Messages

46

Design / Re: Introduction

« on: December 23, 2017, 08:21:39 AM »

[attachment=2]p30.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=1]p31.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]p32.jpg[/attachment]

47

Design / Re: Introduction

« on: December 23, 2017, 08:18:57 AM »

Finally completed the next changes for the ship. I'm calling this "version 3" of the Precariat.

• Made the cargo hold detachable.

• Added flaps, elevators, & rudders.

• Added ion-drives to the wing & tail edges.

• Added 27 merlin engines to the stern (equivalent to a falcon heavy).

• Removed the drag surfaces from the main fans.

• Re-shaped the hull where the front fans used to be.

• Re-shaped the "chin" to give more interior space & access to the cargo hold.

• Re-shaped the stern (the original mesh was a mess)

• Added a freight elevator & turbo lift that spans the 15 floors of living space.

• All this affected the lift envelope, windows, & mesh containment (had to re-work those too).

Here are a bunch of new pictures.



Also posted transparent png images of the ship at http://precariat.us.to/graphics You can also donate crypto on that site to support my work.



Thanks,



Cameron
[attachment=2]p27.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=1]p28.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]p29.jpg[/attachment]

48

Design / Re: Cargo Design

« on: December 14, 2017, 05:11:48 PM »

Thanks Ernie. I'll try to let you know via email for major updates.



I setup precariat.us.to so I can eventually post files larger than the 200K limit here on the forums. Posted some STL files and the cargo hold to get people started.



Have been reworking the ship to have the detachable cargo hold, added more lift capacity, and greater living space in the lower levels. Still working out the details.





Also worked on the ion drives in the tail. Thinking about doing the same to the bottom of the ducted fans, but at the same time I worry about crossing over into SCI-FI. I think the ship should stay realistic & practical (with bleeding edge technology). So no laser guns, photon torpedoes, or warp drive : )



Still trying to figure out how they should look.
[attachment=1]p24.jpg[/attachment]

All this required structural changes to the ship's mesh. Had to rebuild the bottom of the ship and the tail (there are still parts that are "carved out", that need fixing). Still trying to clean up the model.
[attachment=0]p25.jpg[/attachment]

49

Design / Re: Introduction

« on: December 08, 2017, 07:38:43 PM »

When a Space Shuttle was working with a 'tethered object' that it was lowering into the atmosphere they found out that somehow electricity was being harnessed in the process and it fried out a bunch of stuff. Is it possible that this phenomena can be used...?

Thanks again EB! I had forgotten about the tether experiment (https://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtether.html). It sounds like it could also raise the orbit of the ship. Definitely something to research more.



I'm also interested in a "solar fabric" that could be lighter than standard solar panels. The ship is currently so huge, the solar array (as drawn) covers 20 acres!

50

Design / 3D Printing

« on: December 08, 2017, 07:23:36 PM »

I know people have asked for STL files for their 3D printers. I tried creating an all-in-one manifold mesh that could be printed as one part, but it's way too difficult (I'd end up redrawing the entire ship again). I figured I should wait until the final design is nailed down (detachable cargo, etc.).



But I can post what I have to give you something to play with. There are 3 STL files posted here. One with the main body with all it's components. Another with the solar panels expanded. And a 3rd of the solar panels collapsed.



The files aren't perfect, but you can try using your 3D printing tools to separate and close the meshes. Please post your progress (with pictures!). Good luck.

51

Build the Ship / Re: Orbital Mechanics

« on: December 08, 2017, 07:16:23 PM »

I failed to mention tangential velocity. On the surface, you're moving ~1000mph. Geostationary satellites move at ~7000mph. Does this contribute to weightlessness even though you're holding the same position relative to earth? What would your speed be hovering 63 miles up?

52

Design / Re: Cargo Design

« on: December 08, 2017, 07:12:02 PM »

Steel cables seem to be the leading solution. So it could evolve into external cargo like the aeroscraft design. http://aeroscraft.com/fleet-copy/4580475518



I was hoping for something more rigid that would "dock" with the ship. That way you could have an airlock between the cargo and the ship. If you wanted a flying indoor driving range, people could move to the cargo hold while in flight. Still working on redesigning the arch to make this possible.



