Project Roskosmos "тайга" Lunar Lander

[Tacolev]

Don't see this mentioned: Have to switch back to pilot camera before switching between docking and landing cams.

 

[N_Molson]

Don't see this mentioned: Have to switch back to pilot camera before switching between docking and landing cams.

For now, this is intentional

Speaking of cameras, I just discovered a new bug about the landing camera : its angle to the horizon is -30° ; it should be -45°. I fixed it and it makes the landing cam much more useful for landing, as it was intended to. Will be fixed in next version.

Also, EVAing crew in suboptimal health condition will now reduce the time you can stay outside (to a few minutes for the worst conditions).

 

[N_Molson]

v0.805

Little changes and bugfixes :

- 1 additional HUD submode to ease the reading
- Some typographic changes around the HUD submodes
- Auto-heating / cooling should not cause problems anymore, unless you use 10000x time accel. There will be further improvements in that department, it is still very dependant of computer performance.
- Landing camera viewing angle set to -45° (as it was intended to).
- The crew health now determines the duration of EVAs.
- Scenarios have been "cleaned" and given proper names.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Looking through lists of UMMU crews gives me a hint that Volkovs aren't the only Cosmonaut family with a heritage!

Capt-Dimitri_Leonov
-Serguei_Feokistov
Capt-Boris_Komarov
Cos-Igor_Solovyev

 

[Arthur Dent]

Little changes and bugfixes :
- Auto-heating / cooling should not cause problems anymore, unless you use 10000x time accel. There will be further improvements in that department, it is still very dependant of computer performance.

Do you plan to disable 10000x time acceleration? I catch myself occasionally to press "t" one time too many.
It's fine for interplanetary missions, but IMHO I think earth to moon trips don't need to be that fast

 

[Urwumpe]

Do you plan to disable 10000x time acceleration? I catch myself occasionally to press "t" one time too many.
It's fine for interplanetary missions, but IMHO I think earth to moon trips don't need to be that fast

I would better switch to a coarser, less dynamic model for representing the heating of the spacecraft. Like assuming a constant temperature as long as the autoheating works.

 

[N_Molson]

Good idea. I'll introduce some constants if time accel > 100 and other if time accel > 1000. Of course, they should be slightly at the player disadvantage to reward patience.

 

[N_Molson]

Bolje moï !

It seems we have a problem with the vehicle integration. Something has to be done about that ladder, but what ? Making an articulation in the middle of it ? Making it perfectly vertical on the last steps ? That fairing is already too large, the solution won't come from there... Hmm... :hmm:

 

[Grover]

i guess you could always leave it behind...

alternately, you could fold it inwards, or design a new fairing which will not be very conventional...

 

[Thorton]

Bolje moï !

It seems we have a problem with the vehicle integration. Something has to be done about that ladder, but what ? Making an articulation in the middle of it ? Making it perfectly vertical on the last steps ? That fairing is already too large, the solution won't come from there... Hmm... :hmm:

Why dont you use your own custom fairings, especially designed for lander?

 

[N_Molson]

Здравствуйте Thorton !

I guess that it would be possible to make a bump into the fairing to provide space for the ladder, whithout compromising the aerodynamics (provided there is another similar bump on the opposite side) :idea:

I will work on that. :yes:

I found an interesting launch configuration : BreezeM (without the external tank) + Lander + Payload (why not adding a small commercial satellite to make the launch less expensive ?).

1- The Proton stage 3 sends the assembly to orbit.
2- The BreezeM tug provides the required orbit adjustements to allow the Lander to dock with the KVRB.
3- The Lander is released and docks with the KVRB.
4 - The BreezeM tug uses what remains of its fuel to send the commercial satellite into a MEO (like 1000x1000 kilometers).

 

[Loru]

Why dont you use your own custom fairings, especially designed for lander?

Ya. Especially that you lack only ~0.5 meter in fairing's radius.

 

[Urwumpe]

Remember to add around 10-15 cm dynamic envelope around the payload - that is the volume, which your payload can't use because of the vibrations of the fairing, or fairing separation.

You could also change the cross section of the torus tank and reduce its outer diameter... but that would likely throw you back by a week or two, depending on your free time to sleep ratio.

 

[N_Molson]

Phew, meshing that fairing was not the funniest thing I ever did, and the result is not very esthetic. No matter, with textures and a few decals it shoud be ok.

Here we have a sight of what lies inside the fairing :

And some pics of a test-flight :



Pic 1 : Close-up of the custom fairing, notice the bumps for the ladder.
Pic 2 : Ascent towards the rising Sun.
Pic 3 : Stage 2 separation.
Pic 4 : Ascent continues.
Pic 5 : Stage 3 separation.
Pic 6 : Fairing separation.
Pic 7 : Orbital insertion.
Pic 8 : Lander jettisonned ; now the Breeze-M tug can fly its own mission and deliver the secondary payload on another orbit.

 

[K_Jameson]

At 40 years of age, Proton remains a very classy rocket.

 

[Urwumpe]

Why don't you use the torus tank for the Breeze-M?

 

[N_Molson]

Why don't you use the torus tank for the Breeze-M?

Mainly because I have no use for it... The secondary payload case is pretty small, so the satellite will probably not be over 500 kgs (1x0.5x05 meters).

I made a guidance file so that the Proton delivers the whole stack on a 180x240 km orbit. A short BreezeM burn allows to circularize to a 240x240 km orbit, perfect for a rendez-vous with a SoyuzTMA.

Then the small satellite can be sent on a variety of orbits, a lunar flyby would even be possible (for close last-minute landing site recon, why not...) !

And even with extra fuel, the BreezeM will never be powerful enough to reduce the Inc. so that the sat could be sent to GSO (the launch trajectory isn't optimized for that).

But I'm taking any extra ideas at this point, I have a total tug+payload mass at liftoff of 17 tons, and could easily add 3 tons of valuable stuff. The problem is more the lack of room...

---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

The satellite bus could be Proteus ; satellites of this class typically range from 500 kgs to 700 kgs. Corot, Jason, CALIPSO, SMOS are exemples of that class. The idea is to make the launch of the lander less expensive.

 

[Urwumpe]

Oh ok, I thought you planned to perform a lunar orbit rendezvous mission, with the Soyuz docking to the lander in LLO.

 

[N_Molson]

Yes, that first launch is a simple orbital manned test, much like Apollo 9 except that there are 2 launches.

For a lunar rendez-vous, more launches would be needed. Here's the way I currently see it. Of course 3 Proton pads are needed, maybe one launch could take place on the future Russian cosmodrome.

(ProtonM/BreezeM) Launch 1

- Lander to LEO.
- Commercial satellite to LEO, Molinya...

(ProtonM) Launch 2

Cryogenic KVRB tug to LEO (20 tons).

At this point, the two vehicles have to dock, then the KVRB performs the TLI and the LOI burns.

(ProtonM) Launch 3

Cryogenic KVRB tug #2 to LEO.

(R7) Launch 4

SoyuzTMA launch.

The TMA docks with the KVRB #2, and here we go !

 

[Grover]

so youve got 4 launches? that can be a pain

what if the 4th one fails, youve wasted not only the lives of your astronauts, but FOUR WHOLE PROTON LAUNCHES!

why not just use an N1 and do it in one?