Early Spaceflight Designs

[aramis]

A lot depends upon who, how, and why the FTLD comes in to being, and just how much space exposure time it takes.

If an FTL drive takes just a few hours of N-Space exposure, then the limited manned space flight capability is rather minimal in impact.

If, on the other hand, you can't jump til 20AU, we're unlikely to use it until someone else comes in.

Likewise, a gravitics are a key. If, for example, you can generate a 20-G "volume accelleration", (IE, everything in the affected volume is accellerated 20G in the same direction), people will tolerate 20+ G's no problem; essentially it will be free-fall.

If, on the other hand, gravitics provide a point-source thrust (IE, simply push the drive unit) there is little advantage over conventional thrust, and people will be limited highly in what they can tolerate, since they will be accelerated by the floor, not the drive. MT drives seem to be this type.

So, if gravitics provides the first type, and high G's, then Missions elsewhere might be extremely doable.

 

[shield]

There are some example designs in Arrival vengance, and in the Dean Files on the Missouri Archive.

Cheers
Richard

 

[shield]

There are some example designs in Arrival vengance, and in the Dean Files on the Missouri Archive.

Cheers
Richard

 

[shield]

There are some example designs in Arrival vengance, and in the Dean Files on the Missouri Archive.

Cheers
Richard

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Old Badger:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Find Hard TImes. The articles got errata applied when included there.

What I am thinking about is using this for coming up with an alternate background, not unlike Michel Vaillancourt's TL11 Near-Earth campaign.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I loved that web page (TNEC - The Near Earth Campaign). Flavourful and inspirational. Several very good CT ideas. I'm happy to see that I wasn't its only fan

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Old Badger:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Find Hard TImes. The articles got errata applied when included there.

What I am thinking about is using this for coming up with an alternate background, not unlike Michel Vaillancourt's TL11 Near-Earth campaign.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I loved that web page (TNEC - The Near Earth Campaign). Flavourful and inspirational. Several very good CT ideas. I'm happy to see that I wasn't its only fan

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Old Badger:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Find Hard TImes. The articles got errata applied when included there.

What I am thinking about is using this for coming up with an alternate background, not unlike Michel Vaillancourt's TL11 Near-Earth campaign.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I loved that web page (TNEC - The Near Earth Campaign). Flavourful and inspirational. Several very good CT ideas. I'm happy to see that I wasn't its only fan

 

[vraymond]

Originally posted by Aramis:
A lot depends upon who, how, and why the FTLD comes in to being, and just how much space exposure time it takes.

If an FTL drive takes just a few hours of N-Space exposure, then the limited manned space flight capability is rather minimal in impact.

If, on the other hand, you can't jump til 20AU, we're unlikely to use it until someone else comes in.

Likewise, a gravitics are a key. If, for example, you can generate a 20-G "volume accelleration", (IE, everything in the affected volume is accellerated 20G in the same direction), people will tolerate 20+ G's no problem; essentially it will be free-fall.

If, on the other hand, gravitics provide a point-source thrust (IE, simply push the drive unit) there is little advantage over conventional thrust, and people will be limited highly in what they can tolerate, since they will be accelerated by the floor, not the drive. MT drives seem to be this type.

So, if gravitics provides the first type, and high G's, then Missions elsewhere might be extremely doable.

I see where you are going, and you bring up some good questions.

Your point about gravitics is interesting; I'm thinking along relatively conservative lines, and wanting to use relatively "less advanced" technologies for normal space thrust, including chemical and fusion rockets.

Assuming for the moment that FTL travel is independent of gravitic control, that would mean having to come up with exploratory ships where fuel (and power) become fairly important issues. Once gravitics of the sort you suggest become possible, then much more exploration and expansion can happen. My question is: what happens before that?

 

[vraymond]

Originally posted by Aramis:
A lot depends upon who, how, and why the FTLD comes in to being, and just how much space exposure time it takes.

If an FTL drive takes just a few hours of N-Space exposure, then the limited manned space flight capability is rather minimal in impact.

If, on the other hand, you can't jump til 20AU, we're unlikely to use it until someone else comes in.

