Search Ares V

[Columbia42]

I'm about to release the addon but I can't seem to get a screen shot of the Ares V on the pad. Could someone take one and post it so that I could use it in the release?

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Ah crap, my connection is going all hayhire on me.... I'll post soon if I can get the thing to load up.

 

[Submariner]

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Sweet! You beat me to it.

 

[Columbia42]

Thanks guys.

---------- Post added at 12:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

The addon has been released. However this thread is by no means over. If anyone has any ideas for future releases please post them. I will check this thread periodically but my main focus will be on an addon of a Russian spacecraft. The thread is here: http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=15290
Thanks for all of your help with this addon. It was fun!

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I had lots of fun too. Thanks for letting me participate.:thumbup:

 

[Pablo49]

Agreed. It was a fun project and I was glad to help.

 

[Columbia42]

Thanks again.

 

[simcosmos]

(...)

As for the realism of this addon, I am interested to hear what you have found about the Ares V that differs from what is currently implemented. If you could point out some sources where I could get that information that would be great.

(...)

Columbia42

Sorry for the delay getting back to this thread. As mentioned in an answer to a private message, during the past days / week tried to start preparing some additional comments but this really requires time and sometimes I have been in ‘away mode’ + also being busy with other stuff (both Orbiter and non-Orbiter related).

Warning: looong post ahead (probably better to grab a cup of coffee or hot chocolate or tea and some biscuits or something).


Independently of your AresV/Altair addon been already released (AresV v1.0) you might find some of the following information useful, if the goal is to have a more realistic representation and simulation of those designs (at least as they were being planned)!



By the way, please allow me a few small comments about something that is written in the addon introduction at Orbit Hangar Mods:

“The Orion CEV. This vehicle would have brought astronauts to the ISS”

The original primary mission of Orion was more to generically deliver crew to LEO (either it be to ISS or a lunar or Mars or NEO departure stack), and then return the astronauts home at the end of the mission. This to say that independently of ISS actually becoming one of the main priorities to field a first Orion variant, the spacecraft (I mean, the Orion CM) - under the context of Constellation missions - was originally meant to be a little more than just a simple ‘LEO taxi’ (with entry capability from Moon and Mars Return trajectories).


“The Ares V rocket. This rocket would have brought cargo to the space station. It also could have been modified to deliver the Altair lander and the Orion CEV to the Moon.”:

Hummm, unless I’m missing something, the part of AresV vs space station (ISS?) role is incorrect… NASA never had conceptual plans for something like that, at least not with AresV! (at first, DIRECT Team was even criticized for assuming such kind of conceptual missions on a much lighter heavy lift capability than AresV… independently of later, Non-ShuttleC also considering a similar mission profile).

A probably more correct description of AresV would be that AresV main mission would be to deliver Altair lander for crewed and cargo lunar missions where the crewed mission would require an AresI to launch the crew and EOR-LOR mission mode (this if not considering alternative LOR-LOR with dual AresV launchers) and the cargo mission would be a single AresV launching a heavier Altair (and almost not stopping at LEO before making TLI = no boil-off reduction kit + more optimized Earth orbit injection targets for the cargo mission)… Those were really the first primary AresV mission roles being considered under Constellation context!… If talking about eventual future mission applications then you could, of course and obviously mention the Mars missions (notice the name of the rockets), other Beyond LEO mission targets (big telescopes delivery to Lagrange points or robotic planetary missions, crew missions to NEO, etc), perhaps even some DOD highly conceptual stuff, etc but again, NASA does not seem to have considered AresV for ISS roles (if ‘space station’ means ISS in the addon description), please someone correct me if wrong (in that case I would appreciate a link, thanks).





I. AresV LV51.00.48 Numbers (Launcher Configuration, Ascent and Mission Events, Performance, etc) + also about Altair

Columbia42, about those specific AresV LV51.00.48 numbers, not sure if will be able to share the actual source, in case it is not already freely available on NTRS (NASA Technical Reports Server) or other similar sites already (would still need to check)! What can do (and asked for / had permission for, a long time ago) is to use / share derived data for eventual Orbiter simulation purposes.


The above means that I could share such ‘derived’ data in the form of:

I.a) An Orbiter addon (and related documentation): this is something that I was in fact studying but, as usual, real life got in-between (sniff).

In addition, there has been some discussion (and not much public information about the final results of such discussion) about if a big cluster of 6 upgraded RS-68B (but still using an ablative nozzle) could or not survive the extreme thermal environment when being sided by those big solid rocket boosters and what would it take (vs money vs time vs eventual AresV new design assumptions) to mitigate the issue (changes on geometrical disposition of the RS-68B?, extra mass on the core / engines for better TPS? Move to a regenerative RS-68? Move back to SSME? Etc). As a side note, this is also part of why answered ‘submarine’ that was perhaps considering to implement a slightly different AresV iteration – and eventually slightly different lunar mission modes - if one day decide to include an heavy lifter more or less based on official NASA Constellation data (although with some departures) on an update to my (outdated) AresI addon.



Regarding more accurate Altair numbers: although probably the most complete data sheet that have found, the information that have would also need to be looked only as a point of departure (Altair iteration p711-B LDAC-1, please see related link more to the bottom of this post) vs several updated Altair tweaks and related also updated mission requirements… (EDIT: was not remembering well, have more up-to-date LDAC-2 Altair data, wrote additional edit somewhere below, on the links list)

This to friendly say that the Altair numbers, as presented in your ‘AresV v1.0’ addon really need a bit of further work if the objective is to simulate an official NASA iteration of the design in a more realistic way! As have mentioned on a previous post, the Altair (as currently presented in v1.0 addon) has very low ‘dry’ masses, very high ‘fuel’ masses, very high engine ISP numbers, etc… all of which would be fine if the objective would be to use ‘creative liberties’ to allow better ‘playability’ for a wider target of orbinauts… But… if the objective is to simulate missions ‘by the book’ and in a more realistic way then it might be advisable to study Altair design implementation a bit more (as well some other launcher / mission related numbers).



I.b) Another way of sharing the data, at least for this thread’s specific case, could be under the form of starting assumptions and sporadic ‘simcosmos’ addon development notes (similar to what have briefly done with the small part regarding engines / motor specs on a previous post). That would mean that would have to take the extra time and effort in order to gather such data in a minimally coherent (probably yet another loooooong) document / post!



c) Last but not least, the other alternative / complementary way, if possible for those interested, would probably be to eventually search for referenced AresV / Altair data on the L2 Section (or even in the public forum section) of nasaspaceflight forum (and, if meanwhile such older information did not became available in other places, ask/obtain permission to use it).





II. Research Directions


This all to reiterate that my comments on this thread have been mostly aimed to provide feedback about eventual methodology for using Vinka’s generic dlls to implement realistic (with selected constraints) AresV LV51.00.48 + Altair numbers, numbers which would be slightly closer to official NASA Constellation hardware iterations as well to provide information related with the mission requirements linked to that specific launcher and related spacecraft (all that in order to obtain a more realistic simulation).

As noted, other parts of information (such as more specific AresV LV51.00.48 data and related simulation) would require me to go back to ‘simcosmos’ older development files (which are currently on another computer / geographic place) and see the state of such files plus probably slightly update them with some pieces of the latest known information (despite the great lack of definition we are living from quite some time now – not just in recent months / weeks - regarding those Constellation conceptual plans) in order to provide more accurate feedback…

… However, this would kind of be the equivalent to actually restarting that specific addon development (which I’m not yet sure if will be able to do at this specific moment in time) and would probably also require me an extra effort (and extra time) to provide such more extended Orbiter simulation and development notes although, if eventually doing so in some future moment, probably better to not do it in the current thread, given the slightly different methodologies of implementation, not sure (I mean, by principle would not simply share my INI + guidance files for them to be included / modified on an addon using other implementation, simulation assumptions and generic goals!)




