Large scale colonization ship

SpaceNut · 2022-04-10 20:22:46

A hotel that’s truly out of this world AAW2Gv5.img?w=800&h=415&q=60&m=2&f=jpg

Known as the Voyager Station, the hotel built within the space station will cover 124,861 square feet (11,600sq m), including rooms for up to 400 guests.
24 modules, or areas, containing everything you could want from a luxury hotel: modern rooms, bars, restaurants, fitness facilities and more
Guests can kick back and relax in luxury villas which sprawl over 5,382 square foot (500sqm). Each villa sleeps up to 16 people and has kitchen and bathroom space.
The OAC team recently opened new production facilities and offices in Fontana, California and the project is going full steam ahead, with the hotel expected to open in 2027. The team behind it are (from left to right): Dr. Tom Spilker, chief technology officer; Tim Clements, V.P. of fabrication and assembly; Robert Miyake, board member; and Tim Alatorre, chief operations officer.

RobertDyck · 2022-04-10 22:57:08

Voyager Station is just that, a station. The proposal is by a company that has few resources. The design uses small modules connected together similar to ISS. As kbd512 pointed out, ISS is leaky, must be supplied pressure from Earth periodically. Docked modules like this will have a similar issue. It's flimsy, won't withstand trajectory insertion, and certainly can't withstand aerocapture. It's held together with wires. It has 2 Dream Chasers per module as escape pods / lifeboats. A station in Earth orbit can use lifeboats, but as I've explained before, a ship on an interplanetary trajectory cannot. Life boats would just continue on the same trajectory, so abandoning ship just deprives you of its resources. Cylindrical modules with hemispherical ends are not optimal for artificial gravity. You want a floor that is flat with rotation, which means a cylinder around the entire ring. Overall, optimized for Earth orbit, not a trip to Mars.

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-11 06:43:35

For RobertDyck re status of this topic....

In the Zoom meeting of April 3rd, 2022, you revealed that you felt the topic is not ready to move toward Real Universe actualization.

I've been supporting your initiative here because I thought it had potential to become ** real ** ... a ** real ** space vessel in the ** real ** Universe.

As you made clear, the topic is not ready for serious detail planning.

Please let the group know when you are ready to move from science fiction/fantasy to Real Universe actualization.

The Large Ship (Prime) topic is now, and will long remain, a rich source of inspiration for humans of every age.

It is as inspiration for others that the Large Ship topic has earned, and will continue to earn, it's place in Human History.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-04-11 07:42:41

You normally start a design effort like this by identifying needs. We have a (soon to be) existing vehicle (Starship). It will perform a certain service at a certain cost. That service is delivery of people from Earth surface to Mars surface. There will be certain deficiencies that we would like to improve upon: Lack of gravity, fuel mass, mass of victuals, radiation protection, comfort, etc. You then examine different options, carry out cost benefit analyses and generally try to arrive at a solution that satisfies some or all needs, at a cost that is within their worth and within current technology sets. To achieve a balanced design, you need to understand how much each design goal is worth to you. Generally, we want passage to be as cheap as possible and to reduce the deficiencies, but not at excessive cost.

One question I would throw into the mix: Given the present limitations in propulsion technology, do Aldrin cyclers offer a better cost benefit ratio? For a heavy and shielded ship and given the limitations in propulsion technology, it would appear to make some sense only to change velocity of the ship once, I.e to put it onto a cycler orbit. The obvious disadvantage would be the need for more than one ship to achieve the same regularity of transport to Mars. Otherwise, you will be limited to transporting large batches of people every decade or so. On the other side of things, maybe a cycler will allow access to NEAs and the inner belt? Plus side: low consumables mass. Down side: that only applies if life support functions are closed. Another downside: transfer vehicles are needed. But the way I see it, propulsion technology is the most difficult hurdle for Robert's large ship. If we turn it into a cycler, with low thrust electric propulsion putting it on the right orbit over a period of years, it solves what is arguably the biggest problem.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-11 08:08:41)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-11 08:16:09

For Calliban re 1254

It is good to see your interest in the Large Ship (Prime) topic.

However, as is true for so many others, you have not had time to read the topic from the beginning, or you would know that from the outset, and every time the question comes up, RobertDyck has made clear that this is NOT an Aldrin Cycler, or ANY kind of Cycler.

