Project Here goes nothing: The Delta-StarLiner G42

[River Crab]

First picture: This thing has some potentially good cargo space! The bay could fit an XR5 cargo if it were a bit deeper, and it could fit 3 UCGO boxes side-by side if you made it more square and removed the diagonal edge in the bottom. It almost fits XR2 cargoes but the diagonal edge gets in the way. Also, that stuff in the front blocks a good deal of cargo space, and the (invisible) docking port may be too close to the windows.

Second picture: 3 things in this one,

• XR5 test cargo almost fits
• Bay is closed at the beginning of every scenario, even if it was open when you saved
• Bay doors are crooked when closed, and don't fit together, leaving a rather large seam

 

[Moach]

noted!

i did know about the large seam in the bay... i was meaning to get to that for a while, but always end up leaving it for later...

the bay will be closed and gears open every time you load up... she doesn't save those things to scenario yet :hmm:


i'll see to the positioning of the docking port as soon as it's... erm... visible

and i just might get rid of the diagonal edges in the bay... they don't serve much purpose, other than take up space....

that thing on the right side is the railing for the universal RMS, so that's gonna have to stay there

as to depth, i can't have it go any deeper, the landing gear has to stow somewhere....
maybe if you don't mind a little ledge, the rear section can still go a bit deeper

 

[jethroo23]

Um, 1 question... How can you close and open the bay doors? (Even above the atmosphere)

 

[Moach]

that would be the B key:thumbup:

-- just for now... until i get some buttons working... anyways, the front cockpit shouldn't have any bay open-close switches... it makes more sense that such feature would be placed in the bay-facing console, right?

 

[River Crab]

i thought of a retractable bulge that extends off the sides of the nose... kinda like the DG's front RCS assembly, but in a way that could be closed....

when the ship is grounded, special maintenance equipment -crane- is used to service the bay - otherwise, the actuators would be unnecessarily heavy.... same goes for the nose hatch, it can only go up and down if no gravity...

If the doors are too heavy to operate in full gravity, how do you load cargo before launching to orbit?

Like this.

Except, if we were to make operations cheaper, we would want something we could take to a conventional airport without a huge VAB...maybe some kind of portable servicing facility that fits into a large cargo aircraft like Mriya...

... anyways, the front cockpit shouldn't have any bay open-close switches... it makes more sense that such feature would be placed in the bay-facing console, right?

Yeah that sounds right. And the retractable nose bulges for translation RCS sound perfect.

Um, 1 question... How can you close and open the bay doors? (Even above the atmosphere)

To open the bay, you have to change it to the 2006 atmosphere model in the extra tab. Or dock with something on the ground, then press B. :lol:

and i just might get rid of the diagonal edges in the bay... they don't serve much purpose, other than take up space....

that thing on the right side is the railing for the universal RMS, so that's gonna have to stay there

as to depth, i can't have it go any deeper, the landing gear has to stow somewhere....
maybe if you don't mind a little ledge, the rear section can still go a bit deeper

I actually did try sticking a URMS over there, it doesn't need all that space- only about half that. That bay space is a perfect size for XR2/XR5 cargo.
Also I think I've worked out a cargo space solution, although not a programming solution...

 

[Moach]

good work, Crab!:thumbup:

mind sharing your insights for the payload cargo? now i'm curious:hmm:

anyways, good to know the URMS doesn't take up all that space... it hadn't tested it yet to see how it fits


my ultimate goal for this ship is to enable it to be the workhorse of my grand-scheme idea, which is an interplanetary-stack construction kit... kinda like Burch did with his space-station modules, but flyable, and with VC:yes:

so cargo space is a very pertinent concern on this ship's design

 

[River Crab]

I can forsee programming it to be tricky, but here's a few ways it could go:

Method 1: The entire bay is an both an XR and UCGO cargo deck. The XR cargo deck is divided into squares like the XR5's, but the squares are the same size as UCGO cargoes. So, the G42 will accommodate XR2 and UCGO cargo without conflict, and be able to use all the cargoes as resources. As I understand the XR payload system works by sizes and UCGO works by slots.

