Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Addons > Addon Development
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Addon Development Developers post news, updates, & discussions here about your projects in development.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-08-2014, 08:37 AM   #61
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bekodreko View Post
Wrong Service Module though - the "SM" of the EFT-1 flight is just a small dummy adapter to the upper stage of the Delta IV.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 12-09-2014, 12:47 AM   #62
Astro SG Wise
Future Orion MPCV Pilot
 
Astro SG Wise's Avatar
Default

So, NASA made a cockpit interface video, and I took a snapshot panorama of the whole of the cockpit that they show in the video. Here it is.
Astro SG Wise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2014, 01:11 AM   #63
Astro SG Wise
Future Orion MPCV Pilot
 
Astro SG Wise's Avatar
Default

Also, NASA just released new video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMQw...1H5gaB&index=1
Astro SG Wise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2014, 04:00 PM   #64
simcosmos
Addon Developer
 
simcosmos's Avatar
Default

Hello francisdrake, nice to see you back



I have also been (still am) in a kind of 'away mode' although continue to incrementally improve my addons (but not really being able to pack all up and release). Moving on: based on such past virtual 'simcosmos' development experiments, I have a little of feedback that may be useful for the topic in hand (Delta IV Heavy – Orion integration).



---------------------------------
I. DIVH - Orion: EFT-1
---------------------------------



This was a great test flight but we all need to be aware that such kind of DIVH mission performance (Orion entry from an high elliptical orbit to, among other things, do a good test on Orion's TPS) was only possible because Orion's EFT-1 configuration was not a full one.

In particular, the service module was mostly a shell of the operational one... For example, no 8t up to 9t or so propellant load there... neither main / auxiliary engine nor RCS... other systems also not present, etc. The capsule, although had mass simulators, was not a full spec version.



The EFT-1 is something I'm very interested in virtually replicating but that will still require a good bit of study. This was valid before the flight (with the press kit info) and it is now even more valid because we do have some data to crunch over, from the actual flight!


For the moment, this is something I would perhaps use as a departure point if wishing to try to simulate EFT-1 (approximated values):


7300 kg : LAS (approximated mass properties, inert main motor)
9300 kg : CM (Orion Landing mass was ~8.6t, need to check the budget for FBC + parachutes)
2065 kg : SM (EFT-1, test version as described above)
1200 kg : SM covers
1000 kg : SM adapter + stage adapter
-------------
20865 kg


Such total was based on:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/fi...accessible.pdf
(as previously mentioned by DaveS)





II. Full Orion and Delta IV Heavy... But wait, what are the specs of an operational Orion MPCV?


The biggest question, from quite some time now, is: what might be the specs of a complete Orion spacecraft? (including here the LAS, SM panels, Spacecraft Adapter and, of course, the CM + SM)


Back in 2009 (ho my, the time flies!!!) I wrote (nasaspaceflight forums) a number of posts about the topics of Orion CM + SM specs and DIVH integration. The simulation files in which I based such posts would need to be properly reviewed and updated, mostly because there seems to exist a trend of mass growth in Orion's development (and this independently of specific issues caused by past Orion-AresI integration challenges)...


There are however some 'recent' news telling that Orion (both the CM and SM) might be on track (vs such mass issues):
- EFT-1's data may help on saving heat shield mass
- it seems that the next Orion CM is already being made with a slightly different methodology that allows to save on its structural mass
- the SM mass (by ESA) also had some issues but may be back on track (?)...




But... I'm not really sure of any of that... If people have patience, please read...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...0931#msg950931
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...1146#msg951146
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...114#msg1254114
(MPCV's Service Module Requirements)


… where I tried to provide a quick overview (and links).

Of particular interest, for virtual number crunching, is the most 'recent' (which may already be outdated) quick-facts, which I comment on the third post above (1254114) http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/fi...kfacts-web.pdf


As a side note, I'm currently assuming (on AresI / V brainstorms related with CxP lunar mission updated simulations): ~7.64t LAS, 25.5t Orion (CM + SM + Adapter), 1.38t SM panels, for a total liftoff mass of ~34.5t or so. I'm then using a slightly lower SM mass than the one stated on that 2014-08-004 fact sheet...






