Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tryrar]

One thing to keep in mind though is we WILL need to pack an additional power supply that can be transported to the ground if we go this route, since we cannot rely on the ship's reactor to power everything(that is, unless we do something like park the ship in geosynchronous orbit and beam down power via a microwave power transmitter. Will still need a power receiver in that case though)

[VoidSlayer]

It would also be possible to land most of whatever you are bringing then land the ship, for scrap if nothing else.  If you really want to remove atmospheric landing capability entirely I can make a mod for it that removes even basic re-entry devices.

As a warning, reusable spacecraft of this era have been designed for two specific purposes, landing on Mars or Earth.  Landing a smaller vessel will be trivial if it is designed for the target, but something which can land in multiple different conditions would be a more difficult project. 

I take it at some point you want some sort of lander researched that can land, then take off, multiple times?  Any such device would still likely take liquid fuel, which you will have to carry, but it is doable.  Some sort of tri-propellant single stage to orbit vehicle?

[tryrar]

Yeah, that would probably be the route we'd take if we go with shuttlebays, possibly with auxiliary fuel tanks built into the bay for refueling purposes.

Hmm, I also wanna see what we can get with portable cutting edge fission reactors. Not quite as environmentally friendly as a fusion reactor, but if we design well we can get say, a 100 MW reactor that's still relatively portable and can power around 5 years without refueling-maybe something like a thorium salt reactor?(thorium has a VERY long half-life, so we can store it separately)

[VoidSlayer]

Huh, from what I am reading, while a 1.5 type reactor would require relatively little fuel, it needs substantial amounts of uranium (tons) or transuranic waste to start up or restart, does not produce secondary fuel products and has numerous side reactions which could foul the system or shut down the reaction.  Also numerous highly toxic fluids used.

All perfectly doable!

[10ebbor10]

Alternatively, how about a two part ship, with an orbital component and a re-useable landing component.

Maybe a pocket space elevator?

[VoidSlayer]

If you would like, the research could be changed to a hull mounted reusable lander, it would still take up space due to fuel and docking needs.  As you will not be landing on an airfield it will also need to use aerobraking in the atmosphere and have extra fuel reserves to land safely.

The space/mass of a cable alone for a space elevator would probably exceed your ship in it's entirety, for an earth like planet.  Building a functional space elevator would be on par with the costs of building another Ark.

[tryrar]

Hrm, shuttlebay or ship section that is a reusable lander. I'm more for the shuttlebay myself, might need a couple of those to reasonably get things out of orbit in a quick timeframe but I like the image of shuttles descending to earth. besides, if we have them us compact fusion torches we can refuel directly from the ship.

[VoidSlayer]

No, they won't be using fusion torches.  The only thing I know of that would allow such a liftoff would be detonating the equivalent of a fission or fusion bomb under the craft to propel it forward.

Fusion torches are about low delta-V over very long periods of time, as far as I understand the theoretical way they work.  Generating more would cause the magnetic fields to destabilize.

[10ebbor10]

How about a gasseus closed cycle nuclear drive. Perhaps a nuclear lightbulb. It has great thrust and an impulse 4 to 10 times better than conventional engines. Also, no radioactive pollution, if it doesn't explode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb

The space/mass of a cable alone for a space elevator would probably exceed your ship in it's entirety, for an earth like planet.  Building a functional space elevator would be on par with the costs of building another Ark.

Actually the mass of the cable for an earth like planet would be less than 100 tonnes. 60 ton for the counterweight. That's less than a single of the shuttles boosters.

Link

[VoidSlayer]

How about a gasseus closed cycle nuclear drive. Perhaps a nuclear lightbulb. It has great thrust and an impulse 4 to 10 times better than conventional engines. Also, no radioactive pollution, if it doesn't explode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb

The space/mass of a cable alone for a space elevator would probably exceed your ship in it's entirety, for an earth like planet.  Building a functional space elevator would be on par with the costs of building another Ark.

Actually the mass of the cable for an earth like planet would be less than 100 tonnes. 60 ton for the counterweight. That's less than a single of the shuttles boosters.

Link

Ahh great, good to know, that is a nice system for the nuclear lightbulb.  Your research result however.. was not that good.  I would do a rewrite if you had gotten a better result but... next turn maybe?  Post soon.

[VoidSlayer]

Turn 1 - Jan 2076 - Mar 2076

[]Build Orders:
        []Slot 1: Expanded Superstructure
        []Slot 2 : Expanded Superstructure

[]Cargo Orders: My first Factory

[]Research Order: Shuttle Bay

[]Event Selection: Leadership Profile: Skilled and Talented


The Ark DNS Destiny is off, fusion torches dwarfing the backup ion engines.  The other two follow suit, heading off into the cold depths of space, towards other stars.  Several work crews have already left their posts, some leaving with the last of the navy to fight for extra weeks or days or seconds of time for you to escape.  Many just took off, some in space craft to the outer reaches to hide, some without any protective gear at all.

