SSU Development Thread (2.0 to 3.0)

[Donamy]

I would like to say something about the measurent issue. The exact numbers, to me are less important than the way it looks (being a graphics guy). There is more to it than just, the measurement of nose to tail, because of the sizing of the entire model. For example: Is the nose RCC exactly the right length and with? Is the tail the exactly right size. It will never be exact, because there are too many parts, that the dimensions aren't as clear. What I've done is make a box with the diagrams as closely as I could, (basically from scratch) and matched the model as best I can, to get it real close. That's all anyone can hope for, and if it is continually, tweeked and moved and stretched there will be problems. Let's get an acceptable mesh and keep the basics of it intact, and not have changes that will break it or ruin the texture mapping.

Just my 3 cents

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, there we have a conflict, because for all the rest, we need exact dimensions. At least for some key parameters. For example, without an exact payload bay, we would get into hells kitchen for the scenario design. Animations and thruster positions would be harder to implement, if we have to differ between how it behaves and how it looks.

I don't really mind if the wing is 80 cm or 90 cm thick. that has no effect on our model. but the overall length? including rudder/speedbrake position? Maybe also a offset to the cg? Thats causes us more problems on the backend than it solves on the front end.

 

[Donamy]

What do you need, as far as the model is concerned, to get the info you need, before the final texturing ?

 

[Urwumpe]

What do you need, as far as the model is concerned, to get the info you need, before the final texturing ?

Well, lets gather the geometric interfaces of the orbiter, by order of importance or impact on animation code (by complexity):

Payload bay size and shape
RMS
engine/truster positions
payload bay doors and hooks
forward radiators
ET umbilical plates
ET forward attachment
T-0 umbilical plates
Landing gear
ODS
aerodynamic control surfaces
external airlock hatches and tunnels
Camera positions
window locations and shapes
wing shape
payload bay vents
Star trackers and their doors


Around that, did I miss something critical in that order?

 

[SiameseCat]

The only things I'd add are the Ku-band antenna and the OBSS/MPMs (this can be considered part of the RMS system).

 

[Urwumpe]

The only things I'd add are the Ku-band antenna and the OBSS/MPMs (this can be considered part of the RMS system).

I was not sure if the Ku-Band antenna is really an external dependency of the orbiter, but you are right on OBSS/MPMs and of course also the PDRS.

 

[DaveS]

I was not sure if the Ku-Band antenna is really an external dependency of the orbiter, but you are right on OBSS/MPMs and of course also the PDRS.

What do you mean by "external dependency"? If it is that it can be separate from the orbiter, then yes, it is an external dependency as it can be jettisoned just like the RMS/MPMs.

 

[Urwumpe]

What do you mean by "external dependency"? If it is that it can be separate from the orbiter, then yes, it is an external dependency as it can be jettisoned just like the RMS/MPMs.

More like: Something outside the Orbiter depends on it, may it be making another component of the stack (ET, launch pad), a payload or writing scenarios for it.

The Ku-Band antenna can be separated, but practically we have nothing that depends on the exact position of the Ku-Band antenna, while the Ku-Band antenna and its position depend on many other things being exact.

 

[SiameseCat]

The SCOM is wrong. The SODB has the aft tip of the vertical stabilizer (the aft-most element of the orbiter) at 1693 inches. Subtracting 236 from that number (236 inches is where the forward-most tip of the nosecap is) gives us 1457 inches of total length. Converting that to meters gives 37.0078.

So in fact it is too long by almost 1 inch.

David413 sent me a scan from the Space Shuttle Systems Handbook (Rev. E, dated April 1995) which has the aft tip of the vertical stabilizer at 1702 inches, which matches the value in the SCOM.

Do you have any idea why there are 2 different values for the aft tip position? The only thing I can think of is that drawing from the Systems Handbook doesn't include the modifications required for the drag chute, while the SODB drawing includes the drag chute modifications.

 

[Donamy]

Let me ask again, why it is so critical to have everything exact ? This is a simulation right ? We won't actually be going into space are we ? People won't actually be making payloads for it, are they ? No one is getting paid, to my knowledge for this.

 

[Urwumpe]

Let me ask again, why it is so critical to have everything exact ? This is a simulation right ? We won't actually be going into space are we ? People won't actually be making payloads for it, are they ? No one is getting paid, to my knowledge for this.

It is about interfaces.

Of course we can just say "Pi is defined as 3" and call it the "New Pie", but such actions have consequences, since many other interfaces are related.

And maybe you have not yet noticed it: But there is right now more than one person doing it, and we have people coming and people going. If you do for yourself a Space Shuttle and program everything, fine, maybe you can do it your way and forget about interfaces. If you declare that something that actually is expected to be 25 meters away is 24 meters away ... you should just hope that you NEVER forget that you defined it as 24 meters, because otherwise you will quickly appreciate the "principle of the least surprise".