What will for the moment then do, is to share next a few specific links (of many, many other possible) that, on my humble opinion, probably need to be studied and properly further researched by any addon developer if his/her goal is to implement minimally realistic mission modes based on official conceptual Constellation hardware and mission assumptions…


…Moving on, the following links are kind of essential to understand a little better the origin of heavy lifter design iterations such as AresV LV51.00.48 vs updated Constellation lunar mission design requirements vs specific Constellation design assumptions (by the way, what have on a previous post loosely called, by memory, of Level 1 and 2 Margins for AresV do have other names, see somewhere inside one of the next pdf):


http://spaceflight.esa.int/strategy...grated_architecture_review/7_july/06.LCCR.pdf
(Lunar Capability Concept Review (LCCR): this document is kind of essential to understand some key mission requirements for a ‘by-the-book’ simulation implementation; lots of information on expected performances for several launchers / Altair configurations vs lunar mission designs… also some data for Mars mission hardware, although, for Mars, the also available online DRM5.0 would be a better source)

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/214603main_Sumrall2-26-08.pdf
(good to understand some margins, AresV conceptual ‘evolution’ from LV51.00.39 to LV51.00.48/47…)


http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/278841main_Yoder-JoostenESMDchamber-industry%20day_rev.pdf
(quick summary of some lunar mission requirements vs considerations such as LV51.00.48 vs the ‘option’ for the even more aggressive LV51.00.47!!!!!!!)


http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/278840main_7603_Cook-AresV_Lunar_Ind_Day_Charts_9-25 Final rev2.pdf
(very preliminary AresV LV51.00.48 ascent data, very generic overview of several components)


The next link is essential to understand one of the latest known full data set regarding Altair assumptions (it should be relatively easy to ‘translate’ that information into Vinka’s spacecraft.dll ‘language’ as long the addon developer takes some care with a number of details…) and use it has a point of departure for updated assumptions (with extra research):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18824958/Introduction-to-the-Altair-Lunar-Lander-Project

Please remember that this should really be a point of departure for Altair implementation… Please do pay attention at the context of that document (EDIT: LDAC-1)… These numbers would require a number of extrapolations vs updated requirements / margins, etc... (EDIT: have slightly more up-to-date LDAC-2 p0810-A Altair data - already with descent stage diameter increased for 10m diameter shroud... such data might also be available somewhere online by now, would need to check... still was not able to find similar data sheet for an Altair LDAC-3, LDAC-4, LDAC-X, etc)



As mentioned above, this is just and only a small sample of many of the extra information that is available out there! The interested addon authors might find extra information to study (about these and related topics) if doing some extra research effort.





III. Development Tips


Last but not least, and returning to the AresV Launch Vehicle / Departure Stack Simulation, the topic would probably need further discussion about a number of details…

Would like to remember that AresV LV51.00.48 maximum ‘true payload’ delivery into LEO is not 188t (by ‘true payload’ I mean everything except upper stage related mass…).

… Independently of implementation methods and a few other considerations, a good middle-ground verification point would be to analyze if the AresV implementation delivers the intended performance (if remembering well, need to check, please see provided documents, total mass composed by EDS + Loiter Kit + Adapter + Altair + TLI prop. + Margins of about 178t up to 188t or so, depending of extra considerations and data interpretation) to the expected Earth parking orbit of ~240 km altitude and ~29 degrees of inclination and if, taking in account boil-off, is able to deliver the expected TLI mass of ~71t (payload composed by ~20.2 Orion – at TLI moment - delivered by AresI and the ~45t Altair + 0.9t Altair Adapter and some margins, etc), with a burn providing ~3175m/s (plus gravity losses and while keeping some Flight Performance Reserves) for the crewed missions...

Yet another good middle verification point would be to analyse the AresV implementation vs Cargo Mission mode / Cargo Altair variant (being that some launcher details – such as the lack of Boil-Off kit – and ascent guidance would need to be different / adapted from the crewed lunar mission assumptions in order to optimise the cargo-only Trans-Lunar Injection achieved by a single AresV LV51.00.48).