As the work of GW Johnson makes clear, propulsion of a 5000 metric ton space vessel will require substantial amounts of propellant, regardless of the method of propulsion.

When Dr. Johnson's talk becomes available, I hope you will be able to find the time to view it on YouTube.

The argument for atomic propulsion (of some form) is compelling, and that is why I am hoping your current work will bear fruit.

As for the "need" .... that is laid out quite clearly in the opening of this topic.

The solution for effective propulsion lies in your hands! Best wishes for success in both understanding the theory, and more importantly, finding a way to persuade supporters that the theory can be put to test in "Real Universe" experiments.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2022-04-11 08:22:41

Three things:

(1) what we are really exploring with the big ship design effort is early development of a concept design for future application. We are trying to find out what is important, and what the pitfalls might be. And, most importantly, what the technology and infrastructure shortfalls might be. And don't kid yourself, there ARE shortfalls!!! It will be some several years after a small base is established on Mars, before any sort of expanding settlement is ever started. Until then, a very large transport is simply not needed. But to establish a growing settlement or to plant a real colony, a really large transport is needed. And 100 folks (or 100 tons) at a time is not a large transport!!! There are only those several years in which to fill those technology and infrastructure shortfalls!!!

(2) Spacex's Starship/Superheavy is NOT primarily a small Mars transport (although Musk would like to think so), it is primarily a ferry from Earth's surface to low circular Earth orbit. If you refill it in Earth orbit from about half a dozen other Starship/Superheavies, you can use it as a one-way (!!!) transport to Mars. (It could stop in orbit about Mars, but NOT with any payload.) The design supports only a direct entry and landing, with any payload, which means there is no "out" if something goes wrong!!! That is the price you knowingly pay, to use this design for that transport-to-Mars purpose. If AND ONLY IF sufficient propellant can be manufactured on Mars rapidly enough, could a Starship ever fly off Mars and back to Earth!!! Right now, that propellant manufacture issue is one huge "IF", because I see NO large machinery being developed!!! The demonstrators have been kg's per month, when you need about 100 tons per month. That's 4 or 5 orders of magnitude outside the ballpark!!!

(3) once there are several empty Starships on Mars, AND once there is significant propellant-making infrastructure on Mars to refill them in situ, THEN you can use those Starships as single-stage-to-orbit reusable ferries between the surface and low circular orbit. They can carry quite significant payload and do that mission. Mars has a much weaker gravity well than Earth, making that scenario possible. With surface-to-orbit ferry capability available at Earth (Starship/Superheavy) and at Mars (Starship single stage), you have the load/unload infrastructure in place to look at a really large transport operated orbit-to-orbit. The square-cube scaling laws prevent you from ever trying to land such a large craft.

To answer Calliban's question: the delta-vees getting onto and off-of a cycler are just about as large as the delta-vees just to fly a vehicle direct to Mars. There's no real delta-vee advantage. The advantage is having a base habitat on the cycler that doesn't need to be carried onto and off-of the cycler. It stays there, and so the vehicles to-and-from can be a lot smaller. The disadvantage is scheduling. Any one cycler does not make regular frequent flybys at BOTH Earth and Mars. You have to build a lot of them to establish regular service between Earth and Mars. Doing that risks collisions at Earth.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2022-04-11 08:24:06)

RobertDyck · 2022-04-11 11:09:09

tahanson43206,

You misunderstand. This project requires a lot of work, and a lot of money. In the Zoom call you insisted on finding a manufacturer who can fabricate hull segments *NOW*. This project is no where near that yet. You ignored my intent to use an asteroid to reduce cost of manufacture, insisting on fabrication on Earth. You ignore cost of launching something that massive from Earth and how you will pay for it. You ignore the fact SpaceX doesn't have a launch vehicle capable of launching components large enough or cost effective enough. When I have proposed spin-offs as means to pay for the project, not after the fact but before as a fund raising effort, you ignore that too. Most importantly, you want to jump straight to manufacture without required research into how one system will interact with another. For example, how will a mini-magnetosphere radiation shield interact with a hull of magnetic material? Or with non-mangetic.

If you jump straight to asking manufacturers to fabricate hull segments when we aren't sure whether it should be magnetic or non-mangetic steel alloy, and especially when we have absolutely no way to pay them? That would destroy any credibility of this effort.

