HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| Spaceguy5
Spaceguy5
[16889103]
[]
"James H"
# Statistics
Favourites: 23; Deviations: 198; Watchers: 59
Watching: 45; Pageviews: 18288; Comments Made: 104; Friends: 45
# Comments
Comments: 47
Hi there! Would it be possible for me to commission a few of your various Wonderbolts patches? I'm actually hoping to put them on a flight suit that I just ordered. I can pay you with PayPal and I would give you credit for the patch designs when I put them to use.
π: 0 β©: 0
Heh, you should get on here more. I'm currently working on a little something: [link] for my Marspony tumblr: [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
I GIVES YOU LLAMA <3
π: 0 β©: 0
Welcome to ! You are now a sibling, friend, confidant, ally, bosom buddy, pony pal, compadre, chum of chums, home slice, amigo, yadda yadda... In sum, you are a fellow member and we couldn't be happier to have you!
π: 0 β©: 0
I used some of your stock in a quick piece I threw together to test out some techniques. Here's a link and thanks!
π: 0 β©: 0
Is your ship's primary propulsion chemical or nuclear?
π: 0 β©: 1
By design, it's supposed to use VASIMR which is electric, although I did consider nuclear. With how inefficient it is, I don't think chemical propulsion would be useful at all. Right now, I'm actually re-designing -a lot- of parts of the ship for a much larger project (I'm aiming to finish an interior as well), I'll post more details when I start getting things finished.
π: 0 β©: 1
Personally I think using a Bimodal or Trimodal NTR to power VASIMR engines would be the most effective, that way if they fail there's still a way to move. I'm in the process of designing a mars architecture for fun (and to get into college perhaps) that combines elements of the brute force, mars direct and mars to stay methods. Ever used the Atomic Rockets website ([link] )? I've found it extremely helpful.
please excuse the density/ enthusiasm of my response
π: 0 β©: 1
Mars spacecraft architecture is something I love to discuss. If you look at my other comments on here, I've already discussed it quite a bit. As I mentioned earlier, right now I'm making a new architecture for a (perhaps a little too ambitious) project. I'm planning to model it inside and out with fairly high resolution. To make it more realistic and feasible, I'm trying to add in some architecture similar the International Space Station, as well as a few standardized things (tools, hatches, racks, and such) directly from the station. I'm also planning to throw in a TransHab module (TransHab was originally developed for a Mars mission anyways, and is more or less essential in my opinion), my Remotely Operated Robot design (made for a student project a few years ago, but remodeled to be much more realistic), and a few new designs. So far I got the Transhab exterior finished, as well as a storage module, the airlock, a lab/control systems module, and an observatory module (similar to the Cupola) mostly modeled. What I'm missing is a connecting node, a docking port, a crew vehicle and lander, perhaps an expendable supply craft (an important part of constructing the ship will be hauling up tons of extra supplies), a propulsion module, and some goodies for the exterior (such as spare components... "orbital replacement units"). I'm thinking I might model one or two launch vehicles as well, and a martian outpost and associated equipment.
π: 0 β©: 2
I'm really excited to get back to work on this sort of thing once I graduate, but until then, It's research paper and finals for me, for this next week.
And on that note, you should take a look here: [link] I'm on there as Matthew (plus middle initial and last name). At first I presented a somewhat ambitious architecture incorporating NTR's, now I'm looking more towards conventional propellants, which, utilizing ISRU, reusability, aerobrakes, and free returns, is enough to make a Mars mission, IMO.
NTR would face a great deal of political opposition, and would require extensive development.
Vasimr faces enormous problems getting enough kg/kW ratio to perform reasonably, and requires far too much power to make a reasonable flight time. It would be great for Cargo that can take it's time, but if you look into it, you'll see that things like "Mars in 30 days" require absurd kg/Kw (also known as alpha) ratios that are far beyond anything current or near-tech, and that one design even involved a powerplant on the order of 200 MW. In other words, it just requires too much power to meet it's promises, and isn't quiet there yet in performance. It's promising as a future technology, especially with fusion technology in development, but for near-term missions, I would stick to chemical propulsion, mostly for costs and simply "doability". On that front - you can read about what I mean by "doability" on the Mars forums I linked above.
Some info on Vasimr:
[link]
[link] (39 days using 200 MW and extreme alpha ratio of 1 kg/kW)
[link]
(Very extensive: [link] )
But, the real clencher is page 11 of this document: [link]
The power efficiency for fission powerplants required for a VASIMR manned mission is three orders of magnitude above what's been studied, and four orders of magnitude above what's been flown, as listed in that document.
However, heavily to your advantage, either SAFE-400 was just excluded, or nuclear reactor technology has improved significantly since then, and now some test ground reactors have reached ~5 kg/kW [link] (SAFE-400) it should be noted, though, that that mass figure does not include the radiative cooling system needed for spaceflight use.
