Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Space Flight Simulator > Orbiter Web Forum > Orbiter Forum Space Station
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Orbiter Forum Space Station Project news & discussions for all OFSS versions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-08-2014, 12:33 PM   #16
Castor
Orbinaut
 
Castor's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomCruiser View Post
 Have you got a CMG?
Thanks a lot for reminding me!

---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------

CMG added :

I also had to add an airdock to cover up the CMG.


In order to make the station Soyuz compatible, I had to use the Soyuz-CBM adapter from
this
addon

A CTV and XR5 docked to the station :




Closeup of the docking assembly :


Last edited by Castor; 05-09-2014 at 08:18 AM. Reason: Fixed typos
Castor is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 05-08-2014, 12:39 PM   #17
PhantomCruiser
Wanderer
 
PhantomCruiser's Avatar

Default

Very nice!

Hey I think 4th Rock did some texture wizardry for the SSBB. They might be worth a look too.
PhantomCruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 05-08-2014, 03:24 PM   #18
Castor
Orbinaut
 
Castor's Avatar
Default

Anyone has any ideas on the optimal inclination and altitude of the station ?
Castor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 07:12 PM   #19
boogabooga
Bug Crusher
 
boogabooga's Avatar
Default

SSBB is okay, but there are a lot of other station modules floating around, such as Piper's and the ISS modules that were on Francophone.

Is it possible to configure these for use in IMS?
boogabooga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2014, 08:50 PM   #20
orbitingpluto
Orbiteer
Default

I'm curious, since I think the XR5 is just as unrealistic as the XR2, what you might have done to the XR5 to make it more realistic. I'm not getting critical on your choices though, where someone puts the realism bar is their choice, and this thread really isn't about that anyway.

About inclinations, are you launching the Soyuz out of Baikonaur? You might just set the inclination to ~51 degrees, though you might have more 'latitude"() by giving Kourou's Soyuz site a fictional upgrade for manned launches. Given the vehicles you propose using, Soyuz might be the one you'll have to tailor inclination around, but that's just an first guess based on what I know. Jarvis family rockets should be capable of whatever you care to throw at them for station building, so I don't expect them to be a constraint. I don't know diddly about using the Themis-A or the HCLV, so I can't add anything there. Depending what you do to the XR5 that may have it's own constraints.

Also, what is the purpose of the station? Human studies, manned earth observation, materials science, or what? People in a can for fun and science doesn't actually require those people seeing much of the planet(lower inclinations), but earth observation does. It depends on what the stations goal is, and since I don't know what you got built I can't say much now, but I can if you post more.

TL;DR: ~51 degrees, to accommodate the Soyuz.

Also, while I'm interested enough to talk and help out with planning, I'm quite sure I won't have time to fly any missions, so my opinion shouldn't go over a person who is interested and willing to fly. This shouldn't be tailored to my tastes, especially if it isn't fun or reasonable for anyone else. Just saying.
orbitingpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 05-08-2014, 11:17 PM   #21
PhantomCruiser
Wanderer
 
PhantomCruiser's Avatar

Default

The launch site a Kourou is a good place to launch a Soyuz, tons of other stuff as well. I'd guess the orbital inclination would have to be dependent on where Castor selects as a base of operations. Sagan? Capo Passero? (that'd put Eridanus into play maybe), Wideawake? and of course Baikonur and KSC...

Early in the IMS project I had modified pipers modules for use. IIRC it's a modification to the .cfg file, and no difficultly at all. But compared to SSBB, they look really rudimentary. But you are certainly correct though, that there are many modules out there (on the 'hangar and Francophone site too) that should work fine.
PhantomCruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 05-09-2014, 07:31 AM   #22
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

if you want to have a more stable orbit, use about 63-64 inclination. Reduces the effects of non-spherical gravity. But also costs performance of the launch vehicles. Not so much a concern with XR-vessels.

For altitude, if you are planning to use XR-vessels, you can easily use 800 km (assuming you still want to be in LEO). For the fun, you could also attempt a geostationary space station, but this costs more fuel and makes rendezvous manoeuvres a bit harder and longer.

If you want to have some fair play, define a standard configuration for the XR-vessels.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 05-09-2014, 07:54 AM   #23
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
 
jedidia's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogabooga View Post
 SSBB is okay, but there are a lot of other station modules floating around, such as Piper's and the ISS modules that were on Francophone.

Is it possible to configure these for use in IMS?
It depends on the modules. If they have embedded functionality, you can't adapt that to IMS, as IMS has its own code to handle functionality of different parts. You can still use the mesh, though.

