Project VulcanCentaur

[francisdrake]

Excellent flight!
I installed LTMFD, but it is a bit complex. Guess I have to read the manual ...
___
To make it easier to find the Ukert crater, I made a simple base (without visuals) on a flat surface nearby the crater.
Just drop the "Ukert.cfg" into the "Moon" folder. Then the location is selectable in PursuitMFD.

With more private landers becoming available, I would be interested in some scenic locations to visit on the Moon.
Maybe we should call other users to share their favorite spots on the Moon and create a database of places to visit.

 

[BrianJ]

Excellent flight!
I installed LTMFD, but it is a bit complex. Guess I have to read the manual ...
___
To make it easier to find the Ukert crater, I made a simple base (without visuals) on a flat surface nearby the crater.
Just drop the "Ukert.cfg" into the "Moon" folder. Then the location is selectable in PursuitMFD.

LTMFD is not so hard - you specify your arrival criteria by heading or surface lat lng/arrival date/arrival PeA/etc.
press EXE for a solution, then go to DV screen to make the burn. (read the manual anyway)

Thanks for the Ukert base, but being the PITA that I am, I just discovered the new Peregrine landing site is "Sinus Viscositatis" - the "Bay of Stickiness" (really shouldn't be any problems with "bounce and spin" syndrome at that location!! ) Long. 40.99W Lat.35.25N

That makes much more sense given the scheduled launch date 24 Dec 2023, as Ukert is in darkness for a long time after that date, Sinus Vicositatis is nicely mid-morning around then.
EDIT: I don't know why I thought that - Ukert is perfectly well lit too, at that time. Duh.

With more private landers becoming available, I would be interested in some scenic locations to visit on the Moon.
Maybe we should call other users to share their favorite spots on the Moon and create a database of places to visit.

Nice idea!
What I miss is a bit of detailed scenery or hi-res tiles for the landing sites - the surface always looks a bit bland up close.

Cheers,
BrianJ

 

[francisdrake]

Small maintenance update Vers-07b can be downloaded on the first page of this thread.

To make landing the Peregrine visually more interesting, I located the landing spot right on the rim of the Ukert crater.
Also included two empty Moon bases, Sinus Viscositatis and Ukert. These bases can be selected on the MapMFD and set as a target in a landing MFD.

 

[BrianJ]

Hi,
I have the 07b version - I think I'm missing the three textures for the "Crew Tower" (SLC-41) mesh?
Many thanks,
BrianJ

 

[francisdrake]

A frosty update 07c on the front page. Now showing icing on the tanks. The icing is on by default, but can be switched off with the [O] key.


Added two status text lines below the info box.

• Payload mass in kg
• Info when the camera is looking back, using the [E] key.

Please let me know what you think of the placement and readability of this text.

I think I'm missing the three textures for the "Crew Tower" (SLC-41) mesh

Sorry, this went unnoticed by me. The textures are now included, in the "Crewtower" subfolder.
Will give credit to the creator of the Crewtower mesh and textures.

 

[BrianJ]

Please let me know what you think of the placement and readability of this text.

Text is fine for me, on 1600 x 900 resolution window.
Crew Tower and frost effect look great

 

[francisdrake]

I have a question:
Made a simple engine section attached to the HST mesh, to provide some maneuverability to the 'Keyhole' satellite.
The sequence of attachments is like this:

[HST] - attached to - [Engine] - attached to - [VulcanCentaur]

But when checking the payload mass, only the mass of the engine section is shown.
Are the masses of vessels attached to other vessels propagated through the chain of attachments, or not?

 

[Max-Q]

Are the masses of vessels attached to other vessels propagated through the chain of attachments, or not?

No, not even one level down.
I could attach a 10,000,000,000 kg payload to a Delta-II and it would make orbit just fine as long as there's no custom code in the launcher to manually add the payload mass.

 

[francisdrake]

Ok, thanks, that is interesting!
I will see if can query the attached mass somehow.
An alternative would be to dock the vessels. I think docked masses are propagated. Will have a look.

 

[N_Molson]

Ok, thanks, that is interesting!
I will see if can query the attached mass somehow.
An alternative would be to dock the vessels. I think docked masses are propagated. Will have a look.

