Discussion Your Venus/Mars mission concepts/proposals

[K_Jameson]

Oh. How did you figure that out, by the way?

I have my spreadsheet ;-)

And what about for a Neptune-1B with a Fregat?

Your numbers appears correct.

Also, K_Jameson, would it be better to have PADSL use jettisonable side tanks rather than multistaging? I think that would avoid the need for having 3 different engines and the sub-systems that they require.

This is reasonable. :thumbup:

 

[Nicholander]

K_Jameson, are there any, well, to put it one way, "Clear" views of Efesto, like those "Press Release" images of Galileo II, so I could have some references while trying to model PADSL? Since like I said, It's probably going to look closer to that than anything else.

 

[K_Jameson]

EDIT: So, if there's that problem in the DLL version of the Jarvis C, are you going to use the Multistage or DLL version to launch Shakespeare/Pope?

The Multistage version, that is the only definitive version for now. DLL version is officially a Beta. The orbinauts don't bother with the multistage configurations for Shakespeare/pope mission, because payload and launch parameters are fixed and will be well tested before the release of the package on OH.

 

[ISProgram]

And I don't think It'll look much like Phobos-Grunt or Phobos-Grunt 2, It'll look more like Efesto than anything else.

No, I know that. I said it wouldn't have the lander, that would be an orbiter instead.

Though you might need that Fregat-type cruise stage: (earlier quotes)

I've just finished, and though I didn't do it with the Delta Glider (I did it with the UCGO Shuttle-A), it's about 550 m/s of delta-v. So, say about 1 km/s of delta-v to get into the very elliptical orbit (use aerobraking to get it's apoapsis down), 300 m/s for course corrections getting to Mars, the 550 m/s for intercepting Phobos, and the 745 m/s for getting to Deimos from Phobos, and you get 2595 m/s of delta-v. That's quite a lot if you ask me.

You need a quite large probe.
Galileo II has over 3 km/sec of delta V, but it is a 12 tons spacecraft!

A large probe or a multi-stage probe: you can imagine a cruise stage, only for the MOI, the aerobraking and the others orbital corrections, and a separate lander for the Deimos descent, the Deimos-Phobos trip and the Phobos final landing. This approach can greatly increase the combined delta-V of your spacecraft.

Well, according to Spaceflight 101, MAVEN has a dry mass of 809 kg and a mass of 2,454 kg at launch. to me, this translate to roughly 1,645 kg of fuel.

MAVEN is powered by six MR-107N engines (same as baselined VESPA, if you look carefully ), which have an Isp ranging from 229 to 232 seconds. They run on hydrazine monoprop, so that makes sense.

Now I use this delta-V calculator, I consider it reliable. if you input the values mentioned earlier (dry mass 809, full mass 2454, Isp 229), you get 2492.02 m/s of delta-V capability. Going with the higher Isp number (232 seconds), you get 2,524.62 m/s of delta-V.

K_Jameson has the right idea with the multistage concept. The cruise stage could deliver the a MAVEN-type probe into Mars orbit. From there, it would have at least 2,000 m/s of delta-V to do the Martian moon tour, and then some left over for a extended mission.

The issue is creating a cruise stage to carry the primary spacecraft. With your launch opportunity, though, it should be able to easily manage the required delta-V to insert into Mars orbit.

The biggest issue is that this approach will maximise delta-V, but also the mass of the probe. Ion thrusters probably aren't doable, so most of your probe is all chemical fuel mass. It may weigh over 4,000 kg in total, and there are not a lot of (cheap) launchers that can toss that much to Mars.

---------- Post added at 10:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

:ninja:

Forget what I just said. This thread changes...dynamically. :lol:

 

[K_Jameson]

K_Jameson, are there any, well, to put it one way, "Clear" views of Efesto, like those "Press Release" images of Galileo II, so I could have some references while trying to model PADSL? Since like I said, It's probably going to look closer to that than anything else.

:thumbup:

 

[Nicholander]

I see, but will the DLL version be fixed, or will we just have to use the multistage Jarvis C?

 

[ISProgram]

Huh. I didn't know the Efesto atmospheric probe was supposed to land.

Also: the Venus Flagship Mission Study. One of the best resources I've ever come upon. I used much of the data and estimates they had to plan for VESPA.

 

[Nicholander]

:thumbup:

Ah, great! :thumbup: I'm going to take a shower first, and then I'll start modelling. (After checking this thread, of course!)

What I'm thinking by the way is something like Efesto, but longer so it can have more space for fuel (It would be longer along the axis (I think that's the term) where the Venus Lander was, and is the same axis where the engine will be. (It was "Inbetween" the antenna and the Lander)), and little "Landing Legs", which are more like little studs to protect the top of the spacecraft from the dust and such of the Martian moons.

EDIT:

Also: the Venus Flagship Mission Study. One of the best resources I've ever come upon. I used much of the data and estimates they had to plan for VESPA.

That. THAT IS FANTASTIC! BrianJ needs to make that a mod NOW! (Sorry, I just had to say that...)

 

[K_Jameson]

Huh. I didn't know the Efesto atmospheric probe was supposed to land.

Landing is a bonus. The last portion of the descent is free-fall; the descent rate, even without parachutes, is pretty slow thanks to the huge atmospheric pression; no real landing legs, only petals that avoid overturning.

Also: the Venus Flagship Mission Study. One of the best resources I've ever come upon. I used much of the data and estimates they had to plan for VESPA.

Excellent reading!

---------- Post added at 10:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------

I see, but will the DLL version be fixed

not soon. Also, the dll beta requires much other work.

