Project XR2 Ravenstar - Mk II

[Grover]

perhaps you could use an override?

 

[Coolhand]

Nose cone being open killing the mains is a very nice idea.

Thanks, glad someone thinks so The idea was basically to prevent damage to the ship - tearing off the nosecone for example. That it solves the problem of the ships engines being operable while docked is to be fair, an added bonus I hadn't considered.

Hmm, if the life support can fail, then it begs the question, where is the backup system? At what points in a mission would failure be fatal. I mean you would at least want several hours of backup.

Perhaps this is where a self destruct would be actually useful - In the event of a slow lingering death...

 

[Urwumpe]

I still think the APUs would be a pretty strange choice for providing electricity, but fine, point taken. On the X-15 they are used like that, but then, an X-15 only flies for maximal 30 minutes by itself.

You could maybe include some electrical power management including some small failures, like a solar flare frying your electronics and forcing the pilot to restart some subsystems. In a pretty simplified way, this wouldn't be much time for coding, just binary on/off for some parts of the vessel. In the worst case you would have a few state machines (Off -> power up -> On -> Off)

Having a HGA that could be pointed at satellites would also be some detail (like on the DGIV), If you don't like satellite dish antennas, maybe a laser transmitter for point-to-point communications would be more of your taste (could be fitted behind a small door, would then require to navigate the target into a cone...).

Self-destruct is generally a pretty poor thing, since it can fail and destroy you, or fail and not destroy you, and you usually only need it after all other things failed.

If you want to ease the suffering of your crew, you could mess with the cabin atmosphere parameters to make them loose consciousness and die peacefully in less than 2 minutes.

Again, the important question is: How do you want to play it? you could make the XR2 ultra realistic and enforce manual IMU alignments every second day, but then, you would quickly be annoyed by it being so limited. And if your successful mars mission fails on a random fatal failure, it would be also bad.

I think it is a nice thing to have the pilot in ultimate command and add features that permit doing things beyond the automated comfortable envelope by manual tweaking and off-nominal operations, but I wouldn't like it to become micromanagement even for normal tasks.

My personal really unrealistic ( ) favorite to add to any manned spacecraft would be actually two things:
- A standard Inter-spacecraft communication, for permitting some limited AI in scenarios or just for not feeling alone in space, when you meet another manned spacecraft near a space station.
- Having a proper galley with some variation in the astronaut food. Not just consuming oxygen, but also water and food, and food selection also having some effect on the crew. Could be like another spacecraft asking you if you have some food tablets of hamburgers spare, they could offer lots of Chop-Suey.

I personally like some interaction between add-ons and a common standard base like UMMU/UCGO makes things pretty interesting (even though there could be many improvements). I still experiment with extending UMMU in a working way with a more advanced crew simulation, but that is currently in a "vaporware" phase: Even I don't know how to make it work reliable, or how long it would take. The tough thing is keeping UMMU work without restrictions and still being able to enable more advanced crew data and simulation possible in some add-ons.

The only thing of the Black Dart project that could act as possible standardized component for other add-ons already this year is the low-level communication of an ad-hoc spacecraft network, that could be used for various higher-level protocols. It is only a few hours of fine tuning away from being operational, and is already formatted as separate library (since I need it in many different vessels and vessel classes later).

 

[T.Neo]

If you want to ease the suffering of your crew, you could mess with the cabin atmosphere parameters to make them loose consciousness and die peacefully in less than 2 minutes.

Note to self: Never use "Hi, I make addons for a freeware space simulator that include hypothetical suicide systems to kill the simulated crew" as a pick-up line. :facepalm:

 

[Urwumpe]

Note to self: Never use "Hi, I make addons for a freeware space simulator that include hypothetical suicide systems to kill the simulated crew" as a pick-up line. :facepalm:

Even without the relative sentence, it isn't a good pick-up line anyway. Just like "Hey, I like spaceflight simulators, do you want to see my rocket?"

 

[N_Molson]

Self-destruct is generally a pretty poor thing, since it can fail and destroy you, or fail and not destroy you, and you usually only need it after all other things failed.

Cyanide capsules are a safer and more economic option, and they weight a few grams. :goodnight:

 

[Izack]

Why don't we just not kill the crew?

I don't know about you guys, but I don't really want to end an Orbiter simulation with planned suicide. Rather "oops, missed the burn window, good thing I quicksaved after TLI" than "oops, missed the burn window and now we're headed for deep space. It's been a pleasure flying with you boys" and tearfully flicking a switch to kill all of us.

 

[n122vu]

I like the idea of the nosecone killing the mains. Means if you do an EVA from the nosecone, there's less chance of accidentally hitting the throttle and roasting the poor soul wearing the turbopack.

