Space Shuttle Ultra 1.25 Revision B development

[Urwumpe]

Maybe start with the deployed mesh and try to fold it.

The folded mesh should be enough, they antennas don't look to compressed for it. Texturing could be a tiny problem, since the texture needs to look good folded and unfolded.

 

[SiameseCat]

I'm still getting link errors; it can't find the constructor/destructor for the RAM32S class.

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

I added RAM32.cpp and RAM32S.cpp to the project; it compiles.

---------- Post added at 09:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ----------

Are there any objections to me checking in the .csproj files I have on my machine? They don't have any hardcoded paths, so they should work for everyone. After this we can update the project files when we add files, etc.

I'll check in the project files tomorrow.

 

[Urwumpe]

Small update: I just write down a small article about which MDM uses which bus address and which I/O cards are installed in it, and which channel connects to which subsystem. Should make things easier than having to look them up in the ALT software specifications and we can easier merge information from different sources.

I can find all hardware related to the ALT in this specification, this means: Landing gear, Nosewheel Steering, ASA, APUs and all DPS related stuff.

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 AM ----------

I have committed two documents together with the latest MDM changes to the repository, in the folder "Doc/Space Shuttle Ultra/Technotes", you can now find a early release of the research on the ShuttleBus system/MDMs. It will also contain information later, how to use the stuff for I/O with the GPCs, eg for writing application software.

I decided to upload it already now, before I drive shopping and maybe loose it to a crash.

 

[Donamy]

Will this update be greared for Orbiter 2010 ?

 

[Urwumpe]

Will this update be greared for Orbiter 2010 ?

Not sure, haven't got Orbiter 2010 on the radar yet. Did somebody test it yet, if it works with the beta? I don't want to do development for two orbiter versions at once, I think I'll rather do the switch after Orbiter 2010 is out and use Orbiter 2010 Beta only for gathering "bug reports" in advance.

 

[SiameseCat]

Checked in the updated project files.

I tried SSU with Orbiter 2010, and it works well; IIRC, I didn't have to change any of the code to make it work.

 

[DaveS]

I know we have danced around this before but what's the status of the implementation of the ET camera? I was thinking of something like this for the mission file:

HASETCAM=TRUE|FALSE
ETCAMZOFS=xxx.xxx

That way we don't need any hardcoded positions for the ET camera. Easily adjusted for those flights that have used it(STS-112/All RTF missions).

 

[Urwumpe]

I know we have danced around this before but what's the status of the implementation of the ET camera? I was thinking of something like this for the mission file:

HASETCAM=TRUE|FALSE
ETCAMZOFS=xxx.xxx

That way we don't need any hardcoded positions for the ET camera. Easily adjusted for those flights that have used it(STS-112/All RTF missions).

Can be done quickly, but might require a complete overhaul if we really switch to build the stack with attachments. But then we could also have the nice perspective of the separation of the Orbiter from the ET right, since there is no visual redefinition.

 

[DaveS]

Can be done quickly, but might require a complete overhaul if we really switch to build the stack with attachments. But then we could also have the nice perspective of the separation of the Orbiter from the ET right, since there is no visual redefinition.

That was what I was thinking. That would also allow us to have the SRB ELVIS cameras as well.

 

[Urwumpe]

That was what I was thinking. That would also allow us to have the SRB ELVIS cameras as well.

Exactly. And also have less problems dealing with the SRB MDMs, since they would not be part of SSU anymore. But that is all a tiny distance away.

Anybody volunteering doing the modification of the vessel structure to attachments? I could need some more time messing with the MDMs, just started adding the I/O modules. At least I have serious hope I can outsource the final research tasks for the MDMs and make somebody else reverse-engineer how the MDMs are connected to the various subsystems and write the ROM files for it.

 

[DaveS]

Nearly done with the IUS. Anyone willing to code it? It's slightly special in that it has now upward firing REM thrusters, just downward a sideways firing ones. It also makes use of TVC on both stages which is one of the things checked out prior to deploy.

 

[Urwumpe]

Nearly done with the IUS. Anyone willing to code it? It's slightly special in that it has no upward firing REM thrusters, just downward a sideways firing ones. It also makes use of TVC on both stages which is one of the things checked out prior to deploy.

I could do this as test for making an Ultra.lib, that works independent of the SSU Orbiter (Project atlantis). Such kinds of projects are the reason why I want to get the whole subsystem part separated and work towards getting also the VC stuff released from SSU as well. Makes no sense to have things more than once.

Also, with a single central library for all SSU subprojects, we could implement communication channels far easier and more secure.

 

[DaveS]

I could do this as test for making an Ultra.lib, that works independent of the SSU Orbiter (Project atlantis). Such kinds of projects are the reason why I want to get the whole subsystem part separated and work towards getting also the VC stuff released from SSU as well. Makes no sense to have things more than once.

OK, just need to add the batteries to the interstage structure and then make the ASE.

 

[Urwumpe]

OK, just need to add the batteries to the interstage structure and then make the ASE.

OK, I'll take a shower and then start creating a separate project for the subsystems to produce a library.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think I have some PDFs somewhere, that contain information about thrust profile and other internals of the IUS.

 

[SiameseCat]

I can start modifying the code to use attachments for the SRB and ETs. I'm planning to have both the SRB and ETs attached to the Orbiter.

How do you want to transfer thrust/mass from the attached vessels to the Orbiter? We can do this ourselves easily, or use something like Kulch's Payload Manager. Also, this change will break all existing launch scenarios. Is there anything we can/should do about this?

 

[Urwumpe]

How do you want to transfer thrust/mass from the attached vessels to the Orbiter?

Better on our own, I would recommend changing empty mass, duplicate propellant handles and thrusters. This does only need to be temporary, and the simulation of the thruster parameters, eg for the SRBs, could still happen inside the SRBs.

Also, this change will break all existing launch scenarios. Is there anything we can/should do about this?

Fix the existing launch scenarios. Maybe we can create a plug-in for Orbiter that creates a complete launch-able stack. I don't see a better way. A mission editor that produces scenario files would be an option, but that would be a pretty time-consuming task.

We could then save the scenario data in two versions - the scenario itself and the mission file, and create the scenario based on the mission file.

 

[spacman]

Ods Docking ring

Just a quick question . Are we able to save a sen. with the ods docking ring deployed now?

 

[DaveS]

The IUS ASE mesh and textures have been checked in. A note: Post-deploy the IUS aft tilt frame is rotated to -6°s for re-entry and landing. Checkout angle is 29°s while the full deploy angle is 58°s.

---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

Checked an new IUS ASE mesh that has the correct distance between the aft and the forward ASE frames. BTW, how will the ASE be controlled as we currently doesn't have the ASE SSPs?

 

[Urwumpe]

Checked an new IUS ASE mesh that has the correct distance between the aft and the forward ASE frames. BTW, how will the ASE be controlled as we currently doesn't have the ASE SSPs?

How about a dialog? The panels would be nicer, but we can't do miracles, right?