Likewise, a gravitics are a key. If, for example, you can generate a 20-G "volume accelleration", (IE, everything in the affected volume is accellerated 20G in the same direction), people will tolerate 20+ G's no problem; essentially it will be free-fall.

If, on the other hand, gravitics provide a point-source thrust (IE, simply push the drive unit) there is little advantage over conventional thrust, and people will be limited highly in what they can tolerate, since they will be accelerated by the floor, not the drive. MT drives seem to be this type.

So, if gravitics provides the first type, and high G's, then Missions elsewhere might be extremely doable.

I see where you are going, and you bring up some good questions.

Your point about gravitics is interesting; I'm thinking along relatively conservative lines, and wanting to use relatively "less advanced" technologies for normal space thrust, including chemical and fusion rockets.

Assuming for the moment that FTL travel is independent of gravitic control, that would mean having to come up with exploratory ships where fuel (and power) become fairly important issues. Once gravitics of the sort you suggest become possible, then much more exploration and expansion can happen. My question is: what happens before that?

 

[vraymond]

Originally posted by Aramis:
A lot depends upon who, how, and why the FTLD comes in to being, and just how much space exposure time it takes.

If an FTL drive takes just a few hours of N-Space exposure, then the limited manned space flight capability is rather minimal in impact.

If, on the other hand, you can't jump til 20AU, we're unlikely to use it until someone else comes in.

Likewise, a gravitics are a key. If, for example, you can generate a 20-G "volume accelleration", (IE, everything in the affected volume is accellerated 20G in the same direction), people will tolerate 20+ G's no problem; essentially it will be free-fall.

If, on the other hand, gravitics provide a point-source thrust (IE, simply push the drive unit) there is little advantage over conventional thrust, and people will be limited highly in what they can tolerate, since they will be accelerated by the floor, not the drive. MT drives seem to be this type.

So, if gravitics provides the first type, and high G's, then Missions elsewhere might be extremely doable.

I see where you are going, and you bring up some good questions.

Your point about gravitics is interesting; I'm thinking along relatively conservative lines, and wanting to use relatively "less advanced" technologies for normal space thrust, including chemical and fusion rockets.

Assuming for the moment that FTL travel is independent of gravitic control, that would mean having to come up with exploratory ships where fuel (and power) become fairly important issues. Once gravitics of the sort you suggest become possible, then much more exploration and expansion can happen. My question is: what happens before that?

 

[aramis]

Depends a lot upon your tech assumptions.

The realities are that space is EXCEEDINGLY hostile, and is dangerous even aboard ships, due to cosmic rays.

So the question becomes "what's the acceptable CR Dose?" That happens to be a question NASA is looking in to; the current answer seems to be "A couple months at most."

With chem rockets, you have a few minutes of impulse. You are going nowhere fast, and few places at all. Fastest useful surface to surface puts Mars more than 2 months.

With Fusion Rockets, assuming you can control the radiation issues for the crew, one could readily burn at .1G the whole way to Mars. 7 days fuel at 0.1g, closest approach (each further entry is 1 day's less fuel)
1 m/s/s Fuel: 604800 s = 1 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 559788 s = 0 w 6 d 11 : 29 : 48 s 279894 m/s max
freefall: 0 s = 0 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 518400 s = 0 w 6 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 561440 s = 0 w 6 d 11 : 57 : 20 s 259200 m/s max
freefall: 43040 s = 0 w 0 d 11 : 57 : 20
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 432000 s = 0 w 5 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 578688 s = 0 w 6 d 16 : 44 : 48 s 216000 m/s max
freefall: 146688 s = 0 w 1 d 16 : 44 : 48
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 345600 s = 0 w 4 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 626158 s = 1 w 0 d 5 : 55 : 58 s 172800 m/s max
freefall: 280558 s = 0 w 3 d 5 : 55 : 58
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 259200 s = 0 w 3 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 734078 s = 1 w 1 d 11 : 54 : 38 s 129600 m/s max
freefall: 474878 s = 0 w 5 d 11 : 54 : 38
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 172800 s = 0 w 2 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 993114 s = 1 w 4 d 11 : 51 : 54 s 86400 m/s max
freefall: 820314 s = 1 w 2 d 11 : 51 : 54
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 86400 s = 0 w 1 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 1856628 s = 3 w 0 d 11 : 43 : 48 s 43200 m/s max
freefall: 1770228 s = 2 w 6 d 11 : 43 : 48

