Space Shuttle Ultra 1.25 Revision B development

[DaveS]

This should be fixed now; if you can confirm it works I'll PM Tschachim with the fix.

Fix has been confirmed. The CT now moves in a nice straight line into the VAB. Do you want me to check in a little nice docking aid I have developed?

It's really just a docking port on the CT and MLP shifted in the vertical axis which allow you to easily align the CT/MLP for proper docking in the VAB/at the pad.

It's just a temporary substitute for the CT Laser Docking System display.

 

[Urwumpe]

It's just a temporary substitute for the CT Laser Docking System display.

How does this look like?

 

[DaveS]

How does this look like?

This is a photo I have of it, in the off state:

 

[SiameseCat]

Fix has been confirmed. The CT now moves in a nice straight line into the VAB. Do you want me to check in a little nice docking aid I have developed?

It's really just a docking port on the CT and MLP shifted in the vertical axis which allow you to easily align the CT/MLP for proper docking in the VAB/at the pad.

It's just a temporary substitute for the CT Laser Docking System display.

That sounds like a good idea.

 

[DaveS]

That sounds like a good idea.

OK; will do that tomorrow. BTW, this should be implemented for better control: http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showpost.php?p=118751&postcount=164

 

[SiameseCat]

How fast do you want the crawler to accelerate?

 

[DaveS]

How fast do you want the crawler to accelerate?

This is a complicated issue. The CT is like an old-fashion rail-road train in that the initial acceleration is very very slow. It takes some time for the CT to begin moving as first motion is barely detectable if you look on the belts. Actual motion of the CT after you have commanded it to move is lagged by around 5 seconds.
The first sign that first motion have been commanded is that the discs on the drive trucks begin to spin up after which the CT begins to move.

Then there's the issue of stopping the CT, which it again is like a rail-road train, in that it doesn't come to a complete stop even if you commanded it to. Distance traveled during that time is about 60-100 ft.

 

[Urwumpe]

It is also likely that the full power of the engines is not applied for acceleration(deceleration), for keeping the stress on the payload low. The CoG should be damn high, something that you don't want to accelerate much.

The maximum force available for acceleration could be calculated from the engine parameters, if these are known.

 

[DaveS]

The maximum force available for acceleration could be calculated from the engine parameters, if these are known.

The inside of a CT: http://apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp/apollo/cg/crawler/CrawlerInSide.gif

Crawler thread NASASpaceflight.com: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=2591.0

 

[DaveS]

Another that should be added is the exhaust from the large exhaust pipes. I have attached a shot of the Ares 1X rollout and notice the large cloud just ahead of the CT/stack. That is all generated by the CT and illuminated by the xenon lights that had been positioned ahead of the rollout outside the VAB for the event.

Did the same thing for STS-26R rollout in July 1988.

 

[Donamy]

Could we get a update release, for all the new features and fixes ?

 

[Urwumpe]

Could we get a update release, for all the new features and fixes ?

Maybe we could at least do a service release, though I am not sure I will get to adding the SILTS pad feature this weekend, since I plan playing with the UCGO beta...

 

[Donamy]

Maybe we could at least do a service release, ..

That would be awesome !!

 

[Donamy]

A question on the ODS camera. Could this be made positional ? I need it for the camera on the FSS for berthing the HST. The airlock on STS-125 has no ODS anyway.

 

[DaveS]

A question on the ODS camera. Could this be made positional ? I need it for the camera on the FSS for berthing the HST. The airlock on STS-125 has no ODS anyway.

And it should be made optional as missions without the airlock doesn't have it anyway!

---------- Post added at 01:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 AM ----------

Something I have noticed while doing some STS-107 launch runs is that MECO occurs too early. Post-MECO trajectory is correct and good but the MECO time is very early, occurs at about MET 000/00:07:48.

I don't know if it's because we don't simulate the correct empty mass of OV-102. I have added the approximate correct payload launch mass(14446.4 kg) and I'll see if that additional mass will make the MECO occur later.

---------- Post added at 02:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 AM ----------

An update the MECO time situation: Adding the payload launch masses had no effect whatsoever on the MECO time.

 

[SiameseCat]

Does adding the payload mass line to the scenario file affect the actual shuttle mass in Orbiter? I'd expect the additional mass to delay MECO by at least a small amount.

 

[DaveS]

Does adding the payload mass line to the scenario file affect the actual shuttle mass in Orbiter? I'd expect the additional mass to delay MECO by at least a small amount.

Seems like I was using the wrong scenario. The added mass delays the MECO time to 000/00:07:57. Still too early. And we're already flying with the empty mass of OV-102, about 81 metric tons.

So we seem to have some over-performing components somewhere in the system.

 

[Donamy]

How would I do a 180 deg Yaw with the DAP ?

 

[Thomas Loe.]

In the UNIV PTG Item 16 180 then execute the manoeuvre.

Item16180 EXE then Item 18

 

[Donamy]

In the UNIV PTG Item 16 180 then execute the manoeuvre.

Item16180 EXE then Item 18

What Body vector ??

Also for you flight control animation problem, try turning the one in the right aft flightdeck switch to on (you have to click-pull and flip up). Then try the CDR postion switch.