Method 2: Separate sections for UCGO and XR cargo. When no XR cargo is needed, the XR cargo space (which would exactly emulate the XR2's bay) could be filled by an XR2 UCGO cargo deck. However, larger payloads (like modules) would need to be held with something like Kulch's UCD, and the UCGO cargo in the XR deck would not be usable for O2/fuel/food.

I think it should have something to emulate the XR2 bay, by the cabin because I really want to be able to put an XR0 in there. For station building you would ideally use the XR payload system for modules. Space is kind of limited so I'd say go inflatable if possible.

Now, these pictures show the cargo a bit below the floor (with Kulch's cargo deck). More pics coming, with URMS and cargo on the actual floor.

 

[River Crab]

All the cargo on the floor, and the URMS in place. The only clipping is on the diagonal edges and on the ledge for the RMS, and these can be trimmed out. Also it seems the bay doors do not hinge around their actual edges.

 

[River Crab]

I've been dreaming about this spacecraft constantly. I would write more, but rather I'll just post this:

 

[Moach]

OMG! that's so awesome!

i too find myself flying it in my head a lot
she's gonna be a sweet ride when it's closer to being done, or whatever bug-riddled state we decide to call "done":lol:

i wish i was a grand-master c++ god, so i could have it working perfectly in no time.... but i guess the learning process is what Orbiter is about... developing for it being no different:hmm:


nice to see more ppl as excited about it as myself :thumbup: cheerz!

 

[River Crab]

Thanks!
I can say that this one won't be my best one, or my last. My style is not normally what you would see in concept art for a spacecraft, but this is Orbiter; it's all a dream.
As it stands, I'm a better artist than an engineer, so I'd be happy to continue following you with promotional art.
(And note those stars. Those stars are notable.)

I'm also doing this:

Forgive me, Moach, as I may never be able to capture her true beauty. There is something aesthetically pleasing about the contrast of curves and edges that captivates me. Yes, my design will certainly change to better fit the impression. :hail:

From the Spacecraft Personifications thread.
Yeah, I think this is what is called obsession.

 

[Moach]

wow!

i just noticed she has a "visor" thingy! what a glorious little detail!

man, you make me wanna drop everything and lock myself in my room working on the liner :lol: but i guess other aspects of life would be somewhat disturbed if i really did that... :hmm:

you even did a Brazillian-flag-like logo on the wings! pure win! :tiphat:


hats off, dude! that rocks!:hail:

 

[River Crab]

man, you make me wanna drop everything and lock myself in my room working on the liner :lol:

That's probably the biggest contribution I can make: motivation!

but i guess other aspects of life would be somewhat disturbed if i really did that... :hmm:

That is also true. :lol:

you even did a Brazillian-flag-like logo on the wings! pure win! :tiphat:

Actually it's the same paint scheme as the current US Space Shuttles, but with Brazilian space flag (kind of silly, made-up on the spot) and AEB logo.
I just made up the G42 logo on the spot, but I think that logo will change; too many companies already have that design, notably Orbital Sciences Corp., Xcor Aerospace, AEB, and (most importantly), Altea Aerospace.
I think a logo that incorporates the Southern Cross, as seen on the Brazilian flag and coat of arms, might be more original and still fitting.
I would want to help by actually doing logos and stuff, but I can't really do vectors. Unless I can learn Inkscape in time for a release... :hmm:
Anyway, you're the star here! Hail Probe! :hail:

 

[River Crab]

