Project HASDA - Reusable Crew Vehicle (lifting-body spaceplane)

[Pipcard]

So I'm trying to make a manned spacecraft (for my own space agency, HASDA - Hatsunia Aerospace Science & Development Agency) based on this JAXA lifting body flight experiment (LIFLEX).

(image from this long .pdf, page 17 [or 13 if you look at the actual page])

However, I'm stumped on how I would blend the left & right vertical stabilizers with the fuselage.

I decided to download Capt_hensley's Crew Return Vehicle model (apparently a modified TurboSquid mesh), due to its similar lifting-body shape, and import it into Wings3D.

But I don't even know how to recreate this kind of geometry (the only way I can think of is aimlessly and manually moving points), even with the "bridge" and "flow connect" tools.

I could be making a capsule for my space agency, but unless it can land precisely from Low Earth Orbit, like Dragon V2 (not demonstrated in Orbiter or in real life yet), they are "boring" and "old-fashioned."

edit: But expendable capsules that splash down are practical when it comes to development costs and simplicity. They are a valid option if a space agency wants to save money on development. I just wanted something cooler-looking for my space agency.

 

[n0mad23]

It's outside my knowledge base. I'm thinking that Sketchup might provide the bridge you're looking for, but can't say for sure as I haven't explored it enough to say with certainty. However, I'm under the impression that Liber used Sketchup for his initial X-37 a/b/c designs, and some of the curves in those meshes make me think that it'd work for getting those stabilizers merged with the fuselage. I'm thinking that they'll have to be one mesh and not meshes combined to merge seamlessly.

I sure can see why this one's caught your fancy! She's a beautiful form - kind of retro with high tech sensibilities! I want one in my collection!

 

[Pipcard]

I'm thinking that they'll have to be one mesh and not meshes combined to merge seamlessly.

Yes, and that's one of the main issues.

 

[Loru]

Most of those kinds of shapes are done with something called NURBS surfaces however I'm not sure if Wings3d or Sketchup can use them.

 

[Urwumpe]

Most of those kinds of shapes are done with something called NURBS surfaces however I'm not sure if Wings3d or Sketchup can use them.

I think Wings3D has a similar function... Blender does have it.

 

[Pipcard]

I think Wings3D has a similar function... Blender does have it.

Wings3D:

• Subdivision Modeling – Wings 3D is a subdivision modeler. Subdivision describe the process of smoothing a polygon model by subdividing each face of a model into four.
• NURBS – Nurbs are generally used by CAD modelers. Nurbs are purely mathematically defined shapes. Every curve, edge and surface is defined by mathematical formulae. Nurbs are often used for architectural projects, industrial design, and techincal applications.

Blender (from a thread in which the opening post asks for a "good free NURBS modeler"):

Then the second shock came: Blender's NURBS implementation is not good enough.

And the screencap of the CRV model above looks like a subdivided surface, so how would I do that?

Here's what mine currently looks like; it's still crude:

 

[Urwumpe]

Blender (from a thread in which the opening post asks for a "good free NURBS modeler"):

I don't know what a good NURBS modeller is - sometimes, I have the impression, that people desire a user interface that does the thinking for them, regardless how stupid their expectations are.

What I have read about NURBS in Blenders latest versions looks pretty useful.

 

[Odahs]

I use Rhino 4.0 which is a full-on Nurbs modelling package. I have limited experience of Blender so can't comment how easy/hard it would be to create this in Blender.

I can say though that it would be straightforward in Rhino. Rhino has the function to convert the Nurbs object into a Mesh which can be imported into Blender. Rather than Rhino doing the work for you, it is simply an appropriate piece of software for Nurbs modelling which makes the creation of smoothly blended compound curves as required in this project straightforward.

 

[Hielor]

Wings3D can bridge the faces of two objects together to combine them into a single connected object. I don't remember off the top of my head what it's called, but I'm pretty sure it's available on the right-click menu when you have two faces selected.

It might only work on faces of a single logical object, but if so you can combine two objects into a single "object" by selecting them both in body select mode and doing somethingerother in the right click menu.

Basically, you'd make the upper half of the vertical stabilizer as a "detached" piece, and then select the bottom face of the vertical stabilizer and the face on the body where you want it to attach, bridge them, and voila they're connected seamlessly.

 

[Pipcard]

I already know about the "bridge" tool, but the problem is making those two halves in the first place.

 

[Hielor]

The image you have already has two halves...just move the wing "outside" the body instead of clipping through it and bridge it to a face.

 

[Pipcard]

I seem to be actually getting somewhere now. (On the right is a mesh made out of the vertical stabilizer [mostly through extrusion and the moving of points], so that it is continuous)

My confusion was mitigated due to this realization:

It actually looks more like this mockup.

---------- Post added 08-29-14 at 01:03 AM ---------- Previous post was 08-28-14 at 10:18 AM ----------

I just did it in a slightly crude way, mostly by making the edges "soft."

 

[Hielor]

Not bad!

 

[Pipcard]

(source)

Otherwise, I would be working on a splashdown capsule right now. Sentimental appeals, they got to me.

 

[Pipcard]

Added rudders, central vertical stabilizer (not connected to the rest of the mesh - this will make for easier texturing), and elevators.

 

[Hielor]

How does having the vertical stabilizer not connected to the rest of the mesh help texturing? You can easily mark the edges between the vertical stabilizer and the body as a "cut" point for texture mapping and you'll end up with the same effect, without the downsides of not having them connected...

 

[Pipcard]

The planned crew number is 3, because the space station I'm planning to eventually develop has a crew of 6, and two vehicles will be docked at a time (with one rotating about every three months). It's also because of this. The cylinder at the back represents a passageway to the docking adapter.

 

[Donamy]

I think it would be more feasible, to have the docking on the dorsal side. IMHO

 

[Pipcard]

I would have to have an extendable docking port (so that it clears the central fin, because not every docking port you dock to is part of a Pressurized Mating Adapter), and also a bay door for it.

Instead there will be a simpler adapter in the back.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think it would be more feasible, to have the docking on the dorsal side. IMHO

The large central rudder could be a problem.

I am not sure why it needs one, when such a rudder could have any positive effect, it would be too slow for any meaning full aerodynamic flight at all and require a parachute for further flight anyway.

The aft docking would also have the advantage that less heat shielding is required since the docking port does only get indirect heating there.