New Release Interplanetary Modular Spacecraft RC9

[PeterRoss]

Maybe I should add an ASTG module like your lander has?

It is generally better to have different modules performing different tasks.

A large cooling capacity merely means it can transport a lot of heat to the radiators, but won't help if there are no radiators to transport it to.

I thought MCS can accumulate heat up to its max capacity. Oh well, then the heat capacity is the answer indeed.

Only Jedida can tell the exact details about IMS internal mechanics. And if even he can't tell if a CM can generate power or not, the only way to find it is to try

And if you want your vessel to run on batteries their capacity should be at least 20 times bigger than your vessel's power consumption - this will allow you to run it on batteries for at least 20 hours.

 

[jedidia]

Only Jedida can tell the exact details about IMS internal mechanics. And if even he can't tell if a CM can generate power or not, the only way to find it is to try

Well, it's just my forgetfullnes, plus current reluctance to open the source code and look it up :shifty:

I thought MCS can accumulate heat up to its max capacity.

No, the MCS doesn't accumulate anything, it's the modules that accumulate

 

[Furet]

Sorry for the silly question, but I really can't figure out how to use the BCFGA_Centrifuge_Ring_Segment module. :embarrassed:

Could someone post a screen capture to show me the way?

Thanks.

 

[PeterRoss]

It was designed for this construction specifically:

Although I remember Nexiss used it in some other ways too.

 

[Maximusfive]

Odd bug

So, I've finally had a chance to sit down and give this mod a try, and I seem to be encountering a strange bug. I've tried searching this thread for it, but didn't see it.

The bug is: Whenever I load a scenario that I have previously inserted a finalized IMS vessel into, the vessel will duplicate its solar panels and radiators; I.e. If the vessel had 2 solar panels and 2 radiators when I save the scenario, when I load it, it will have 4 solar panels and 4 radiators. Of course, the additional ones only show up on the engineering panel and not visually, but the ship seems to act as though it has those additional Solars and radiators. Furthermore, the radiators all deploy and retract simultaneously with the original.
On the other hand, the solars will visually appear retracted when the scenario loads, but that is only the 'new' solars, the old ones claim to be deployed and generating power, and even if I tell the old ones to retract, they still appear to be generating power, according to the engineering screen.

Visually, deploying the 'new' solars causes some rather 'interesting' solar panel designs:

The original ships engineering screen:

The bugged ships engineering screen, Cooling tab:

Bugged Ship, Power tab:

Note, on this one, solars 3 is the original, solars 2 is from a previous load where I didn't deploy them before saving, and solars 1 is the new guy.

Scenario file attached, it holds both the original ship(IMS_Test), built in that scenario, and the bugged one(Test2), inserted via scenario editor. If the bug is still raging away, you should find a fourth set of solars and radiators when you load it up, and if you deploy the new solars, the 'design' of the solar panels will be different, as it changes each time a new solar is added via this bug.
(Yes, that ship is very simple, it was only made to see if the bug would occur again.)

 

[jedidia]

That's a new one, but there are some other issues with finalized vessels. I'll have to examine it a bit, thank a lot for posting.

 

[Noldi400]

And now for what should be a ridiculously basic question...

My understanding is that any module that is built using an ini file can be modified to function with the IMS system by replacing the ini with a cfg file with the properly formatted parameters - the way it's described in jedidia's Config Writer's Guide topic.

OK, so far so good. Now, here's the question:

What about modules/vessels that have additional functions of their own, such as RCS for docking, or an existing ini-based vessel you just want to add some additional docking/construction points to? Once the module is being controlled by the cfg file, does the system completely ignore the ini file? In other words, would you have to add all the thruster parameters etc to the config file? And if so, is there a guide (or just an existing module that could be used as an example) somewhere that lists the cfg equivalent of ini syntax, like jedidia did with the animation commands?

I hope the questions clear - sometimes it's hard to explain what I'm wondering about in text form. :shrug::beathead:

 

[jedidia]

Once the module is being controlled by the cfg file, does the system completely ignore the ini file?