RobertDyck · 2022-04-11 11:53:52

I have noticed reaction when people ask about ticket price. I have said I expect after infrastructure is established, a bunk in an economy class cabin (aka 3rd class) will cost US$100,000, a whole standard cabin $500k regardless of furniture or how many people. And gave costs of larger luxury cabins. However, initially before infrastructure, everything will come from Earth. In that case multiply ticket prices by 5. Their eyes glaze over when I mention the higher price. The Large Ship may depend on most of that infrastructure before day one.

Lower cost depends on maintenance and repair in space, shipping parts from Earth is too expensive. Same for food and propellant. I had assumed a propellant depot in Earth Orbit to fuel our ship and others. Where does that propellant come from? Near Earth Asteroid, Martian moon? As a previous member pointed out, Mars moons have the same surface spectra as carbonaceous chondrite asteroids. Those asteroids are believed to have water ice, dry ice, and tar; ideal sources of propellant. And Mars has an atmosphere, ideal for aerocapture. Some astronomers claim the only C-type asteroids that still have their ice orbit at same distance from the Sun as Mars. Closer asteroids would have boiled it off long ago. So Phobos and Deeimos sound ideal.

This is also why I asked about Earth's Moon.

Calliban · 2022-04-11 12:42:26

RobertDyck wrote:

I have noticed reaction when people as about ticket price. I have said I expect after infrastructure is established, a bunk in an economy class cabin (aka 3rs class) will cost US$100,000, a whole standard cabin $500k regardless of furniture or how many people. And gave costs of larger luxury cabins. However, initially before infrastructure, everything will come from Earth.in that case multiply ticket prices by 5. Their eyes glaze over when I mention the higher price. The Large Ship may depend on most of that infrastructure bfron day one.
Lower cost depends on maintenance and repair in space, shipping parts from Earth is too expensive. Same for food and propellant. I had assumed.a propellant depot in Earth Orbit to fuel our ship and others. Where does that propellant come from? Near Earth Asteroid, Martian moon? As a previous member pointed out, Mars moons have the same surface spectra as carbonaceous chondrite asteroids. Those asteroids are believed to have water ice, dry ice, and tar; ideal sources of propellant. And Mars has an atmosphere, ideal for aerocapture. Some astronomers claim the only C-type asteroids that still have their ice orbit as same distance from the Sun as Mars. Closer asteroids would have boiled it off long ago. So Phobos and Deeimos sound ideal.
This is also why I asked about Earth's Moon.

Plain carbon steel is something that we could realistically expect to produce from lunar ilmenite, if we bring the carbon with us. From the asteroids, I am less certain. I don't think enough is known about the composition of Phobos for us to be able to hang anything off it. It could be used as solid reaction mass in some sort of mass driver impulse engine. But those sorts of engines are bulky.

RobertDyck · 2022-04-11 12:43:00

The Large Ship is gigantic compared to other spacecraft, however small compared to modern ocean ships.

Latest class by Royal Caribbean is Oasis class: 5,400 to 5,734 passengers double occupancy, 6,780-6,680 maximum occupancy, and 226,838 to 228,081 gross tonnage. An ocean liner is different, intended as a passenger transport. The last one ever build was the Queen Mary 2: 2,695 passengers before refit, and 149,215 gross tons.

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-11 12:49:06

For RobertDyck...

Index» Interplanetary transportation» Large Ship Project Management

In a recent Zoom meeting, you mentioned the value of PERT charts.

Inspired by your suggestion, I created a topic where you can publish your ideas for how development should flow.

My insistence upon moving from fantasy to reality revealed that this topic is not yet ready for that transition.

That is not in itself a bad thing.

What is clear is that the flow of endless words (text to be sure) will continue for many years more, and nothing will ever be accomplished in the Real Universe.

Meanwhile, someone else ** WILL ** build Large Ship, and if past is prologue, there will be individuals who will complain that "someone stole my idea".

I have tried in every way I could think of for you to establish a name recognition for Large Ship.

Perhaps there is something I've overlooked. That is certainly possible.

What I've been trying to avoid is having someone else build the concept, and this effort remembered (if at all) as a source of ideas for others to exploit.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2022-04-11 17:25:33

tahanson43206:

You continue to make two serious mistakes. First, you ignore the fact I said the hull will be made with asteroid material. That's to reduce cost. Second, you we have no money. If you want to go from fantasy to reality, do not try to hire real-life companies to fabricate components when you know damn well there's no way to pay them. Especially not the brute force method which costs way more, ignoring all the cost saving measures, with absolutely no way to pay.