III. Back to integration with Delta IV Heavy / Conclusion


As mentioned, I would need to go back and redo some input numbers (the 3D models were also just placeholders) and then re-do the performance assessment but, on past experiments, IF assuming RL-10-B2, I had to offload Delta IV Heavy's upper stage in order to be able to inject a complete Orion into 29 degrees (and for ISS, like were the plans for AresI, I used an Orion with half the prop. load).



http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/4013284353


Again, for orbinauts with patience, please grab a cup of hot tea / coffee and biscuits and feel free to read the related NSF forum thread where brainstormed a little about the topic: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=11826.0 (Probability of D-IVH Replacing Ares I)


My posts start at page 40 and go up to page 42, with juicy info about basic configuration assumptions, ascent ground rules, abort options, etc.





The conclusion:


Although probably not strictly required, if wishing to implement easier ascent to orbits of a full Orion on top of a Delta IV Heavy and IF not wishing to do a more specific and careful brainstorm about trajectory optimization work vs ascent events (which is something I do enjoy but which also takes a bit of time), the easiest way, for addon developers, would be to cheat a little and replace the RL-10-B2 with an RL-60 (or a cluster of 3 RL-10 without the B2 long nozzles...).

The above would greatly help with gravity losses, on the upper stage portion of the ascent, for an heavy Orion MPCV. The alternative would be to improve the quality of the ascent guidance, but in the end it all depends of looking at the 'problem' from a really integrated perspective ('crew-rated' Delta IV Heavy mods + Orion full capability mass + trajectory). Bonus for thinking on margins and procedures related with non-nominal ascent scenarios ;-)

Sincerely hope that this somehow helps current brainstorms.


Cheers,
António Maia
(back to lurker mode)

Last edited by simcosmos; 12-12-2014 at 04:12 PM.
simcosmos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2014, 03:35 PM   #65
francisdrake
Addon Developer
Default

Antonio, thank you for your insights, profound as ever!

The weights of a moon-capable Orion add up higher than in the early CEV concepts. As far as I understand, using Orion to fly to the ISS is no more a mission target, as these ISS-runs shall be handled by private companies.

I assume there will be no (or few) occasions where an Orion shall be sent to LEO only. For this an up-rated Delta IV Heavy may be an option, but it would need an enhanced upper stage to lift even a partially fuelled Orion into orbit.
francisdrake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2014, 07:54 PM   #66
Astro SG Wise
Future Orion MPCV Pilot
 
Astro SG Wise's Avatar
Default

I was thinking in that same line: using a newer Delta IV would be a great Orion MPCV LEO option. Also, I tried your LAS, and it is great! The only problem is that the LAS doesn't make it to the ocean unless I increment the thrust.
Astro SG Wise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2014, 09:59 PM   #67
francisdrake
Addon Developer
Default

I assume you refer to a launch pad abort. Reason is that I kept the LAS simple, the sideways motion is only due to a slightly off-centric thrust. If I increased the off-center more, the vessel spins like cracy when activated at higher altitude. Wanted to keep my efforts on the main vessel, not on a rarely used contigency scenario. Still, it is fun to shoot the Orion off the pad and watch her drift back to earth

I will adapt the overall masses to the figures proposed by Simcosmos (the LAS seems heavier there) and see how this affects the abort performance.
francisdrake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2014, 11:23 PM   #69
simcosmos
Addon Developer
 
simcosmos's Avatar
Default

Hi again Franz (all)

I could not contain the curiosity and today searched my archives for the (Vinka dll powered) simulation files that developed regarding the Delta IV Heavy + Orion integration and which referenced on my previous post.


