Request Any SLS and Orion MPCV in development?

[gattispilot]

Ok on the flight. I thought I saw the issue. The 4 thrusters are spaced equally.

th_main[0]= CreateThruster(_V(-2, -3.5, -37), _V(0, 0, 1), MAX_MAIN_THRUST, ph_main, ISP);
	th_main[1] = CreateThruster(_V(-2, 3.5, -37), _V(0, 0, 1), MAX_MAIN_THRUST, ph_main, ISP);
	th_main[2] = CreateThruster(_V(2, -3.5, -37), _V(0, 0, 1), MAX_MAIN_THRUST, ph_main, ISP);
	th_main[3] = CreateThruster(_V(2, 3.5, -37), _V(0, 0, 1), MAX_MAIN_THRUST, ph_main, ISP);
	thg_main = CreateThrusterGroup(th_main, 4, THGROUP_MAIN);

I launched from the Moon and it when straight up. So what is wrong?

---------- Post added 09-19-14 at 05:35 AM ---------- Previous post was 09-18-14 at 04:09 PM ----------

Since in space she flies straight. What would cause she to NOT fly straight on earth?

I found out that that the color scheme maybe wrong. The core should be a mainly orange like the Delta IV common core

 

[Urwumpe]

Since in space she flies straight. What would cause she to NOT fly straight on earth?

Do you use a lift-function?

 

[gattispilot]

I added the Atlantis lift function.

And now she flies good.

Working on a new mesh. I really like the White body versus the orange body.


Still trying to get the Velcro boosters to work together though

 

[Astro SG Wise]

I had a thought, since we're launching EFT-1 on a Delta IV heavy couldn't the Orion be attached to an existing model of a Delta IV to simulate the test flight or even get into orbit while the SLS is still "being built".

Kind of like sim imitating life.

You know, you just read my mind! I have been working on doing that with the Delta IV Launch Vehicles 3.0 for months now. I have been running into so many problems in the payloads :compbash: , but it is starting to look better now. Where do I start a thread about a new add on?

---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

Ok on the flight. I thought I saw the issue. The 4 thrusters are spaced equally.

th_main[0]= CreateThruster(_V(-2, -3.5, -37), _V(0, 0, 1), MAX_MAIN_THRUST, ph_main, ISP);
	th_main[1] = CreateThruster(_V(-2, 3.5, -37), _V(0, 0, 1), MAX_MAIN_THRUST, ph_main, ISP);
	th_main[2] = CreateThruster(_V(2, -3.5, -37), _V(0, 0, 1), MAX_MAIN_THRUST, ph_main, ISP);
	th_main[3] = CreateThruster(_V(2, 3.5, -37), _V(0, 0, 1), MAX_MAIN_THRUST, ph_main, ISP);
	thg_main = CreateThrusterGroup(th_main, 4, THGROUP_MAIN);

I launched from the Moon and it when straight up. So what is wrong?

---------- Post added 09-19-14 at 05:35 AM ---------- Previous post was 09-18-14 at 04:09 PM ----------

Since in space she flies straight. What would cause she to NOT fly straight on earth?

I found out that that the color scheme maybe wrong. The core should be a mainly orange like the Delta IV common core

No, the core should NOT be orange. That is the Ares V styles. The SLS should be like the Saturn V look.

 

[gattispilot]

I agree on the color.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24122088/SLS/sls-initial-configuration.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/SLS_configurations.png

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/756702main_SLS_Core_Stage.pdf

There are differences. Like around the engines. The different height of the taper and engine covers?

 

[RonDVouz]

I know this might be jumping the gun a little bit, but what about a NASA proposed deep space habitat? Already in development in Marshall this is the ISS inspired module element that will make Orion a true deep space traveler.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/technology/deep_space_habitat/constructing-demonstrators.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/ISS-Derived_Deep_Space_Habitat_with_CPS.jpg

It would be really cool to launch a cargo SLS with one of these on it then an Orion to dock with it on orbit. Then transfer controls using the hab's propulsion to leave LEO. And there was the cancelled Altair lander for lunar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_(spacecraft)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...(latest).jpg/640px-Altair-Lander_(latest).jpg

A real shame it got scrapped, my hope is that someday this decision gets reversed.

 

[gattispilot]

The major obstacle is getting the Velcro booster to fire.

Once I get that to work. Can work out the details. Then work on the platform,....

 

[Donamy]

I know this might be jumping the gun a little bit, but what about a NASA proposed deep space habitat? Already in development in Marshall this is the ISS inspired module element that will make Orion a true deep space traveler.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/technology/deep_space_habitat/constructing-demonstrators.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/ISS-Derived_Deep_Space_Habitat_with_CPS.jpg

It would be really cool to launch a cargo SLS with one of these on it then an Orion to dock with it on orbit. Then transfer controls using the hab's propulsion to leave LEO. And there was the cancelled Altair lander for lunar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_(spacecraft)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...(latest).jpg/640px-Altair-Lander_(latest).jpg

A real shame it got scrapped, my hope is that someday this decision gets reversed.

Has a decision ever been reversed ? In a space program that is.

 

[RonDVouz]

No. :dry:

But there's hope in getting to it the roundabout way. My example, in 1972 while John Young and Charlie Duke are on the moon congress took NASA's budget proposal and shredded it, eliminating the possibility of a Mars mission then (also three more Apollo missions beyond 20) and a space station. The shuttle, which did pass that budget, was requested as a service vehicle to the proposed station in the same bill.

