuclear thermal rocket. That has Isp as high as the highest power, most efficient ion engine. And it has high thrust at the same time. Best of both worlds! Of course everything has a catch. No one has figured out how to recover the gas core of the nuclear reactor. So when the engine stops, the nuclear core must be dumped. Each time the engine starts, it requires a full fresh load of fissile material aka nuclear fuel.

Propellant is another issue. Ion engines currently use Xenon gas. In Earth's atmosphere it's only 87 parts per billion. It's produced as a byproduct of cryogenic separation of atmosphere to produce other gasses. Total worldwide production of Xenon was estimated in 1998 at 5,000–7,000 m³. Argon is more plentiful because 0.9340% of Earth's atmosphere is argon. But ion engines don't use it.

Nuclear thermal engines use liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most plentiful.

RobertDyck · 2021-06-14 22:32:30

kbd512,

As I've posted before, space elevators are not compatible with anything in planetary orbit. Only geosynchronous orbits are safe. Theoretically, orbits that are a perfect harmonic to geosynchronous would also be safe, but who puts a satellite in such an orbit? A Mars space elevator would collide with every orbiter currently in planetary orbit. And forget any form of GPS; again all satellites would collide with the elevator cable.

kbd512 · 2021-06-15 01:24:22

Robert,

Apologies, as I was lumping in Phobos-based rotorvators in with space elevators.

EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL SPACE ELEVATORS AND THE NASA 2050 STRATEGIC VISION

It's solar powered. Doesn't that make all actual engineering issues instantly disappear in a puff of green ideology?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Anyway, satellites would only collide if they couldn't perform avoidance maneuvers.

Regarding the harmonic orbits, people interested in space elevators, that's who.

tahanson43206 · 2021-06-23 07:13:20

For RobertDyck ... in Post #701, the author pulled this topic away from its focus ...

Subsequently, several posts about space elevators appeared.

I'm hoping to encourage you to return to the focus of ** this ** topic, which is quite challenging enough, without distraction.

It has been a while since a post has appeared with a direct connection to design and realization of the Large Ship. There would appear to be a potential demand for a vehicle able to provide artificial gravity and radiation protection, in addition to exercise facilities, adequate or perhaps even good food services, plenty of communications and computing capabilities, and plenty of opportunities for mentally stimulating interactions with other passengers and with people on the Earth.

OF1939 is (or may be) on the verge of adding content to his vision of a 17 person expedition to Mars.

It would appear he is thinking of landing all 17 people in a single vessel, but such a vessel could be one of several travelling in a fleet with the Large Ship.

I ** think ** the state of play here was that you were working on a computer with sufficient capability to run a drawing software package such as Fusion 360. In the Housekeeping topic, you had reported progress followed by (what I recall as) setback.

I hope that whatever obstacles remain preventing installation and operation of Fusion 360 can be resolved soon, so that you can provide to-scale drawings of the habitat modules which would be assembled into the rotating ring of the Large Ship.

Others can handle details of designing the force transfer beams that will be needed for your concept to achieve successful deployment. Your role would appear (to me at least) to design the living quarters so convincingly that deep pocketed funders will be willing to take a chance on your design.

The distinct advantage of having a finalized and testable habitat design is that it can progress to live testing in multiple environments without the need to wait until the entire vessel is in orbit and ready for assembly.

Single modules can be sent to orbit on a single Starship and tested there. An entire set of habitat modules can be installed on a ground platform as described earlier in this topic, for human testing of the proposed structure for a two year period of confinement. I think you are going to find that the social conditions that allowed humans to put up with dense packing in a 1909 vessel do not exist today. You may very well have the mental toughness to endure two years in a volume as small as the Large Ship with 1059 other people, but I'll bet you won't find 1059 other people with the equivalent mental capability in the present time.