I just did some reentry flight testing with the G42...I know the flight model is already outdated, but the reentry seriously needs to be addressed. The skipping reentry you described might work with something like the XR1, but things are different with the G42's huge wing area.
I tried deorbiting from the ISS with an initial PeA of around 30 km, and I just could not get down. Even with a nearly full fuel load, I ended up skipping around the Earth almost 1.5 times before going subsonic. Such a long reentry would obviously be very fatiguing on the crew, might become unpredictable, and would result in a long loss of ground communications (and thus losing the tracking systems needed to deorbit properly).
I think we're in need of some way to greatly decrease the wing's lift, or something to greatly increase drag. Spoilers (not airbrakes) would make things much easier, and allow more banking without too much going off course, although I don't know about spoilers during reentry. Or, something like ballutes, acting as a drag chute and deployed above (+Y) the normal CP, might slow us down enough, although they wouldn't be reused, and they could also pose additional problems.
I also noticed some control problems, besides the usual stuff. When reentering, the CG seems too far forward from the CP, and it has a strong tendency to pitch back toward it's velocity vector, ruining your reentry AoA. Oscillations get worse as you try to maintain AoA at around +20 degrees and up, but this may not be a problem if you plan to have a shallow reentry. Even still, I think such a design would need large control surfaces (good as they are) and strong rotational RCS, controlled through a very fast FBW system, in order to make quick adjustments as necessary for such a shape and avoid pilot-induced oscillations (as they are currently). Otherwise we'd get a repeat of X-15-3.
Of course, I'm by no means a good pilot myself, and I'm not sure where the airframe would fail, so I might just be doing it wrong. Have you tried a reentry yet?

And on that note, maybe feedback from a seasoned veteran test pilot could help? I happen to know such a guy, but he might be hard to get a hold of for the required time. I'm not guaranteeing anything, but it's very well a possibility.
You'll OMG when you see what he's flown, though.

 

[clickypens]

Have you tried S-turns? If you have Shuttle Fleet, watch an automatic reentry and try that with the G42 to see what happens

 

[Izack]

A more drastic tactic would be to flip the G42 upside-down, so that the massive lift will keep you inside the atmosphere instead of flinging you out of it.

I don't think the FAA would like that though, would they? :lol:

 

[computerex]

On the other hand, a long reentry may be good for a change. There is something satisfactory in flying into the atmosphere rather burning (crashing) through it

 

[River Crab]

Have you tried S-turns? If you have Shuttle Fleet, watch an automatic reentry and try that with the G42 to see what happens

I do know of that technique, the limiting factor on my last run was the G42's currently abysmal roll characteristics. My biggest concern is that the huge wings would end up putting me waaay off course after I try to recover my heading. Now that I think of it, though, it might work better with the Starliner than the Shuttle, after the stability problems are solved.

A more drastic tactic would be to flip the G42 upside-down, so that the massive lift will keep you inside the atmosphere instead of flinging you out of it.

I don't think the FAA would like that though, would they? :lol:

If you look back in this thread, that was actually my original idea! I think the biggest problems would be the upside-down flight experience, and the final roll-over with lack of shielding on the upper hull.

On the other hand, a long reentry may be good for a change. There is something satisfactory in flying into the atmosphere rather burning (crashing) through it

Yep, that is the premise of this ship. Diving, not cannonballing. The problem being that my dive turns into a very long skipping belly-flop.
I was probably too hesitant on the pitch-down, so I'll give it a few more shots, and try S-turns, too.:hail:

But you know, you guys should try it too, you're probably better than me! It's a real challenge! :yes:

 

[Moach]

im not sure if it`s posible with the current flight tuning... but the idea was that at least for the `hot` part of the reentry, you fly her in at a stalled angle :hmm:

this way you eliminate most of the natural wing lift, and have a more controlled "glide", using deflection lift alone in a more controlled way...


if you nose in onto the atmosphere, the wings will most certainly offer you a nice ride back to wherever you came from :lol:

something about the way the "borrowed" DG lift code works also doesn`t help much... i dont think it accounts for boundary layer separation at hypersonic speed, so you get a lot more lift than you really should... i think...

plus, i had to overdo the lift a bit, in order to make it possible to get it off the ground... IRL, ground effect would help you do that, but then again... this isn`t being simulated just yet


but mostly, this really shows how much i still have a lot of tweaking to do on the flight dynamics :uhh:... surely it should be easier (read "at all possible") to hold a high AoA during reentry...
i think with the current model, you`d be in for quite a ride trying that :headbang:


worry not! it`ll come:thumbup:

 

[Izack]

Isn't coming it at a stall angle more of a belly-flop than a dive? :lol: