Project VPACC 3D modeling team recruiting something new

[KCB]

Who wants to be part of a nonprofit and build spaceships? 3D modeling and graphic design team members wanted for a truly exciting and pioneering project and we want to build and develop in Orbiter. If you are interested in scientific literacy, STEM education or human space exploration, or just looking for a creative outlet, check out VPACC! VPACC is pushing the boundaries of what education and entertainment will mean in the future and we are hoping to develop and evolve these models in Orbiter for everyone to use. www.vpacconcept.com

We are looking at forming a team of model makers to design and model near future horizontal take off multi-purpose space craft to be used with cutting edge flight simulators built for the public as part of an informal learning strategy. This involves developing the conceptual vehicle that will ultimately define the hardware component details of the VPAC simulation. Three systems need to work seamlessly, those are the simulated fictional aircraft:

• Multi-Purpose Exploration Vehicle (MPEV) this is the cockpit and aft section of the simulator.
• Lifting body design (flying fuel tank and cargo bay) the atmospheric aircraft body.
• Exploration Engine Module (EX-EM) a separate engine used for exploration beyond LEO carried into orbit in the lifting body.

And the hardware:

• Cockpit layout and functionality
• Aft Cabin layout and functionality

Functionality and aesthetics are important to create a well-rounded product. We want to build something that has unlimited opportunities to evolve, something comfortable to work in and play with, but also something children want posters of hanging on their bedroom walls.
Visit the VPACC website for conceptual details that include virtual cockpit design and vehicle design. Contact the VPACC team for more details [email protected] or discuss below.

 

[boogabooga]

I've visited your website. It looks very good, and while I agree that Orbiter certainly has potential for STEM education, I see a number of very large red flags. How much experience with Orbiter/spaceflight simulation does your team actually have? In general, I feel that your plan is unrealistic and not at all age appropriate for elementary school children. Learning to simulate spaceflight effectively in Orbiter was a challenge for me as an adult, as it was for most of us on these forums.

Players wishing to participate form teams of four members, the teams create an online account. They first become familiar with the spacecraft’s controls and systems simulated in free games accessible online, these can be mastered at home on any device, making the initial connection with the program easily attainable. Learning how to operate these vehicles involves learning the basics; flight avionics, navigation and the required team work, this prepares the players to operate the physical simulator.

You are already talking about a huge time commitment here. If you are going to teach flight simulation, then teach flight simulation. Learning to fly, avionics, navigation, etc. are not so basic, even to adults. Single stage to orbit spaceplanes are probably not the place to start. I think flying light civil aircraft in FSX or Flightgear would be more appropriate.

Beyond low earth orbit we can simulate lifting a separate engine component in the cargo bay. Once we deployed this engine, the MPEV and mission module can separate and dock with the engine in order to travel beyond low earth orbit.

This gives us a wider range of options once in orbit, including the ability to construct, deploy and retrieve objects. The images used here are from a free online program called ‘Obiter’ and could be used as part of a demonstration model. The simulation has a very real physics engine and gives us a number of demonstration options. The software flexibility, as used in computer games, gives us considerable freedom and allows for a sandbox universe.

Using a sandbox universe gives us a range of strategic goals to encourage competition as well as co-operative behavior between teams or organized groups of teams. For example, a game-wide competition could include the search for life in the solar system. The first team to reach a planet, find hidden life on some obscure distant moon, or build distant fuel depots could be rewarded with monetary incentives. This monetary incentive is one example that might encourage teams to explore far and wide.

I think you are being very naive as to Orbiter's learning curve. Proper interplanetary spaceflight takes several months to learn for many (adult) Orbinauts. That is without a complicated mission architecture with multiple rendezvous and docking operations.

Also, keep in mind how much real world time it takes to simulate what you are doing. Even with time compression, an Orbiter mission from Earth to Mars landing may take several hours to accomplish. Every rendezvous you add may take an additional hour. How long are you expecting the kids to sit in the simulator?

Trust me, you don't need a fancy realistic manned mission to Mars for them to learn. Some more realistic ideas:

1)Start with a space shuttle (or whatever) in low earth orbit and have the kids rendezvous and dock with a space station. This will be a huge accomplishment for them by itself. (Have you ever tried a realistic space rendezvous yourself? It is incredibly counter-intuitive.)

2)Have the kids plan a mission to put a communication satellite into geostationary orbit. They can work out the math ahead of time and execute the mission in Orbiter.

3) Do the interplanetary stuff in Kerbal Space Program, which is more age appropriate and greatly simplifies everything while maintaining the "basics".