I think to remember that one of the features of O2016 was to make possible to use docking ports instead of attachements. Actually that's what I did for the (alas-unfinished-but-there-is-still-hope) Proton and it seems to work really well. I used code to manage the aerodynamic cross sections, that obviously change a lot when a stage gets separated.

 

[francisdrake]

I tried the docking port solution, but the telescope was always lying on the ground, instead of being docked. I guess docking is not possible when landed?
___
However, the simplest solution is sometimes the best:
If mass is not propagated through the attachment, then actually the engine section also does not see the mass of the attached Hubble telescope. (I was wondering how such a small engine could accelerate the whole stack so fast. )

Now I combine the telescope mass + the mass of the engine = engine dry mass, and everything is fine!
1. The telescope mass is included in the engine, the engine is attached to the launcher, and the launcher checks the mass at its attachment point.
2. The engine considers the telescope mass 'as part of its own'. Acceleration is now realistic.
3. The telescope mass is ignored by everybody. Okay, sad fate ...

Whoever wants to add stacked payloads to the launcher just needs to sum up the individual masses and combine them into the vessel directly attached to the launcher, then it will work.

 

[N_Molson]

I tried the docking port solution, but the telescope was always lying on the ground, instead of being docked. I guess docking is not possible when landed?
___
However, the simplest solution is sometimes the best:
If mass is not propagated through the attachment, then actually the engine section also does not see the mass of the attached Hubble telescope. (I was wondering how such a small engine could accelerate the whole stack so fast. )

Now I combine the telescope mass + the mass of the engine = engine dry mass, and everything is fine!
1. The telescope mass is included in the engine, the engine is attached to the launcher, and the launcher checks the mass at its attachment point.
2. The engine considers the telescope mass 'as part of its own'. Acceleration is now realistic.
3. The telescope mass is ignored by everybody. Okay, sad fate ...

Whoever wants to add stacked payloads to the launcher just needs to sum up the individual masses and combine them into the vessel directly attached to the launcher, then it will work.

It is a bit tricky but it is possible, I did it. I made "launchpad vessel" on which the first stage is docked, and so on. I had to use the "Parking Brake" code (the vesselstatus trick that @martins used for Atlantis SRBs). I even left notes in the code as a self-reminder, good idea!

void LC_81_24::clbkPreStep(double simt, double simdt, double mjd)

{

    // Keep the launchpad landed code


    OBJHANDLE h_Earth;
    h_Earth = oapiGetGbodyByName("Earth");
    OBJHANDLE h_launchpad = GetHandle();
    VESSEL *v_launchpad = oapiGetVesselInterface(h_launchpad);


    VESSELSTATUS2 vs;
    memset(&vs, 0, sizeof(vs));
    vs.version = 2;
    vs.rbody = h_Earth;
    vs.status = 1;             // Landed
    vs.arot.x = 10;            // <----- Undocumented feature "command code" to land on touchdown points !! IMPORTANT !!
    vs.surf_lng = 1.9364618;  // Baikonur LC 81/24
    vs.surf_lat = 0.802851455915;
    vs.surf_hdg = 0.0;
    v_launchpad->DefSetStateEx(&vs);


...

}

 

[Max-Q]

I tried the docking port solution, but the telescope was always lying on the ground, instead of being docked. I guess docking is not possible when landed?

Docking is not possible while attached to a parent vessel. (Launchpad, I'm guessing?)

 

[francisdrake]

Happy New Year to everybody! This Update-08 of the VulcanCentaur features payload attachment fittings (PAF):

They provide different attachment sizes for payloads from small satellites to big ones, like the Starliner or Keyhole.
The PAF can be defined in the scenario file. If no scenario line is given, the default standard 'PAF 1575' is used.

Also included are a 'Boilerplate Starliner' to test the no-fairing option, an engine to move the Keyhole satellite around and a small satellite ('FlashSat') which is flown on the no-SRB version of the VulcanCentaur.

As always, have fun flying!

 

[Jeremyxxx]

Notice to anyone who has been catching up with the Peregrine mission. Mission One is a failure due to loss of power.

 

[Gargantua2024]

Yes we all know (from the other Vulcan Centaur thread)