The Chinese have shown the way !!! They have (according to reports I have seen) allocated ONE entire compartment to each person they are planning to ship to their new station. That would be about right, in my view, for volume allocation in the Large Ship.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2021-06-23 10:02:46

Since last winter I had intended to design a computer model of the ship. Using Unreal Engine 4, it would allow people to "walk" around inside. Unreal is a computer game, a first person shooter. The engine allows creating a virtual environment. I upgrade my computer from 4GB to 16GB main memory, upgraded the power supply with one I got from a past job. A customer hired me to replace the power supply of his server for his small business, let me keep the old one. The old one still works. And I purchased a used video card, exactly the recommended minimum for Unreal Engine. Unfortunately the used video card proved unreliable. The video card failed. I had to boot into safe mode to reset the video card, so I could see anything. Finally it wouldn't reset. So I bought a bum card. I tried to purchase a card from a local store, my usual supplier. They have good prices for all computer components. However, they have a run on video cards. With everyone working from home and using Zoom or equivalent, they had to upgrade their video card. I checked their website, and they post current inventory. However, but they time I got there, they sold out. So I have to pre-purchase online, select curb-side pickup. Otherwise someone else will take it. Grrrr! So after doing more shopping, I have ordered from Amazon. Will arrive next week. A little more powerful than the used card, or the one I was going to purchase. Significantly more expensive, but not thousands of dollars just for a video card. Will be able to run Unreal Engine 4 without problem. The used video card supported DirectX 11, this new one will support DirectX 12. You suggest Fusion 360. I guess I should have checked requirements. The one I ordered has 4GB video memory, but Fusion 360 wants 6GB. I was going to order a GeForce GTX 1660 Super, but the price over Amazon was double the price of my local store. Plus shipping. Not willing to pay that. So I ordered a GeForce GTX 1650. The 1660 Super had 6GB of memory, the 1650 only 4GB. My local store only has GeForce 710, which is not good enough to run either. All others are out of stock.

My computer has limited space. A single width video card can be full length, but a double width video card can only be 7 inches long. Can be full height, but length is limited by heat sink of the main CPU.

Amazon says estimated delivery date is June 29 - July 5. In my city, post office is very good. Could arrive as early as June 28, one day before Amazon estimate. People in Toronto complain postal service is slow, but in Winnipeg they're very good.

Looking at tutorials how to use Unreal Engine 4. One showed how to change gravity direction. Was thinking of actually doing it as a ring. But that doesn't change view direction, just which direction objects fall. First person view must orient the floor "down" for this to work. One option is to build it flattened out with "teleport portals" at each end. Visualize a ring that's cut, then flattened. You won't get the view from the observation deck, but will get a sense of how space is utilized inside.

RobertDyck · 2021-06-23 10:14:50

Tom, I guess this the one point we disagree. One whole module per person is *WAY* too much. This is space, expect conditions to be tight. And the large ship is a transport, not a luxury cruise ship. I posted floor plans of the SS City of New York, a steam ship operating from 1888 to 1923, before "Spirit of St. Louis" flew across the Atlantic. This is how people crossed an ocean before aircraft. It's not a luxury cruise ship, it's a transport. And the Large Ship will have flexible cabins. Passengers can purchase various configurations; more space per person costs more money. The most cramped configuration would have the lowest cost per person, design directly lifted from 3rd class cabins from the age of steam ships. And I posted an image showing COVID passengers isolating on a ship in 2020 with the same size cabin. Sure, Voyager of the Seas or Oasis of the Seas, ships by Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, do not have a cabin that cramped. But some ships today do. And again, the Large Ship is a transport, not a luxury cruise ship.

RobertDyck · 2021-06-23 10:25:07

Life support for the Large Ship has been discussed in the thread Advanced food production.

tahanson43206 · 2021-06-23 11:11:09

For RobertDyck re entire topic ....

First, congratulations on your forthcoming upgrade to the system hardware!!! I was not aware that Fusion 360 has increased its requirements since I started working with it last year. I bought a new board (described earlier) and it works, but I'll bet your new board will run circles around mine.

Second, thanks for noting the new technology in development to capture CO2 from the air. It is not yet available for space applications, but when you are ready to design ** actual ** systems as compared to theoretical ones, it ** should ** be available for evaluation as a supplement to whatever tried-and-true systems you decide to implement.

Third ... this topic was created long before the new concept of a Companion topic was invented ...

You can continue moving the topic along as is, but the Companion option is available if you want to try to keep the main topic on focus.

Fourth ... let's assume you decide to become serious about securing funding to develop, launch, build and deploy the Large Ship.

Cramming people into tiny volumes for months at a time may appeal to some funders.

On the other hand, the kind of people who can drop a million (Canadian $) into paying for a cabin will want some decent space in return for their investment.

Jeff Bezos just auctioned a seat on a simple up/down flight for multiple millions (USD). You could probably auction your cabins for whatever you need to charge to pay for the entire vessel, and let the bidders decide how many people they want to include in their personal space.