I have suggested we build a virtual model. That takes effort, and very little to no money. That's something we can afford. I have also suggested we fund research into the genetically engineered pea required for the oxygen generator by finding a company that commercially uses peas, and could benefit from such a pea. You ignored that. I suggested we offset the cost of mining a metal asteroid by selling precious metals, another thing you ignored.

If you were to use the brute force method, how many launches of Starship would be required? That does include pressure hull, thermal insulation, and micrometeoroid shield. Floor, ceiling, walls, and pressure bulkheads. Just for the habitation ring, ignoring the second level. Now estimate cost at US$10 million per launch for Starship. Elon said that will *NOT* be the initial price, that will be after 2-3 years of operation. Several people have challenged that price estimate, claiming it does not include current launch costs. And Elon Musk *STILL* hasn't received permission from the FAA to launch the first orbital test flight. So much time has passed that many speculate SpaceX will *NOT* launch 4/20, that is Superheavy serial #4 with Starship serial #20. SpaceX may scrap them and use newer models.

So calling manufacturers to fabricate panels that I explicitly said several times would *NOT* be fabricated here on Earth? What were/are you thinking?

kbd512 · 2022-04-11 17:37:28

tahanson43206,

Does it matter greatly if someone else takes Robert's good ideas and runs with them?

Is the goal to get people to Mars, or to claim that one of us, personally, designed and built a ship that sent people to Mars?

If anyone built one of these large ships, I'd be pretty happy with that. However, I don't think we have to worry about anyone doing that any time soon.

SpaceNut · 2022-04-11 20:33:41

The purpose of adding in the Voyager Station in post #1251 was to show how other means to build can be flawed as well even if it has similarities and features we had not thought so far in this topic.

As far as for building that is one reason that I had put forward the analog station so as to learn build and use from what we wanted in space.

Sure we can do it all in words and paper but at some point the industrial engineer will need to show if through the build what we do not see.

So far we have found 2 items that were counted on to make it sustainable at less power which means going back to learn more about them.

The use of lunar fuel is not without its problems and build up as the first component is oxygen for refueling but it comes at a penalty since we would not be able to fill even a starship until we have enough infrastructure built on the moon to do so with.

This is where a pert comes in to track the ideas and how they alter a concept?

So far we have a shell that may be what we propose in size but as to its construction we are in a prototype hell until we come up with materials to build a scale model of size. A 1 meter display is not it.

We have the issue of prefab'd but assembled on orbit path versus the material sourced and made on orbit both have cost timeline trade offs. Once you look at both the costs will average out to nearly the same but that is where we need numbers to do the comparison with.

Did we decide to go with some sort of interior interlocking girder grid to framed up; that we will use to attach everything too?

Did the increase of the elevator tunnels grow to the full width of 19m and double the elevator cars in the process?

Did we add in an extra outer diameter to make the plumbing, tanks to hold waste, fresh portable water tanks, balance compensation plumbing motors tanks inner and outer and other stuff have room which was not in the current design?

We did simplify the glass surface for natural lighting but added a reflector to aim more light into the greenhouse area that would have been brought by light pipes to the other decks. That reflector can be a Mylar sheet coated and not metal if mass is an issue but its got to attach to a frame to hold it in place.

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-11 20:51:20

For SpaceNut re #1264

Thanks for your continued interest in and support of the vision of RobertDyck.

Based upon the Zoom meeting of April 3rd, it is my understanding the idea of actually trying to build something is off the table, with no chance it will ever return.

Momentum will necessarily shift to other activities.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-11 21:07:12

Not on orbit but we can practice for another purpose as we started to talk about simulating for college university levels of education. Simulating dorms, kitchens ect... That is a funding avenue and should be part of the mars society university as it gives real engineering and planning for the large ship from lessons that can be learned in that topic. It is a pseudo simulation of the environment of living and growing food in a large ship. Depending on its sealing we can also get a better ball park for electrical usage, sewage creation tank sizing, water processing, food growth to type, ect....