Objective: to do a quick and very clumsy update on the payload definition in order to represent an heavier Orion configuration, run the scenario and then see what would result from it!


Input Data

So, the crew-rated Delta IV Heavy launcher configuration was as described in the following link:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...6063#msg366063

For the payload, I then used the jsc Orion's 2014-08-004 quick-fact sheet as a 'rough inspiration' (for example, assumed a lighter SM, etc), and created the following Orion test config:

10300 kg : CM
5200 kg : SM
9000 kg : SM prop.
-------------
24500 kg : Orion spacecraft
+1000 kg : SM adapter + US adapter
-------------
25500 kg : Total injected payload mass
+1380 kg : SM panels (away during ascent)
+7643 kg : LAS (away during ascent)
-------------
34523 kg : Total Payload @ liftoff


Comments:

I have not tweaked the ascent events until Core MECO: they remained as described in the first link that shared within the current post. This means that the SM panels and LAS jettison happened a little before core's MECO.

The upper stage delivery conditions were acceptable, although the booster and core phases would need a couple of improvements to better account for the heavier payload mass.

As for the upper stage, I continued to assume RL-10B-2 and a 20t prop. load (instead of the full ~27.2t load), as also described on that nasaspaceflight forum post. This part of the ascent required a number of extra modifications, the most important one was that I had to increase the maximum pitch angle to fight the nasty gravity losses (the RL-10B-2 upper stage is optimized for other tasks than brute delivery of heavy payloads into LEO, although it can still do it, with a performance cost).

The biggest difference from the posts at NSF forums was that this time, instead going for a full ~200 km orbital insertion (~29 degrees) I went for a sub-orbital injection (upper stage would impact somewhere west of Australia).


Performance / Comments (preliminary result):

Long story short, was able to inject a total mass of ~ 29353 kg into -17.3 x 183.9 km , 28.7º
(29353 kg = 3700 kg US + 153.4 kg US prop. + 1000 kg adapters + 24500 kg Orion)


I guess that with a more careful ascent guidance (I haven't really coded the new updates... just used the 'Force' and did the alterations in live manual mode, hehehe) and with a better definition of ascent events (for example, timing of SM panels and LAS jettison, new METs for RS-68 throttle down, etc) something similar to the mentioned DIVH configuration could be capable of delivering an heavy Orion into similar conditions to the ones expected for AresI...

Of course that if Orion was lighter, full orbital insertion would be cool... But again, as things were described, a good coding of the ascent guidance - in particular for the RL-10B-2 phase (but not only) - is essential to meet more demanding / revised performance targets. Either that or the 'cheat mode on' of assuming more raw thrust on the upper stage and/or other optimisations to the overall launch vehicle (one 'alternative reality' concept in my archives would use RL-68 B-E/O + a new upper stage design... but such would probably not be a Delta IV anymore)



---------------------------
About Orion's LAS...
---------------------------


Already saw values of ~7.7t vs 7.3t (and it used to be lighter than than).

To simulate the LAS, there are a number of NASA documents with a better description of each motor (thrust, mass, ISP, burn duration, not sure, but also think that have seen a thrust curve somewhere and info about max. altitude vs range for a pad abort, etc). I think this was for a previous 6.3t or for a 7.3t LAS variant (please see link at the end).

Would also need to check the specs of what was used on the PA-1 test (although the capsule mass was lighter...): in any case, such info could be extrapolated for the heavier assumption (also with info from EFT-1 materials). I know that have done similar exercises for my 'on-hold' stuff (example: for a conceptual ~12t capsule I reached to a LAS mass between 8t to 9t).

Also wrote something (now outdated) at NSF, but it may again help for the extrapolation:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=20348.0

My post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...7297#msg537297
(info about Orion LAS specs of that time)

António Maia

Last edited by simcosmos; 12-13-2014 at 11:37 PM.
simcosmos is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 12-14-2014, 05:34 AM   #70
Star Voyager
Failed Addon Developer
 
Star Voyager's Avatar
Default

I love this add-on! This is excellent work as always. A few things I noticed:

1) Orion docks upside down relative to the ISS.

