Mission Editor 1.0 Requirements Specification Thread

[Urwumpe]

This is the thread for gathering all requirements for the Mission Editor as brainstorming session. Please check if something was already posted before you suggest it.

Please describe the requirement as specific as possible, ideally with pictures. Don't prescribe technical solutions, if they aren't necessary. Stick to the user perspective. Use quantifiable requirements, if possible ("Supports long missions" vs. "maximum mission duration should be 30 days")

I will compile this into a requirements specification document and put it into the SSU repository for versioning.

One requirement I can already add here:

SSU-ME-000001 : Mission Editor must run on machines capable of running Orbiter and SSU.

 

[Donamy]

There are 13 bays in the payload bay, which would give accurate postioning, to go by for the attachments, with some leeway for positioning. Payloads that require special controls, not permanently installed on the flightdeck, should be a seperate addon. IMO

 

[GLS]

This is not exclusive to the "Mission Editor" as it also needs work inside SSU, but we need to separate the "mission kits" (or whatever they're called) in 2. Example: the Centaur has plumbing inside the OV, and the stage itself (and CISS) in the PLB, and we need to be able to define them separately, so we can have just the plumbing (and the objective here is having its mass, like in missions STS 51J and 61B), or having the whole thing. The same applies to the RMS/OMS Kit/EDO and probably more.
It would be nice to have some sort of list for "I-Loads", the most common in plain view, and the complete list in an "advanced options" zone.

On the general design of the window, having the options separated into tabs would be very helpful so it doesn't become the mess I posted in the other thread.

 

[DaveS]

This is not exclusive to the "Mission Editor" as it also needs work inside SSU, but we need to separate the "mission kits" (or whatever they're called) in 2. Example: the Centaur has plumbing inside the OV, and the stage itself (and CISS) in the PLB, and we need to be able to define them separately, so we can have just the plumbing (and the objective here is having its mass, like in missions STS 51J and 61B), or having the whole thing. The same applies to the RMS/OMS Kit/EDO and probably more..

Just to eliminate any confusion: The "mission kit" for the Centaur missions included the following:

• Cryogenic plumbing
• Disconnects
• Dual check-valves
• LO2 dump exit heater
• Flame arrestor
• Isolators and seals
• Selected secondary line supports
• Umbilical assemblies

According to my extensive research on the subject, Atlantis only got the "modification kit" after STS-61B, I haven't managed to confirm the presence of the "mission kit" items.

 

[GLS]

I read somewhere that Atlantis already came with all the stuff, Challenger had (or was going to have) the changes made at KSC.
Anyway, I think my rationalle still applies, and all the items above (and it seems they're all non-visual stuff) need to be controlled by an option independent of the Centaur being carried or not.

 

[SiameseCat]

This is not exclusive to the "Mission Editor" as it also needs work inside SSU, but we need to separate the "mission kits" (or whatever they're called) in 2. Example: the Centaur has plumbing inside the OV, and the stage itself (and CISS) in the PLB, and we need to be able to define them separately, so we can have just the plumbing (and the objective here is having its mass, like in missions STS 51J and 61B), or having the whole thing. The same applies to the RMS/OMS Kit/EDO and probably more.
It would be nice to have some sort of list for "I-Loads", the most common in plain view, and the complete list in an "advanced options" zone.

On the general design of the window, having the options separated into tabs would be very helpful so it doesn't become the mess I posted in the other thread.

If the only thing needs to be added is the mass (and the Centaur plumbing doesn't affect the rest of the simulation), the simplest idea might be to just add a mission file entry specifying the additional mass and the CoG of the added plumbing. In theory, we could have multiple entries to simulate different additional components (for example, experiments, objects in the payload bay, etc.).

 

[Urwumpe]

If the only thing needs to be added is the mass (and the Centaur plumbing doesn't affect the rest of the simulation), the simplest idea might be to just add a mission file entry specifying the additional mass and the CoG of the added plumbing. In theory, we could have multiple entries to simulate different additional components (for example, experiments, objects in the payload bay, etc.).

In theory, we might have more to do, since the plumbing also had instrumentation and possible failure modes. But for now, considering it to be dead mass is fine enough.

I think we should just reserve some space in the mission editor for allowing special configuration "forms" later (no interest right now to get dogmatic, if it should be done by dialog or by tabbed window) to configure such more complex payloads and their support equipment.

What I think could be done in 1.0 and would make writing scenario files a lot easier:

Use input files for describing switch positions and other mission phase related data (like default time to launch, etc.) for avoiding hardcoding this.

 

[DaveS]

The ability to toggle PLB liner on/off. The liner was special beta-cloth fabric that was attached over the regular TCS blankets of the PLB. First mission to fly it was STS-6.

 

[Donamy]

Oh we can't overlook that, can we. :facepalm:

 

[Urwumpe]

Oh we can't overlook that, can we. :facepalm:

Its brainstorming, I really asked for it, I fear. :lol:

 

[DaveS]

Its brainstorming, I really asked for it, I fear. :lol:

Well, GLS asked for the Centaur Mod/Mission Kits which doesn't look like much and the PLB liner is pretty much the same. Also it is pretty distinctive and looks pretty different from the standard insulation.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, GLS asked for the Centaur Mod/Mission Kits which doesn't look like much and the PLB liner is pretty much the same. Also it is pretty distinctive and looks pretty different from the standard insulation.

Yes... but remember, its about the mission editor here.

Its a brainstorming phase, so any input is welcome and like all brainstorming phases, we will all stay away from judging the inputs of others.

 

[DaveS]

According to this document, A high energy stage for the National Space Transportation System, the permanent weight added by the Centaur Mod Kit to OV099/104 was only 122 kg (268 lbs).

 

[Urwumpe]

According to this document, A high energy stage for the National Space Transportation System, the permanent weight added by the Centaur Mod Kit to OV099/104 was only 122 kg (268 lbs).

Thats interesting... is that the final mass properties or a preliminary design estimate? I would also expect an upper bound of 250 kg there, so the numbers are realistic.

 

[DaveS]

Thats interesting... is that the final mass properties or a preliminary design estimate? I would also expect an upper bound of 250 kg there, so the numbers are realistic.

Not sure as it is the only number I have seen. Considering the only item added by the Centaur Mod Kit was the secondary line support structure, I guess the number holds up. The rest was the actual Mission Kit and the umber I have seen for that is 1315.417873 kg (2900 lbs).

 

[GLS]

One thing I remembered: currently there's no standard (correct) Pad/(MLP)/Shuttle coordinates for launch scenarios, and the result is that in some scenarios things don't lineup correctly. We need a set of correct coordinates to have in the Mission Editor so the hardware always lines up in the launch scenarios.