I would like to suggest you design your habitat/cabin for your crowd of miserable people and sell your concept to the people who want one cabin for a two year voyage of exploration.

After the Large Ship has completed it's maiden voyage with High Rollers, you can convert it to steerage and abuse your passengers to your heart's content.

Meanwhile, there is going to be plenty of competition at all price points.

The idea here is to snag the funding ahead of the competition, and the steerage class ship of misery is NOT where (I suspect) the money is.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2021-06-23 11:40:01

A century ago, before aircraft could fly across an ocean, there were several classes: first class, second, third, and steerage. The most cramped configuration with 6 bunks per standard cabin is equivalent to third class. Steerage meant a cargo hold. Passengers in steerage were not provided beds, nor washrooms, or even meals. With steerage, passengers would have to bring their own bedding, and that would have to be spread on the floor of the cargo hold. They would bring a bucket as their toilet, that would be emptied overboard. There's no way a spacecraft could accommodate steerage. A ship requires life support, so requires a toilet and food.

I did estimate a standard cabin would cost US$2.5 million for the first voyage. Once sufficient infrastructure was in place for food to come from Mars and propellant either from Mars or an asteroid, then the cost would be slashed to US$500,000 for a standard cabin. That also implies much of the cost of ship construction is paid with those first voyages. How many bunks per standard cabin will be up to passengers. Luxury cabins cost more, with price calculated per area of cabin floor space.

I already posted images of SpaceX Starship floor plans. Produced by a fan, not SpaceX, but based on images of the outside of real Starships and Elon's verbal description of the inside. You think my cabins are cramped, but they're far more spacious than Starship. And far more spacious than Bezos New Shepard. Again, space comparable to SS City of New York (1888-1923).

RobertDyck · 2021-06-23 11:59:34

From post #449

RobertDyck wrote:

Why? That's not at all what I described. No one will have to "hot bunk". Economy cabin would look like this...

Difference would be an upper bunk over the right-hand bed. Foot of one bunk closer to the head of the next; only 10cm (4") between bunks. And instead of the table on the right, a bathroom (restroom) with shower stall, toilet, and sink.
Single cabins would look like this... (Floor plan taken from cruise ship Norwegian Epic)

Outside cabins would have a window on the wall opposite the door. Most cabins would have the shower on the same side as the toilet, so only 10cm gap between bed and shower. Sink in the room with the toilet.
Here's a cruise ship cabin used by Australia for quarantine vs COVID-19. Notice both end walls are all mirror, giving an "infinite reflection" effect, making the room seem larger than it is.
A cabin on Royal Caribbean Liberty of the Seas. I was thinking the lower double bed would be against the wall on one side, not centred.
These are real cabins on real ships. Why criticize so strongly?

RobertDyck · 2021-06-23 17:22:58

Woo hoo! My new video card arrived! Sent by UPS Express Box. I selected the cheapest shipping method. I could channel Steve Martin in the movie "The Jerk": The new phone book is here! The new phone book is here!

tahanson43206 · 2021-06-23 17:51:01

For RobertDyck re topic ....

I am NOT critical. I am simply pointing out the facts as you have laid them out.

http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 78#p172878

If you study that set of images, surely you can understand that you are packing 1060 people into a space with floor plan as shown for two years in the worst case scenario. There is no open deck to enjoy the sea breezes. There are no grand dining rooms. There are just 1060 people standing within arms length of each other for two years.

In fact, I am supportive of your initiative and am doing all I can to encourage development of your concept.

The funders are going to decide what your vessel looks like, and all I'm trying to do is to show you what they are going to see when you show them your floor plan.

If you had multiple decks the situation would be different, but (at this moment) you don't.

You've suggested there might be food growing space in the layer inside the cabin deck, but people would not be able to spend a lot of time there.

Your design could be extended in width to provide more space, but early on (as I recall) you specified you did NOT want a cylinder, along the lines of the O'Neill designs.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-06-23 18:11:13

This topic is interesting in defining where we would ultimately like to be, in the provision of comfortable interplanetary transportation. But keeping in mind that as yet, no human being has set foot on Mars, it would be wise to narrow the focus onto more easily achievable, near term goals. The immediate value of an interplanetary transfer ship is that one can design it to be lighter (per unit volume) and more fuel efficient than a Lox-methane fuelled launch vehicle. Arguably, it does not need to be comfortable, spacious and does not need artificial gravity. It is valuable, if it can safely transport passengers and freight to Mars orbit for a lower cost than a Starship. Can we design a vehicle that can do that?

