RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Morrow Project/ Project Phoenix Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-10-2018, 12:55 PM
tsofian tsofian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 340
Default The shape of prime base

The the little base I proposed, and some of the others being talked about the recently I think a series of rings, with different functions in the rings will suffice. each ring is 1600 feet in diameter, as that is the turning radius of a Tunnel Boring Machine.

For some manned bases, particularly Prime Base this will lead to far too much separation. Even if a tram system is used having such distances between sides of a level can eat up a lot of time.

The towers in the original module are unworkable as designed. They are fixed to the living rock and would be placed under far too much stress to survive. I am beginning to wonder if towers are not the way to go though, or some other sort of vertical structures. Elevators are much easier to engineer and operate than trains or trams.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-10-2018, 01:26 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,687
Default

And therein is the problem.

But, perhaps, a combination of towers and tunnels might do the trick. If we use the tunnel boring machines to carve out two of these rings, to be used for stores of raw material/finished goods. Then connecting tunnels with bays that will contain the various labs and production facilities and storage vaults and connecting in a central chamber, housing the command center and it's supporting functions, the living, recreation and training facilities, etc.. Then it may be possible to build blocks housing these facilities. It would even possible set aside one of two of the connecting tunnels for additional living quarters, hospital and possibly a school.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-10-2018, 04:32 PM
tsofian tsofian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 340
Default

I'm chewing on this. I do see towers and tunnels (are there trolls as well?)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-10-2018, 04:57 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,687
Default

Tried some sketches to see how it looked.

First problem is the number of personnel assigned. How many singles? Married? Will there be space for teams in transit? Dependents?

How many months of supplies will be needed? What type of production facilities?

Aviation support? Transport support? How about naval?

How many beds in the hospital? What scale of care? Medical labs? Morgue?

Space for a gym, classrooms, firing ranges?

Lots and lots of concerns!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-10-2018, 06:38 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsofian View Post
The the little base I proposed, and some of the others being talked about the recently I think a series of rings, with different functions in the rings will suffice. each ring is 1600 feet in diameter, as that is the turning radius of a Tunnel Boring Machine.
I am just wondering where you got your 1600 foot turning radius. I have seem specs on Robbins TBMs and they can turn much tighter than that. One that I have read the report on has a 4.62m (15ft) boring diameter has a 105m (344') turning radius. A similar CTS TBM that has a 4.58m (15ft) tunnel diameter has a turning radius of 61m (200ft). Even if the turning radius grow faster than the diameter of the tunnel, I have a hard time envisioning the turning radius being 5 time greater when the tunnel diameter is just doubled.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-10-2018, 07:48 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 495
Default

I think I answered my own question. I found a patent application for improving the calculations for turning radius of TBMs. It seems it is dependent upon the desired tunneling speed, the cutting pressure, and the strength of the material being bored. So I guess 1600' tunnel diameter could be as correct as any other number.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-11-2018, 06:37 AM
tsofian tsofian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 340
Default

I was looking at a 26 foot bore.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-11-2018, 07:13 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsofian View Post
I was looking at a 26 foot bore.
For the regular use tunnels, workable. for a storage tunnel, and just thinking of the fun of maneuvering a 20-foot long cargo container in and out, you are more likely looking at a pair of tunnels drilled side-by-side for say a 50-foot diameter?
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-12-2018, 08:17 AM
tsofian tsofian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 340
Default

That would be a huge tunnel. Plus 26 feet wide would be plenty wide enough for moving tractor trailers and loads
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-12-2018, 10:38 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsofian View Post
That would be a huge tunnel. Plus 26 feet wide would be plenty wide enough for moving tractor trailers and loads
True...don't know about doing a 20' container and its tractor in a 26' wide tunnel, certainly would be something to watch! But a lot of it depends on what system of storage do you use? 20'ft containers have the advantage of bulk storage and being able to be stocked several high. Pallets are smaller, easier to move around, but can't be stacked more than 3-4 high (depends on the pallet). Or you can go with shelf storage, these can be several courses high, but would require wide aisles to allow the lift platforms to maneuver.