Solar Panels and comm arrays have some limitations in their animations, for example Kulchs's solar panels cannot be adapted. Other than that, you can adapt pretty much any mesh to become an IMS module.
jedidia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 04:24 PM   #24
Castor
Orbinaut
 
Castor's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orbitingpluto View Post
 I'm curious, since I think the XR5 is just as unrealistic as the XR2, what you might have done to the XR5 to make it more realistic.
Thanks for bringing me back down to earth! You are right, a very realistic approach might take about 20-25 missions to get something substantial up in orbit. So, we have no choice but to use the XR5 for major parts of the station building.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orbitingpluto View Post
 Also, what is the purpose of the station?
The station is primarily intended for general scientific research, study on the effect of microgravity on humans over long durations and astronomical observations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogabooga View Post
 SSBB is okay, but there are a lot of other station modules floating around, such as Piper's and the ISS modules that were on Francophone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomCruiser View Post
  But you are certainly correct though, that there are many modules out there (on the 'hangar and Francophone site too) that should work fine.
These modules can also be incorporated into the station later, possibly in a second phase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomCruiser View Post
 I'd guess the orbital inclination would have to be dependent on where Castor selects as a base of operations
Recommended bases would be CSSC, Wideawake, Kourou and Baikonur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 if you want to have a more stable orbit, use about 63-64 inclination. Reduces the effects of non-spherical gravity. But also costs performance of the launch vehicles. Not so much a concern with XR-vessels.
For altitude, if you are planning to use XR-vessels, you can easily use 800 km (assuming you still want to be in LEO).
At this point, the XR vessels seem to be the primary choice for passenger and cargo transport; in which case your suggestions seem to be the best.


Thank you all for your feedback

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomCruiser View Post
 Hey I think 4th Rock did some texture wizardry for the SSBB. They might be worth a look too.
I can't find this anywhere. Could you please post a link to it ?
Castor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2014, 10:54 PM   #25
orbitingpluto
Orbiteer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Castor View Post
 Thanks for bringing me back down to earth! You are right, a very realistic approach might take about 20-25 missions to get something substantial up in orbit. So, we have no choice but to use the XR5 for major parts of the station building.
Not no choice, just the other way is harder. Sorry for bursting your bubble BTW, it's not always a good feeling to find you were inconsistent somewhere.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Castor View Post
 The station is primarily intended for general scientific research, study on the effect of microgravity on humans over long durations and astronomical observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 if you want to have a more stable orbit, use about 63-64 inclination. Reduces the effects of non-spherical gravity. But also costs performance of the launch vehicles. Not so much a concern with XR-vessels.

For altitude, if you are planning to use XR-vessels, you can easily use 800 km (assuming you still want to be in LEO). For the fun, you could also attempt a geostationary space station, but this costs more fuel and makes rendezvous manoeuvres a bit harder and longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castor View Post
 At this point, the XR vessels seem to be the primary choice for passenger and cargo transport; in which case your suggestions seem to be the best.

Since your leaning towards the XR-Fleet anyway, going to GEO for better imaginary science looks like an option. Guessing at the viewpoint of imaginary scientists, I think the better viewing and difference GEO has on humans in microgravity would make placing the station there one of those "unique opportunities' that scientists would rally for. It's also more challenging, so interested pilots ought to speak up about their preference. If GEO is unpalatable, an Urwumpe orbit seems like a good idea. No reason to make this less fun if we don't have to to.

Also, if the XR vessels are the primary transports, then there is less of a need to limit inclination to that of the main base. It would be good to have one, just that the vehicle choice doesn't limit us as much as it would be if we were using things on the harder end of the realism scale.
orbitingpluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 05-10-2014, 03:29 AM   #26
Castor
Orbinaut
 
Castor's Avatar
Default

Just a small doubt :
Can spacecraft3 vessels be incorporated as XR payloads ? If so, could someone please detail the steps ?
Castor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 05:33 AM   #27
PhantomCruiser
Wanderer
 
PhantomCruiser's Avatar

Default

I think they just need an attachment point? There is a tutorial at the 'hangar that tells how to do it. I've managed to do the same with that Farscape vessel.
PhantomCruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 10:03 AM   #28
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
 
jedidia's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Can spacecraft3 vessels be incorporated as XR payloads ? If so, could someone please detail the steps ?
If you go with IMS, you don't have sc3 (you can't have, to be precise). the configs for SSBB that come with IMS have XR5 payload parameters defined.
jedidia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2014, 02:50 PM   #29
Castor
Orbinaut
 
Castor's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jedidia View Post
 If you go with IMS, you don't have sc3 (you can't have, to be precise). the configs for SSBB that come with IMS have XR5 payload parameters defined.
I was actually thinking of some way to integrate the Soyuz docking adapter from
here
into the station. I guess there is no way to do that, unless I convert it into a custom module. Should I go ahead with that after getting permission or drop the idea of a CTV docking at the station altogether ?

After doing some detailed planning, it seems that it would take about 6 XR5 missions to get everything up there. Just to keep with tradition, the core module will be launched by the Themis-A launcher and be put into its initial orbit (800x800 km) by its second stage.Crewed missions to the station will start possibly after the first three launches( one Themis and two XR5's), but actual station habitation will take place after the fifth launch. The station will attain full functionality only after the seventh launch.

First module launch is scheduled for late 2023, with a deadline of early 2025.
Castor is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 05-10-2014, 02:56 PM   #30
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Castor View Post
 First module launch is scheduled for late 2023, with a deadline of early 2025.
Sounds pretty ambitious... ever considered making a flight manifest first and then looking how fast you can do that?

Remember to only plan for about 60% of the time to be useful, with the remaining 40% simply being buffer. Maybe somebody needs an additional orbit for docking, maybe you need to launch a day later because something did not get done in time.

Its orbiter, you still don't need to plan as precise as a real spaceflight agency. But getting some ideas about how fast is possible and how fast is impossible is important.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Space Flight Simulator > Orbiter Web Forum > Orbiter Forum Space Station


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:36 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2012, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.