III.a) Attention(!). Being able to fulfil those goals needs to be properly analyzed against expected official performance:

- if simulated performance is much, much lower than expected then something might be implemented wrongly or not as well optimised (vs implementation method constraints)…

- if simulated implementation is close enough (and overall launcher and ascent data is also close enough) to expected preliminary official data then that is a good sign, in particular if also trying to implement, at the same time, a number of specific ground rules and ascent / mission constraints for the simulation of reference mission requirements…

- if simulated performance is a bit on the superior side then something on the simulation might need a good second look… (in case one of the addons objectives would not be to provide ‘playability tweaks’).



Some care needs also to be taken in order to make sure that the data is coherent in terms of transmission of, for example, masses information between the several mission moments (and also taking in account, for example eventual generic dll constraints or even bugs which are well identified and which might - or not, depending of cumulative effect - cause performance impact on results, also depending of implementation method).


This all to say (and to conclude) that, only for example, if being able to use a single AresV LV51.00.48 to make TLI of more than ~63t payload (including margins) as seems to be the case (?) of AresV v1.0 zip (?) (Altair_LunarCargoVariant.ini seems to have a total mass of ~81t!) then something might need to be tweaked for a more realistic simulation of the official launcher, spacecraft and mission concept(s)… Please note that I haven’t installed the addon, only briefly looked at the configuration files.


III.b) Having written all the above, I must reinforce the idea that there is really a lot of information currently freely available on Internet (mission requirements, performance goals, mission modes, numbers for all, etc): as in any interested addon maker case, the extra effort to further research about the topic / themes of their own addons (and – if that is the goal - how to best realistically implement those numbers given implementation method constraints of several order or the decision about writing documentation, etc) is something that needs to be proactively done by the developer vs his/her addon objectives vs free time, etc!



Columbia42 (everybody):

End this long post (that have been preparing since my previous participation) by really having the hope that these notes contribute for eventual future update(s) to this addon’s realism (if that is the goal) or, at least, expecting that the personal effort that have made with my participation here has provided useful research directions and generic dll implementation notes about the topic in question.

Best wishes,
Thanks,
António

 

[Submariner]

The Ares V is great, but I have one problem. When orienting the full stack (EDS, Altair, and CEV) for the TLI, it takes so long to adjust the attitude, I miss my burn window. IMFD begins the attitude orientation at 180 seconds before the burn, and this is not nearly enough time, because the spacecraft rotates so slowly. Is there any way around this? I tried orienting prograde long before the burn, but it still taked FOREVER to get oriented. Am I doing something wrong? Or can you make the performance better for attitude adjustment?

 

[Columbia42]

The Ares V is great, but I have one problem. When orienting the full stack (EDS, Altair, and CEV) for the TLI, it takes so long to adjust the attitude, I miss my burn window. IMFD begins the attitude orientation at 180 seconds before the burn, and this is not nearly enough time, because the spacecraft rotates so slowly. Is there any way around this? I tried orienting prograde long before the burn, but it still taked FOREVER to get oriented. Am I doing something wrong? Or can you make the performance better for attitude adjustment?

Orient the EDS/Altair stack before you activate the Altair or dock with Orion.

 

[Submariner]

I will try that, thanks.

 

[Columbia42]

Here is release candidate 1 for Ares V v1.5:
View attachment 4517

Is there anything that needs to be changed before it's released? (I'm specifically talking about all of the variants of the Altair lander because I changed a lot of stuff on them.)

 

[IronRain]

looks nice, but I still get a CTD on your Sol... I don't know if it's mycomputer or the Sol file, but I get a CTD

but it looks nice!

 

[cymrych]

Yeah IronRain, I get that CTD too. Can't for the life of me figure out why tho.

 

[Columbia42]

I'll look into it.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

Do you have Hi-res/Med-res KSC installed?