Now, at 1G
10 m/s/s Fuel: 86400 s = 0 w 1 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 224544 s = 0 w 2 d 14 : 22 : 24 s 432000 m/s max
freefall: 138144 s = 0 w 1 d 14 : 22 : 24
-
10 m/s/s Fuel: 172800 s = 0 w 2 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 177072 s = 0 w 2 d 1 : 11 : 12 s 864000 m/s max
freefall: 4272 s = 0 w 0 d 1 : 11 : 12
-
10 m/s/s Fuel: 259200 s = 0 w 3 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 177020 s = 0 w 2 d 1 : 10 : 20 s 885100 m/s max
freefall: 0 s = 0 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0

Now, with canonical 100D jump limits, and no solar jump masking, Mars is safe for exploration at 0.1 G with at least 2 days of burn, and almost safe at 1 day's burn.
Jupiter, however, is 4 times the distance.... and is jump distance.

The problem is the fuel constraints. I don't have HT to hand, and so can't look up and figure the fuel maxima.

Once you get point-thrust (standard traveller) gravitics, endurance goes to match powerplant; saturn and even uranus are reachable under constant 1g thrust.

Once you get field accelerators, you can get Jupiter in really low times, and mars at closest in hours.

 

[aramis]

Depends a lot upon your tech assumptions.

The realities are that space is EXCEEDINGLY hostile, and is dangerous even aboard ships, due to cosmic rays.

So the question becomes "what's the acceptable CR Dose?" That happens to be a question NASA is looking in to; the current answer seems to be "A couple months at most."

With chem rockets, you have a few minutes of impulse. You are going nowhere fast, and few places at all. Fastest useful surface to surface puts Mars more than 2 months.

With Fusion Rockets, assuming you can control the radiation issues for the crew, one could readily burn at .1G the whole way to Mars. 7 days fuel at 0.1g, closest approach (each further entry is 1 day's less fuel)
1 m/s/s Fuel: 604800 s = 1 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 559788 s = 0 w 6 d 11 : 29 : 48 s 279894 m/s max
freefall: 0 s = 0 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 518400 s = 0 w 6 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 561440 s = 0 w 6 d 11 : 57 : 20 s 259200 m/s max
freefall: 43040 s = 0 w 0 d 11 : 57 : 20
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 432000 s = 0 w 5 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 578688 s = 0 w 6 d 16 : 44 : 48 s 216000 m/s max
freefall: 146688 s = 0 w 1 d 16 : 44 : 48
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 345600 s = 0 w 4 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 626158 s = 1 w 0 d 5 : 55 : 58 s 172800 m/s max
freefall: 280558 s = 0 w 3 d 5 : 55 : 58
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 259200 s = 0 w 3 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 734078 s = 1 w 1 d 11 : 54 : 38 s 129600 m/s max
freefall: 474878 s = 0 w 5 d 11 : 54 : 38
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 172800 s = 0 w 2 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 993114 s = 1 w 4 d 11 : 51 : 54 s 86400 m/s max
freefall: 820314 s = 1 w 2 d 11 : 51 : 54
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 86400 s = 0 w 1 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 1856628 s = 3 w 0 d 11 : 43 : 48 s 43200 m/s max
freefall: 1770228 s = 2 w 6 d 11 : 43 : 48

Now, at 1G
10 m/s/s Fuel: 86400 s = 0 w 1 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 224544 s = 0 w 2 d 14 : 22 : 24 s 432000 m/s max
freefall: 138144 s = 0 w 1 d 14 : 22 : 24
-
10 m/s/s Fuel: 172800 s = 0 w 2 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 177072 s = 0 w 2 d 1 : 11 : 12 s 864000 m/s max
freefall: 4272 s = 0 w 0 d 1 : 11 : 12
-
10 m/s/s Fuel: 259200 s = 0 w 3 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 177020 s = 0 w 2 d 1 : 10 : 20 s 885100 m/s max
freefall: 0 s = 0 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0

Now, with canonical 100D jump limits, and no solar jump masking, Mars is safe for exploration at 0.1 G with at least 2 days of burn, and almost safe at 1 day's burn.
Jupiter, however, is 4 times the distance.... and is jump distance.

