Project Haworth MPEV (Multi-Purpose Exploration Vehicle)

[Grover]

after finishing mesh 1/2 (or maybe even 3), ive decided its time to get a verdict from you guys

i decided that ESA didnt have a sound answer to Apollo, so i made it for them (anybody working at ESA, just send a cheque )

Names after Sir Walter Norman Howarth (i didnt know he was a chemist until a few days ago) mainly because my college's science department is named after him

it follows the rough shape of the Apollo, and matches its endurance and Dv, but thats where similarities end.

starting at the front end: it uses an APAS-95 docking mechanism, identical to the STS docking mechanism, because it is more versatile than most European docking mechanisms, it uses no airlock, but EVAs are possible through controlled de pressurisation of the cabin, followed by egress through either docking port or hatch (seen just at the bottom)

the cabin is significantly larger than Apollo's, allowing more material to be returned to earth, as well as possibility for increased crew at the cost of cargo capacity

the service module is what makes up most of the craft, giving delta-v for LOI, small plane changes, rendez-vous with lunar lander, TEI, and a small brake burn closer to earth, to relieve the CM heatshield from direct re-entry (thoguh the HS can take it as a contingency)

now: images!

the Service module from behind

the SM, INGAME!!! *from the front

the CM from the lower side, showing the hatch

the CM from the front the APAS-95 clearly visible

the CM and SM joined in matrimony

although im happy with the models, the CM was made badly, and texturing will be a real pain, so im going to re-make it with later stages in mind, i can probably remake it in 5 hours at this stage

i also plan to make a new launcher, a cross between the Saturn and Ariane (for clarity: making the Saturn a little smaller, then slapping two huge boosters onto it)

all that is left, is two questions:

1) most importantly, how can i make a transparent material in 3dsmax that max2msh will be able to handle? at the moment it always feeds back that "opacity" is an unknown variable

2) for the landing chutes, it it best to have the mesh present (but hidden) at all times, then simply scale it out when they're deployed, or to add completley seperate meshes when they're deployed (im going to delve into C++ anyway, i may as well make it REALLY challenging for myself)

hope to get back to you guys soon!

 

[Urwumpe]

I still wonder why the ATV isn't a proper spacecraft on its own... your version looks like Apollo painted European, not like Europe would solve the problems that Apollo had to solve.

Not to stop you from development, its a free world. I just didn't like your description of it... the ATV is a mean machine and the best that Europe had developed EVER. There had been a great ESA rendering of the ATV next to the Apollo CSM, and the ATV was really a nothing short of Apollo. It is great by itself.

Here it is:

 

[N_Molson]

A few ideas to improve the design :

- Multiple small engines, rather than a big one. That's a design shared by all future capsules. If one engine has a problem, there is still a chance to deorbit : that's redundancy. Of course the spacecraft must be able to keep its attitude (RCS + gimbal).

- Solar Panels : they are now much more efficient than in the Apollo era, and are a reliable source of power suitable for very long durations. Fuel cells limit the duration of a spacecraft mission to 20 days at maximum. It was good for the Apollo program, but nowadays you want to be able to have the ship docked to the ISS for months.

- Two sizes of SM : one fitted for LEO missions, the other for lunar transfers. Maybe even a third one (nuclear thermal ?) designed in the perspective of a Mars mission. This allows the vehicle to perform a wide variety of missions (the smaller the SM, the lighter the capsule, the cheaper the launcher !).

- Innovation : maybe some kind of cargo module between the SM and the capsule, to put station spare parts and repair tools (to somehow give it a "mobile space workshop" ability that has the Shuttle).

Just my two cents, your first renders look great ! :thumbup:

 

[Grover]

well, the ATV cant be used for manned moon missions for two reasons:

it cannot re-enter, you'd have to send your crew to their deaths, and you couldnt return as any samples

its SM would need to be completley remade

if you made the ATV into a manned, Lunar-Faring spacecraft, there would be almost nothing left of the ATV when you reach the final result

 

[Urwumpe]

it cannot re-enter, you'd have to send your crew to their deaths, and you couldnt return as any samples

The idea of replacing the cargo section of the ATV by a Apollo shaped reentry capsule is as old as the ATV. The CTV was the manned twin of the ATV, already in 1994.

its SM would need to be completley remade

No, there is actually little missing for a lunar mission there. The navigation equipment that is installed on the cargo section would have to be replaced by something lunar. Also, if you want to fly an Apollo like mission, you would need to double the fuel capacity, which is already possible by using the volume for the fuel that is currently pumped into the space station.

if you made the ATV into a manned, Lunar-Faring spacecraft, there would be almost nothing left of the ATV when you reach the final result

See above, that statement is wrong. The core spacecraft would be the same, but the payload specific section would change. And that change is currently even just evolutionary.

 

[N_Molson]

There is the viable CTV project. The SM remains the same :

Edit : :ninja:'d

 

[Grover]

A few ideas to improve the design :

- Multiple small engines, rather than a big one. That's a design shared by all future capsules. If one engine has a problem, there is still a chance to deorbit : that's redundancy. Of course the spacecraft must be able to keep its attitude (RCS + gimbal).

