OFMM Mission Discussions

Kveldulf

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
231
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Chicago, Illinois
I've been looking over the mission list, and there were a few things I noticed:

OFMM-7 - 3 x Comms satellites to Mars - Equ orbit 60 degress apart
OFMM-8 - 3 x Comms satellites to Mars - Equ orbit 60 degress apart
I'm confused with this. Assuming we have one satellite on the Martian equator, that's one satellite at 60 degrees inc, and one at -60 degrees. We then... come back the next mission and place them at the same inclinations to spread out the coverage?

OFMM-22 - Excursion to Phobos for core sample retrieval (special request of the Russians)
With what ship? Would we bring a second ship to perform this mission, or would the pilot just hop in the landing ship and hope nothing goes wrong? Assuming we bring a second ship, that would cut out the Arrow as a possible ship to bring to Mars. If not... well, we do have the luxury of just reloading should we fail to get to Phobos correctly, but if we're aiming to do things at least somewhat realistic, should we really take the only lifeline on the martian surface if we leave some UMMUs in a temporary base?
 

garyw

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
10,485
Reaction score
209
Points
138
Location
Kent
Website
blog.gdwnet.com
I'm confused with this. Assuming we have one satellite on the Martian equator, that's one satellite at 60 degrees inc, and one at -60 degrees. We then... come back the next mission and place them at the same inclinations to spread out the coverage?

6 satellites on aerostationary orbit. Placed at 0,60,120,180,240,300 and 360 degress lattitudes. This way you cover some 85% of the martian surface with comms and have backups. Two seperate missions launching three each in case of mishaps. Worst case scenarion is just three satellites spread 120 degress apart.

With what ship? Would we bring a second ship to perform this mission, or would the pilot just hop in the landing ship and hope nothing goes wrong? Assuming we bring a second ship, that would cut out the Arrow as a possible ship to bring to Mars. If not... well, we do have the luxury of just reloading should we fail to get to Phobos correctly, but if we're aiming to do things at least somewhat realistic, should we really take the only lifeline on the martian surface if we leave some UMMUs in a temporary base?

Hence why I suggested the Cosmos in an apollo-esque scenario - no one left of the surface. Cosmos can take two DG's/XR's in case of problems with a DG no one gets left on the surface. Phobos mission would only happen if the Mars mission was done, we had time AND both ships were in good shape.
 
Last edited:

Scruce

Ad astra per aspera
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
1,410
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OFMM-14 - Lander to Mars, target primary site

[...]

OFMM-22 - Excursion to Phobos for core sample retrieval (special request of the Russians)

Perhaps we send a spacecraft bus with two landers for each mission to save on launches, after the landers have landed, the orbiter can perform Mars reconnaissance mapping?
 

garyw

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
10,485
Reaction score
209
Points
138
Location
Kent
Website
blog.gdwnet.com
And I feel like people are bashing on me because of the patches. Okay, I'll wait until the first mission actually starts before making them.

Or you could wait until the final mission list goes up. You are making patches for missions that are still under review.

---------- Post added at 23:52 ---------- Previous post was at 23:51 ----------

Perhaps we send a spacecraft bus with two landers for each mission to save on launches, after the landers have landed, the orbiter can perform Mars reconnaissance mapping?

Why save on launches? Do you want people to miss out on the fun of going to Mars? :lol:

More could be done with fewer launches but more would be lost if that launcher fails and I wanted to give as many people as possible a crack at a mars mission.
 

Scruce

Ad astra per aspera
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
1,410
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Why save on launches? Do you want people to miss out on the fun of going to Mars? :lol:

More could be done with fewer launches but more would be lost if that launcher fails and I wanted to give as many people as possible a crack at a mars mission.

Well, you can always let the first person land the first Mars lander, then hand it over to the second person to do the Phobos sample return mission, then the third would do the Mars mapping?

But I do understand on the fact that if a launch fails, it's all gone. :(
 

garyw

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
10,485
Reaction score
209
Points
138
Location
Kent
Website
blog.gdwnet.com
I think you meant longitudes.

Yup I did. Just checking to see if people were awake. honest. :lol:

---------- Post added at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was at 00:04 ----------

Well, you can always let the first person land the first Mars lander, then hand it over to the second person to do the Phobos sample return mission, then the third would do the Mars mapping?

But I do understand on the fact that if a launch fails, it's all gone. :(

If people want to do that then it's cool with me but I also want to include errors so if someone makes a mistake and the rocket misses mars then it misses mars and we lose stuff. Keeps it interesting.
 

dgatsoulis

ele2png user
Donator
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,971
Reaction score
422
Points
98
Location
Sparta
I think you meant longitudes.

Garyw's statement could easily have a double meaning. But the orbit's wouldn't be "Areostationary". Yet... stable enough for a couple of years. The moon here on Earth, messes up much more our GEO sattelites, than the tiny rocks that orbit Mars.
That said, good catch Pipcard. :thumbup:
 

Pipcard

mikusingularity
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
3,709
Reaction score
42
Points
88
Location
Negishima Space Center
I've not looked at the James cook at all.

But it actually comes with a gravity wheel, so when people land on Mars, their bones won't be too weak.

If people want to do that then it's cool with me but I also want to include errors so if someone makes a mistake and the rocket misses mars then it misses mars and we lose stuff. Keeps it interesting.

And why would a mission fail? With quicksaves, you can only fail on purpose. Don't tell me I have to do the entire mission in one go.
 
Last edited:

garyw

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
10,485
Reaction score
209
Points
138
Location
Kent
Website
blog.gdwnet.com
But it actually comes with a gravity wheel, so when people land on Mars, their bones won't be too weak.

Fair point - James cook in place of the cosmos.

