Question on landing weight to fuel consumption. please check

First private sector mission concepts, potential revenue streams, what various companies and organizations are doing along these lines, <b>closely</b> related topics

Moderator: smccann

User avatar
joertexas
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:44 am
Location: San Antonio Texas

Post by joertexas » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:50 pm

The actual data is contained in the LRO observation files for the various instruments. LOLA - the radar altimeter - is the source for the DEM files, where the elevation grids are generated. There are other instruments - LAMP and DIVINER in particular - taking measurements, too, and they each have their own data files. Then there are the LROC visible cameras, both wide angle and narrow view, cataloging the sunlit portions of the lunar surface.

The problem we have is integrating all of this information into something we can put into a useful depiction of our proposed landing site (about 30km around 89.55N 30.0W). To accomplish this, we either have to interpret this data ourselves, or collaborate with someone who can translate the needed data into something we can use.

Eventually, I'd like to have maps like this made, too.

I just don't have the background or skills to do this.

JR
Last edited by joertexas on Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Engineer
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:32 am
Location: United states of america (if that really means anything)
Contact:

new plans

Post by Engineer » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:38 pm

I can convert the data from the picture, there are programs to do it, but the entire point of trying to load it into a game engine was:
1 to give us a clear understanding of the terrain, its volatile areas, obsticals, etc.
2: to allow later investors to see the excavator in action, how it will function, the like.
3: to get the general public more educated on the project and allow them to imerse themselves into the mission itself.
I've decided that the panda3d program is too much. I believe that I might be able to create a map inside of battlezones engine but I have yet to do much research into that. I do know that it has near unlimited hight capablities, so thats no problem right there. the data that I tried loading into the falllout 3 editor had a limitation of only about 1kilometer while the highest point on the edited map was about 3 from its lowest point to highest. one obvious fix is to decrease the size of the controlled avatar. but either way, that roads closed until they update the editor. the battle zone maps can support maps that are about 5.5 kilometers across in comparison to the avatar. that might be a bit too small for your landing zone.
I do have a few questions
how big is your landing zone? how far from the predicted landing area could you come down to?
using your area of possible overshots or short cutting, whats the area's deepest point and whats the highest point?
lastly, when I finally get the map bit figured out, I need a design of the equipment. the excavator, the solar array and the lander. then I can start building the models. the designs don't have to be precise, and its likely I won't be making every bolt and hydrolic visible on the model, so don't expect the perfect system.

and lastly, since I'm prusuing this game now, I would like to show you one of its models which is a lander :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMivQcbAXR4
you need to go to time aprox 6:30 and on word you should get a good idea of that their model looks like. if you watch the whole video, you'll see the elevation that the game is capale of. not yet sure if we can load the elevation data directly or if it requires some coaxing
will update when more information becomes available
:cool:
and the update takes only a few minutes. I was mistaken, you can create a map any size at all, but for loading practality, lets not go to more then 20 miles. also, it seems that you can load topographical maps just like in fallout, but they must be grey scale. that should limit you down to areas that are relitivitly flat. info on that is here: http://ygkillerinstinct.com/cartography/bzhgt.html as soon as thats done, its a simple matter of loading the map. I should say that the only way to know how it will work is to test it becasue he says he's dealing with chunks. not a good word in my opinion. Heres the obvious problem I see right off the bat. the maps probably won't come in grey scale. we'll need to take the values for each color for each shade and replace it with the right shade of grey. I hope that theres software for this. if anyone knows, please tell me asap.
Edit again:
can any one tell me what picture to use? http://imbrium.mit.edu/BROWSE/LOLA_GDR/North_pole.html these have the required scale I was looking for, but require to know what the difference of each is. if the 90 degrees the very top of the north pole? if so, then thats near perfect. I assume its the 87.5 to north pole one. 5 meters per pixle. very good indeed. if some one wants to get a smaller version of this picture and open it up in paint and show me the center point of were the landing will take place, I can go from there. big files they are. still moving foward with the game engines. will succeed sooner or later. thanks.
Last edited by Engineer on Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:35 am, edited 3 times in total.
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.”
― Plato

User avatar
joertexas
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:44 am
Location: San Antonio Texas

Post by joertexas » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:43 pm

The landing and operations areas are shown here.

