Velcro Saturns V1.0

[sputnik]

Now available at Orbithangar: [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3389"]Velcro Saturns v1.11[/ame]

Velcro Saturns is a collection of Saturn rockets, real and imaginary. There are "real-world" scenarios representing early (pre-Saturn-Ib) launches. Also included are the Saturn A-1, B-1, C-2 and C-3, and post-Saturn studies like the INT-20, INT-21, INT-11, MLV's, Saturn-Id, and much more.

You need the Velcro Rockets add-on installed for this to work.

 

[sputnik]

Kinda forgot something important: also includes a scenario to launch Usonian's Skylab1973.

 

[Zachstar]

Amazing job!! Looking forward to doing some interesting things with the "Monster"

 

[Usonian]

Thank you, Sputnik! The Saturn family finally gets the full treatment it deserves!

I notice that the download includes my Skylab1973 Sun/micrometeoroid shield meshes and textures, but the Skylab Launch scenario does not make use of them. So, I am attaching my own launch scenario that recreates the historic loss of the shield and solar array No. 1 at about a minute into the flight - might as well give users access to the material provided [Aside: I am loving the capabilites of this new forum]

The generic autopilot works as advertised, putting Skylab into the generic 200km orbit. My upcoming v2.0 release of Skylab will include some simple directions for manually flying the Velcro Saturn/Skylab to the historic 430 km orbit.

I really appreciate your sharing this with the community, and the opportunity to test it out prior to release. I apologize for dropping out of the loop on testing the final release package - even with three tries, using my home and work computers, I just couldn't get it off the server

Thanks again - another classic addon!

 

[Andy44]

Wow, this looks awesome. I've always wanted my own Jay Leno-style collection of Saturn rockets! Can't wait to give this a try. Busy today; download now and fly later.

 

[sputnik]

Usionian,

Oops. Sounds like a case of me not updating the scenario files correctly. I had the correct Skylab launch scenario on my machine (and loved it), and it seems I never pushed it to the distribution file.

I'll update a v1.01 shortly, then, with your scenario. For those who have both, it won't be necessary.

 

[Jrquinlisk]

Could you throw the .msh file for the S-Ib fins in the update, too? They seem to be missing from the v1.0 file.

 

[sputnik]

!! Thanks for the catch (that certainly should have been caught much much earlier). I'll add that one forthwith.

 

[sputnik]

Okay, v1.01 released with the fins and the correct Skylab scenario.

 

[Belisarius]

Hi Sputnik

Bravo on a great addon - I'm going to be spending the next few weeks in Saturn-land.

I have one problem with the Boosted Skylab Launch to the Moon, using the MS-V-23(L). First, on starting the scenario it is incomplete, then in the first second it constitutes itself and starts bouncing madly. When I launched it, it headed due south instead of due east and failed to increase height. Accelerating like mad it reached Mach 7 in two minutes, but at a height of just a mile.

This screenshot shows it ailing badly. Is it my low framerate that is to blame? - I only get 6fps. I downloaded V1.01

 

[DaveS]

Belisarius: "Is it my low framerate that is to blame? - I only get 6fps."
Most likely, this is a terribly low frame-rate and I can't see how any autopilot can work fine with that low frame-rate. Minimum is about 15 FPS.

 

[Belisarius]

I don't know why it's so low - on AMSO it runs at 25+

 

[Usonian]

I also get low frame rates on the Saturn/Skylab combination. I guess it's the size of the meshes. Skylab weighs in at 30,174 triangles, the Saturn first and second stage meshes are 14,005 and 12,904 respectively. Taken individually, these are not huge. But when you combine them into one vessel your computer must render 57,000 polygons at once! (Plus the launch structure.)

I would be interested in hearing from anyone getting good frame rates with the Skylab/Saturn combinations, and then comparing computer processors, memory and graphics cards. Maybe I need an upgrade.

I have worked up a Multistage2 launch using the same meshes and I get exactly the same frame rates, so the low rates don't appear to have anything to do with Velcro.

I am working hard to improve the Skylab mesh for v2.0. It will be much "smoother" and have a lower polygon count. But I will be surprised if I can reduce the count much more than 10% or 12%.

 

[sputnik]

I used TomPA's high-res meshes and made no attempt to optimize. Using one with strap-ons means even more polys! In that case, I recommend F1'ing to the inboard view for launch and the first minute or so. Enjoy the view later, when a low frame rate is less critical.

