Project Orbital/Transfer Cargo Hub Station/Ship

[Interceptor]

Yeah,I like the idea too.

 

[csanders]

Ok chaps, new toy for you to look at!

I decided to explore the original drydock concept I had, whereby it could fit in the payload bay of an XR5, yet be large enough to service DG class vessels.

So, after some origami, I came up with the following (very WIP obviously):

That's some fancy folding. I like it.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

I think it's an interesting concept and it kind of reminds me something the USA were looking to do with the Dual Keel space station design where there was a repair bay connected to the top right of the station.
Now this was meant to be for satellites but with things like the DG and XR-2 providing a single stage to orbit I don't see why that design shouldn't be expanded to something like this.

That's quite sweet actually. I love the nostalgia of the old style space paintings.. is that a stolen soyuz in the service bay?


Well, since the general feedback in this thread so far is not just howls of laughter, I may pursue all this stuff further. Need something to launch from AU when it's done after all...

 

[Hlynkacg]

It'd be kind of nice to have an updated, dll-based, set of space station building blocks.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

It'd be kind of nice to have an updated, dll-based, set of space station building blocks.

Getting there, very slowly

http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=30253

Only three in the first release, but 3 more have been dlled since then.

 

[paddy2]

since the general feedback in this thread so far is not just howls of laughter

Far from it.

Would the foldable hanger not also work on the ground. (Turn the doors through 90 degrees)

 

[garyw]

Would the foldable hanger not also work on the ground. (Turn the doors through 90 degrees)

Not a bad idea... deployable hangar for Mars maybe? Something to remove as much dust as possible from your vehicle that'll allow you to escape off the Red Planet....

 

[Face]

Well, since the general feedback in this thread so far is not just howls of laughter, I may pursue all this stuff further. Need something to launch from AU when it's done after all...

Talking 'bout subtle prodding the code monkey :rofl:.

On a serious note, those ideas really look good. Would make nice building blocks for stations/big-ships, too.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

Far from it.

Would the foldable hanger not also work on the ground. (Turn the doors through 90 degrees)

Not a bad idea... deployable hangar for Mars maybe? Something to remove as much dust as possible from your escape off the Red Planet....

Ah, interesting thought I hadn't considered gents. I don't think this specific design would work in that regard, as the docking port is central and the octagonal shape is somewhat wasteful for a surface hangar. But, if the origami idea is popular, I could develop a ground based version, specifically for the task. I'll give t some thought.

Talking 'bout subtle prodding the code monkey :rofl:.

On a serious note, those ideas really look good. Would make nice building blocks for stations/big-ships, too.

Hmmm, there doesn't seem to be an innocent whistling emote... . But, ha, I'm hardly in a position to poke you for slow development!

Cheers or the feedback, maybe Toehold will finally get off the drawing board!

 

[wehaveaproblem]

Ok, so a coupla things for your feedback please.

First, the ground-based origami drydock. I have experimented with a few options and it's proving harder than expected to get the result I want. I think one of the problems is that it feels like it needs more structural integrity than the orbital version, as it has to work under (albeit reduced) gravity. With the orbital one, given a little unobtanium, I think a 20cm thick wall is suitable and could accommodate the low torque actuators needed to unfold it. But under gravity this seems a little less acceptable. So this is in the works, but concept anim videos are not worthwhile yet. Plus this is a second string to the project as I am focusing on the orbital stuff. But any thoughts on this issue would be appreciated.


Second, back to the station modules, specifically the trusses. I'm after a little engineering/design thoughts on this please. Here is a section of the truss as it is:

This section is 1.8m x 1.8m x 19.4m. The tunnel is 1.4m x 1.4m.

My questions/thoughts/queries are as follows:-

-Trusses are supposed to save weight yet be structurally strong. Does the balance/ratio/dimension of this truss look right to you in that regard?

-The central tunnel is supposed to represent a simple pressurised thoroughfare, with a dock at each end. Sound sensible/feasible?

-Structural integrity. The one thing that 'worries' me about the way I am currently using the modules/trusses is that it does not include any diagonal supports. Do you think twisting/torque could be a problem in this regard (theoretically/realistically speaking), or do you think there is enough 'stuff' there to make a station solid enough?

-Docks and attachment points. My understanding is that SC3 cannot move docks/attachments with animations. So I perceive problems with docks which are only in the correct position once the module is unfolded. eg by accident, you could dock the module to something accidentally while the module is folded up. Is there a workaround for this? can .dlls move docking points? should I favour attachment points over docks, where possible?

Any thoughts/help would be appreciated.