For economic and practical purposes, though, I would still consider conventional propellants. (As I said, they are adequate using the right architecture - see the "Sustainable Access to Mars" thread: [link] )
Later in the century, either with highly efficient powerplants or fusion technology, I would start looking at Vasimr, more, just not in the next two or three decades, unless there's a big breakthrough.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree, trans-hab is really useful, lemme just upload my concepts,
Personally I think a good design for a reusable ascent/descent vehicle would be a small ROMBUS derivative, it would be able to easily take off from the surface and land on Phobos
ROMBUS links below
[link]
[link]
π: 0 β©: 1
I think taking off from the surface of Phobos would be very, very easy considering that escape velocity is 25 mph, and that gravity is so small that it may as well not even have gravity.
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah, that's why the first step in my architecture would be a Mhobos outpost, that way the Mars Base could be set up remotely
π: 0 β©: 1
[link] 
π: 0 β©: 1
Now for the main base on mars, I would have a semi-rigid 1st floor composing of an airlock and all the necessary supplies(sanitary facilities, kitchenette, etc) and the 2nd floor would be an inflatable Transhab derivative that would be reinforced upon completion, you can see what it looks like in my gallery in Base Elements and Mars Base
also what do you think of ROMBUS?
π: 0 β©: 1
I got some images of my airlock's WIP uploaded. So far I think I got the exterior complete. I also modeled most of the interior of the EVA toolboxes, added the airlock hatch and hatch cover, and an experiment similar to MISSE and MEEP (although it isn't colored yet). I have 2 more module exteriors -almost- finished.
π: 0 β©: 1
wow! that looks pretty good, I just started using AutoCAD so you must have tons of practice
btw any comments on my architecture designs?
π: 0 β©: 1
I think they look nice, particularly the Mars surface equipment. Also what I use is Inventor, which is made by the same people as AutoCAD. I took a CAD class in high school that started out with AutoCAD then switched to Inventor, which is sort of similar (you make 2D sketches, although it's much easier to draw with) but then you easily convert them into 3D. If you can, you should definitely check it out. If you major in Mechanical or Aerospace engineering, you'll definitely be using a program similar to Inventor (Such as SolidWorks, Pro Engineering, CATIA, or maybe even Inventor) in college and on the job. The great thing about CAD is that you can easily add tons of detail to an object by making a detailed model (such as a handrail or one of the "waffle-pattern" tiles on the outside of the ship) once then copying it everywhere you need it. It saves a lot of time.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm just trying to figure out how to rotate a model on the proper axis, right now AutoCAD is the only engineering product of theirs that runs on my OS.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey, how can you become an aerospace engineering student?
π: 0 β©: 1
Simple! By being really good at math and physics (or at least being willing to become good at math and physics), and going to one of the schools that offer aerospace engineering (there's about 50 in the US). From there, you should learn all you need to be a professional aerospace engineer. Right now I'm going to the University of Texas at Arlington, although last year I went to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (very expensive, but one of the best) and soon I want to transfer to either Purdue or San Diego State University.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm pretty good at math. (I'm in 10th grade)
Do you play Orbiter (space flight simulator)?
π: 0 β©: 1
I used to, but not so much anymore.
π: 0 β©: 1
I can get to Mars, but I haven't learned how to land on it yet. (I can land on Earth as well as the Moon)
π: 0 β©: 0
As a fellow space enthusiast, you enter the "friend" category of "watch"
π: 0 β©: 1
Definitely adding you too! I haven't met many space enthusiasts on DeviantArt (Or people who play Orbiter in general).
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay, I see some orbiter screenshots now
Hah, I didn't know you flew orbiter until I saw this comment!
Unless I decide I want to mod some of my real-life or sci fi ideas in, Space Shuttle Mission 2007 will probably have me stolen away once it gets here in a few days
π: 0 β©: 1
Just wait till the next version of Space Shuttle Mission comes out. If you haven't seen the previews yet or heard about their planned features, it's amazing. Definitely register on the forums, they have a great community.
π: 0 β©: 3
Oh - I just remembered I got it from Amazon.com. I guess I can't register on the forums
(It says you have to legally own a copy to sign up for the forums, and they'll verify the email address)
I guess I'll try with the amazon email, but I doubt that'll work...
π: 0 β©: 0
Ahck. I'll have to find out what email address I used when I bought the game
π: 0 β©: 0
I hope you mean it's an update... I already ordered it and it's in the mail, on the way
π: 0 β©: 1
It's a totally new game that's going to be muuuuch better than 2007. It won't be released any time soon though, it's still in alpha. Also having the boxset should still allow you to register on the forums. If you can't figure it out, try looking under the FAQ, and if that doesn't help, contact info@space-shuttle-mission.com
[link]
Also definitely check out the wiki: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
hey i used your space sky in this [link] hope you donΒ΄t mind
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course not, I like it when my work is used. Although, the link is giving a 404?
π: 0 β©: 1
is it? how about this one? [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you for the favorite on "Mission Plus Ten" and the watch.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's one of my favorites. I saw it on your website a few weeks ago and almost bought a print (maybe once I get more money).
π: 0 β©: 0
Why you didn't tell me you have DA account? O_O Well I'm watch you now
π: 0 β©: 1
Why didn't you tell me you did? = p I only started actually using it recently though
π: 0 β©: 0