If we would be going into space we would talk about much more paper work than less than 50 distances that have to be right. A Cubesat has more specifications to provide and conform than a SSU orbiter mesh.

 

[SiameseCat]

What Urwumpe said. There are payloads, etc. that will be affected if the shuttle mesh dimensions are incorrect. If the mesh matches the real-life dimensions, we can easily follow the real-life documentation and checklists. If we have to add fudge factors to account for inaccuracies in the mesh, everything becomes a lot more difficult.

 

[Donamy]

It is about interfaces.



Of course we can just say "Pi is defined as 3" and call it the "New Pie", but such actions have consequences, since many other interfaces are related.



And maybe you have not yet noticed it: But there is right now more than one person doing it, and we have people coming and people going. If you do for yourself a Space Shuttle and program everything, fine, maybe you can do it your way and forget about interfaces. If you declare that something that actually is expected to be 25 meters away is 24 meters away ... you should just hope that you NEVER forget that you defined it as 24 meters, because otherwise you will quickly appreciate the "principle of the least surprise".



If we would be going into space we would talk about much more paper work than less than 50 distances that have to be right. A Cubesat has more specifications to provide and conform than a SSU orbiter mesh.

I guess we have two different visions, of what we percieve SSU to be. I was hoping, that we were working on a project, for release to the public of a really detailed shuttle model that would do alot of cool things, like launch, get into orbit, rendezvous realistically. Build the ISS, using the great robotics that SC did. De-orbit, land and do the next mission. Not making an exact, down to the nuts and bolts of each shuttle system.

What I have noticed is that the SSU, has become the personal property of one member. There is no one, the public, using SSU to my knowledge. I get alot of PMs asking me to convince the SSU team, and I use the term loosely, to get something out on OH that people can use. I don't see that happening, with the way things are going now. So, I guess you are right, I need to go elsewhere, where my talents might be appreciated.

---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 PM ----------

What Urwumpe said. There are payloads, etc. that will be affected if the shuttle mesh dimensions are incorrect. If the mesh matches the real-life dimensions, we can easily follow the real-life documentation and checklists. If we have to add fudge factors to account for inaccuracies in the mesh, everything becomes a lot more difficult.

Who's gonna make the payloads ?

 

[Urwumpe]

I guess we have two different visions, of what we percieve SSU to be. I was hoping, that we were working on a project, for release to the public of a really detailed shuttle model that would do alot of cool things, like launch, get into orbit, rendezvous realistically. Build the ISS, using the great robotics that SC did. De-orbit, land and do the next mission. Not making an exact, down to the nuts and bolts of each shuttle system.

Well, and there we have to disagree. We can't achieve A (really detailed shuttle model that would do alot of cool things, like launch, get into orbit, rendezvous realistically) without also a lot of B (making an exact, down to the nuts and bolts of each shuttle system).

We can sure argue about how much nuts and bolts really are necessary and which level of fidelity is really noticable to anybody not being Story Musgrave. But we can't fake it all, without quickly running out of handwavium.

I thought you also agree that there must be something better between Shuttle Fleet, which is stuck in its evolution for years now, and switch-throwing-simulations like Shuttle Mission Simulator.

What I have noticed is that the SSU, has become the personal property of one member. There is no one, the public, using SSU to my knowledge. I get alot of PMs asking me to convince the SSU team, and I use the term loosely, to get something out on OH that people can use. I don't see that happening, with the way things are going now. So, I guess you are right, I need to go elsewhere, where my talents might be appreciated.

And here, you force me to get some hard words.

I don't get the PMs asking me, and you can be sure my reaction to them would be somewhere between friendly saying "No, we learned from our errors, we can't do that now" and a unfriendly press on the delete button. What do you expect? We magically wave some wand and viola, everything works without problems, everything has no bugs at all, we can release and everybody is happy? Sorry, reality is not like that. Its a complex software, that a lot of tinkering has made a lot more complex. Even magic would not work here.

SSU is nobodies property except all the people involved and contributing. All the same. Including you. You are part of the project, even if you quit, at least for a very long period of time to follow.

It is especially not my project, because I have become too much observer and too little contributor to have a big enough stake to hold in the discussion about the projects path.

About the personal issues there, I recommend to use the PM system also for something useful. That kind of discussion does not belong to the public.

 

[Donamy]

Well, and there we have to disagree. We can't achieve A (really detailed shuttle model that would do alot of cool things, like launch, get into orbit, rendezvous realistically) without also a lot of B (making an exact, down to the nuts and bolts of each shuttle system).