2) When translating up/down (8/2 on numboard) and left/right (1/3 on numboard) simultaneously, Orion performs a roll maneuver.

3) Solar panels glow in the dark.

I also touched up the markings on the side of the vehicle. Cool idea of stripping down Orion for CCP; sounds like a job for Falcon Heavy instead of Delta IV Heavy, but that's just my view. I look forward to the updates!

Click image for larger version

Name:	14.12.14 00-08-16 Orion.jpg
Views:	55
Size:	487.9 KB
ID:	13342

Click image for larger version

Name:	14.12.14 00-08-20 Orion.jpg
Views:	44
Size:	485.6 KB
ID:	13343

Click image for larger version

Name:	14.12.14 00-08-28 Orion.jpg
Views:	43
Size:	141.0 KB
ID:	13344
Star Voyager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2014, 05:49 PM   #71
francisdrake
Addon Developer
Default

Thanks for all the feedback! Will try to include as much as possible in the next update.

Right now I would be grateful if someone could help me draft a SLS moon-launch scenario. It seems I cannot reach lunar orbit injection with the current version. Do we need a stronger upper stage for that?

Launch date would be in the early 2020's, preferrably in summer. With the ecliptic being up north in summer this would allow a nearly in-plane insertion to a free-return moon trajectory. ( Date MJD 59759.5 would be a starting point.)

I would go for a scenic ground camera
MFD's set up for launch, targets defined.

An added bonus would be a TransX flight plan already created.

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 AM ----------

Small update on the front page, version 05.
Masses increased: CM, LAS, fairings and adapter as discussed above.
For the SM stayed with the specs published by ESA (3.5 ton dry, 8.6 ton fuel). This may change when more reliable data become available.

Went over CM mesh, chute textures reworked, solar panels flipped. Let me know if the panels look better with the solar cells up or down as default? Will later animate them, but that is far down the list. Solar panel glare in the dark is a mystery.

The SLS scenario does not work, the launcher does not lift off the ground. May need some tinkering of the Velcro code.
francisdrake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2014, 06:20 PM   #72
Star Voyager
Failed Addon Developer
 
Star Voyager's Avatar
Default

Cool update! The chutes look more realistic, and the docking orientation is a lot better! I do think the solar panels looked better facing up as before, it looks a bit awkward to me otherwise. Are you considering adding sun tracking to them in the future?
Star Voyager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2014, 08:03 PM   #73
simcosmos
Addon Developer
 
simcosmos's Avatar
Default

Thanks for the 05 update, I was not yet able to play with it (maybe next weekend).


--------------------------------
I. Service Module Mass
--------------------------------



I agree that the 6.2t on the JSC's Oct 2014 fact sheet may be a bit too much for the total SM mass (I mean, for the SM+CMA, please see below) but, on another hand, this is one of the most recent and complete datasets available and there is also a little more to add to the story.

About the 3.5t SM mass on some European Space Agency documents, I may be wrong but that mass probably does not include the Crew Module Adaptor (CMA, the wider diameter element where the CM rests).

Although the CMA is functionally part of what we generically perceive as being Orion's Service Module, it is not part of ESA's responsibilities (in terms of production... I think the same is valid for the main engine, would need to check). I find it slightly hard to believe that the total service module (ESA SM + NASA CMA) will mass just 3.5t! That would be going back to some of the most optimistic mass expectations ever seen (and those were for lower prop. loads and CM masses)! It would even be 1t lower than the conceptual methane-lox SM on the pre-Constellation ESAS - Exploration Systems Architecture Study - report.

The other element for which ESA is responsible is the Spacecraft Adapter (the conical interface that starts at SM's bottom and which interfaces with the launch vehicle's own adapter, if required).