RobertDyck · 2022-04-12 02:08:43

Tom, you never understood what this is. We don't have billions like Elon Musk. Never did. You tried to jump straight to construction, without considering how to pay for it. That never had any chance to work.

I said all along, I have a dream of establishing a company. One division would build high efficiency solar panels from that paper I read in the Journal Science in year 2000. I still have that journal. No one is manufacturing it. Solar cells that efficient, and panels made of them, would out-compete Spectrolab and Solaero Technologies. I want to build houses with a roof made of these; not just a few solar panels bolted to the roof, but the solar array *IS* the roof. I said before, a house with a roof like this, also with geothermal heat pump, windmills in the back yard, batteries in the basement, and designed to be well insulated. These houses would be designed to be 100% energy independent in worst case weather. The other 51 weeks per year they would sell power to the grid. That means the power utility would mail a cheque to homeowners every month, not a bill. This works for houses and low buildings like shopping malls, but doesn't work for tower buildings like downtown apartment or office towers. I said pricing for these houses must be competitive with existing houses: cost of mortgage plus utilities, less money from the power utility should result in a lower total bill than mortgage plus utilities for a traditional house. Even if it's only one dollar per month less. The key to success is ensuring the total is less. Large corporations don't like it because they can't scam homeowners for money every month. This should be very very profitable.

I also posted about asteroid mining. Sell precious metals to Earth to pay for the venture. It wouldn't crash precious metal prices, that doesn't happen when a new mine opens. This should make enough money to pay for itself, not expecting a huge profit. But as a byproduct, the asteroid mine will make steel for our big ship.

Tom, you have run a full speed face-first into a brick wall. You didn't try to walk around or climb over, you smashed your face into the wall. Stop complaining that you hit a brick wall. Be glad you hit it now before it got worse. Don't blame the wall.

Tom, there never was a possibility of building this ship before SpaceX gets their Starship to work. And building the ship the brute force way by shipping all materials from Earth... do you have hundreds of billions of dollars in your back pocket? The "momentum" you talk about is your imagination. There never was a chance of building it the way you insisted. You have to establish financing first. Look what Elon Musk did: he built SpaceX by building the smallest rocket that he thought could be profitable; Falcon 1. He then made some money with that rocket to build Falcon 9. That rocket couldn't land on it's tail at first, instead he operated it as a traditional expendable rocket to make money until he had resources to develop ability to land. He then scaled up to Falcon Heavy. And Falcon Heavy still can't do everything it was supposed to. Propellant cross-feed so side boosters are discarded early and the central core has full propellant at separation... it still can't do that. Elon and Gwynne Shotwell wanted a "standard" core that didn't require customization, so they could reduce their inventory of rockets. But forces on the central core mean it has to be different anyway, it must be stronger. Oh well. And even Falcon Heavy isn't the big rocket needed to go to Mars. He's just working on Starship now. Note the theme: start small, earn money, and grow. Same with Tesla. Elon didn't found Tesla, he was a major investor then took it over. It was a tiny company before Elon. With Elon's help, they produced the Tesla Sport, an expensive car that very few could afford. Because the first electric car would always be very expensive, he designed it to have performance and beauty so it could compete with Porsche or Ferrari. It work, they made money. With that money they improved the product. Then produced another model of car, also expensive but not quite so much. That one was priced so a larger number of people could afford it. With that money Tesla developed another model with lower unit price and even larger number of units sold. Tesla built a "gigafactory", the largest factory building in the world. Then built more gigafactories. Tesla certainly couldn't afford even one gigafactory when they started.

RobertDyck · 2022-04-12 22:55:10

YouTube: Dining First Class on the RMS Titanic

Calliban · 2022-04-13 02:20:18

Space manufacturing becomes progressively more attractive as space stations, ships and payloads become more massive. For the large ship, we mostly need refined metals. The moon is probably the easiest source of basic materials like this. Iron and titanium can be produced from ilmenite mined from the mare. Aluminium and silicon can be produced from anorthite, which is the dominant highland material. There are numerous trace elements like chromium that may be useful for producing steel.

Whilst Starship is likely to reduce launch cost of spacecraft components, it will also reduce the cost of equipment needed to establish space manufacturing. In high Earth orbit, there is abundant solar energy to power everything. At the Moon's distance, solar energy is obscured by Earth's shadow only 1% of the time.