- Solar Panels : they are now much more efficient than in the Apollo era, and are a reliable source of power suitable for very long durations. Fuel cells limit the duration of a spacecraft mission to 20 days at maximum. It was good for the Apollo program, but nowadays you want to be able to have the ship docked to the ISS for months.

- Two sizes of SM : one fitted for LEO missions, the other for lunar transfers. Maybe even a third one (nuclear thermal ?) designed in the perspective of a Mars mission. This allows the vehicle to perform a wide variety of missions (the smaller the SM, the lighter the capsule, the cheaper the launcher !).

- Innovation : maybe some kind of cargo module between the SM and the capsule, to put station spare parts and repair tools (to somehow give it a "mobile space workshop" ability that has the Shuttle).

Just my two cents, your first renders look great ! :thumbup:

here were my thoughts:
multiple engines were possible, i just thought one huge one looked cooler

solar panels: yes, they are more efficient, but fuel cells are also efficient, and give a much higher output than solars, unless i made REALLY big ones

two sizes of SM. im afraid not, ive already decided that the SM will have one size, and for LEO launches, we just use a much smaller launcher, which will leave the spacecraft to gain orbital velocity by itself (basically, consider the SM as a launcher stage as well). i know its not fuel efficient, but it is cost efficient: I've removed a whole stage from my launcher, and it saves on the design and research front, since you only need to calculate for, and test one type of SM

cargo idea: not sure about that, the only way to retrieve the cargo that way would be to separate the CM and SM, leaving the SM to use its VERY weak RCS and poor fuel supply to align orbits with a target and de-orbit. dont worry though, i have ideas for a cargo module (however rough it may seem )

ive got most of the new CM done, its much easier to work with, and more realistic (before, there was no space between the external skin and the internal pressurised area...

should have somethign else to show by sunday, ive got a lack of time on friday and saturday, so sunday it is!

laters!

 

[N_Molson]

cargo idea: not sure about that, the only way to retrieve the cargo that way would be to separate the CM and SM, leaving the SM to use its VERY weak RCS and poor fuel supply to align orbits with a target and de-orbit. dont worry though, i have ideas for a cargo module (however rough it may seem )

I was thinking to removable panels on the side.

solar panels: yes, they are more efficient, but fuel cells are also efficient, and give a much higher output than solars, unless i made REALLY big ones

Why would you need that much power ?

 

[Grover]

(...). The core spacecraft would be the same, but the payload specific section would change. And that change is currently even just evolutionary.

the core spacecraft is refitted, the cargo section is completley replaced for re-entry. you end up with the CTV (be it with a slightly larger SM)

i still hold my point, the ATV isnt closely suitable enough, and we already have a CTV on OH. the difference is, my Not-CTV will have a realistic configuration, if you look, you will notice that the CTV has an ISP almost twice what it would have in real life.

 

[Urwumpe]

i still hold my point, the ATV isnt closely suitable enough, and we already have a CTV on OH. the difference is, my Not-CTV will have a realistic configuration, if you look, you will notice that the CTV has an ISP almost twice what it would have in real life.

Does it? Never looked that close at it.

 

[N_Molson]

Confirmed, the CTV addon is very ISP-optimistic

 

[Grover]

Why would you need that much power ?

I wouldnt, but using fuel cells saves a lot of room, which can be used for more important things, like contingency fuel and communication equipment.

Perhaps having solars as a backup, in case a fuel cell doesnt work effecticley (malfunction) then the solars can take up the slack in the system

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 AM ----------

ok, ive almost finished modelling the new CM, just need to finish up the part of the interior that is visible from the outside.

i dont have time to get any screeenshots uploaded, so it'll have to wait for now

and i also had a look at the Atlantis code, i THINK i can extract some useful code from it to make my own, but can someone please check my logic here:

to start, i define the SM , almost as a dead craft, only RCS to provide Z- translation (to fire automatically on separation) and a trickle of fuel to supply it.
then i write a module for the CM. add both meshes to start with, define engines,RCS, animations and fuel as would be available in the SM as well as the CM, set a function up that will delete the CM part, redefine engines and RCS and animations and so on on a keypress (to simulate separation), then create the empty SM vessel defined earlier behind the CM, with its automatic LIN firing "armed"

i only have a couple of questions:
i cant find a code that generates the child vessel from the parent vessel's code; how do i get the CM's module to create the SM vessel?

is there a way to set the SM to always try to use its Z- LIN RCS, it would be much easier to work with than coding it to only fire on separation, and the latter is rather useless IMHO

thanks guys, ill get back to you!

 

[N_Molson]

This tutorial covers the vessel "spawning", I use this method in my addons.

 

[orbitingpluto]

Having solar panels+fuel cells would give another advantage you didn't point out. You can run the fuel cells at peak efficiency(not it's peak power) and use solar power(plus batteries for the dark parts) to carry what is left of the load. Fuel cells get less efficient the more power you try to pull from them, so why not maximize efficiency and save on reactant use. This high efficiency approach makes the best use of the reactants your hauling about, and ensures you can still bring along the hot plate and the fancy scientific doodads that suck power and produce scads of data. And you can do it for a few days longer than with a fuel cell only set up.