Years later we actually get that station, in the form of the ISS, and the shuttle actually lived up to its designed purpose to build and service that station.

Then Constellation, good concept in theory but was doomed from the start as being too lofty a goal. SLS and Orion were first proposed with this and in that roundabout way didn't die with the rest of the Constellation proposal. Now they're talking Mars again, and in the similar way they did with the Constellation program, so it seems that they aren't so much reversals as they're the longer path to the goal.

If only congress and it's nearsighted nature didn't have to make or break anything NASA proposed we probably would have had all this stuff in the late 80's.

 

[gattispilot]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/71242599/slsblock1a.jpg

Still haven't gotten the Velcro boosters to work. I may just make them part of the vessel.

 

[orbitingpluto]

No. :dry:

But there's hope in getting to it the roundabout way. My example, in 1972 while John Young and Charlie Duke are on the moon congress took NASA's budget proposal and shredded it, eliminating the possibility of a Mars mission then (also three more Apollo missions beyond 20) and a space station.

Snip

If only congress and it's nearsighted nature didn't have to make or break anything NASA proposed we probably would have had all this stuff in the late 80's.

If your blaming Congress, your pointing your finger too late.

Peak funding for NASA happened in the mid-60s, long before Apollo even flew in space, and funding was never a guarantee, even with a Presidential mandate, LBJ, and a few friendly Reps/Senators. Most of Congress didn't care enough, and a few(William Proxmire to name one) fought like hell to stop Apollo, even before the decade was half over. After Apollo 1(1967?), while there was a uptick in funding to insure we made it to the Moon and back before 1970, Apollo Applications(everything from Apollo-serviced space stations to further Moon missions) was absolutely gutted and it nearly died. It's monies either got shuffled into the main effort of Apollo or was simply struck from the budget. Apollo was set to run out of steam long before any Mars voyage, and all of this was firming up before Apollo 11 even flew.

The flip side is, NASA did manage to fly as many Apollos as they did, fly Skylab and ASTP, and set the stage for the Space Shuttle, all with the support of Congress. Congress gets a bad rap(rightly so) but it isn't the only reason we weren't climbing Olympus Mons in '88.


EDIT:Going back to Donamy's question, programs do get recycled or revived- Skylab or the Phoenix Mars lander come to mind. Though they usually end up different enough to not be the idea they started life as, so it's not like the decision actually got reversed.

 

[RonDVouz]

Very true, I've always blamed Walter Mondale because in 1967 after the Apollo 1 tragedy he was one of the more vocally scathing opponents of NASA and the program. The catalyst, in my opinion, of other congressional opposition. Skylab was a salvage, those last S-V's were destined for the scrap pile but clever thinking got us a space station despite the powers that be. But I believe their goal then for station was a jumping off point for a continued lunar presence, possibly Mars, but definitely something more of an equatorial orbit. I remember reading that Apollo vets like Cernan, Stafford and Lovell openly objected to ISS's 51.6 degree inclination declaring it totally useless for any potential moon trips in the future. You know Dave Scott said during the filming of Apollo 13 that he felt it would be another 30 years before we decide on returning. He's probably pushed that estimate up since, and it's truly sad.

And speaking of Skylab, here's a pic I found of a proposed Skylab 2 to be launched on an SLS cargo. Shows a similar configuration to what the deep space hab looks like.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

There going to have to have some sort of mission for SLS, why not a Skylab II?

The mesh I have for this is pretty basic and not worthy to show (goofing off at work).

 

[kocmolyf]

You should really implement Thrust Vector Control rather than rely on fake RCS thrusters. Only upper stages use RCS as they're expected provide coast attitude control post-engine cut-off.

This is absolutely true.

However, unless you're pretty familiar with 3D math, I strongly advise against doing it. It's harder than it sounds, especially roll control.

 

[gattispilot]

Does any one use Velcro rockets. If you pm me I can send you the meshes and dll and maybe a solution can be found

 

[orbitingpluto]

Does any one use Velcro rockets. If you pm me I can send you the meshes and dll and maybe a solution can be found

I'm willing; sent you a PM.

Edit: To give our little off-topic disscusion a home, I've made a thread to keep this thread tidy.

 

[gattispilot]

Thanks. I got it and send the stuff.

On the thread it said I don't have access to it.

Skylab2 might be nice project also. Got the flexcraft built. I saw that in your image. I think once this get fixed maybe the stage 2.

 

[Urwumpe]

This is absolutely true.

However, unless you're pretty familiar with 3D math, I strongly advise against doing it. It's harder than it sounds, especially roll control.

Compared to many other things in spaceflight, thats simple. especially if you have a rotation symmetric launch vehicle. I don't feel like it is smart to discourage people by mentioning math first.

 

[gattispilot]

So rather than use rcs on the core stage. The 4 thrusters change vectors? Sound hard to code?

 

[Urwumpe]

So rather than use rcs on the core stage. The 4 thrusters change vectors? Sound hard to code?

Its just SetThrusterDir in the end... and yes, it expects an direction vector as input.

Now, you have only two rotations for every thruster, pitch and yaw. Roll is achieved by pitching/yawing in different directions (ideally tangential, for maximum effect)

The direction of every thruster is the weighted sum of all available pitch, roll and yaw commands for each thruster...

yes, thats math. But thats simple math in the end.