RobertDyck · 2021-06-23 18:28:59

Calliban,

I could argue in favour of Mars Direct. At the 2002 Mars Society Convention, I presented a modification of Mars Direct. As Robert Zubrin himself said, Starship could be used as a cargo launcher to deliver Mars Direct. But Elon Musk wants to do it his way.

This thread started with Elon's tweet that the next spaceship after Starship would be twice the height and twice the diameter. That's 8 times volume! I argued that's ridiculous. Starship and it's heavy booster will be larger than Saturn V, which had horrendous vibration. A better design would be a dedicated orbit-to-orbit ship, using existing Starship for construction, supply, and to deliver passengers. And a dedicated interplanetary ship could use artificial gravity. It started with the wheel 14 metres wide and one deck, which would be the same volume as Elon's next spaceship. Then it grew.

This isn't intended to be the first human ship to Mars. Expect Starship will deliver 100 setters to Mars before the Large Ship is ready for it's first mission. Those 100 setters will build infrastructure to prepare for the Large Ship with 1,000 settlers.

SpaceNut · 2021-06-23 18:40:52

Going with heavy lift to bring modules up means custom building each module for the location in the assembly process and changing the shape to the shape that the ship can manage which has to do with the payload protection used.

Starships only going to stay low cost if it does not need tons of tile rehab after each landing cycle and if they do not lose any booster stages for the BFR.

Going twice that in size would be not only risking but a costly reward for all of the same reasons...

RobertDyck · 2021-06-23 18:43:47

Tom: two decks. Upper deck has greenhouse, observation decks, and Mars simulation deck. Haven't worked out yet how large the greenhouse will have to be. I currently envision 2 observation decks, and 3 greenhouses. Three spokes, the upper deck between spokes will have a greenhouse and observation deck. One of the 3 "observation decks" will be the Mars simulation deck. Observation decks will have ALON transparent walls and ceiling. Since this is the inner surface of a wheel, you will see the vast majority of the ship overhead. And the vastness of space. Ultimate stargazing; however, telescope mounts become challenging when the ship rotates at 3 RPM.

You said no grand dining rooms. But I posted 1 large dining room with 300 seats, plus two medium dining rooms with 50 seats each, and one fine dining room with 20 seats. Fine dining will have a single waiter, but the other dining rooms will be buffet. I envision something similar to the Royal Fork Buffet; a restaurant in my city. Not good enough?

RobertDyck · 2021-06-23 18:51:20

Calliban,
Mars Direct habitat was 8.4 metre outside diameter. Dr Zubrin chose that because the external tank of Shuttle was that large, and his proposed Ares launch vehicle was based on Shuttle, so the Ares core stage would be that diameter. Starship has a 9 meter diameter, so could accommodate an 8.4 metre diameter payload. Mars Direct ERV was 28.6 metric tonnes, habitat 25.2 tonnes. Add the TMI stage. Starship will be able to lift 100 tonnes to LEO. Sounds like a single launch of a standard Starship cargo / satellite launcher could launch Mars Direct. One launch for the ERV, a second launch for the hab. Just as Robert Zubrin had envisioned. Just using Starship instead of Ares or SLS Block 2.

tahanson43206 · 2021-06-24 05:37:01

For Calliban .... this topic is about a LARGE ship able to provide Mars gravity.

The smaller alternatives you've described are going to be part of the Earth/Mars scene, without a doubt.

THIS topic is about a ship whose dimensions are defined by physics. There is no point in calling for smaller vessels in this topic, unless you are discussing landing craft or orbital runabouts.

To get into the spirit of this topic, you can help with planning for power for the ship, which remains rather sketchily defined at this point.

Radiation protection using a large magnetic field is a possibility, and such a system would necessary require generous allocations of reliable power.

If generation of a magnetic field is of interest, some useful work could be done in that specialization as well.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2021-06-24 05:42:41

For RobertDyck ....

The dimensions of your cabins are defined earlier in this topic.

I recall reading them, and even documented their presence at some point, but I could not find them when I went looking just now.

The s e a r c h t e r m I have in mind is c a b i n, but there could be other tags that would be easy to remember.

The FluxBB database design was NEVER intended for finding things easily, and it is a challenge to authors to leave in place a means of finding valuable content after the posts have flowed under the bridge a few days, let alone a few months.

Glad to see opening hints of a second deck. A minimum of a full sized second deck is helpful.

At some point when the computing tools are available you'll be able to start doing architectural drawings, and fantasy will yield to reality.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2021-06-24 11:07:09

searchterm: cabin

Standard cabin: 2.4 x 4.0 metres, but that's measured centre of wall. Walls are not 4" wide, but width of walls between cabins do take away from that width. Composite cabin walls, based on composite cabins from cruise ships. So expect inside dimensions: 2.36m x 3.96m (7' 8.9" x 12' 11.9").

Economy class cabins have bunk beds: 30" x 75". So isle between beds 32.9". Note: bed size is standard for single bed in the UK. Canada used to have single beds in stores this same width, but now only US sizes. Bunks for an American aircraft carrier are 30" x 72", so this bed size is 3" longer. Queen size bed is 60" x 75", so pushing two UK single beds together gives you exactly queen size. Lower bunks not beside the washroom will be mounted on a track. Car seats are mounted on a track that can move forward/back, but let go of the handle and it locks in place. Lower bunks will be able to slide sideways, with 3 positions they can lock: all the way to the left, all the way to the right, or centre. Centre gives a half-size isle on either side of the bed, but drawers under the bed won't be able to slide all the way open. With both bunks all the way to one side, drawers beneath one bed can slide all the way open, but drawers under the other bunk will not be accessible. So moving beds back and forth may be common to access storage.

Washroom will be basically the same size as a bunk. Shower will be 30" x 30" (2.5' x 2.5' = 76.2cm x 76.2cm). Thickness of shower wall will be a sheet polycarbonate, which can be 3mm (1/8"). That leaves 30" x 42" for toilet, sink, and life support wall. Not sure how thick the life support wall will have to be. Don't expect it to be as large as on ISS, because cabin life support will filter urine for water, but will leave more water in the urine than ISS. Final processing of concentrated urine will be done in central life support on the second deck, part of the greenhouse assembly. Water processing will produce grey water, not potable water. Final processing of grey water to potable will be done by a unit for the pressure compartment on the second deck. Yes, the observation deck will have large boxes in the middle of the floor, one for each pressure compartment. The boxes will be covered and decorated to look pretty, but inside is water processing, batteries for power storage, and air conditioning compressor equipment. Water storage is the water wall, not the life support washroom wall. If cabin life support wall is 12" thick with equipment from floor to ceiling, that leaves 30" x 30" for toilet and sink.

The toilet won't have a traditional flush tank, so the toilet seat will back against the wall. Equipment built into the toilet includes vacuum desiccation of feces, and garberator to grind dry feces to powder. And recycling equipment for shower. Remember the shower will recycle water while having a shower: 70% of water that goes down the drain will come back out the shower head. Based on a shower design I got from a UK design student. The shower uses a cyclonic filter, then traditional filter. This reduces water consumption. And reduces energy consumption, since only fresh water needs to be heated. So the toilet will be rather wide, basically full width of the toilet stall.

So where does the sink go? I guess there will have to be a recess into the life support wall for the sink. Think airline lavatory.

For cabins with more than one passenger (most of them), the transparent shower walls can be covered in opaque plastic sheet. That plastic will be the thickness of the cardboard of a cerial box.

Upper bunk can fold into the wall. If a passenger wishes, they can book a standard cabin with bunks beside the washroom removed. This gives extra room in the cabin. But price for a standard cabin is still the same, regardless of number of bunks installed.

"Studio single" is a cabin name from Norwegian Cruise lines. That's the cabin shown with one queen size bed. Standard cabin on the ship will be the same size cabin with same size washroom. Only difference is furniture. Again, same prices for a standard cabin regardless of furniture. Instead of bunk beds, a queen size Murphy bed. The Murphy bed has a desktop surface connected beneath. When the bed is down, the desktop remains level and right on the floor. When the bed is raised and folded against the wall, the desktop surface remains level, and raises to desktop working height. Since the Murphy bed doesn't have any storage, this configuration has cupboards/closets. Some cabins would have plumbing installed to allow the shower to be moved to the opposite side of the door, as shown.