 

[ISProgram]

Side view of the baselined VESPA. Just here to be here.

 

[Nicholander]

Just a little question ISProgram, how big is VESPA's atmospheric probe? (What is it's diameter and height?) Because that thing seems awfully big compared to the cruise stage.

 

[ISProgram]

Just a little question ISProgram, how big is VESPA's atmospheric probe? (What is it's diameter and height?) Because that thing seems awfully big compared to the cruise stage.

Actually, that's exactly why the baselined spacecraft isn't happening anymore; there will now be two probes, the orbiter, and the atmospheric balloon, separately. I will detail THAT later.

As for the aeroshell...it's practically identical to the aeroshell in the Venus Flagship Mission, supported upon a MAVEN-derived bus.

The aeroshell is 2.65 m in diameter, ~1.93 m in total height, and masses around 1,700-2,100 kg (slightly heavier than VFM's). The large mass of the capsule is why there are now two missions. It's big.

For comparison, MAVEN's wet mass was 2,454 kg, and the VESPA would've had to be bigger, to structurally be capable of supporting the capsule's own weight as well.

 

[Nicholander]

So you changed it because the capsule would've crushed the orbiter during lift-off. Couldn't you just "Launch it upside down"? By that I mean that in the fairing, there would be a supporting base that the capsule would go in, and on top of that would be the orbiter.

 

[ISProgram]

So you changed it because the capsule would've crushed the orbiter during lift-off. Couldn't you just "Launch it upside down"? By that I mean that in the fairing, there would be a supporting base that the capsule would go in, and on top of that would be the orbiter.

No, though that definitely would've been an issue. The capsule's load would have transmitted through the central cylindrical core of the orbiter; only that part would have to be strong.

The main consideration given was the fact that the combined weight would've been too much for a launcher to send to Venus (except for the Aquarius 104), and because the center of gravity for the stack would change rather drastically the minute the capsule was separated from the orbiter (both conponents are essentially the same mass), as well as the fact that the orbiter would have had to provide all the propulsion to get to Venus, and there would be a lot of fuel expended.

Basically the combined stack would've had delta-V AND center of gravity issues. That's what I reasoned. The launch loading is also a serious issue, but hadn't occurred to me.

 

[Nicholander]

Oh, interesting. But still, I really wished someone made a Venus Flagship Mission mod.

Anyway, I've made a quick little model in SketchUp (I have that too) of PADSL:

For a sense of size, at the top (The hexagonal thing, not including the solar panels) it's 3 meters in diameter and it's 5.11 meters tall. I feel that's a bit too big, so K_Jameson, how long is Efesto? (If by "Top" we mean where the antenna is, but for the sake of my purposes let's exclude the antenna and the probe) Also, what's it's diameter? (Along the same axis as before, and I mean the diameter of the main body. (The 6 sided Hexagon main body))

EDIT: Realized I forgot the little "Landing legs" studs. :facepalm:

 

[ISProgram]

If it's based off Shakespeare, the diameter of the antenna is 3.01 m in diameter.

---------- Post added at 12:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 AM ----------

VESPA with changes; the solar arrays are reduced as suggested by K_Jameson, and the capsule is now smaller, to hold just a small atmospheric probe.

The full 2.65 m capsule will be a separate spacecraft, like the Mars rovers/landers are.

 

[Nicholander]

Interesting, but why would it need to bring that small probe when a separate spacecraft is bringing the main probe?

Since Shakespeare's antenna is about the same diameter of it's main body, I think I got the size reasonably well. Also, sorry I forgot to mention it, but that little circle thing sticking out of the side is an antenna, it's 1.33 m in diameter. (It doesn't have to be big, since Mars is closer to Earth than Uranus.

 

[ISProgram]

Interesting, but why would it need to bring that small probe when a separate spacecraft is bringing the main probe?

:lol: Not really, no. I just thought I would maximixe the amount of science coming from the first VESPA mission, which will be the orbiter.

After VESPA-O(rbit) is in orbit and performing nominal, only then did the Committee authorize IPSA to launch VESPA-A(tmosphere). VESPA-O targeted a 2032 window to Venus; VESPA-A will target a 2034 window, given an ample two years to build the second one. If VESPA-A fails, they will still have the data from VESPA-O atmospheric probe.

I honestly suppose it's really just a storyline thing.

---------- Post added at 01:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 AM ----------

Crap. Just realized I'm gonna have to make a patch!

 

[Nicholander]

Okay, so that makes sense. By the way, what's the "Committee"?

Also, what's so dreadful about making a mission patch that it requires a ?

 

[ISProgram]

Okay, so that makes sense. By the way, what's the "Committee"?

Also, what's so dreadful about making a mission patch that it requires a ?

Um, it's kind of complicated. I don't know the Committee is myself, except that it's a sort of board (like the Decadal survey board), and that they/it has a large influence over IPSA; just like the Decadal survey's "influence" over NASA.

I don't like that "Committee" name either, but it stuck when I was doing a story for a comet/asteroid probe, so it's just...there.

The whole fictional space program project is kinda defunct right now, need to define what direction it will go in.


That was meant as a RANDOM comment, but it has some truth to it. Well, you haven't seen the mission patches I do for my fictional mission, so here's the best one, IMO:

These things take a couple hours to do, and have up to 90(!) different layers to them. Basically, they're a real pain to make, and I'm not creative either. The latest missions, overdue by months, is only really because I can't think of a good mission patch design.

Also, Efesto has a mission patch design.

But this is seriously OT, with the basic VESPA architecture set, I'll need advice on what payload suite VESPA-O should have. I am/was considering baselining the payload suite as being similar/identical to VEX.