The solar panels only have to be as big as needed to power all the equipment you can run with the added power provided by the fuel cells in best efficiency mode. If it ends up too big or too heavy for your tastes, it was worth thinking about anyway.

 

[Grover]

This tutorial covers the vessel "spawning", I use this method in my addons.

that will come in handy, Thanks!

Having solar panels+fuel cells would give another advantage you didn't point out. You can run the fuel cells at peak efficiency(not it's peak power) and use solar power(plus batteries for the dark parts) to carry what is left of the load. Fuel cells get less efficient the more power you try to pull from them, so why not maximize efficiency and save on reactant use. This high efficiency approach makes the best use of the reactants your hauling about, and ensures you can still bring along the hot plate and the fancy scientific doodads that suck power and produce scads of data. And you can do it for a few days longer than with a fuel cell only set up.

The solar panels only have to be as big as needed to power all the equipment you can run with the added power provided by the fuel cells in best efficiency mode. If it ends up too big or too heavy for your tastes, it was worth thinking about anyway.

another good idea, i planned to add to the SM anyway, and it wont be too hard to re-texture what i have, since i sort of already have it solar panels aer a good call anyway, in case we get an Apollo 13 issue and we get short on fuel cell resources or battery power, we can use the solars to keep the craft ticking over until SM jetisson and CM batteries take over

 

[K_Jameson]

Sweet spacecraft; a little bit Apollo-like but seems promising.

 

[Capt_hensley]

I'd like to see a new render if possible. As you can, take your time. I know what it's like getting rushed. Cool idea so far.

 

[Grover]

well, it is based on proven Apollo tech, with a modern (and European) twist to the mix, but i plan to remake everything you've seen (though the CM is very similar)

and as for a new render... i dont have any more to show you right now, apart from the CM ive worked on that doesnt look any different:

although the interior (or whats visible from outside at least) has had a makeover:

once ive got the CM done and texture-ified ill go back and remodel the SM following some constructive feedback from before, then i use the texture ive already made, extend it down to a 1:2 ratio and add solar panel textures etc

once im done there, i get the craft into a dll (probably not very complex), get some testing done, then get to work on my launcher idea (most likely multistage based, although ive considered making it a custom dll)

once i get more done, ill let ya know, but my college Exams are starting and the pressure's on, i wont be able to do much for a few days

laters

 

[N_Molson]

It seems that a 4th crewmember could fit inside, maybe even a 5th, given the size of the capsule ?

 

[Grover]

well, thats where it gets interesting:

the 3 there are the minimum crew, below them (and not modelled) is space for one of 2 things:

a large cargo rack, for use when material and equipment is taken to and from the moon's surface, such as crustal cores, seismic equipment etc.

the alternative, is to leave two smaller, forward racks for a smaller amount of cargo, and housing additional crew, as the mission would require, be it geologists, physicians or passengers, its all up to the orbinaut to decide.

EDIT:
perhaps its reasonable to point out that the MP in the name stands for Multi-Purpose, the idea is that this craft can fulfil a number of roles, from resupplying the ISS to bringing back astronauts, equipment and samples from the moon

---------- Post added at 09:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 PM ----------

ok, todays work:

the CM has recieved some TLC, with the interior finished (this is not a VC!!) and optimised my mesh a little. all we need now is a float and parachute mesh to be deployed (though now i think i can draw them seperatley, not as part of the CM mesh, so it runs better.

and ive done a little work on the SM, namely:
more, smaller exhausts, to allow for redundancy in case of failure
by popular request: added solar panels for increased safety in case of LH2 or LOX leak, designed to power the craft in safety mode (AKA: turn off what we dont need) without draining CM batteries, so we can re-enter safely

ill finish off the CM next (when time allows), then made my extra meshes for float and parachute, and finally re-texture the SM and get coding, but in the meantime:

1)how do i manage animations when i have more than one mesh loaded on the same vessel? do i specify which mesh to animate before stating the groups or something? (and is there a guide somewhere)

2)is there a guide on coding in aerodynamics? i could do with learning a little to craft my parachute.

thanks guys!

EDIT: that was a lightning-fast "Thanks" NMolson

---------- Post added 05-17-11 at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was 05-16-11 at 09:07 PM ----------

ok, texturing of the CM has officially started! for comparison, the SM has a single 2048^2 texture and the CM will have one 2048^2 texture and another smaller (maybe 512^2) for the crew textures (will be painfully simple to account for my poor art skills)

i just have a couple of questions:

1) how can i get max2msh to take in transparency? in the past it has produced an error when it reaches an "unknown variable" or something like that, quoting "opacity" as the trouble. if anyone else has used 3dsmax, i could do with the help

2) is there an easy way to find which group of polygons is assigned to each number? currently, i'd have to guess, which will take AGES with a model containing 20+ groups

3)i asked a while back, but got no response: how do i handle animations over a model with multiple meshes loaded? is there a good guide?

4)in the OAPI command "int VESSELSTATUS::status", do i have to use VESSEL2 or will this command work for any VESSEL class?

thanks guys!