IMS never ever even looks at an Ini file. What is described in the config writers guide is how to reformat animations from an ini file into an IMS cfg so IMS can read them. You can throw the ini file out the window afterwards. So what you are effectively doing is using the mesh, and replacing the ini file with a IMS readable cfg. As such, everything is subjected to IMS limits, and any and all information about the module has to be in the cfg.

In other words, would you have to add all the thruster parameters etc to the config file?

The trouble is that IMS only supports thrusters for RCS and engine modules. how they have to be defined is noted under Engine and RCS moduletypes in the config guide.

 

[Noldi400]

The trouble is that IMS only supports thrusters for RCS and engine modules. how they have to be defined is noted under Engine and RCS moduletypes in the config guide.

Thanks for the quick reply. I just now came back to edit my question to say that I figured out what you just said - only RCS and engines can have thrust components. I guess my space-tug is going to be in business for a while yet.

 

[Wallenberg]

Thank you, jedidia and Peter Ross, I've managed to adjust the CONTROL_AI module to something working fine for my purposes!
It now has storage for a month of supplies to sustain two crew members. I've modified the curved radiators to cool the ASTG array with a similar radiator to the one cooling the command module to keep symmetry.

Below is the S.M.R.S. St. Georg again, now capable of sustaining 4 crew in a command module and 2 habitats, again with redundant radiators for all life-supporting modules, two closed-cycle NTRs, a delta-v of 21km/s including the new lander.
I've adjusted the ISP of the sidemount engines to more than double (now 9km/s) to keep it at a reasonable weight, though.
The lander should now have enough delta-v (12km/s) to operate in Jovian tangential transfers between the St. Georg and Europa or other moons, given that the mothership brings it close to the target with its remaining delta-v before it enters a circular Jovian orbit.

Those numbers are open for debate, since I am a very inefficient space traveller (spoiled by the glorious Deltaglider IV and Arrow freighter!).

Here, by the way, is the code of my CTRL_LANDER module, derived from the CONTROL_AI one:

ClassName = IMS
Module = IMS\IMS
Meshname = burchismo\BM002
ImageBmp=Images\Vessels\IMS\SBB41B\BM002.bmp
Mass = 5500
Size = 6.0
Inertia = 2.4 2.4 2.15

...

; ======================================
; IMS specific parameters
; ======================================
;Dimensions = 5 5 5
Oxygen = 200
Water = 200
Food = 100
CrewNumber = 2
PowerInput = 3000
CoolingCapacity = 9000
BatteryCapacity = 288

 

[Nexiss]

Although I remember Nexiss used it in some other ways too.

Yes PeterRoss, the IMS Andromeda, as pictured below:-

Also the IMS Capella :

 

[Wallenberg]

I've found out some glitch(?) of the DADG docking adapters, but maybe it has to do with the Deltaglider rather than IMS?

It seems to me that DOCKPORTs should use the datum coordinates rather than relative to the center of mass... the funny thing is that this doesn't reproduce all the time. Sometimes it docks tightly, sometimes there is empty space between docked (both IMS) vessels.

  MODULE SBB41B\DADG_Docking_Adapter 0,0,2.3756 0,0,1 0,1,0 0

...

  ;original DOCKPORT -0.0007,0.0228,10.7515 0,0,1 0,1,0
  ;this docked my ship behind 10 metres of vacuum to the mothership
  ;below is my modification
  DOCKPORT -0.0007,0.0228,2.3756 0,0,1 0,1,0

...

  MASSCENTER 0.000745 -0.022843 -7.975911

Some impressions from my Jupiter voyage, final destination Europa:

 

[PeterRoss]

This is awesome :thumbup: I'm really glad your mission finished succesfully. My lunar stationbuilding goes with some troubles connected with lack of cooling system capacity and radiators' overheating when the station loses its attitude towards sun. The help is already on the launch table, but it will take days or maybe weeks. And my crew of two brave people manning the lunar station doesn't even have fuel in Antares tanks to return them back on Earth. At least they has food supply for two months.

The thing about misplaced docking port may be a bug because I've seen some strange same-fashioned behavior lately. Will have to check it more closely.