 

[KCB]

why we are here

Appreciate the feedback, helps us adjust our communications. Now while we are here to primarily talk modeling I understand how we need to discuss the deeper mechanics of VPACC. A few points regarding my “very naïve” approach. Time consuming and complicated with steep learning curves is just what we are looking for. There are a number of reasons why orbiter is interesting for us. First, the very objective for the creation of Orbiter is to be an incentive to encourage the public to engage in the sciences and scientific literacy through gaming human space exploration. This is in line with VPACCs objectives. Orbiter, as an incredible free platform, has huge potential and is under-utilized in my opinion.
Saying it’s just too hard for younger children and is for adults only misses the point and really sounds like we are giving in to a major challenge. Why is it to challenging for younger people? How young? Are there ways we can make Orbiter more attractive to a younger audience and should we not be looking for ways to make that happen?
Flight simulators in general are primarily an adult affair, kids find them boring, for the most part. But yet many institutions and afterschool programs use flight sims to educate and even use orbiter. When it comes to traditional computer games on a screen few children have the interest, patience and focus for these types of games, there is just too much high adrenaline distraction that are just solid fast furious fun. Again, does this just mean we throw our hands up? Hell no! We raise the freaking bar! We don’t go toe to toe with the gaming industry at their own game, we will lose, we need to go big and bring something to the table to change the game. We are looking at creating very shiny new toys that get, not just the children, but the public, back in the cockpit seats.
We are looking at creating long term programs that span months to years of engagement, hence the Career concept in VPACC , to mitigate a phenomena known as ‘single event exposure’. This is where people, especially children, visit a point of interest or interact with the subject matter only once, perhaps twice. The problem is interest drops off very quickly without continues engagement. That’s the challenge my friend, it’s hard, we are going to have to get creative and we are going to have to push beyond our comfort zones to defeat it. VPACC is in that fight. Rule number one, never underestimate your children.
As an R&D nonprofit we don’t have all the answers. That’s why we are here, that’s why we are taking on the big challenge. And right now we want to build some kick ass spacecraft and start to work this problem. We are here to learn, adapt and adjust accordingly and you have set the tempo sir, I thank you. We want to work with this community, we want to see where we can take this…game on?

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Pretty interesting concept. And I certainly hope you and your team the best of luck.

Take a look at our Simpit subforum here http://www.orbiter-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=67

These may give you some ideas. Plus one of our members has a pretty good idea along your same lines. http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=33555

 

[boogabooga]

Now while we are here to primarily talk modeling I understand how we need to discuss the deeper mechanics of VPACC.

I think that it is only fair that before you ask people to donate quite a bit of time and resources to your project, you demonstrate that you know what you are doing.

You still have not answered my question. What is your team's actual experience with simulating spaceflight?

First, the very objective for the creation of Orbiter is to be an incentive to encourage the public to engage in the sciences and scientific literacy through gaming human space exploration. This is in line with VPACCs objectives. Orbiter, as an incredible free platform, has huge potential and is under-utilized in my opinion.

Agreed.

Saying it’s just too hard for younger children and is for adults only misses the point and really sounds like we are giving in to a major challenge.

That's not what I said. I said set reasonable expectations. I actually think the idea of elementary school children using Orbiter is wonderful. I'm only concerned in that I don't think that you have thought this out all the way. If you make it frustrating, your efforts could backfire.

Why is it to [sic] challenging for younger people? How young? Are there ways we can make Orbiter more attractive to a younger audience and should we not be looking for ways to make that happen?

I'm looking at this page:
http://www.vpacconcept.com/simulated-aerospace

First of all, interplanetary fight is difficult. Difficult to plan, difficult to understand, difficult to execute. And don't assume that that makes it more interesting, especially for children. A real Mars journey takes about ~9 months. In Orbiter, these journeys are done using time compression. But, due to the numerical nature of Orbiter, there are limits as to how much you can compress time. The "action" part comes early, followed by just staring at a computer screen for about 30-60 minutes while you travel. Trips to outer planets may take 2-3 hours of real time, even with the highest time compression. I don't imagine that that much idle time would hold a child's interest for long.

The semi-realistic manned Mars mission mission you have reminds me more of what a fifth year undergraduate aerospace engineering major would plan as their capstone project. The separate mission module, cockpit module, lifting body scheme seems needlessly complicated to me, but that seems to be what you are asking for modelers to work on. I fail to see why you couldn't accomplish your objectives using existing Orbiter add-ons.

I just think you need to simplify, and appreciate the value in "the basics". Just reaching low earth orbit is an accomplishment. You can teach them the mathematical equation relating altitude and velocity required for circular orbit. Give them a goal altitude to reach, let them calculate what velocity they need, and then have them fly it in Orbiter. Stuff like that.

I've already given you other ideas as well.

 

[KCB]

You still have not answered my question. What is your team's actual experience with simulating spaceflight?