The few who remained behind and not to be part of any Outpost, began disassembling one of the production factories, soon it would be boxed up and shipped into the cargo hold of the Settler.  They would not make it, but it would be a legacy of a kind.

Meanwhile large scale construction was being done to alter the original survey vessel into a true interstellar craft.  The rear is extended, a thinner tail to contain the power and thrusters at a distance from the crew.  The middle is extended outwards as well; feeding her enough to 'expand her waistline' as one foreman put it.

By the end the ship has almost twice the volume, all efficiently built to accept new systems.  The front third of the vessel is the only part of the original still visible, the detection array now standing out like black and red eyes on some strange beast.

Several engineers looking over the physics of landing the thing on a planet get the idea of not landing it at all.  A shuttle bay for some landing craft.  Or a detachable shuttle riding on the outside.  Or the ship could detach in parts and land separately!  There were a half dozen theoretical systems, scrapped because of the predominance of cheaper rocket systems.  Research Roll 36 Soon a fight breaks out amongst the intranet and in the halls over the best solution.  Tensions which had been held in check are released.  One man even runs around hitting people with a yo-yo for some reason.  Friendships are broken, plans are hastily drawn up and abandoned and little progress is made.

By the end of March the plan laid out for the design committee is for a standard basic shuttle bay, room to store ships and maintain them, let them exit the main ship and dock.  A limited fuel supply can be included as well.  Several sizes are proposed, allowing small to medium sized launders.  It can be designed to be flush near the ground on a optimal landing, allowing it to double as a hanger.

Landing craft plans are also presented, however they have the limitations of using a lot of fuel and needing specific conditions to operate optimally.  Ironically the Mega Rocket subsidiary, which had held a near monopoly on manufacturing new ships, had never funded more advanced planetary rockets, "R&D is too expensive to replace proven designs," as Donavhan Chu was fond of saying.

At least he was stowed away in a cryo tube far away from the project for now.


New Modification available:

Shuttle Bay - S/M/L RU 2/3/4 Size 10/18/34 Mass 3/5/9 Allows the outpost ship to hold, make limited repairs to and launch space worthy craft.  Multiple smaller ships can be held in the larger designs.  Also includes one unit of rocket fuel for reentry assist and takeoff from a planetary surface.  Provides 8/16/32 Shuttle space.

New cargo available:

Rocket Fuel - RU .5 Size 1 Mass 2  Concentrated liquid oxygen and hydrogen derivative fuels and some more advanced variants depending on engine type.  Enough for 2 orbit to surface round trips on an earth-like planet for a medium craft.

New Spacecraft available (counts as Cargo)

Cargo Lander - S/M/L RU 4/5/7 Size 8/16/32  Mass 3/4/6  A simple reusable liquid rocket with short term life support, electric batteries for system operations and a cargo hold emphasizing survival of the cargo over unloading speed.  The cargo hold may be filled during transit but will be hard to access.  A feathered reentry system, reusable parachutes and smaller maneuvering rockets allow limited fuel use during landing while a dual use rocket for liftoff allows maximum efficiency.  This vehicle is designed for landing in an earth-like atmosphere and gravity and will suffer poor quality outside of it.  Can carry 5/10/20 cargo at maximum mass loads of 8/16/32 down to the surface.  Not designed to bring cargo up in significant quantities.  Passengers may be transported by crowding the control room (2 pilots normally, can fit 4 more clown car style) or in any number in the cargo hold, for a bumpy ride.

36 gets you existing technology.


Event: 34 Minor bonus - Research +20 this turn or +10 for turn 2 3 4 5 and 6 - Following the fiasco with the shuttle design incident Dr. Velantes has taken direct control of all R&D developments.

Event: Ark infrastructure - The Ghoul's Dilemma - With the Arks departed all remaining areas of Ceres base are beginning to be cannibalized.  Significant damage was done by the departing crews stripping everything they could but some remains, and they could as yet be repurposed to assist in building the Settler.

       Choose 1:
          A. +20 RU ; Break it all down and grab the good parts.
          B. +1 build slot on turn 3 and 4  ; Take the most intact systems and use them to supplement our current scaffolding.
          C. -10 RU, +1 build slot on turn 3 and 4, +1 additional build slot turn 2 3 4 5 and 6  ; Expand the scaffolding and send the work crews over to work on the ship.

Note:  You are unlikely to get additional build slots, option A sacrifices the additional last minute build slot.


