RPG Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-11-2014, 11:22 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,354
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Three Sirius radio satellites which use this orbit were put into space using a heavy lift vehicle from the Soviets capable of putting 6 tons into GTO,

This makes me think that they are certainly beyond the LEO clutter. But given it took a 4 stage rocket to put them in place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_%28rocket%29
it would be a serious challenge to put them into space after the war.

However from playing Kerbal Space Program I do know that reducing the mass of the final product (in this case the satellite) significantly, would have an even greater effect on the amount of thrust required to reach the same orbit. If advanced Morrow technology could cut the weight in half and only one satellite per launch , perhaps a 2 stage system with only a small fraction of the Proton's thrust could pull it off.

Kerbal is not a perfect model of the earth, but it might help me refine those numbers.

edit
here is a video of a tundra orbit in Kerbal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-7ex5c-MRY

It seems to be similar to the height of a GTO

edit 2

confirmed
this shows the two orbits Molniya and Tundra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIA34oXiTC0#t=18m40s

if you stick with it for a few minutes it really shows how the 3 satellites work on unison to keep constant coverage over the US.

Last edited by kato13; 06-11-2014 at 11:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-12-2014, 03:29 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,354
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

If you could hide this somewhere
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

You could use it to place all three necessary satellites with one launch. It is nearly as large as the Russian rocket mentioned above, but it only has two stages which would significantly enhance reliability.

At 22 stories tall it would be difficult to hide this though. Maybe on its side in an abandoned railway tunnel.

Last edited by kato13; 06-12-2014 at 03:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-12-2014, 04:00 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,354
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Going for redundant systems I would like the following.

Two launch bases. I would like to have these as South as possible. This gains the most momentum from the earth for orbital insertion.

Maybe one in Alabama and one near the TX.OK border.

A 16 man launch team is sleeping near each stored rocket.

Each station has a 9 man recon team stationed near it. These teams might be the first to wake up.

The two teams make assessments of local security concerns around the launch facilities (2 weeks) and Prime makes a decision on which team to activate first.

When the base is chosen
2 More recon teams and 2 Mars teams in the area will secure the immediate surroundings while the launch team is awoken and the launcher is erected.

Each launch location will have 5 satellites to chose 3 from.
3 Communications
1 Recon
1 Weather

The first launch would be either 2 Comm and 1 recon. or 3 comm. If one of the comm sats is inoperable it would be replaced by the recon. If the recon is inoperable it would be replaced by the weather. I am not sure how effective recon would be if you have to go to a higher orbit, but I thought I would throw this out there. Perhaps there is another hybrid orbit (Modified Molniya??) that would keep it out of LEO clutter but still give reasonable resolution. If not stick with weather and comms. Maybe somethink like the U2 would be better for recon.

My hope is that the launch could take place within 20 days of the launch team wakeup. I don't know if that is feasible.

Whenever the second launch takes place (maybe within a year). I would fill what gaps the project might have. If the first launch is a failure the second team is activated immediately.

The remaining satellites would be shuttled to prime (via a C-130) for and expected third launch 3-7 years down the road. Building the third rocket from component parts is what the launch teams would be doing during that time.

If for some reason both satellite teams fail the project falls back to using other methods of communications mentioned above.

Thoughts?


edit


When I saw the weight of the rocket being 504 metric tons I was disheartened at the prospect of moving and hiding it. But after I broke down the weights a bit it seems more manageable
Liquid Oxygen weight 199 tons
Refined Kerosine weight 92 tons
Empty first stage ~175 tons
Empty Second stage ~35 tons
Payload 5 tons.

The first stage would might need to be broken into parts, but even if it is not it is manageable. They Egyptians moved things that heavy without modern technology so with proper planning it is possible.

Last edited by kato13; 06-12-2014 at 04:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-12-2014, 04:32 PM
nuke11 nuke11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 275
Default

Wouldn't it be easier to place whatever satellites in orbit before the war?

The project could launch a few into orbit, but due to a "failure" with something in the satellite, it never makes it to it's intended orbit position, but over shoots it, for safety reason it is moved to say Lagrangian Point 1 or 2, and there it sits lost for all time, but in reality it was placed there waiting for a signal to bring itself back into orbit closer to the earth?

You could even park it into an orbit around the moon as well waiting.

Hiding in plain site is what the project does.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-12-2014, 09:53 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,354
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

I also like the plan of having a failed company launch the satellites and then have the technology "fail".

That would be my primary thought on how to do this.