I posted a .blend file of the basic cargo "tub" if anyone wants to play with designing your own cargo module in Blender. There could be a module that can drop shipping containers with steel cable, another could have doors and cranes to load/unload shipping containers, another could be a mobile medical facility, or the interior of your flying house.
[attachment=0]cargoshell.jpg[/attachment]

Still trying to figure out how these different cargo holds will attach to the ship, so the design could always change. Or the entire thing could change (shrink?) based on how much space is truly needed.



Currently, the inner "envelope" is just over 2.3 million cu.ft. Roughly 500' long, 125' wide, and 74' tall. The very bottom is 14,400 sq.ft. and 50' up is roughly 40,500 sq.ft.



I still think the volume is too big for the amount of weight it can hold. 0.43lbs per cubic foot isn't much cargo. I think the cargo ships (in the ocean) average 100lbs per cu.ft. making the cargo hold smaller could give more space for the lifting envelope (i.e. more weight capacity).



Of course this is all based on a 500ton capacity (1/2 of total lifting capacity). We still don't know what the rest of the ship will weigh.

53

Build the Ship / Re: Orbital Mechanics

« on: November 30, 2017, 08:44:02 AM »

Thanks for the link Eduardo! Good reference for designing the lifting envelope.



I was searching for "gravity calculators" and found this. https://www.calctown.com/calculators/acceleration-due-to-gravity-calculation



Does this suggest that gravity is 97% at 100km altitude vs. on the surface? Or are acceleration calculations different than weight calculations?



I was also thinking about geostationary orbit. Those satellites are essentially "hovering" over the same spot 36,000 kilometers high. Does that mean gravity is 2.3% that far out?



As long as the ship "floats" below low earth orbit (372 miles), it seems like gravity wouldn't be an issue (83% at 600km) unless you started travelling at orbital speeds.



Disclaimer: I don't know anything about orbital mechanics. Hoping someone else can help with the math.

54

Design / Re: Cargo Design

« on: November 28, 2017, 06:48:28 PM »

How large does the cargo hold need to be? It's currently 2.3 million cu.ft. If cargo capacity is 500 tons, that's 0.43lbs per cubic foot. Seems like there's too much available space if 1 cu.ft. can only "carry" 0.43lbs.



1 cu.ft. of water weighs 63lbs.

1 cu.ft. of steel weighs 490lbs.

1 cu.ft. of gold weighs 1206lbs.

1 cu.ft. of marshmallows weighs 13lbs? (search "Candies, marshmallows")



To use an Ernie-ism... "Get my point?" If you filled the cargo hold with marshmallows, it would weigh 14,950 tons!



If you're mainly transporting 40' shipping containers, they can weigh up to 30 tons each. http://www.dsv.com/sea-freight/sea-container-description/dry-container A 500 ton cargo hold could only carry 16 fully loaded containers, or 38,244 cu.ft. of cargo.



Is a 2.3 million cu.ft. cargo hold extreme overkill? Or is my math completely wrong?

55

Design / Cargo Design

« on: November 28, 2017, 12:29:37 PM »

Have been trying to detach the cargo hold from the ship, so the ship can easily drop and pickup new cargo. Still need to figure out ship weight vs. cargo weight. If it's 50/50. Based on lifting capacity, that's about 500 tons of cargo, and 500 tons for the ship.



Does anyone have ideas how the cargo hold would attach/detach? Locating pins? Docking collar? Ropes & chains? Magnets?



Keep in mind that the mating surface is over 600' long. If the ship were to land and pickup a cargo pod, trying to get it aligned would be a monumental task. Even though the ship is lighter than air, adjusting a floating 500 ton ship would be hard to move around to dock with the cargo docking collar.



And once it's located, how does it "lift" 500 tons of cargo without tearing the ship and/or cargo hold apart? How does the mating surface hold 500 tons to the ship? For example, if they were bolted together, those "bolts" would have to lift and hold 500 tons while in flight (plus any g-forces created by acceleration).




[attachment=0]p23.jpg[/attachment]

56

Design / Re: Introduction

« on: November 21, 2017, 08:10:53 PM »

Will work on removing the drag causing surfaces. Had difficulty originally figuring out how the engines attach. The wing can tilt 18 degrees. So the engine has to counter tilt the same angle to maintain level. Figured an X-axis "hinge" (front to back) would cover this.
[attachment=1]p21.jpg[/attachment]
Then the whole thing can rotate up to 360 degrees on the Y axis (left to right).
[attachment=0]p22.gif[/attachment]
Having a hard time imagining how this connection would mechanically work and if the torque generated by the engine would damage this connection. Some kind of universal joint?