And why would a mission fail? With quicksaves, you can only fail on purpose. Don't tell me I have to do the entire mission in one go.

No you don't have to do the mission in one go but if something goes with a launch I think it would be more interesting if OFMM rolled with that failure. For example, if a mission to Mars fails because the burn is done incorrectly don't you think it would be more interesting to work with it rather than quit and reload?
Don't you think that every mission going perfectly is.. well, a little dull?
 

dgatsoulis

ele2png user
Donator
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,971
Reaction score
422
Points
98
Location
Sparta
And why would a mission fail? With quicksaves, you can only fail on purpose. Don't tell me I have to do the entire mission in one go.

I said the very same thing to my flight instructor. Now i'm driving a Smart.
 

Arrowstar

Probenaut
Addon Developer
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
1,785
Reaction score
0
Points
36
No you don't have to do the mission in one go but if something goes with a launch I think it would be more interesting if OFMM rolled with that failure. For example, if a mission to Mars fails because the burn is done incorrectly don't you think it would be more interesting to work with it rather than quit and reload?

Don't you think that every mission going perfectly is.. well, a little dull?

Agreed. Pilots need to be honest about their flights and the outcome. If you screw up and leave your payload/crew in interplanetary space with no way to come back, a number of interesting alternate missions suggest themselves. It also makes things a lot more fun. If you mess up, it's on YOU, not your ability to quicksave or restart Orbiter.

By the way, I'm happy with the mission list as is.
 

Chub777

New member
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
663
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
LEO
So what you really meant was OFMM-3 (unmanned) goes to orbit Mars and we select a landing site, then OFMM-4 (manned) lands in a similar area on the Moon. I was sort of confused by your wording.

Exactly. Apologies for the confusion.

Fair point - James cook in place of the cosmos.

The James Cook also has more docking ports (I think it has 8 or 9).
 
Last edited:

Kveldulf

New member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
231
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Chicago, Illinois
No you don't have to do the mission in one go but if something goes with a launch I think it would be more interesting if OFMM rolled with that failure. For example, if a mission to Mars fails because the burn is done incorrectly don't you think it would be more interesting to work with it rather than quit and reload?
Don't you think that every mission going perfectly is.. well, a little dull?
This. The most fun I had in Orbiter was after I failed a Mercury landing. I was reaching for the close button when I decided to try and save my XR2 (and lone surviving crew member).

Long story short, scooping up an XR2 in solar orbit with a strict time limit was more fun than the mission I had planned.
 

Pipcard

mikusingularity
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
3,709
Reaction score
42
Points
88
Location
Negishima Space Center
(01.)
It also makes things a lot more fun.
Don't you mean more tragic?


(02.) If we're sending XR2s to Mars, this is what the configuration might look like:
xr2jamescook.PNG


Not like this, because the bottom would go through the Cook.
xr2jamescook2.PNG



(03.) For the XR2 lunar mission, how far should the XR2 be above the lunar surface just before starting the de-orbit and landing?
 
Last edited:

garyw

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
10,485
Reaction score
209
Points
138
Location
Kent
Website
blog.gdwnet.com
This. The most fun I had in Orbiter was after I failed a Mercury landing. I was reaching for the close button when I decided to try and save my XR2 (and lone surviving crew member).

Long story short, scooping up an XR2 in solar orbit with a strict time limit was more fun than the mission I had planned.

I've not had anything that fun but I've had a few satellites not launch as planned and wind up as debris in the ocean.

(01.) Don't you mean more tragic?

History shows us that tradegy and spaceflight go hand in hand.

(03.) For the XR2 lunar mission, how far should the XR2 be above the lunar surface just before starting the de-orbit and landing?

Normally 60KM.
 

Pipcard

mikusingularity
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
3,709
Reaction score
42
Points
88
Location
Negishima Space Center
Some more questions about XR2 to the Moon and back:

-How much fuel/isp should there be?
-How much oxygen (I'm guessing 14 days)?
-How many people?
-How long should the EVA last?
-Will this involve a booster/launch vehicle for the XR2, or necessary fuel payloads?

Aerobraking:
-What's the optimum perigee and AOA for the XR2 returning to Earth?
-Is it normal for the temps to be at yellow?
-Is it normal to have to aerobrake two times?
 

Cras

Spring of Life!
Donator
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
2,215
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.youtube.com
I am of the mindset that a launch vehicle is absolutely neccesary for an XR2 going to the Moon. I always see the XR2 being a Single State to Moon to be a bit too much magic.

For an aerobrake back on Earth, it can be done with one pass easily if using inverted attitude. But if we are to operate the XR2 in a more safe manner, an only allow for a heads up, heat shield down attitude for an flight into the atmosphere, the best I have ever done is a three pass aerobrake, then burning the mains for return to LEO.
 

Pipcard

mikusingularity
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
3,709
Reaction score
42
Points
88
Location
Negishima Space Center
I am of the mindset that a launch vehicle is absolutely neccesary for an XR2 going to the Moon. I always see the XR2 being a Single State to Moon to be a bit too much magic.

For an aerobrake back on Earth, it can be done with one pass easily if using inverted attitude. But if we are to operate the XR2 in a more safe manner, an only allow for a heads up, heat shield down attitude for an flight into the atmosphere, the best I have ever done is a three pass aerobrake, then burning the mains for return to LEO.

I did two passes at just above 60 km, but the temps went yellow on the first one.
(I'm not bothering to do inverted)

A mission like this might take 10-12 days (so I think 14 days is a good oxygen level), but how many UMMUs will be aboard?

4 days to the Moon, 1-2 days on the Moon, 4 days back, and probably another day (including aerobraking orbits) makes 12 days.
 
Last edited:
Top