Belisarius, this is certainly the reason for your odd takeoff. Even with CENTERTHRUST 1, the LRB's may sometimes fire off a cycle apart, which at 6 FPS is an ETERNITY. It'll mean you launch at an angle....

 

[Linguofreak]

I'll confirm some autopilot problems, even with decent framerates (60 fps). I've tried several boosters, and the AP just can't seem to get them into orbit.

And I'll confirm that launchers with boosters seem to have problems with the boosters firing at different times and causing pitch deviations. These deviations are of course mirrored at shutdown, with different boosters burning out at different times. Framerate is, as before, about 60 fps.

EDIT: BTW, The "Saturn V AMSO" scenario doesn't seem to work correctly, the lunar module becomes a big spiky block that ruins the look of the booster assembly. Commenting it out seems to restore everything to normal. This is not a problem with the "Saturn C-3 AMSO" scenario or with the way AMSO without velcro behaves on my install.

 

[sputnik]

I'll confirm some autopilot problems, even with decent framerates (60 fps). I've tried several boosters, and the AP just can't seem to get them into orbit.

And I'll confirm that launchers with boosters seem to have problems with the boosters firing at different times and causing pitch deviations. These deviations are of course mirrored at shutdown, with different boosters burning out at different times. Framerate is, as before, about 60 fps.

EDIT: BTW, The "Saturn V AMSO" scenario doesn't seem to work correctly, the lunar module becomes a big spiky block that ruins the look of the booster assembly. Commenting it out seems to restore everything to normal. This is not a problem with the "Saturn C-3 AMSO" scenario or with the way AMSO without velcro behaves on my install.

Ugh! I was running an earlier version of AMSO, I guess. I updated to v1.17, and suffered the same problem myself. How annoying!

Apparently the problem is, AMSO isn't happy because the LM is listed prior to the CSM in the scenario file. Swap them, and everything is good.

Try the sample file.

BTW, this pots itself neatly into a 095-degree-azimuth orbit, 191x234 km. I get 7 fps externally (!), 62-65 when I go inside, and I watched the takeoff until the yaw program started, then went inside to 10x time compression, but for a few times on 100x on stage 2 and 3. When you say it can't get things into orbit, what do you mean? How does it fail?

 

[Belisarius]

Belisarius, this is certainly the reason for your odd takeoff. Even with CENTERTHRUST 1, the LRB's may sometimes fire off a cycle apart, which at 6 FPS is an ETERNITY. It'll mean you launch at an angle....

Thanks, I'll try it from interior view

 

[Graham2001]

Something I've noticed, if you start a scenario paused, not all of the rocket is there until the scenario starts running.

 

[sputnik]

Something I've noticed, if you start a scenario paused, not all of the rocket is there until the scenario starts running.

Correct. Velcro rockets waits one cycle for every vessel to finish being created, then glues everything together on the next cycle. If it tries to do it any earlier, BAD things happen.

 

[Linguofreak]

Ugh! I was running an earlier version of AMSO, I guess. I updated to v1.17, and suffered the same problem myself. How annoying!

Apparently the problem is, AMSO isn't happy because the LM is listed prior to the CSM in the scenario file. Swap them, and everything is good.

Try the sample file.

BTW, this pots itself neatly into a 095-degree-azimuth orbit, 191x234 km. I get 7 fps externally (!), 62-65 when I go inside, and I watched the takeoff until the yaw program started, then went inside to 10x time compression, but for a few times on 100x on stage 2 and 3. When you say it can't get things into orbit, what do you mean? How does it fail?

"Saturn V" scenario, w/o AMSO.

pitch program around T+50 or 55, 170 m/s, 3.6 km altitude, with heading still 180.

Roll/yaw program a few seconds later, to heading of 90.

First staging at ~T+170, 1.9 kps and 73 km, with about 8 degrees pitch angle.

Pitch up to 40 at around T+230, 128 km, 2.4 kps.

Second staging at T+540-ish, 167 km, 4.9 kps, after a pitch down that I didn't catch data for.

Time acc to 10x around T+400

Another pitch up to 40 at 650 seconds, 5.4 kps, and 179 km.

Apogee at a time I didn't catch.

Burnout at 7.089 kps and 137 km, at a time I didn't catch. About 1 kps short of circular orbit, with reentry following and impact in Mid-atlantic.

My impression is that it's waiting to long on the pitch program, though I could be wrong, seeing as I couldn't fly it to orbit myself either, and I can with most boosters even if the autopilot screws up.