Turn 2: Apr 2076 - June 2076 Decisions

[]Build Orders:
        []Slot 1:
        []Slot 2:
        ([]Slot 3: if you choose option C)

[]Cargo/Ship Orders:

[]Research Order:

[]Research Event: Choose: +20 this turn or +10 this turn and all additional turns

[]Event Selection: Ark Infrastructure - The Ghoul's Dilemma
                                   A. +20 RU; no additional build slots
                                   B. additional build slot on turn 3 and 4
                                   C. -10 RU; additional build slot on all remaining turns and +1 on turns 3 and 4


Outpost Overview

    Ship: DNS Settler

    Hull Design: Survey Vessel

    Resources 80/190 RU
    Size 0/100
    Mass 20+30=50
    Power Use 5/0 MW
    Cargo 10/10

    Installed Modifications:
        Expanded superstructure x2

    Installed Modules:
        Focus Detection Array (Integrated; no mass/size, 2 MW)
        Modular Advanced Lab(integrated; no mass/size, 3 MW)
        Small Cargo bay (Integrated; no mass/size; cargo still has mass)

   Cargo:
        My First Factory kit (Turn 4)

    Warning!
    Life Support
    Cryogenic pods
    Power
    Thrusters
    Command

[tryrar]

Event Selection:B
Build orders:
 [] Command centre (electronic central computer)
 []He-3 MCF Fusion generator /w external radiators Mk 2.

Research Order:Gasseus closed cycle nuclear drives for better shuttlecraft using that are able to land in a wide variety of planet types(And possibly for ship usage as well).

Research Event:+10 all turns

[10ebbor10]

Question :
 - Can we stuff cargo in the shuttles during transit?

I have an idea which might seem just a tad crazy. Quite simply, the idea is that we don't build a reactor, instead going for a fusion torch and a minimal power consumption loadout. Now, annoyingly my set-up comes 0.5 power short but that could be resolved by building a RTG, or better, upgrading the fusion torch.

Advantages are that travel time is reduced to 18 years, and that we get a significant amount of surplus RU. After all, we should remember that since we do have the intention of landing with shuttles, rather than the ship, that we should invest more in cargo than in installed equipment, since the equipment will be in orbit.

Disadvantage is that there's a risk that in case of dramatic research failure, we'll have to launch at turn 6.

So :

Event Selection: B
Build orders:
 [] Command centre (electronic central computer)
 [] Mk II Cryopods

Research Order: Improved Fusion Torch (Ideally, focus on increased efficiency, lowering fuel consumption and increasing power production. Increased Thrust/Decreased size is also nice.)

Research Event:+10 all turns

If the tech doesn't work out, we can always build a fusion generator on turn 3, meaning we only wasted one research.

Spoiler: Plan (click to show/hide)

Life Support
  - Biodome
Cryogenic pods
   - Mk II Cryopods
Power
   - Fusion Torch
Thrusters
   - Fusion Torch
Command
   - Command Center

Turn 2
- Command Center
- Mk II Cryopods

Research : Upgraded Fusion Torch

- Resources 95/200 RU
- Size 22/100
- Mass 20+33=53

Turn 3

- Fusion Torch
- Biodome
- ?

- Nuclear Lightbulb

- Resources 112/200 RU
- Size 39/100
- Mass 20+46=66


Turn 4

- Large Shuttle Hangar
- Medium Shuttle Hangar
- ?

- Exterior solar pannels

- Resources 119/200 RU
- Size 91/100
- Mass 20+60=80

Turn 5

- Solar Pannels +X?
- Fuel tank ?


- Resources 131/200 RU - x?
- Size 99/100
- Mass 20+60=92 + x?


Cargo :

Shuttle Space :
1 * Large Lander
1 * Medium Lander


Total Cargo Space : 40

- My little Factory
-

[tryrar]

Hmm, that IS a wild, off the wall idea! I think we can probably get away with something like a large battery array rather than improving the fusion torch (unless we get something like better fuel economy, or coast for 10 years). I would rather push for better shuttlecraft since if we're going this route I'd like to see if we can get a closed-cycle gas-core Nuclear Thermal engine for both the small craft and the ship-and forgo using ³He entirely and use thorium. Did you know that by volume thorium is about as common as lead in the Earth's crust? Given it's half-life that should hold true for many planets we might encounter, plus I bet we can also have it double as a main ship reactor and still get about the thrust of a VSI Magnetoplasma Rocket. Also, as I understand how thorium reactors work, you'd only need to inject more thorium every few months rather than constant flow, and it produces a LOT less un-recyclable radioactive waste than standard reactors(and we can simply eject that out the airlock, or even better design an automated system for dumping it into space)


So, I'd rather we do this:

    Event Selection: B
    Build orders:
     [] Command centre (electronic central computer)
     [] Mk II Cryopods

    Research Order:Gas-Core Closed Cycle Nuclear Thermal Engine(Ideally, it can be shrunk small enough for shuttlecraft, and can double as a main ship reactor. It should also ideally run on the thorium cycle rather than the uranium cycle, since that is much more efficient)

    Research Event:+10 all turns

[10ebbor10]

Well, worst case we stuff a few RTG's in the hold. On a side note, I'm not so sure about a gaseous reactor as main ship engine. All the current techs have specific velocity in the 10-300 km/s range, whereas the nuclear lightbulb is stuck in the 10-30 km/s range. So it's much less fuel efficient, however it's thrust can be 2-3 orders of magnitude greater.

Here's a list of other alternatives for your enjoyement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion#Table_of_methods