We would need to ship to the moon, only the equipment needed to mine bulk materials, package them and launch them to the L5 point. Everything else will be delivered to high Earth orbit.

The recently raised topic of orbiting victualing facilities would also work well in the high orbit manufacturing scenario. If we are shipping volatiles from Earth to high orbit industries, it may be more appropriate to ship food from Earth and convert effluent into the carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen needed for ore reduction and polymer manufacturing.
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=10220

Magnesium from anorthite may make an acceptable propellant for electric propulsion thrusters.
https://beyondnerva.com/electric-propul … opellants/

Gérard O'Neil had originally proposed using mass drivers (linear motors) as reaction engines. Propellant could have been almost anything, but liquid oxygen was considered desirable to avoid polluting near Earth space with solid projectiles. Whilst a mass driver could be used as an impulse engine for the large ship, it is likely to be considerably more bulky than other electric propulsion engines. But it would allow the large ship to use almost anything as propellant. This might include powdered regolith from either of the two Martian moons. The exhaust velocity assumed by O'Neil was in the region of 10km/s. This is equivalent to any ISP of 1000 seconds. To achieve a propellant velocity of 10km/s with a driver length of 100m, bucket acceleration must be 50,000g. This comparable to the acceleration of a pistol bullet. It should be achievable.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-13 02:46:38)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-13 20:12:16

Its hard for me to tell but did the floor layout for crew and passengers get done for a single deck use for the quantity of people desired for its use?

Did that floor plan have the kitchen and dining sorted out with the keep out area around the elevator shaft loading and exit areas?

RobertDyck · 2022-04-14 08:46:26

I should create a full floor plan. My attempt to create a crew layout resulted in simply another pressure compartment identical to passenger compartments with standard cabins. Captain and doctor would each have a "studio single" with a murphy bed. Other officers would have standard cabins with 2 per cabin, however no life support wall. Life support is sized for 6 adults per cabin, captain and doctor cabins would each have a life support wall so that supports 12 officers. That allows 5 cabins for other officers with 2 per cabin, oxygen and water recycled using equipment in captain and doctor's cabins. While standard cabins have the shower and washroom (toilet/sink) on the same side of the door, officer cabins would have them on opposite sides of the door. That allows a small desk between the bed and washroom or shower. Junior officer cabins would use the same single bed with drawers as economy class passenger cabins (3rd class), but no pullman bunk. With passenger cabins, one row of drawers would be for the passenger in the lower bunk, the other for the upper bunk. An officer gets both. Or an officer could elect the other way around: pullman bunk and no lower bunk. That would require a dresser or other storage. Standard pressure compartments have two subcompartments: forward and aft. With 4 cabins on each side of the corridor. Crew compartment would also have two subcompartments, one subcompartment would have cabins identical to passenger economy class cabins, 6 bunks per cabin, for regular crewman. The other subcompartment is for officers. With captain, doctor, and 5 junior officer cabins, that leaves room for one more cabin in the officer subcompartment. That could be configured as an economy class cabin, for up to 6 more crewmen. That's why crew grew from 60 to 66.

I did consider one customization of cabins for standard crew. Passenger cabins will have a steel bulkhead separating the two subcompartments. And other steel bulkhead separating one pressure compartment from another. However, interior cabin walls and the wall to the corridor would be lightweight composite. For crew these could be steel, and the door could be locked from the outside. The brig would be small, only able to hold one or two prisoners. But crew cabins could be converted to additional brig cells. Remove all furniture, beds replaced with cots. Crew furniture would be moved to the upper level of the gym, and that level would be off-limits from passengers.

RobertDyck · 2022-04-14 08:56:02

One layout I did draw. The area between the elevator and bridge is an enlargement of corridor. That's the area for elevator loading and exit. And a stairway to the 2nd level behind the elevator shaft. The stairway has a pressure hatch, horizontal built into the floor. When closed it forms a ceiling over the stairway. And a second pressure hatch as a more traditional door, at the base of the stairs. If the observation deck above becomes decompressed, the stairway acts as an airlock. So a portable airlock is not needed. The storage area has emergency equipment: intravehicle pressure suits, portable air lock, etc. However, the large area labelled "Kitchen" is actually too big to service just the Fine Dining room. That could be separated into kitchen and laundry. If the cabins shown in this image are crew cabins, then a portion of the space labelled "Kitchen" could be security office and brig. Because cabins on the upper portion of this image are aft, facing the Sun, intended for crew. The cabin adjacent to the Bridge would be the captain's cabin. And the cabin across the corridor from the captain's cabin would be for the doctor. So the doctor's cabin is close to the Infirmary/Sick-bay. Luxury cabins close to Fine Dining, and close to a stairway to an observation room.
SbrKF9F.jpg?1