 

[Donamy]

You can move one attachment with SC3, by using the robotics option.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

You can move one attachment with SC3, by using the robotics option.

Ah yes that's true, cheers. But my design really calls for multiple attachment and docking points per truss, to accommodate all the modular options, so 1 falls somewhat short of that requirement.

 

[Face]

This section is 1.8m x 1.8m x 19.4m. The tunnel is 1.4m x 1.4m.

My questions/thoughts/queries are as follows:-

-Trusses are supposed to save weight yet be structurally strong. Does the balance/ratio/dimension of this truss look right to you in that regard?

From your dimension description, those truss elements look like 15-20cm square pipes, is that about right? If so, the construction would be pretty rigid judging by my experience as mechanical engineer for conveyor systems.
On a wild guess I'd say simple 10x10cm angle steel would suffice for such dimensions for a regular earth environment. But of course it depends on the material used and the forces involved.
If we say we make it from aluminum and it will only have to support itself under 1g acceleration, I think you could go as low as 5-6 cm diameter pipe with a wall thickness of about a half cm.

-The central tunnel is supposed to represent a simple pressurised thoroughfare, with a dock at each end. Sound sensible/feasible?

If it is pressurized, it would be good to think about micro-meteor protection. I don't know how thick such a system would need to be, though.

-Structural integrity. The one thing that 'worries' me about the way I am currently using the modules/trusses is that it does not include any diagonal supports. Do you think twisting/torque could be a problem in this regard (theoretically/realistically speaking), or do you think there is enough 'stuff' there to make a station solid enough?

The diagonal elements should make the construction resistant enough, although for that a strict cross-element section layout would be better (roughly doubles torque resistance). In your original design, though, the parallel elements themselves would be already sufficient.

The big advantage of truss construction is, that the elements it is made of only have to withstand pull/push forces, no shearing or bending. Yet the whole construction is in itself resistant to all forces, including torque.

-Docks and attachment points. My understanding is that SC3 cannot move docks/attachments with animations. So I perceive problems with docks which are only in the correct position once the module is unfolded. eg by accident, you could dock the module to something accidentally while the module is folded up. Is there a workaround for this? can .dlls move docking points? should I favour attachment points over docks, where possible?

DLLs can move docking points. Attachment points have the disadvantage of not having CoG managed by core Orbiter.

As for SC3 - since Artlav already made the genericvessel project jumping ahead to SC3 compatibility with his contribution - you could use the replacement project and bug the community to implement docking point animation in there .

regards,
Face

 

[wehaveaproblem]

From your dimension description...snip... I think you could go as low as 5-6 cm diameter pipe with a wall thickness of about a half cm.

Thanks for that info, very helpful. yes your estimates are about right. I did wonder if it was actually a bit heavyweight for what was required, so I may slim it down a touch.

If it is pressurized, it would be good to think about micro-meteor protection. I don't know how thick such a system would need to be, though.

Yeah I did think about that. My thought was that it could be a fairly simple inflatable tube. The logic being that, since it is only used for transfer from one module area to another and have bulkheads at each end, they would be easy to evacuate and seal off if there was a breach. That said, I too have no idea what shielding would be worth having, is future-tech kevlar enough? or are we talking 6 inches of ablative plate?

The diagonal elements should make the ...snip... all forces, including torque.

:thumbup:

DLLs can move docking points. Attachment points have the disadvantage of not having CoG managed by core Orbiter.

You might regret telling me that lol...

As for SC3 - since Artlav already made the genericvessel project jumping ahead to SC3 compatibility with his contribution - you could use the replacement project and bugger the community to implement docking point animation in there .

Maybe I'll just bug them instead...

 

[Face]

Maybe I'll just bug them instead...

Thanks for the correction, seems like I buggered it up? :lol:

 

[paddy2]

I've been pondering an idea for a while now

from post One.

Now we are onto page three.... yeap this idea has got legs, and trusses and pipes and...

 

[MaverickSawyer]

-snip-
That said, I too have no idea what shielding would be worth having, is future-tech kevlar enough? or are we talking 6 inches of ablative plate?
-snip-

Well, depends. Do you want to have to go EVA every time you get hit by a hypervelocity sand grain, or do you want to have to go out maybe once a month and patch the shielding? Your choice!

 

[wehaveaproblem]

Well, depends. Do you want to have to go EVA every time you get hit by a hypervelocity sand grain, or do you want to have to go out maybe once a month and patch the shielding? Your choice!

Well that depends on what is actually required for protection, my suggestions were just wild guesses.