Luxury cabins are larger. Just 2 luxury cabins with portable walls so they can be subdivided. Each cabin can be:
Club cabin: 2.4m x 8m (7' 10.5" x 26' 3")
Premium cabin: 4.8m x 8m (15' 9" x 26' 3")
Owner's suite: 9.6m x 8m (31' 6" x 26' 3")
Royal suite: 19.2m x 8m (63' x 26' 3")
Again subtract thickness of walls, so subtract 2cm from each of the 4 walls.
Or other configurations of the same size, eg 4-bedroom Presidential suite the same size as Royal suite.
So this means each luxury cabin can be 1 Royal suite or 2 Owner's suites, or 4 Premium cabins, or 8 Club cabins. Or mix: 1 Owner's suite, 1 Premium cabin, 2 Club cabins. Configure according passenger needs for this particular trip.
Obviously this means portable walls (a manufacturer's website calls them operable wall partitions) are not pressure tight. The compartment with 2 luxury cabins is one pressure compartment.

Price: Club cabin costs twice the price of a standard cabin, because it has twice the floor area. Premium cabin costs twice Club cabin. Owner's suite costs twice Premium cabin. Royal suite costs twice Owner's suite.

You talk is if there will be a large demand for luxury cabins. But at the price of interplanetary spaceflight, how many people could afford them?

tahanson43206 · 2021-06-24 11:25:13

For RobertDyck .... thanks for creating a tag for the specifications for your Large Ship cabin

I logged in to drop off this little item that might ??? contribute to your planning for the Large Ship .... the technology is in development but it should be ready when you are ...

Dirty laundry a hassle –
even when you’re in space

Marcia Dunn
ASSOCIATED PRESS

At the same time, P&G is developing
a washer-dryer combo that could oper-
ate on the moon or even Mars, using
minimal amounts of water and deter-
gent. Such a machine could also prove
useful in arid regions here on Earth.
One of the many design challenges:
The laundry water would need to be re-
claimed for drinking and cooking, just
like urine and sweat are currently recy-
cled aboard the space station.
“The best solutions come from the
most diverse teams,” Melvin said, “and
how more diverse can you be than Tide
and NASA?”

This system should work well on Large Ship!

(th)

RobertDyck · 2021-06-24 15:13:42

We have discussed this before. Are people reading our forum? (sounds like a good thing) Laundry

RobertDyck · 2021-06-24 15:33:17

I'm considering laundry soap instead of detergent. A couple reasons: soap is made by reacting oil with lye, either sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide. The hydroxides can be made by an electrolysis cell from human urine. A few people are working on microbes that can make oil. So the idea is to grow microbes with water, sugar, yeast nutrient, to produce cooking oil. Some of that oil can be reacted with lye to make soap. Then there's refining it: sodium hydroxide makes a harder soap, potassium hydroxide makes softer or liquid soap. Different oils produce softer or harder soap. If you start with cooking oil, making a solid bar of soap may not be possible, but liquid soap is still Ok. Some oils act as skin moisturizer. Mild pH is required for shampoo. The ship would need hand soap, shampoo, laundry soap, dishwasher soap, and perhaps dish soap for hand washing. Dishwasher soap must produce a lot less suds, so you don't have suds erupting from the dishwasher.

Another reason is to ensure the soap is compatible with the sewage processing system. Dirty water will have to be filtered to produce potable water. Soap will have to be compatible with that. And the Large Ship will use dirty water as fertilizer for hydroponics. Soap made from oil is biocompatible, so plants could use it. Of course skin and hair oil will also be biocompatible.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#701 2021-06-14 15:19:00

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#702 2021-06-14 17:57:46

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#703 2021-06-14 22:29:17

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#704 2021-06-14 22:32:30

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#705 2021-06-15 01:24:22

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#706 2021-06-23 07:13:20

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#707 2021-06-23 10:02:46

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#708 2021-06-23 10:14:50

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#709 2021-06-23 10:25:07

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#710 2021-06-23 11:11:09

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#711 2021-06-23 11:40:01

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#712 2021-06-23 11:59:34

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#713 2021-06-23 17:22:58

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#714 2021-06-23 17:51:01

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#715 2021-06-23 18:11:13

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#716 2021-06-23 18:28:59

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#717 2021-06-23 18:40:52

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#718 2021-06-23 18:43:47

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#719 2021-06-23 18:51:20

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#720 2021-06-24 05:37:01

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#721 2021-06-24 05:42:41

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#722 2021-06-24 11:07:09

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#723 2021-06-24 11:25:13

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#724 2021-06-24 15:13:42

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#725 2021-06-24 15:33:17

Re: Large scale colonization ship

Board footer