Project G42-200 StarLiner

[Moach]

I must say that this addon is astounding (and it's not even complete yet)! The G42 reminds me of the Skylon concept by Reaction Engines ltd.

Check it out!

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon.html

SSTO spacecraft are the future and you guys know it!

well, this design was indeed based on some tripped-out crossbreed betwen the concorde, the XB-70 valkyrie and the skylon....

i figured that's what a spaceplane would end up looking like.... i wanted it realistic, so i parted from the initial DG-based concept and started pretty much from scratch with this one :hmm:

it's not really a step back starting over, you know... it's called "iterative development"


but you know, this ain't just a whimsical sci-fi concept - a lot of it is based on real existing ideas and a good deal of technical research.... what we have here is actually a semi-coherent proposal of a functional spaceplane, albeit fictional - i like to believe a "real" Starliner would not be too far from what we got...


plus, it really helps when you have the geekiest sim community in the blagnets around to bash you back into reason any time you start going star-trekky :lol:

 

[Grover]

a real starliner would cost billions, and run on magic though, how can you be sure that your fuel assumptions can hold true in the real world?

though, it is likely the future od space travel, due to the incredible versatility and re-useability. just dont expect it anytime soon

 

[Moach]

a real starliner would cost billions, and run on magic though, how can you be sure that your fuel assumptions can hold true in the real world?

though, it is likely the future od space travel, due to the incredible versatility and re-useability. just dont expect it anytime soon

i don't expect my fuel assumptions to hold, really... i think it's safe to say that ain't good 'ole hydrogen in those tanks, that's for sure


i did use a few settings on the higher than the best currently available side.... but not so far as to be "magic"

that doesn't mean it's an unsound concept - it does rely rather optimistically on fuel efficiency improvements and new advanced composite materials... but nothing too severe than could not be expected within a couple of centuries or so (as long as foolish humans can refrain from cannibalizing themselves as a civilization over petty profit in the meantime)



so no, it's definitely not possible to build one of these TODAY.... if that's what i led to understanding before -- but with the proper advancements in fuel and technology, i do believe it could be possible in a medium-far future :shifty:


and it would indeed cost billions.... but hey, it's still a bargain compared to the last "reusable" spaceplane we've had :hmm:

 

[Grover]

exactly... it is a bargain... unless uits fuel turned out to cost an absolute fortune, then we're back to square 1

 

[Cras]

Bargain or not, the Starliner is awesome, and my VSA has got the scratch. I'll take three of them.

 

[Moach]

i think it should pay for itself over a small number of launches....

with the ground support fully set, a G42 mission would cost something closer to the operating cost of an airlner (actually, more like a handful of them combined) than that of a shuttle launch....

plus, like the skylon, it could be launched from any airport with a heavy-rated runway and a few acres of adjacent land for ground ops with relatively little adaptations


then there's the famous starliner party trick, the "alignment leg" - that allows launches with far more relaxed timing constraints than any other vehicle out there :hmm:



it's not cargo-rated yet, tho... (still haven't done UCGO) so i can't really tell how long it'd take to become it's weight worth in gold.... but it's already certified as a URMS-capable ISS crew and light supply shuttle

i'm not even half-way done with the mid-deck cabin - but modeling on it has already started.... it should feature some form of first-person walk-through mechanic, albeit i haven't exactly figured out the details of how that'd work


also in the plans, is the "Starport" -- a custom base (location to be defined) depicting an adapted airport working as a starliner launch facility...

it'd probably be coded as a .cfg configurable module, so you could have several bases complete with starliner support apparatus at multiple locatios and/or merged with existing scenery and bases

but that's for later.... lots of stuff to do before then.... it's just that i can't help it but to A.D.D. myself away into far-fetched ideas

yeah well.... i think it's time for my ritalin again

 

[Cras]

Oh man, a Starport for the Starliner? Mid-deck with first person interactivity? I recall you already mentioned an aft workstation for the docking and RMS ops. You keep raising the expectations, its delightful!

 

[EnDSchultz]

and it would indeed cost billions.... but hey, it's still a bargain compared to the last "reusable" spaceplane we've had :hmm:

I pray that by the time we have the tech to build something like this, capital won't be a factor anymore.

 

[werdna]

I pray that by the time we have the tech to build something like this, capital won't be a factor anymore.

Agreed in the fullest possible way! Right now, that is the biggest limit to the development of space vehicles, and exploration itself. There are still too many who don't understand such significance. :thumbup:

If capital remains a factor, eventually we'll be talking trillions unless more advanced materials become cheaper to produce. (I'm talking to you, carbon fiber!:rofl

 

[squeaky024]

Hey I love the paint!

Can't wait to try this once i get back home, I just finished reading through all 72 pages of this thread and that VC is amazing! I'm gonna take this up and visit my space station

 

[Crawler]

Wow Moach, Great Ship!