Thoughts?
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-12-2018, 11:41 AM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsofian View Post
That would be a huge tunnel. Plus 26 feet wide would be plenty wide enough for moving tractor trailers and loads
I am not so sure. While I haven't found any reports or guidelines for turning radius of a 20' trailer and have not worked the formulas, there are plenty for 45' trailers. For a semi to do a 180deg turnaround requires a straight road about 91' wide. If this were a tunnel, the 91' would be where the front outside corner of the truck was just brushing against the wall. If this scales close to linear, then you still need about 40' wide straight tunnel, more if it is a circular tunnel. It is possible to use specialized mules that are close in size to the hitch to minimize the turning and turn the prime movers with no trailer. This will reduce the efficiency but may do the job. But if you just want to hook up the trailer and go, a double wide tunnel is in order.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-12-2018, 12:26 PM
Desert Mariner Desert Mariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 36
Default

I may be oversimplifying things but if the tunnel is circular, would you really need to 180 the rig or would you just drive around the circle and save a lot of tunneling?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-12-2018, 12:37 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 495
Default

You could. It's about one mile underground, but you could go the long way around if it were all open. But since this is also a base, if there are any buildings in there for infrastructure or other purpose, then you have those bottle necks to consider.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-12-2018, 01:46 PM
Desert Mariner Desert Mariner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 36
Default

You could try to go the way of Norwegan's and add periodic roundabouts to the tunnel. This also provides points for branch tunnels if desired.

https://youtu.be/87K7gX9rVIE
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-12-2018, 05:01 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 243
Default

Moving a TBM around is a big deal and draws attention. What cover story could be used to mask the movement and then disposal of the spoils from the tunneling operation?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-12-2018, 07:43 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuke11 View Post
Moving a TBM around is a big deal and draws attention. What cover story could be used to mask the movement and then disposal of the spoils from the tunneling operation?
Failed Hyperloop test site?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-12-2018, 08:34 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
Failed Hyperloop test site?
I guess but wouldn't that put this test site sometime around 2011/2012 or a bit later? But just based on timelines shouldn't Prime be one of if not the first place built for the project so it's completion would predate any public acknowledgement of a Hyperloop concept?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-12-2018, 08:44 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuke11 View Post
I guess but wouldn't that put this test site sometime around 2011/2012 or a bit later? But just based on timelines shouldn't Prime be one of if not the first place built for the project so it's completion would predate any public acknowledgement of a Hyperloop concept?
Vactrains, which Elon Musk's Hyperloop is only one of the more recent entries into the mix, have been proposed since the 18th century. This may not be Musk's Hyperloop, but from maybe a Morrow front company?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-13-2018, 08:04 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,687
Default

We have two basic problems with using TBMs or abandoned mines, etc..

Security is the biggest. An abandoned facility, being a mine, old factory, hyperloop etc., is that there are people AND documentation that shows its location. It would require a major cover operation to deflect attention away. Using a mine, for example, means that both Federal and State organizations have to be convinced that the mine is no longer their concern...and this includes convincing the EPA that there are no hazardous chemicals remaining on site.

Second problem is the footprint of the excavations. Spoil. hundreds if not thousands of tons of it. Its got to go somewhere. Calling it a mine brings the Feds/States into the middle of it. Calling it a "Nuclear Waste Disposal Site" will certainly get several Federal agencies into the loop. And a lot of them are going to want on-site inspections. Which leads us right back into the Security concern(s).

Because of these concerns, I'm not convinced that a TBM is the best approach. Rather, what is needed is something that can bore the tunnels, rapidly, discreetly, and be able to dispose of the spoil. We already have a Project with fusion power and lasers, perhaps a laser boring machine...yet another "handwaveium"?
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-13-2018, 09:26 AM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
Second problem is the footprint of the excavations. Spoil. hundreds if not thousands of tons of it. Its got to go somewhere.
This is a big problem. The three rings suggested here will produce a little under 593000 cubic yards of material. This would take a Cat 797F Mining Truck about 1977 trips to haul away from the main bore hole, around 791000 tons.

If you bore near a natural cavern, you could just dump underground. Another possible solution could be to drill a network of shallow horizontal wells over a couple square miles and pump mix of water and pulverized rock into them, raising the ground level a few inches from below. Kind of like fracking, only with liquid rock into softer loam.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-13-2018, 10:26 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
If you bore near a natural cavern, you could just dump underground. Another possible solution could be to drill a network of shallow horizontal wells over a couple square miles and pump mix of water and pulverized rock into them, raising the ground level a few inches from below. Kind of like fracking, only with liquid rock into softer loam.
Wonder what the long term effect on the base would be?

This keeps presenting more arguments for smaller and fewer bases. Or moving spoil from one dig site to another to create artificial hills or even landfills.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-13-2018, 03:56 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 243
Default

We discussed a nuclear tunnel boring machine a few years back either here on on another list. I did a search for this on Google and there is alot of crap, but I did find this excellent science paper on "Micro-Thermonuclear Plasma Tunneling
by Rock Melting" some excellent information and lots of details https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d8...0cf06af911.pdf

I do believe melting rock is the best thing to do.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-13-2018, 05:50 PM
tsofian tsofian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 340
Default

http://www.sheepletv.com/nuclear-tun...thing-on-us-2/

I don't think a fusion powered TBM is handwavium for this setting. Fusion power is an established technology
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.