SpaceNut · 2022-04-14 20:40:19

With this plus other diagrams we can do the electrical load mapping. Usually the bunk gets a 15 amp circuit to allow for a light and dual outlet to plug personnel items into. Then add a circuit for the total room lighting and for each appliance or large TV screen location that is in the room.

SpaceNut · 2022-04-16 14:19:41

I think this should have its own topic but here is the question and requirements to meet the human demand for fresh water and waste recovery processing. We all got to go some time and the period of collection needs to be defined as well as the amount required for processing to start with an expected recovery amount over time.

1-s2.0-S0094576515004294-gr1.jpg

https://www.nasa.gov/ideas-for-handling … s-missions
NASA Seeks Ideas for Handling Waste on Future Human Missions to Mars

This leads to the size comparison of the total mass of the resource needed for crew of six over the number of days required for the leg of the trip that Rapp's document contains.
http://marsjournal.org/contents/2006/00 … 6_0005.pdf

Table 1B. Water requirements (kg/CM-day) gives the requirement of course this is with our own ships operation directives not being totally aligned with it.

This also true for once we are on the surface as Table 1C. Fundamental Requirements for Mars Surface Habitat (kg/CM-day) also shows.

This leads to https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/200 … 033919.pdf
Guidelines and Capabilities for Designing Human Missions "GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTION"

http://sirius.bu.edu/withers/pppp/pdf/beaty2005.pdf
The Effect of Precursor Investigations and Measurements on the Reduction of the Risk of Human Missions to Mars

The complexity of all things going to mars to keep us alive
1-s2.0-S0094576515004294-gr3.jpg

https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/e … ts/AFT.pdf
Risk of Performance Decrement and Crew Illness Due to an Inadequate Food System

The insitu resource on the large ship is what we do provide for by the life support systems along with food but water and waste must be figured into the equation to sustain life.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar_resource … %20_2_.pdf

https://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/academic … 218570.pdf
Life Support Baseline Values and Assumptions Document

This is where we need to have an excess to ensure we are able to meet the demand

SpaceNut · 2022-04-16 21:52:05

Here is some more poo for thought
Mars trip to use astronaut poo as radiation shield

Waste not, want not on the road to Mars

MELISSA (Micro-Ecological Life Support Alternative)

How recycled astronaut poop might sustain a mission to Mars

Inside the reactor, kept at 95 degrees Fahrenheit, the waste circulated around small plastic balls coated with microbes that specialize in decomposition. One microbe broke down the solid waste into salts and fatty acids, which are the building blocks of human fat. Another microbe converted fat molecules into methane gas.
After the reactor’s microbial communities had become established, the researchers removed about 2 quarts of treated waste every two days and added an equal amount of new waste. In the treated wastewater, the microbes had removed about 97 percent of the simulated poop.

Wastewater Treatment

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1251 2022-04-10 20:22:46

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1252 2022-04-10 22:57:08

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1253 2022-04-11 06:43:35

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1254 2022-04-11 07:42:41

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1255 2022-04-11 08:16:09

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1256 2022-04-11 08:22:41

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1257 2022-04-11 11:09:09

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1258 2022-04-11 11:53:52

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1259 2022-04-11 12:42:26

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1260 2022-04-11 12:43:00

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1261 2022-04-11 12:49:06

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1262 2022-04-11 17:25:33

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1263 2022-04-11 17:37:28

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1264 2022-04-11 20:33:41

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1265 2022-04-11 20:51:20

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1266 2022-04-11 21:07:12

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1267 2022-04-12 02:08:43

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1268 2022-04-12 22:55:10

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1269 2022-04-13 02:20:18

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1270 2022-04-13 20:12:16

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1271 2022-04-14 08:46:26

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1272 2022-04-14 08:56:02

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1273 2022-04-14 20:40:19

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1274 2022-04-16 14:19:41

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#1275 2022-04-16 21:52:05

Re: Large scale colonization ship

Board footer