However, would mean a change in procedure for me, which is ok, & I don't mind at all. when I do a flight to the ISS, I usually open the nosecone as soon as I am in a stable orbit, and then shut down the APU. Since I don't need the APU for the rest of the rendezvous and docking, I see no reason to have it running and using up fuel, so I shut it down. Only if I need to do an EVA do I turn it back on.

So, if I open the nosecone and lose the ability to use mains, I wouldn't be able to do my plane alignment or orbit sync correction burns. But again, not a big deal. I can wait until final approach to the ISS to open the nose. Safety is more important to me than overcoming my own forgetfulness to open the nose right before I dock. That's what checklists are for, right?

 

[Urwumpe]

I think crew death only makes sense if it really has an impact, either by ending a mission (like it is already) or by effects beyond just restarting the mission. If killing your experienced crew means terrible problems on a later critical mission, it has a real gameplay effect - but that is already complex mojo, that likely will never get into the XRs.

Self-killing the crew is something for the fluff text, something that would never happen in game, because it simply doesn't benefit gameplay. But still fluff text isn't unimportant for the development of a vessel: I could write a Perry Rhodan sized series of novels alone on the background of the "Shadow War" (If I would have any talent as author) that is pretty much the alternative universe in which my current private pet projects exist - even if 99.99999% of the stuff there isn't about Orbiter and is likely too complex to be implemented in a real-time game. It gives the vessel its shape, its character. It explains why something has to be that way and why other ways didn't do it.

I would say, Coolhand and Doug have their own universe in mind, when they do their XRs.

 

[Coolhand]

I like the idea of the nosecone killing the mains. Means if you do an EVA from the nosecone, there's less chance of accidentally hitting the throttle and roasting the poor soul wearing the turbopack.

However, would mean a change in procedure for me, which is ok, & I don't mind at all. when I do a flight to the ISS, I usually open the nosecone as soon as I am in a stable orbit, and then shut down the APU. Since I don't need the APU for the rest of the rendezvous and docking, I see no reason to have it running and using up fuel, so I shut it down. Only if I need to do an EVA do I turn it back on.

So, if I open the nosecone and lose the ability to use mains, I wouldn't be able to do my plane alignment or orbit sync correction burns. But again, not a big deal. I can wait until final approach to the ISS to open the nose. Safety is more important to me than overcoming my own forgetfulness to open the nose right before I dock. That's what checklists are for, right?

Yes thats exactly right, only deploying the dock on final approach. the only other time you would want the nose open is to allow a pressurised ground vehicle (i'm sure i mentioned this on the last page) to dock with it when on the moons surface, or perhaps being taxii'd over to a (also non-existant) docking adaptor at brighton beach.

Also, not running over your EVA guy or gal, like not nudging the station out of orbit, another unexpected bonus, good idea.

---------- Post added at 09:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------

I would say, Coldhand and Doug have their own universe in mind, when they do their XRs.

Coldhand? is that what i get for blowing up the crew, mr hypoxia?

As for the setting, I don't think we particularly care if you imagine its present day, future, past, parallel world or whatever... if we did then you wouldn't be able to change the settings. Similarly as for certain specifics, leave things deliberately ambiguous so you can project your own sense of reality onto it, like the APU - you may imagine that its similar to the X-15s but no one has ever said the XR2s apu is like that.

 

[Cras]

if life support fails, I think the back up system would be to suit the crew up in EVAs and get the out.

On my trips to restock my Ummu/UCGO ISS, I have gotten in the habit of leaving one slot open for the Ummu inflatable rescue unit. If all fails, get in the inflatable space tent and wait for a rescue XR-2 to be launched to help you.

 

[Urwumpe]

Coldhand? is that what i get for blowing up the crew, mr hypoxia?

Note to self: Multitasking is not recommended. Absolutely. :facepalm:

 

[ercsim]

yeah it is embarrassing to accidentally nudge the ISS out of orbit... not sure if i mentioned it earlier, but my idea for the new nosecone is that when deployed it would make the mains / retro inoperable, so when docked it would therefore be impossible to operate those engines, rcs can of course be turned off.


Also, again i might be mistaken or not remembering correctly, but I thought if you dock then the ships internal life-support automatically switches over to the station and if on the ground, on earth, if you open the hatches it will also turn off the LSU.

First of all, if I recall correctly, XR2 uses something called Naquadiah reactor to provide electrical power to the system, computers, LSU, lights, and etc. APUs is used only for hydraulic system (almost everything that moves), as it is supposed be the most efficient way to move them.