 

[Moach]

well, thanx :thumbup:

Today i got not much more than a couple hours in - but i did managed to get visible progress happening this time...

what i got was some of the ACS EICAS gauges displaying - so now its possible to see an indication of elevator trim positioon (was long overdue)

Then i got the wings position shown as well - plus a gears status thingy too

well them, this is me posting from my phone... So not much to actually show still...


And now, pizza has arrived - so off i go

.

---------- Post added at 11:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 PM ----------

hey, ok back again....

got a couple more minutes that i managed to make into something useful - so now the EICAS ACS page is pretty much complete (except for the airbrakes, which don't really exist yet so there's not much to display)


then i got to reviewing the engine throttle code... it was kinda bugging me the way it worked with the afterburners, so i decided to see if i could make it better somehow


but then, i need a bit of your input for this

we have three possibilities

door #1 (as is) - throttle axis maps from 0.0~1.0 and afterburners (when engaged) will map the input range between .8 and 1.0 to burner level

pro - you can use the full stick range for dry turbine throttle control
con - you cannot use full turbine without having full afterburners too, so there'll always be a 20% RPM change as you throttle the burners from zero to full

door #2 - turbine throttle ranges from 0.0 to .8 percent - past which point, afterburners engage progressively up to 1.0

pro - afterburner becomes an extension of the throttle range, allowing you to seamlessly engage by pushing the stick past 80%
con - 20% of the sticks range is dead while afterburners are off



door #3 - hybrid switching between the two modes above, depending on burner toggle state

pro - you can use the full axis range while at the same time being able to blast the burners as an extension of the max dry power

con - there's a slight "nudge" on throttle input when you throw the afterburners switch on and off, since the axis maps to different levels on each mode (except at zero and full)




do note, now - this ONLY affects the main engines while in atmospheric (EXT) cycle... when using internal-oxy rocket mode (INT), it just stays the same :hmm:



now then, which would you prefer?

i'm mostly divided between options 2 and 3... and 3 is actually coded right now - tho option 2 is just a few lines moved around away



so let me hear it, whadda you think works best?

 

[Cras]

I am divided between 2 and 3, with me leaning toward number 2 at the moment, as in that way, a throttle setting in terms of hardware corresponds to the same amount of thrust commanded in both afterburners on and off. I see where the benefit would be for keeping the entire throttle active, which as you pointed out number 2 does not, leaving quite a bit open for the afterburners.

Either 3 or 2 I would say. Not sure yet how I would cast a definate vote yet, I do see the benefit and cons to both ways, so I will defer for the moment to some other opinions on the matter.

 

[EnDSchultz]

I guess my first question is...how do the afterburners work right now? :lol:

 

[ganlhi]

Hi there ! This Starliner is a pretty good plane ! I tried WIP3 on saturday for the first time and I really enjoyed it.

But I could not get it to orbit, since I wasn't able to use the ramcaster throttle. It didn't move at all, even if the doors were open and the chart on the EICAS showed I was beyond T1. The only clue I have is the word "INOP" in the top right corner of the EICAS. Any idea of what I made wrong ?

EDIT: If someone who knows how to achieve orbit insertion with this plane could make a video, it would be awesome !

 

[icedown]

You use the hover controls, insert and delete on the number pad, to set the ramcaster throttle.

 

[ganlhi]

Thanks ! I didn't found any information on keys mapping, so I thought I could click on the 3D throttle in the VC, but I couldn't.
I will try again tonight.

 

[Ripley]

About throttle code, I'm more for option number 2.

 

[Moach]

last night while already in bed, i devised a possible " best of both worlds" solution

it's really hard to explain it clearly with just words, so have a look:

i find this solution should work very much intuitively... sure, it seems awful complex now - but it does solve both the "nudge" and the free play problems at the same time, without imposing any restrictions... and once it's coded and functioning (i suppose i could even add sound effects as the mechanisms move about) it should make more sense....

just to clarify - if the lever is below 80% when you switch burners off, the catch will not arm fully - but will become cocked to jump into armed position once the lever moves to 100%

similarly, if you flip the switch with burners but from putting the throttle below 80% - then T-Max will not spring backwards, but will remain at 80% until the stick moves up and "drags" it over to the forward detent where it becomes locked again



anyways, the only reservations i have about this would be that it could come in a little awkward for keyboard pilots.... unless i just trigger a one-off repositioning of the throttle input when the switch gets thrown - so if you're with joystick, it'll get overriden and ignored, whereas by keyboard, the repositioning would stick long enough (more than one single sim step) for the catch to lock in, then all you gotta do it throttle up again for full burn

any thoughts? :hmm:

 

[Cras]

This plan makes a lot of sense. I like it.