I personally have a lot of experience with Orbiter, have been playing for many years, not as much as I would like, and by no means an expert, in fact I suck at it. However, its potential was not lost on me long before KSP came on the scene. I was inspired to go this route into scientific literacy and STEM education by this game. As for the team, team building has just begun, we have a long way to go before we get the privilege to focus on the finer details of simulated space travel. As a new nonprofit we need to grow a solid foundation as a business, primary concerns are fundraising, organizing. I need creative writers and communicators, the ability to work with industry, education and government, we need clear strategy and direction, a better idea of the engineering and physical hardware.

Orbiter I hope will play a big part in a large picture, but ultimately, beyond a proof of concept, a commercial product will not involve Orbiter directly. Orbiter is best at what it is a free open source game. But as we develop longer term engagement and programs work like Orbiter and KSP all play a part. It would be good to start establishing continuity and collaboration within all these different programs but its difficult to achieve that without regular accessibility for the public, something we don’t have today outside of PC based programs.

“I'm only concerned in that I don't think that you have thought this out all the way. If you make it frustrating, your efforts could backfire.”

‘Game flow’ getting the balance right is important. This is why we need a proof of concept, we need to test assumptions, weed out unforeseen emergent negative properties and working out solutions.

“I don't imagine that that much idle time would hold a child's interest for long.”

Under what scenario and conditions and how can we make progress in this area? Again, lets work to find solutions not just run up lists of ‘why we cannot .

“The separate mission module, cockpit module, lifting body scheme seems needlessly complicated to me, but that seems to be what you are asking for modelers to work on. I fail to see why you couldn't accomplish your objectives using existing Orbiter add-ons.”

Consider what we are trying to achieve, this is not just a PC based video game we are looking at using physical complex simulators. This project will be cockpit-centric everything has to revolve around a single cockpit. To achieve the long term goals we need to develop mission architecture with real depth. This means this cockpit has to do everything , from atmospheric flight to aero breaking, and I hope decent and assent vehicle, that’s a very specific set of tasks. We cannot just use any addon. We need to be able to mass produce these cockpits we cannot have a wide variety, at least not at this stage. That’s why I am here looking to talk to model builders who might be interested in such an interesting and challenging project.

“You can teach them the mathematical equation relating altitude and velocity required for circular orbit. Give them a goal altitude to reach, let them calculate what velocity they need, and then have them fly it in Orbiter. Stuff like that.”

This is another interesting aspect of how people learn. How many people today went to university to learn these ideas before trying Orbiter, how many learned by simply doing, learned on the fly, through crash and burn, from open source material online? Self-learning and self-organization is a powerful deep learning strategy and something we are interested in encouraging as much as possible. Can we better exploit a networked society to work for us? Again, assumptions need testing, the experiments need to be run the data gathered and the adjustments made.

I really appreciate your feedback, like you said, people need to understand the details before committing time and resources to any given project. I'm look forward to working with this community on what is a very ambitious project, but it needs to be, pushing boundaries of that we think we know is the only way forward.

 

[boogabooga]

Orbiter is best at what it is a free open source game.

Just so there is no miscommunication, Orbiter is not open source.

we need clear strategy and direction, a better idea of the engineering and physical hardware...Orbiter I hope will play a big part in a large picture, but ultimately, beyond a proof of concept, a commercial product will not involve Orbiter directly.

Consider what we are trying to achieve, this is not just a PC based video game we are looking at using physical complex simulators. This project will be cockpit-centric everything has to revolve around a single cockpit.

I'm also very much thinking about the physical simulator.
How much time are you expecting the kids to spend in this thing? Do you want it to be fully interactive in the sense that Orbiter is now? Would it be okay just to show some CGI animations to represent the flight instead? What are you wanting the kids to get out of this?

To achieve the long term goals we need to develop mission architecture with real depth. This means this cockpit has to do everything , from atmospheric flight to aero breaking, and I hope decent and assent vehicle, that’s a very specific set of tasks. We cannot just use any addon.

I'm telling you as someone who does not suck at Orbiter, who spent much free time learning it, and who has experience in planning, designing and executing interplanetary trajectories in it:

This "real depth" complicated mission profile is completely unrealistic if you expect an Orbiter-like level of interactivity as well. If you insist that only some Andy Weir concept will hold the kids attention, then you are going to have to trade some level of interactivity. I went to Space Camp when I was young. They had the kind of simulators you are talking about, but as I recall the missions were scripted. Is that what you want?

‘Game flow’ getting the balance right is important. This is why we need a proof of concept, we need to test assumptions, weed out unforeseen emergent negative properties and working out solutions.

Again, lets work to find solutions not just run up lists of ‘why we cannot .

Again, I don't say cannot. I say set reasonable expectations.

Here is my idea for what I feel is a more balanced concept:

First of all some background. In this thread:
http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=36638
I linked (post 7) to an ESA video that describes a bi-elliptic space rendezvous procedure used by Soyuz. I also posted my own spreadsheet (zip file in post 10) that can be used to plan such a rendezvous ahead of time.