I am thinking more towards the direction of replacing the APU fuel indicator to battery power indicator. The APU switch is then replaced with a switch that will power actuators that will increase the depletion rate of battery power. Battery power can be charged using solar panels, but the charging cycle would be extremely slow, thus retaining the need for XR pilots to manage battery power (instead of APU) and replenishing it on any base, a crucial gameplay aspect of XRs. Battery power, will definitely continue to deplete, during the operating period in space, unless solar panels are deployed and directed towards the sun (that's gonna add complexity and fun) to negate/slowly charge up the batteries.

I understand that shutting down procedure of any XRs would require the 2D panel to be redrawn (probably not something you guys wanna work on), thus disabling engines and rcs during which the vessel is docked is a quick solution. :thumbup: for that idea. However, a redrawing of the 2D panel would definitely better reflect the complexity of the current XR2 texture and exterior details.

Currently, when I parked XR2 in wideawake, I would first empty the tank (although, I use fuel dump for this purpose. I would definitely would like to see that animation for fuel dump be removed if the vessel is on the ground/bases). The idea is to remove all propellant from the ship, unless it is required, for safety purposes. I will open up hatches, cargo doors, scram doors, radiators. (everything that can be open) and pretend that UMMU is doing inspection on them.

Before I do a space launch, I would test-fly the vessel with 20% fuel on board, by doing a take-off and landing, to test all equipments. Sometimes, I will purposely overheat the system, by idling it without deploying radiators, and connect it external cooling system, to test the systems limit.:hello:

 

[Ghostrider]

If the XR2 really used Naquadriah as an energy source, it wouldn't need scramjets or anything else at all...

 

[Xyon]

Hmm, if the life support can fail, then it begs the question, where is the backup system? At what points in a mission would failure be fatal. I mean you would at least want several hours of backup.

Perhaps this is where a self destruct would be actually useful - In the event of a slow lingering death...

Well - we can poke the UMMu object to kill the crew as and when - so I can say, for example, with 4 crew aboard, you get four hours of residual life support with which to effect a repair (and perhaps simulating the crew suiting up and using the air onboard the suits too). With a larger crew you'd get progressively less time, reflecting the increased consumption.

I'll look into what I can already do and not do, and dump the results into my thread to keep this one clear of comments on the development of another addon.

 

[ercsim]

If the XR2 really used Naquadriah as an energy source, it wouldn't need scramjets or anything else at all...

Perhaps it is so tiny, that it can barely create enough energy for computers and lightings. Plus, that will explain the need for coolants, since heat is generated, and this heat needs to be dissipated. :tiphat:

 

[Coolhand]

If the XR2 really used Naquadriah as an energy source, it wouldn't need scramjets or anything else at all...

Thats not necessarily true. If you have a powerful fuel source but only use it in a limited way, you have to assume you perhaps don't have much available. I mean; you have to haul it back through the stargate with a special forces team after stealing it from Egyptian gods.

So the economics of the situation might prohibit it's use as rocket fuel or perhaps its also harmful in some way, after all it would have to be some super heavy element, specifically a near inexplicably stable isotope.

But if you can have a fictional element reactor it could instead have a more conventional fuel, perhaps it has to be small and relatively low powered to meet regulations but provides continuous power for years, just not powerful enough to run all the lifesupport and the control surfaces etc.

I prefer the idea of solar / batteries personally, you could still have the apu which also generates electrical power to charge the batteries, but i guess thats a fairly complex to simulate and would make the ship quite different, perhaps even less flexible.

 

[T.Neo]

Not to mention the fact that solar panels are unusable in the shadow of planets, and decrease in effectivity as you get further from the Sun.

 

[ercsim]

Thats not necessarily true. If you have a powerful fuel source but only use it in a limited way, you have to assume you perhaps don't have much available. I mean; you have to haul it back through the stargate with a special forces team after stealing it from Egyptian gods.

So the economics of the situation might prohibit it's use as rocket fuel or perhaps its also harmful in some way, after all it would have to be some super heavy element, specifically a near inexplicably stable isotope.

But if you can have a fictional element reactor it could instead have a more conventional fuel, perhaps it has to be small and relatively low powered to meet regulations but provides continuous power for years, just not powerful enough to run all the lifesupport and the control surfaces etc.

I prefer the idea of solar / batteries personally, you could still have the apu which also generates electrical power to charge the batteries, but i guess thats a fairly complex to simulate and would make the ship quite different, perhaps even less flexible.

That's what I am trying to say there. ... But if we were to replace APU fuel, totally, with batteries, and its switch with batteries powering actuators that moves everything that is currently based on hydraulics, that would save a fair bit of codings.

 

[Arthur Dent]

That's what I am trying to say there. ... But if we were to replace APU fuel, totally, with batteries, and its switch with batteries powering actuators that moves everything that is currently based on hydraulics, that would save a fair bit of codings.

And a fair bit of weight, right?