We can sure argue about how much nuts and bolts really are necessary and which level of fidelity is really noticable to anybody not being Story Musgrave. But we can't fake it all, without quickly running out of handwavium.

I thought you also agree that there must be something better between Shuttle Fleet, which is stuck in its evolution for years now, and switch-throwing-simulations like Shuttle Mission Simulator.



And here, you force me to get some hard words.

I don't get the PMs asking me, and you can be sure my reaction to them would be somewhere between friendly saying "No, we learned from our errors, we can't do that now" and a unfriendly press on the delete button. What do you expect? We magically wave some wand and viola, everything works without problems, everything has no bugs at all, we can release and everybody is happy? Sorry, reality is not like that. Its a complex software, that a lot of tinkering has made a lot more complex. Even magic would not work here.

SSU is nobodies property except all the people involved and contributing. All the same. Including you. You are part of the project, even if you quit, at least for a very long period of time to follow.

It is especially not my project, because I have become too much observer and too little contributor to have a big enough stake to hold in the discussion about the projects path.

About the personal issues there, I recommend to use the PM system also for something useful. That kind of discussion does not belong to the public.

Actually the PMs are very friendly. I don't see what your problem is. You're always seem very adversarial. And I'll say one thing. I've been kicked out of better places.

 

[Urwumpe]

Actually the PMs are very friendly. I don't see what your problem is. You're always seem very adversarial. And I'll say one thing. I've been kicked out of better places.

Well, before one word leads to another: Thank you for your work.

Should any other contributor agree that SSU "has become my personal property", I will quit as well, it shouldn't be my personal property and this would be the best way to set things straight.

 

[Donamy]

Well, before one word leads to another: Thank you for your work.

Should any other contributor agree that SSU "has become my personal property", I will quit as well, it shouldn't be my personal property and this would be the best way to set things straight.

I don't seem to remember mentioning your name at all, but anyway, thank you for your work as well.

 

[SiameseCat]

I guess we have two different visions, of what we percieve SSU to be. I was hoping, that we were working on a project, for release to the public of a really detailed shuttle model that would do alot of cool things, like launch, get into orbit, rendezvous realistically. Build the ISS, using the great robotics that SC did. De-orbit, land and do the next mission. Not making an exact, down to the nuts and bolts of each shuttle system.

I've always wanted SSU to provide a detailed simulation of the actual shuttle systems. I think that's the main difference between SSU and Shuttle Fleet. So far, I think we've done a good job. If you don't like the current path, what would you like to see next?

There is no one, the public, using SSU to my knowledge. I get alot of PMs asking me to convince the SSU team, and I use the term loosely, to get something out on OH that people can use. I don't see that happening, with the way things are going now.

The last release of SSU was about a year ago. It's on sourceforge, and there's a link to it on Orbithangar. I'm not sure what leads you to think that no one is using SSU; like Urwumpe, I haven't received any PMs asking for a new OH release.

 

[STS]

Guys, guys...

I have to talk as a very interested user here.

As you probably know, my intentions with Space Shuttle Ultra are very clear: I want to simulate as much realistic as posible, a full flexible configurable mission having a full simulation of the orbiter and it´s systems, in the flexible universe that Orbiter offers. I have to fully disagree with those comments about not wanting to make the mesh accurate, and as Urwumpe said, not having a accurate and "good-to-connect-with-backend" frontend (and I talk as a very junior developer, but knowing the difference and required "connectivity" between frontend and backend) will cause problems for you developers (things not fitting) and for us users (having to mess with scenarios and not bassed in reality and not-flexible stuff).

So please, as user (of many), I vote to have a accurate and good sized mesh.

I also "played" that Space Shuttle Mission Simulator game, and I want SSU to be better than that, wich I think it currently is, but there is a long way to be walked yet.

Thanks for comprension. Keep up the good work.

 

[Donamy]

I've always wanted SSU to provide a detailed simulation of the actual shuttle systems. I think that's the main difference between SSU and Shuttle Fleet. So far, I think we've done a good job. If you don't like the current path, what would you like to see next?





The last release of SSU was about a year ago. It's on sourceforge, and there's a link to it on Orbithangar. I'm not sure what leads you to think that no one is using SSU; like Urwumpe, I haven't received any PMs asking for a new OH release.

I understand your wanting detailed systems, and that's fine, but most users aren't interested. They want to simulate what I outlined, and the SF proves my argument. People just want to enjoy it, not have to take an aerospace course.

I get PMs all the time from people thanking me for my addons. No brag, just a fact. The majority of them use the Fleet, because it is easy to use and easy to get. They would love to be able to use SSU, but most can't figure it out, thus their frustration. I just want people to enjoy it, that's all. You all can do what you want, but I'm tired of butting heads. It just isn't worth it.