SSU Development Thread (2.0 to 3.0)

[GLS]

For now is until August 18. I already try to gather tickets for the next iteration, which will come.

For me the next version should be (in order of importance):
>> 2015 upgrade (if it comes out)
>> mission editor
>> ET or SRB mesh corrections so they match
>> add upper stages (at least IUS and Centaur)
>> dps upgrades (do away with CRTMFD, common memory, displays)
>> upgrade all talkbacks and lights

 

[Urwumpe]

For me the next version should be (in order of importance):
>> 2015 upgrade (if it comes out)
>> mission editor
>> ET or SRB mesh corrections so they match
>> add upper stages (at least IUS and Centaur)
>> dps upgrades (do away with CRTMFD, common memory, displays)
>> upgrade all talkbacks and lights

I agree absolutely there. I would also include ALL upper stages that flew into the version, simply to have it done. The PAMs are much simpler than the IUS or Centaur.

(And a PKM could allow us to give STS-49 a shot, after talking so much about it)

I already think about giving the Mission Editor a first experimental shot this evening. Nothing to be proud of, really. Just some "Hey, lets do it and look how it turns out in 8 years".

 

[Donamy]

Is it to scale? If yes, than there could be done support for it analog to the Airlock/ODS.

For the 4.0 version... do you also have the insides of tunnel and airlock? maybe we could combine this with a Spacelab interior to extend the middeck a bit...

Would be a rather cheap feature compared to the other ones.

To the scale of the SSU shuttle. and yes it has the interier. Have also added the hatches for the airlock.

 

[Urwumpe]

To the scale of the SSU shuttle. and yes it has the interier. Have also added the hatches for the airlock.

To quote our holy emperor Francis: "Is it already christmas?"

:thumbup:

 

[Donamy]

The "spacer" is called the Tunnel Adapter Assembly (TAA) and was first used on STS-9. It is 2.1336 m (84") long and has an inside diameter of 1.6 m (63").

Inside or outer dimensions ? What are the hatch dimensions.

 

[DaveS]

Inside or outer dimensions ? What are the hatch dimensions.

The hatch dimensions are 1.016 m in diameter across the the arc of the "D" while the bar is 0.914 m across. The inside diameter (ID) of the cylinder section is 1.6 m. Total length including the two conical sections is 2.1336 m. The length of each cone section is 0.406 m.

 

[Donamy]

The hatch dimensions are 1.016 m in diameter across the the arc of the "D" while the bar is 0.914 m across. The inside diameter (ID) of the cylinder section is 1.6 m. Total length including the two conical sections is 2.1336 m. The length of each cone section is 0.406 m.

Could you do a drawing with arrows ?

 

[DaveS]

This is a photo of the aft hatch on the External Airlock but it applies to the TAA hatches as well:

 

[GLS]

I've been looking at how to add this TAA, and we could do away with the ODSZPos mission option, which defines the position of the External Airlock along the payload bay, and choose that parameter internally, according to whether or not the TAA is used (forward of the airlock). Any problems with this?
Another thing: could there be 2 TAAs used (one on each side)? Or shall we allow only one?

 

[Urwumpe]

One question there....

Does anybody see a problem using .NET Framework 4.6 already for an experimental project or should the more common 4.5.2 be used?

I have no problem right now using 4.6 on a Visual Studio 2013, but I suspect not everybody has also a Visual Studio 2015 in parallel for testing.

 

[DaveS]

I've been looking at how to add this TAA, and we could do away with the ODSZPos mission option, which defines the position of the External Airlock along the payload bay, and choose that parameter internally, according to whether or not the TAA is used (forward of the airlock). Any problems with this?
Another thing: could there be 2 TAAs used (one on each side)? Or shall we allow only one?

Only one is my vote. The reason for the TAA is to add contingency EVA capability when the normal EVA egress/ingress hatch is blocked. So it only flew on missions that used a Spacelab/SpaceHAB module where they transfer tunnel was connected to the airlock.

---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 PM ----------

One question there....

Does anybody see a problem using .NET Framework 4.6 already for an experimental project or should the more common 4.5.2 be used?

I have no problem right now using 4.6 on a Visual Studio 2013, but I suspect not everybody has also a Visual Studio 2015 in parallel for testing.

I recommend using 4.5.2.

 

[Urwumpe]

I've been looking at how to add this TAA, and we could do away with the ODSZPos mission option, which defines the position of the External Airlock along the payload bay, and choose that parameter internally, according to whether or not the TAA is used (forward of the airlock). Any problems with this?
Another thing: could there be 2 TAAs used (one on each side)? Or shall we allow only one?

No problem for me there... maybe we can define the payloads attached to the mid deck hatch as sequence in the mission file?

Maybe under the name "CabinExtension0=TAA".

 

[GLS]

One question there....

Does anybody see a problem using .NET Framework 4.6 already for an experimental project or should the more common 4.5.2 be used?

I have no problem right now using 4.6 on a Visual Studio 2013, but I suspect not everybody has also a Visual Studio 2015 in parallel for testing.

As I don't even know .NET 0.1, so my opinnion can't really count. Does either of them run in vs2010?

 

[Urwumpe]

As I don't even know .NET 0.1, so my opinnion can't really count. Does either of them run in vs2010?

Not that I know for sure, but VS2010 did already support .NET 4.0

Shall I commit it as it is and allow you to check? Right now its just some XAML prototyping to find the UI design language that I want.

And yes, don't expect too much on .NET from my side as well. Learning by doing!

 

[GLS]

No problem for me there... maybe we can define the payloads attached to the mid deck hatch as sequence in the mission file?

Maybe under the name "CabinExtension0=TAA".

As in:
CabinExtension0=TAA
CabinExtension1=ExtAirlock
CabinExtension2=Tunnel
CabinExtension3=Spacelab
?
If so, it would be usefull when we have all those things (and stuff to do in them). For now I was thinking of "ForwardTTA=TRUE"/"AftTTA=TRUE" or maybe "UseTTA=TRUE"/"ForwardTTA=TRUE".

 

[Urwumpe]

As in:
CabinExtension0=TAA
CabinExtension1=ExtAirlock
CabinExtension2=Tunnel
CabinExtension3=Spacelab
?

Exactly that - not sure if we really need more options there. The placement of the elements can't vary, we just have the problem that we can't easily include new payloads in that way.

 

[GLS]

Not that I know for sure, but VS2010 did already support .NET 4.0

Shall I commit it as it is and allow you to check? Right now its just some XAML prototyping to find the UI design language that I want.

And yes, don't expect too much on .NET from my side as well. Learning by doing!

Did some searching and VS2010 doesn't work with .NET > 4. So for now I can't do anything, 4.5 or 4.6.

 

[Urwumpe]

Did some searching and VS2010 doesn't work with .NET > 4. So for now I can't do anything, 4.5 or 4.6.

Well, 2010 is a long while ago...

I don't think I can recommend going below 4.5, since 4.5 adds the asynchronous processing API that .NET badly lacked compared to Java then and which is necessary. Also I used the Ribbon API for building the application, which is again 4.5+.

 

[GLS]

Well, 2010 is a long while ago...

I don't think I can recommend going below 4.5, since 4.5 adds the asynchronous processing API that .NET badly lacked compared to Java then and which is necessary. Also I used the Ribbon API for building the application, which is again 4.5+.

Do whatever you have to do. I'll catch up... eventually.

 

[Donamy]

This is a photo of the aft hatch on the External Airlock but it applies to the TAA hatches as well:

The "D" measurement wouldn't be 0.614m, would it ?