The problem is the fuel constraints. I don't have HT to hand, and so can't look up and figure the fuel maxima.

Once you get point-thrust (standard traveller) gravitics, endurance goes to match powerplant; saturn and even uranus are reachable under constant 1g thrust.

Once you get field accelerators, you can get Jupiter in really low times, and mars at closest in hours.

 

[aramis]

Depends a lot upon your tech assumptions.

The realities are that space is EXCEEDINGLY hostile, and is dangerous even aboard ships, due to cosmic rays.

So the question becomes "what's the acceptable CR Dose?" That happens to be a question NASA is looking in to; the current answer seems to be "A couple months at most."

With chem rockets, you have a few minutes of impulse. You are going nowhere fast, and few places at all. Fastest useful surface to surface puts Mars more than 2 months.

With Fusion Rockets, assuming you can control the radiation issues for the crew, one could readily burn at .1G the whole way to Mars. 7 days fuel at 0.1g, closest approach (each further entry is 1 day's less fuel)
1 m/s/s Fuel: 604800 s = 1 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 559788 s = 0 w 6 d 11 : 29 : 48 s 279894 m/s max
freefall: 0 s = 0 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 518400 s = 0 w 6 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 561440 s = 0 w 6 d 11 : 57 : 20 s 259200 m/s max
freefall: 43040 s = 0 w 0 d 11 : 57 : 20
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 432000 s = 0 w 5 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 578688 s = 0 w 6 d 16 : 44 : 48 s 216000 m/s max
freefall: 146688 s = 0 w 1 d 16 : 44 : 48
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 345600 s = 0 w 4 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 626158 s = 1 w 0 d 5 : 55 : 58 s 172800 m/s max
freefall: 280558 s = 0 w 3 d 5 : 55 : 58
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 259200 s = 0 w 3 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 734078 s = 1 w 1 d 11 : 54 : 38 s 129600 m/s max
freefall: 474878 s = 0 w 5 d 11 : 54 : 38
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 172800 s = 0 w 2 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 993114 s = 1 w 4 d 11 : 51 : 54 s 86400 m/s max
freefall: 820314 s = 1 w 2 d 11 : 51 : 54
-
1 m/s/s Fuel: 86400 s = 0 w 1 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 1856628 s = 3 w 0 d 11 : 43 : 48 s 43200 m/s max
freefall: 1770228 s = 2 w 6 d 11 : 43 : 48

Now, at 1G
10 m/s/s Fuel: 86400 s = 0 w 1 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 224544 s = 0 w 2 d 14 : 22 : 24 s 432000 m/s max
freefall: 138144 s = 0 w 1 d 14 : 22 : 24
-
10 m/s/s Fuel: 172800 s = 0 w 2 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 177072 s = 0 w 2 d 1 : 11 : 12 s 864000 m/s max
freefall: 4272 s = 0 w 0 d 1 : 11 : 12
-
10 m/s/s Fuel: 259200 s = 0 w 3 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 177020 s = 0 w 2 d 1 : 10 : 20 s 885100 m/s max
freefall: 0 s = 0 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0

Now, with canonical 100D jump limits, and no solar jump masking, Mars is safe for exploration at 0.1 G with at least 2 days of burn, and almost safe at 1 day's burn.
Jupiter, however, is 4 times the distance.... and is jump distance.

The problem is the fuel constraints. I don't have HT to hand, and so can't look up and figure the fuel maxima.

Once you get point-thrust (standard traveller) gravitics, endurance goes to match powerplant; saturn and even uranus are reachable under constant 1g thrust.

Once you get field accelerators, you can get Jupiter in really low times, and mars at closest in hours.

 

[vraymond]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Depends a lot upon your tech assumptions.
(snip)
With Fusion Rockets, assuming you can control the radiation issues for the crew, one could readily burn at .1G the whole way to Mars. 7 days fuel at 0.1g, closest approach (each further entry is 1 day's less fuel)
1 m/s/s Fuel: 604800 s = 1 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 559788 s = 0 w 6 d 11 : 29 : 48 s 279894 m/s max
freefall: 0 s = 0 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
(snippage of much goodness)
Now, with canonical 100D jump limits, and no solar jump masking, Mars is safe for exploration at 0.1 G with at least 2 days of burn, and almost safe at 1 day's burn.
Jupiter, however, is 4 times the distance.... and is jump distance.