It kinda removes the "adventure" aspect of it though once the project itself has its own issues.

Prime would be necessary to activate it and I don't expect that any technology would survive 150 years in space.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-12-2014, 10:30 PM
stormlion1's Avatar
stormlion1 stormlion1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Vineland, NJ
Posts: 581
Default

Actually there is a very good chance a powered down satellite could survive 150 years in space. It comes down to power, where its located, and how hardened it was from radiation. The Voyager Space Probe which is burning a small amount of power was launched in 1977 and they expect power to finally fail in 2025. Properly constructed and at very low levels the Morrow Satellites could easily be put back into use from a cold start. Its just getting them to start up that would be the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-12-2014, 10:51 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,354
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stormlion1 View Post
Actually there is a very good chance a powered down satellite could survive 150 years in space. It comes down to power, where its located, and how hardened it was from radiation. The Voyager Space Probe which is burning a small amount of power was launched in 1977 and they expect power to finally fail in 2025. Properly constructed and at very low levels the Morrow Satellites could easily be put back into use from a cold start. Its just getting them to start up that would be the issue.

It is possible of course. But it would need to triple the lifespan of Voyager without the expectation that it was going to need to. Fusion and EMP shielding help quite a bit, but I would still put the chances of nothing going wrong during that time at below 50%. Perhaps much lower.

If you have three satellites you do get a better chance of something surviving.

Last edited by kato13; 06-12-2014 at 11:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-13-2014, 11:18 AM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Why not a launch facility in French Guyana? It is equatorial and under a lot less scrutiny than anywhere in the U.S., additionally it could be part of a fully functional launch facility that actually does launch commercial satellites.

The Proton boosters can be explained away as a business venture intended for emergency launch of weather satellites or to launch critical parts or crew return capsules to the Soyuz or Spacelab missions.

The go ahead never went for full funding and the project was mothballed for further consideration.

Never mind the caretakers watching over the investment.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-13-2014, 11:23 AM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,354
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
Why not a launch facility in French Guyana? It is equatorial and under a lot less scrutiny than anywhere in the U.S., additionally it could be part of a fully functional launch facility that actually does launch commercial satellites.

The Proton boosters can be explained away as a business venture intended for emergency launch of weather satellites or to launch critical parts or crew return capsules to the Soyuz or Spacelab missions.

The go ahead never went for full funding and the project was mothballed for further consideration.

Never mind the caretakers watching over the investment.
I have always put launch facilities on Isla Sorna. (The fictional island from Jurassic park of the coast of Coasta Rica). There are any number of failed businesses that could provide cover for some development on a similar island.

This was one of the few times I was looking more towards a US based adventure over what I consider to be more feasible from a secrecy perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-13-2014, 11:32 AM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

How about Florida or the Bahamas?

The closer to the equator the better...........

Actually..... The Texas gulf coast. Then you can tie it into "Operation Lonestar" as activation of the Morrowsat cues up software and E-manuals for the phase II mission.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-13-2014, 12:14 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,354
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
The closer to the equator the better...........
Isla Sorna's Latitude is N 8.58102 (Great Minds...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
Actually..... The Texas gulf coast. Then you can tie it into "Operation Lonestar" as activation of the Morrowsat cues up software and E-manuals for the phase II mission.
Conceptually I've always had trouble with major facilities in Texas. I know difficult it is to dig basements for a majority of the state (due to the clay moving around and crushing foundations), so I've always assumed that it would be more difficult to hide stuff in the southern regions. I don't know if the large amount of military activity in the state is a positive or a negative either.

At the moment I am looking at perhaps a mine in the Guadalupe Mountains.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-08-2014, 05:58 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

This equatorial site does make for a follow on adventure after Prime Base.....

The Project C-130s are needed to get a Team and a V-150 ARV to a site in South America.

Project Second Sight is not responding to the Wakeup signal..... Someone needs to get boots on the ground and assess the situation.
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gunfire audible range Caradhras Twilight 2000 Forum 19 06-26-2009 05:40 AM
The Long Voyage ChalkLine Twilight 2000 Forum 14 11-20-2008 03:43 AM
How long the game? kato13 Twilight 2000 Forum 2 09-12-2008 08:25 PM
Communications and Internet in TW2000 kato13 Twilight 2000 Forum 0 09-10-2008 05:00 AM
New long guns: from Futureweapons kato13 Twilight 2000 Forum 0 09-10-2008 04:51 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:55 PM.


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