The mission would start with the simulated vessel in a lower "phasing orbit" behind a docking target such a space station, about 75 minutes before it would catch up. The kids would be taught the fairly basic mathematics, as for example you can see worked out in my spreadsheet. In real-time (they will have about 20 minutes or so), they would work out when to do a first-burn and how much delta-v to use. They would execute said burn interactively, then repeat the process for the second burn at apogee. If they did it right, they should arrive at the station. Then they can try to slow down and dock or whatever, depending on their ability. (Docking could be automated or done manually, for example).

If they can do the math quickly, any downtime could be filled with some sort of scripted activities that come from "mission control". That can be adjusted based on how well they do.

Trust me, accomplishing this alone will be something for the kids to be proud of.

Advantages of such a scheme:

1) The mission would be very interactive, with the simulation responding to their inputs.

2) Kids would be exposed directly to the math, and see how the equations are useful in practice.

3) Mission could be done in your simulators in a reasonable timeframe (1.5-2 hours) without the need for awkward time compression.

4) No need for the kids to learn to fly an airplane. That's a skill in it's own right and not really necessary IMHO if you want to stick to a space STEM theme.

 

[KCB]

I stand corrected, Orbiter is not open source.

I'm also very much thinking about the physical simulator.
How much time are you expecting the kids to spend in this thing? Do you want it to be fully interactive in the sense that Orbiter is now? Would it be okay just to show some CGI animations to represent the flight instead? What are you wanting the kids to get out of this?

Fully functional, high fidelity cockpit. Note this is a program for the general public, that’s going to be important for the business plan. I like to say we are building for adults with children in mind. These details are to be decided, there has been a lot of back on forth on this topic and a lot to consider. As an entry level experience, simple 30min atmospheric flight could be implemented. At this point you don’t need an advanced skill level and after 30min fuel runs out and you fall out of the sky. This basic free flight mission mode could be extended to one hour? Its where people crash and burn and it gives people a taste at what is possible. From these basic experiences you are given the option to try ‘mission or career mode’ (much like KSP). This allows more game theory, the stakes are raised, you can build credibility rewards and incentives or crash and burn and take the hits to your career. Also remember we are working in teams (crews) of 4.

I went to Space Camp when I was young. They had the kind of simulators you are talking about, but as I recall the missions were scripted. Is that what you want?

I would have loved to have tried space camp, many kids would, but not everyone can afford it, and that’s an issue VPACC wants to address. In order to achieve the most immersive tactile experience, and provoke deep emotional engagement we are trying to set the stage in very specific ways. Like I mentioned before, we are looking at encouraging self-learning and self-organization. The intention is to build the most attractive option possible for young and adults alike with high fidelity simulators. We are looking to give participants the most amount of freedom possible. Ownership, giving the crew their own space by removing instructors from the cockpit. This sense of ownership reinforces the sense of achievement and the emotional depth. The instructor will still be there but in the form of mission control, a set of remote eyes with a finger on the off switch, an onscreen presence to aid the teams when they require it. This is a very different approach to the simulators and schooling and scripted missions at space camp. Then there is motion. The engineers are selling full 360 motion platforms at a fraction of the cost of commercial pilot trainers, passenger carrier certified. Let’s see if that meets reality. But to achieve our goals of maximizing the amount of senses engaged we don’t need full 360 motion, 90 degree pitch roll and heave would do the job. In conjunction with the motion platform, we are looking at implementing static platforms that sync with the motion platforms once in orbit. These extra dimensions give us options on longer missions, more interactivity, science options etc, if required up to, if not beyond, 2-3 hrs.

4) No need for the kids to learn to fly an airplane. That's a skill in it's own right and not really necessary IMHO if you want to stick to a space STEM theme.

Very interesting ideas and great feedback, we are on the right course and this kind of input is of great use. Regarding the last point, a wide aerospace field offers a lot of great opportunities to learn. It also provides stepping stones from basic piloting to space and advance ideas like those above. This also widens the catch net and scope of interest, a lot of people like the flying, and could be encouraged them to take the next steps broadening the scope. Not forgetting this also widens the interest from industry.
I believe we can work these details, shape the software and hardware, develop best practices and procedures.
You hit the nail on the head when you said “accomplishing this alone will be something for the kids to be proud of” that’s right and a very important step along the path we lay for them to follow. This is pull not push approach to self-learning, by setting candy just in reach if you are willing to stretch. From atmosphere to sub-orbit to orbit to beyond low earth orbit to the planets. Achieving a sense of pride, achievement, motivating progressive steps. We are looking at building the tools to shape that landscape.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 AM ----------

We now have a growing volunteer team of 3D artists to start work on the design and development of these models, we look forward to bringing something to the table soon, and hope work with this community closely.