I really appreciate you spelling out the nuts'n'bolts of what it would take to do some of this. That having been said, could you elaborate on what you mean by Jupiter is "jump distance"?

If by that you mean Jupiter is far enough away to make a "micro-jump" a reasonable proposition, then the development of "jump drive" would probably get used first for in-system exploration, with something of a longing look towards interstellar flight. It would make jump technology rather interesting in a much longer technology maturation curve, as older jump drives might not be rated for interstellar travel.

The problem is the fuel constraints. I don't have HT to hand, and so can't look up and figure the fuel maxima.

The fuel issues are going to be fascinating. I've really got to sit down and develop some test designs and let people poke at them. Thanks for the help on my gedankenexperiment.

 

[vraymond]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Depends a lot upon your tech assumptions.
(snip)
With Fusion Rockets, assuming you can control the radiation issues for the crew, one could readily burn at .1G the whole way to Mars. 7 days fuel at 0.1g, closest approach (each further entry is 1 day's less fuel)
1 m/s/s Fuel: 604800 s = 1 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 559788 s = 0 w 6 d 11 : 29 : 48 s 279894 m/s max
freefall: 0 s = 0 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
(snippage of much goodness)
Now, with canonical 100D jump limits, and no solar jump masking, Mars is safe for exploration at 0.1 G with at least 2 days of burn, and almost safe at 1 day's burn.
Jupiter, however, is 4 times the distance.... and is jump distance.

I really appreciate you spelling out the nuts'n'bolts of what it would take to do some of this. That having been said, could you elaborate on what you mean by Jupiter is "jump distance"?

If by that you mean Jupiter is far enough away to make a "micro-jump" a reasonable proposition, then the development of "jump drive" would probably get used first for in-system exploration, with something of a longing look towards interstellar flight. It would make jump technology rather interesting in a much longer technology maturation curve, as older jump drives might not be rated for interstellar travel.

The problem is the fuel constraints. I don't have HT to hand, and so can't look up and figure the fuel maxima.

The fuel issues are going to be fascinating. I've really got to sit down and develop some test designs and let people poke at them. Thanks for the help on my gedankenexperiment.

 

[vraymond]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Depends a lot upon your tech assumptions.
(snip)
With Fusion Rockets, assuming you can control the radiation issues for the crew, one could readily burn at .1G the whole way to Mars. 7 days fuel at 0.1g, closest approach (each further entry is 1 day's less fuel)
1 m/s/s Fuel: 604800 s = 1 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
travel: 559788 s = 0 w 6 d 11 : 29 : 48 s 279894 m/s max
freefall: 0 s = 0 w 0 d 0 : 0 : 0
(snippage of much goodness)
Now, with canonical 100D jump limits, and no solar jump masking, Mars is safe for exploration at 0.1 G with at least 2 days of burn, and almost safe at 1 day's burn.
Jupiter, however, is 4 times the distance.... and is jump distance.

I really appreciate you spelling out the nuts'n'bolts of what it would take to do some of this. That having been said, could you elaborate on what you mean by Jupiter is "jump distance"?

If by that you mean Jupiter is far enough away to make a "micro-jump" a reasonable proposition, then the development of "jump drive" would probably get used first for in-system exploration, with something of a longing look towards interstellar flight. It would make jump technology rather interesting in a much longer technology maturation curve, as older jump drives might not be rated for interstellar travel.

The problem is the fuel constraints. I don't have HT to hand, and so can't look up and figure the fuel maxima.

The fuel issues are going to be fascinating. I've really got to sit down and develop some test designs and let people poke at them. Thanks for the help on my gedankenexperiment.

 

[aramis]

If you want, I'll post the python script I used.

 

[aramis]

If you want, I'll post the python script I used.

 

[aramis]

If you want, I'll post the python script I used.

 

[vraymond]

Originally posted by Aramis:
If you want, I'll post the python script I used.

Sure; I'm still not clear, however, on what you meant by Jupiter being "jump distance" ?