P.S. Your lander looks very much like some TIE fighter from Star Wars :lol:

 

[jedidia]

Your lander looks very much like some TIE fighter from Star Wars

That's exactly what I was thinking.

It seems to me that DOCKPORTs should use the datum coordinates rather than relative to the center of mass... the funny thing is that this doesn't reproduce all the time.

That sounds rather weird... I'm not influencing the position of the dockports directly, they get shifted by Orbiter with the center of gravity. I wouldn't currently know where the trouble might be (nor have I ever expierienced this particular bug, but then again I didn't actually do much flying around in IMS yet...)

 

[Wallenberg]

Hehehe, I had hoped that in the community forum of a Newtonian spaceflight sim Star Wars references were scarce... but now that you guys say it, it's quite obvious to me, too!

Should I have better information about occurences of the docking port relocation matter, I'll post more data! Thanks for the help so far.

---------- Post added 10-18-12 at 12:30 AM ---------- Previous post was 10-17-12 at 09:24 PM ----------

I was thinking about the enormous costs it must have to bring a lander of this size to a planet's moon, so I decided to cut down the budget.
Built for a one-way trip with a single crew member, the Novara class carries a lightweight planetary lander. This mission went awfully wrong because I spent tons of delta-v thinking I could inject the mothership into an orbit around Saturn moon Enceladus.

 

[PeterRoss]

Hehehe, I had hoped that in the community forum of a Newtonian spaceflight sim Star Wars references were scarce...

Well, one can be an atheist but having read Bible nevertheless

I was thinking about the enormous costs it must have to bring a lander of this size to a planet's moon, so I decided to cut down the budget.
Built for a one-way trip with a single crew member, the Novara class carries a lightweight planetary lander. This mission went awfully wrong because I spent tons of delta-v thinking I could inject the mothership into an orbit around Saturn moon Enceladus.

Nice pics Heh, I remember trying to get into Titan's orbit with Kulch's Deep Star (it has ion engine, mind you!) Never managed to drop my velocity fast enough to remain in Titan's SOI for the whole orbital period.

 

[Wallenberg]

Hehehe!

Well, with my small lander (currently rather a tailsitting space tug but great for delta-v data collection) I managed a Kerbal-like injection and landing on Enceladus today. The Novara class mothership had enough delta-v left for a possible circularization of its Saturn orbit after intercepting the moon and undocking the lander halfway. For the lander's injection I used Orbital-Circularize-Autoburn just some 45 degrees before Enceladus-Pe. With small moons in big planet SOIs using the Orbit Insert from IMFD can be tricky.

Next steps include splitting the lander into a space tug and a lander/ascent vehicle combo. Leaving the mothership in its intercept orbit (t(low Saturn-Pe, Apoapsis close to Enceladus orbit) should make it easier for the tug to return to the ship.

---------- Post added 10-19-12 at 02:16 AM ---------- Previous post was 10-18-12 at 04:52 PM ----------

Again, I completely deconstructed and reassembled this ship - saving a few tons on structure and built a new lander - a very small lander!

 

[PeterRoss]

Hm, the smallest IMS lander of all I've seen (and made) :thumbup: By the way, you really don't need other engines on lander except of hovers, you can use them as main thrusters. It makes HUD a bit confusing, but you get used to it quite fast.

What's the lander's dV, by the way?

 

[Wallenberg]

I think it's about 3km/s, but I need to check again. It most probably will need a "tug" vessel to maneuver it around, but it goes into an orbit from Enceladus' surface with negligible fuel...

It's 6.13km/s!

Let's say I removed the main engines and only left it with hover engines, how would IMFD handle this?

---------- Post added at 12:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 AM ----------

Update: the Lander has, with the stock sidemount engines (not the ones where I changed the ISP to 9000), 3.17 km/s delta-v.

I'll have to redo it because there were some problems saving it.

 

[jedidia]

Let's say I removed the main engines and only left it with hover engines, how would IMFD handle this?

IMFD is actually able to handle the main burn with different thruster groups. I'm not sure on what criterions it chooses the group to work with, but if hovers are the only thing you've got, it will work with them.