1. I take it numbers from Atomic Rocket aren't good enough?

It gave the following numbers in kg/Liter. Since both liter and m^3 are volume measurements, you just multiply to convert. There are 1000 liters in one cubic meter.

Frozen meat and veggies : 375 Kg/m^3. "fresh" foods, 250. Dry/canned goods, about 500.

From handling MREs, I know from personal experience that dry foods are not that dense. Even if you removed the air from the MRE package, it will not have that much density. Another factor here is that I don't think it matters that much. Since volume is cubed, I don't think that current missions have to optimize for volumetric density so much as reducing the mass. If you make the payload section of your rocket slightly longer, it will only have minimal effects on the air resistance. (while, for a given rocket design, increasing the payload mass comes up against hard limits)

So I would pick the lowest of these numbers. Imagine a food storage pantry filled with stacks of compact MREs, with extra space around them so that kerbonauts can get to supplies at the bottom of the pantry.

2. Originally Posted by NotMyRealName
I take it numbers from Atomic Rocket aren't good enough?
Of course they're good enough? Are you mad? It's the Atomic Rockets site we're talking about, here!... I'm... just trying to do a bunch of things at once. Stuff is dropping through the cracks.

So I would pick the lowest of these numbers. Imagine a food storage pantry filled with stacks of compact MREs, with extra space around them so that kerbonauts can get to supplies at the bottom of the pantry.
Aaand... I don't see a mass-per-liter value for MRE's. I've never handled one so I can't guesstimate. Throw a number at me?

Edit: I guess I could go with the dry-foods density of 0.5kg / liter...

3. Originally Posted by NotMyRealName
I take it numbers from Atomic Rocket aren't good enough?

It gave the following numbers in kg/Liter. Since both liter and m^3 are volume measurements, you just multiply to convert. There are 1000 liters in one cubic meter.

Frozen meat and veggies : 375 Kg/m^3. "fresh" foods, 250. Dry/canned goods, about 500.

From handling MREs, I know from personal experience that dry foods are not that dense. Even if you removed the air from the MRE package, it will not have that much density. Another factor here is that I don't think it matters that much. Since volume is cubed, I don't think that current missions have to optimize for volumetric density so much as reducing the mass. If you make the payload section of your rocket slightly longer, it will only have minimal effects on the air resistance. (while, for a given rocket design, increasing the payload mass comes up against hard limits)

So I would pick the lowest of these numbers. Imagine a food storage pantry filled with stacks of compact MREs, with extra space around them so that kerbonauts can get to supplies at the bottom of the pantry.
The numbers are in accordance with the NASA document I linked last page. On page 56 table 4.3.1 it shows that in the space shuttle, for each crewmember-day 0.0048m³ and 1.76kg were used for food. Thus in 1m³ you could store 366kg of space shuttle food.

4. Originally Posted by SFJackBauer
The numbers are in accordance with the NASA document I linked last page. On page 56 table 4.3.1 it shows that in the space shuttle, for each crewmember-day 0.0048m³ and 1.76kg were used for food. Thus in 1m³ you could store 366kg of space shuttle food.
I am ashamed that I couldn't figure that out from the chart. I was looking right at it! I feel like a moron around you folks.

5. Preliminary TAC Life Support Rescale and RO Settings

Sorry this took so long. There was math involved. And I still probably got some of that wrong. MFS won't be supported until v4 is officially released.

This is my compliment of patches for RSS/RO and includes the TACLS config, along with automatic RO electric charge amounts and usage rates for any and all pods holding up to 12 crew members (minus life support energy, see ReadMe.txt), and some other rescaling pieces. Feel free to delete whatever you don't want.

Very Important TACLS Note
Because we all know how often included ReadMe.txt files are actually read...

There are two settings in TACLS that cannot be set through the use of MM .cfg files. The ReadMe.txt file has instructions on where to find these values (in-game, no editing of files!) and what to set them to.

6. So, with MFS version 4, we will maybe be able to use alternate containers that look more realistic for cramming in our supplies for our astronauts?

7. Originally Posted by NotMyRealName
So, with MFS version 4, we will maybe be able to use alternate containers that look more realistic for cramming in our supplies for our astronauts?
Yep! I'll have to make sure they're stuffable into the next release of StretchyTank's service module tank, too. v3 of MFS doesn't work because I need to use a utilization value > 1.0. v4 should handle this.

Note that there is an alternate texture pack that makes most of the TACLS containers look quite a bit better than the regular textures.

8. Speaking of not mathing well, I realized this morning that I had used diameter-squared instead of radius-squared in my cylinder volume calculations, resulting in containers holding a lot more stuff than they should. (Ultra-dense! Super-science! Bad physics!)

I've fixed this and re-uploaded the Additional_Config.zip linked to in my post above. The life support numbers are now more sane-looking.

9. jrandom: Cool! Try with the utilization value. See if anything breaks. If not, just use it.
(They're an issue with autofill, I think, but it may not matter in practice).

10. I may be misunderstanding something, but your electric consumptions for the recyclers seem to be all over the place (from reading the cfgs). The electrolyser needs a whopping 954 kW to sustain 8 crewmembers (one ISS Elektron unit sustains 3 to 4 and consumes ~1kW), while the water purifier uses only 3 W to sustain 8 crewmembers (for some reason, the one that sustains 16 crewmembers is half as efficient). Note that (with existing systems) CO2 to O2 cannot consume less than electrolysis for a given amount of oxygen, as both the Sabatier and Bosch processes produce water.

You might want to look at the the calculations I did on the TACLS thread (electrolyser and fuel cell, Sabatier and Bosch reactors), these are just linearly scaled performances for existing devices. Realistic masses can be found at http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/b.../1/04-3358.pdf.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•