Figure the landing area is about 2km across, and varies 200m in elevation along the crater rim; the terrain rises as you go north.

If you load the 20km resolution image into LTVT, it will display the area in 3D so you can get an idea of the "lay of the land".

What format do you want the models in? Also, keep in mind that I'm working on a mission redesign, so the finished models will look slightly different.

JR

User avatar
Engineer
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:32 am
Location: United states of america (if that really means anything)
Contact:

perfect.

Post by Engineer » Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:17 pm

I'm not much f one for understanding format, but this site: http://dummyworld.net/media/?pageid=5 gave a general idea of what you could expect. I've built only a few things using bryce, and they are far from perfect. I never really got into modeling too much because I'm terrible at it and have little patience for staring at a computer screen ALL day. obviously, buying 3dsmax is too expensive, so if theres another way to make those models, please don't hesitate to try. The info you presented on the last post is perfect. absolutely perfect. with this info and the files I'm still downloading, I should have the info I need to really start making the maps. HURRA. just the grayscale bit bothers me still. going to look if theres a way to convert it, because I don't think just throwing them onto a greyscale format is going to work. you have to set up its values still if I'm not mistaken. updates as they come.
:cool:
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.”
― Plato

User avatar
Engineer
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:32 am
Location: United states of america (if that really means anything)
Contact:

shadows

Post by Engineer » Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:47 am

I'm thinking its more trouble then its worth all of a sudden. I opened up a smaller version of the 1.5 gig map and decided to turn it to grey scale. Now, I'm no cartographer, but something doesn't look right in the photo. Once in grey scale, as I suspected, the grayness wasn't uniform in the color code, so thats a bust with out special software. but heres the real odd thing. when I took a look at the craters, I see shadows. and not small ones either, but literary crater wall shadows. If the color code is based on shadows...
bot the original and the modified grey scale are in my albums.
I am really, really, confused. if look closely at the craters on the south east area of the map. go from grey scale to color. its mostly some shade of blue. I have no clue why this is happening and would appreciate it if someone could inform me that the elevation is NOT based on the shades of grey but on actual depth. I hope I'm making some sense here and not babbling.
:cool:
Last edited by Engineer on Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.”
― Plato

User avatar
joertexas
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:44 am
Location: San Antonio Texas

Post by joertexas » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:49 pm

[quote=""Engineer817""]I'm thinking its more trouble then its worth all of a sudden. I opened up a smaller version of the 1.5 gig map and decided to turn it to grey scale. Now, I'm no cartographer, but something doesn't look right in the photo. Once in grey scale, as I suspected, the grayness wasn't uniform in the color code, so thats a bust with out special software. but heres the real odd thing. when I took a look at the craters, I see shadows. and not small ones either, but literary crater wall shadows. If the color code is based on shadows...
bot the original and the modified grey scale are in my albums.
I am really, really, confused. if look closely at the craters on the south east area of the map. go from grey scale to color. its mostly some shade of blue. I have no clue why this is happening and would appreciate it if someone could inform me that the elevation is NOT based on the shades of grey but on actual depth. I hope I'm making some sense here and not babbling.
:cool: [/quote]

One thing I can see is that the problem areas are outside of the area of interest. So, it may not matter. I'm guessing that these are data anomalies from translating the raw data into a smoother map. If you look at the raw images, you'll see "drag marks" where the data doesn't overlap smoothly between passes.

JR

User avatar
Engineer
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:32 am
Location: United states of america (if that really means anything)
Contact:

Still plugging away at it

Post by Engineer » Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:45 am

Progress as of late:
I have found out several interesting things. 1 is that you can import a .msh file into orbiter for the landscape. 2 if that the .msh can be made using a pain staking process :( but it can be done. the third is that the software used to do this is readily available for free!!!
But... there's some down sides. one is that I don't know how to import the .msh files when they are finished. 2 is that the file I require should be here: http://webgis.wr.usgs.gov/pigwad/down/moon_dl.htm but isn't. the file I need to start with is a .asc I believe. I need that for the peary region. unfortunately, I can' seem to locate one just yet. I will run the hadley through the process when I get a chance but I'm really swamped in college. Been taking time off of study for this project because its lingering in the back of my mind at every moment. after the .msh is created, I just need a way to import it into orbiter and then wallah. as soon as I am done with hadley I will send you the file after I test it. I know absolutely nothing on how orbiter operates, so its up to you to baby step me through importing and starting. just that and the .asc file is all I need.
:cool:
Quick update:
seems there's some better news now. since I have become better accustomed to the formats on how the data is stored, I went back to the college's geo professor. it seemed I touched things he wasn't even familiar with. no surprise as its topography and its a small college. but he did clear some things up. seems the .dem files are literary the rawest data you can get and plugging it into a program called arcmap was able to show me many, many different shading templates. including a uniform black to white one. the problem is the program he used costs $1000 for a license. Now I'd rather steal then pay that amount, but I'd rather be legit then steal. the alternative? alternative programs. http://alternativeto.net/software/arcgisdesktop/ looks like options are not limited. now, it that fails, I could simply ask him for a favor to use his software or pay him 20 bucks for the conversion. just to be clear. I'm working on 2 projects right now concerning the maps. on is to input it into the BZ game system for education purposes, the second is to create a .msh for the orbiter program for the intended landing zone. that being said, I am still dubious that the "looking for ice" slogan is going to sell. investors want returns. thats kinda limiting if you think about it. if they are willing to fund recon mission, then they'd have to fund a utilization mission or else its just throwing their money away. I'm still working on the geck to refine and produce what we know is there. And even though there is a good bet that ice is there, I see the point that placing bets on it is not good monetarily. just saying that I'd like to see some kind of return on the recon mission. by the way, you referenced me to a spaceX article a while ago about landing a xprize rover on the moon. could you help me locate that? also wondering if you should split this thread up. it seems to be getting off topic.
Last edited by Engineer on Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: another update
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.”
― Plato

User avatar
joertexas
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:44 am
Location: San Antonio Texas

Post by joertexas » Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:24 pm

The return on the recon mission is the information obtained from an area that has been the subject of intense scrutiny over the past few years. I've said from the beginning that the Moon Shot mission is the first step of a $3B program to bring water and lunar minerals back to LEO. The first step is to place equipment on the ground, and that's what Moon Shot is all about.

As for the map, the important parts are the distances, slopes and general terrain character. It's not so important to have every detail exactly right - approximations can be used to make a reasonably accurate map. One of the first projects we need to pay for is to have a detailed analysis made of all the available LRO data in the highest possible fidelity, and have a large scale map made from that data.

The X-Prize website ishere.

We probably do need to move this discussion to the Moon Shot thread - and that has now been done :)

JR
Last edited by joertexas on Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Engineer
Posts: 324
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:32 am
Location: United states of america (if that really means anything)
Contact:

Math, my favorite subject

Post by Engineer » Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:46 am

First off, this thread is way off topic, I'd suggest moving some of the posts to another area. I wanted to reply to this thread on landing weight consumption as it will give the members and any one else browsing a napkin equation to help with landing weights and fuel consumption. Most of this information was taken from the orbiter forum, so a special thanks to them for their support.
You need several things: your engine ISP or the engine velocity (Ve), the deltaV for each leg of the trip(Dv), and the mass you can put into orbit (usually taken from the launch vehicle's specs). The engine velocity is found by multiplying the ISP by 9.8m/(s^2) effectively giving you a velocity of m/s. After you have all of that, you plug it all into this: e^(Dv/Ve) = (wet mass)/(dry mass).
Dv in m/s
Ve in m/s
wetmass is how much your craft weighs with its fuel and dry mass is what you are solving for. Both are in the same units of weight. DeltaV budget for each leg of the trip can be found here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget under Earth–Moon space — high thrust. you can add the budgets together and come to the same conclusion. The ISP or Ve can be found at astronautica. The orbiter community provided these to keep my searching down to a minimum: 450 for LH2/LOX, about 350 for LCH4/LOX and about 300 for hypergolics.

By my own calculations, the total mass you can put on the moon with a falcon heavy is 13.8mT on an equatorial landing assuming spaceX's 53000mT to leo is correct. I used of course the LH2/LOX as that will be the fuel that will be manufactured on the lunar surface. Problem is the boil off :(

If I missed anything, please inform me and I'll do the corrections :)
:cool:
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.”
― Plato

Post Reply