Will take another stab at it, but it will likely change if/when someone can come up with the best mechanical & structural joint.

57

Build the Ship / Re: Two pins and a T-shirt.

« on: November 20, 2017, 07:55:22 PM »

Thanks for posting Doug. I appreciate the topic.



I wanted to do something to help Ernie. But if I knew how hard it was going to be, I probably wouldn't have started (like I didn't start the "firebird/phoenix-to-space" animation).



After the first month trying to convert the 2D sketches to 3D, I didn't want to give up and not produce something. I had time invested and didn't want to waste it. So I had to generate something, rather than nothing. I just wish I could have done it faster.



Then again, if it were easy, it would have been done already. I've lost track of hours spent. But for example, I spent several days just trying to get the wings connected to the fuselage properly. I'm sure someone who does Blender for a living could do it faster, but simply put, they didn't.



In most cases people don't want to work on other people's projects (especially for free). If they're going to build a ship, they'd rather build their own instead of someone else's. They would much prefer (& enjoy) 100% ownership of their ideas/design instead of working on someone else's vision.



I don't mind working on the ship in my spare time. Especially since the heavy lifting of creating it is done. But if it were a paying gig, I'm sure I could do even more.



Having said that, I am hesitant about sharing the .blend files without getting something for the work/value/time I put into creating the model from a 2D sketch. I'm sure people could build on my work, and likely create something better than I ever could. But I would feel cheated knowing it was based on my (uncompensated) work. It may be a long shot to do all the work up front, but I'm hoping it will eventually generate some crypto. Perhaps a "Release the Ship" campaign is necessary so others can build on what I've done?



The hard part about digital assets, be it 3D modeling, programming, or graphic design, is that the creativity and execution is nearly 100% labor. Which people think should be free. I've heard many times "my kid could have done this", or "this should take you 5 minutes". But in reality, I spend hours squeezing my brain trying to figure out the best way to write code or model something. Nothing is ever "easy", and as Ernie says, "there's no just button".



If "building the ship" is an exercise in open source design. I'm hopeful that knowledgeable people would contribute (we'll see how many people offer their services). But if something is really going to be built, even if it's Christmas ornaments & drone toys, I think it needs to be funded (via kickstarter or the Funding Center) and people need to be compensated for contributing.



Sorry this was so long. Hope I made a point somewhere. : ) Thanks for reading.

58

Design / Re: Introduction

« on: November 20, 2017, 06:22:47 PM »

Raised the front fans to be level with the rear fans.

Changed the windows to match the structural floors (in the subsystems thread).

Created the pink 1,000 cu.ft. "balloons" and changed the body to a carbon fiber mesh. Maintained metal for the leading edge of the wing, the (future) flaps, and the enclosed living space.




[attachment=1]p19.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=2]p18.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]p20.jpg[/attachment]

Still working on the detachable cargo module, merlin engines, flaps, ion drive, hover craft, & flat solar panels before making the website graphics. I also have ideas to redesign the archway/lift platform to make space more usable without impacting the lift envelope.

59

Build the Ship / Marque & Reprisal

« on: November 18, 2017, 11:51:19 AM »

Started playing with MakeHuman (http://www.makehuman.org/) to try and build Marque & Reprisal. Spent about 10 minutes before realizing it could take forever to build the perfect humans. I figure my time would be better spent focusing on the ship.



Someone who better understands the characters (Davi?) could design them in 3D using MakeHuman. There are hundreds of sliders to design ears, feet, cheeks, etc.




[attachment=0]Untitled.jpg[/attachment]
Once you get something you like, you can export to Blender, or export STL files for 3D printing.



I'm sure skin, hair, & clothing will require more than the software can provide, but once you get the basic characters, you can import to blender and continue working on textures & drawing clothing.

60

Build the Ship / Orbital Mechanics

« on: November 16, 2017, 07:55:23 PM »

I have a question about balloons & orbital speed.



If the ship is lighter than air and can "float" to an altitude of 62 miles, can it just "hang" there and not require orbital velocity?



Of course if you wanted to go anywhere you would need forward thrust, but is it unnecessary to go 17,000 MPH to maintain altitude?



And if it were hanging there, would you have gravity since you're not "falling" at orbital speed?



Would re-entry be insignificant since you're just floating back down, and not coming in at 17,000 mph?



Of course you would have to watch out for satellites who *are* moving at orbital velocity!