I also have seen 3.8t (page 6 or 14 of next pdf) for the SM mass (without the CMA), please look at:

BUILDING TRANSATLANTIC PARTNERSHIPS IN SPACE EXPLORATION THE MPCV - SM STUDY
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0120012885.pdf

Only a suggestion but something closer to ~5t up to 5.2t or so (for the total SM+CMA) would probably be a safer bet for Orion MPCV virtual mission prototyping, just saying (it would be something more or less in-between the ~4.5t from late CxP / early SLS times and the 6.2t of JSC's fact sheet)




-----------------------------
II. LAS
-----------------------------


After joining info from JSC quick-Facts and the Flight-Test 1 Press Kit I arrived at the following estimation:

2599.08 kg : prop. total for the motors
2036.64 kg : dry mass total of the motors
3007.31 kg : dry mass for ogive / other structures
-----------------
7643.03 kg : LAS, total mass

I'm in the process of dividing those masses per each main motor (abort, jettison and attitude) by using older PA-1 LAS info and the above documents. But this will require virtual tests and some thrust curve playtime in order to check performance. Not sure when will end it.




-----------------------------------------------------
III. SLS + Orion (and other CLV options)
-----------------------------------------------------



If wishing to simulate a lower end mission capability for SLS, a SLS core with 4 engines at 109% and 2 x 5 seg. boosters should be enough to inject ~170t total mass (SLS core stage with ~1% prop inside the core at MECO, interstage, iCPS, iCPS-to-payload interface, payload adapter, payload) into ~ 60 x 1800 km, ~ 29º orbit (with a perigee increment to 185 x 1800 km being done by the ICPS).

The ICPS (virtually the Delta IV Heavy US plus a few mods) with a ~25t payload on top could then do a partial TLI burn at the first perigee passage (with ~1% prop. margin) for an orbit of ~185 x 86000 km, with the payload completing the final 350 m/s or so (for a 3d to 4d transfer) while still keeping ~1000 m/s capability for any other burns. This could even allow insertion into a 24h 382 x 15640 km lunar orbit with the spacecraft having enough resources for TEI (although haven't studied that part yet). All what have written is from past 'simcosmos' simulations.

The linked above pdf also has another option for this type of 'entry level' mission. I would suggest to double-check the SLS configuration numbers being used, if the virtual rocket does not even leave the pad


I could also provide my own, but the problem with some of that stuff is that it is buried deep within custom addon addon development directory structures (some even still using Orbiter 2006!) and to extract parts of the development toys to make a stand-alone addon for Orbiter 2010 would be a bit of work (the meshes are also old placeholders and not quite the SLS, although similar in appearance and performance).

If having the opportunity (not sure when) I would probably play first with providing an updated dedicated crewed launch vehicle instead, with fresher meshes (not sure if people would prefer an updated AresI or something in the lines of a Delta IV Heavy, both are sloooowly being re-configured to inject a 25.5t mass - adapter + payload - into ~29º LEO).

Cheers,
António Maia

Last edited by simcosmos; 12-14-2014 at 09:03 PM. Reason: text formatting
simcosmos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2014, 08:55 PM   #74
francisdrake
Addon Developer
Default

Thanks Antonio! I did not know that the CMA adapter is not part of the ESA SM. Will increase SM dry and fuel mass in the next version to 5.2 ton + 9.2 ton.

For the solar panels: I do not intend to make an automated star tracker, but just a manual rotate forward and back, and maybe swivel up and down. Reason is - aside from complicated code - that I want to keep the timestep loop as short as possible. I expect the Orion being run with several other vessels on interplanetary cruises or lunar landing missions.
francisdrake is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 12-15-2014, 02:00 AM   #75
DaveS
Addon Developer
 
DaveS's Avatar


Default

The problem with the "glow in dark" solar arrays are caused by the emissive settings for the two materials called "Solar" and "Solarb". Currently they're set to 0.294118 0.294118 0.294118 when they should be all zeros.
DaveS is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Orbiter Addons > Addon Development


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:50 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.