Project N1 Lunar

[Buck Rogers]

Hammered brushed alloy texture.
I modeled the docking periscope off the only image I found but I don't think it'll work, it blocks the RCS, and bad angle. I'll remodel shorter and at 90°.

 

[BrianJ]

I modeled the docking periscope

That got me wondering if you could actually make a working periscope using D3D9 reflective surfaces.
It probably wouldn't work but its a nice thought

 

[n72.75]

That got me wondering if you could actually make a working periscope using D3D9 reflective surfaces.
It probably wouldn't work but its a nice thought

You can with custom cameras.

 

[Buck Rogers]

hat got me wondering if you could actually make a working periscope using D3D9 reflective surfaces.
It probably wouldn't work but its a nice thought

That would be cool! The reflections are very low quality and lenses would be very difficult though.

You can with custom cameras.

I think this would be the best way to do it.

 

[GLS]

I modeled the docking periscope off the only image I found but I don't think it'll work, it blocks the RCS, and bad angle. I'll remodel shorter and at 90°.

That was probably just something taken out of the Soyuz for testing inside, no way that would fly. Also, it would look towards the thruster or in the same direction as the (front) window (or sideways), none seem of use.
IMO, that would probably be used to sight a target on the Soyuz for docking (or whatever the term would be in the LOK-LK case).
Assuming that, it would not even stick out much at all, as looking up from that location (already far from the centerline) might be enough to sight the target. Maybe a mirror or a prism was all it needed.

 

[Buck Rogers]

Progress on the Block E. Added the engine dust covers. Also drastically shortened the periscope (just visible in the last screenshot).

 

[diogom]

Don't know if this helps much or is known, mostly for the ladder one, but some LK stuff landed in my timeline:

https://bsky.app/profile/buran.space%2Fpost%2F3lyqol7p3zc2u

https://bsky.app/profile/buran.space%2Fpost%2F3lyqo3324e22b

 

[Buck Rogers]

Don't know if this helps much or is known, mostly for the ladder one, but some LK stuff landed in my timeline:

Thanks, nice to see it in action. I think that's the way I modelled it?
That's a lot more fireworks than I thought! Will be fun to replicate.

 

[Buck Rogers]

Started mapping the thrusters, It's not as bad as I thought, although some nasty oscilations are possible. Impressed how the "universal" autopilots handle it, Pro/Retro-grade etc... work fine. In RL any deviation of the CoG off the centre of the thrust axis greater than 3cm! would result in loss of control, thankfully I don't have to deal with that.

Some things I'm still unsure about:

All engines, main and RCS use N2O4/UDMH? Is this true?
The RCS has an even lower ISP (2403N) than the main engines (3089N)?
What thrust, ISP would the Vernier engines have?
The RCS is supposed to have 2 independant reduntant systems, does this mean both are active and by failure the opposite engine is shutdown, or is one system only activated in case of a failure?

I've added linear thrusters, but expectedly they're pretty useless, not sure if it's better to delete them to avoid confusing autopilots.
Orbital testing:

maneki-neko?

 

[diogom]

The RCS is supposed to have 2 independant reduntant systems, does this mean both are active and by failure the opposite engine is shutdown, or is one system only activated in case of a failure?

I'm not as tuned into the lunar stuff as I'd like, but am I understanding correctly the attitude for the lander would be the four slanted down pods at the top? For pitch and yaw that's two nozzles each, roll would be four each. My guess for roll would be each system is a pair of pods 180º apart. This could be off, but if Soyuz commonality applies, I'd say one system operates independently by default, on one combined set of nozzles, and on failure the active system could be switched to the backup (probably irreversible through pyro-valves). Might be possible to get into the weeds if enough info of the crew interfaces exists. As for which set is the main, I'd imagine the one with the greatest torque, so top.

On the ISP differences, the RCS would have been pressure-fed, the engines I'm not sure but might have been pump-fed? I suppose that would lead to a significant difference (though even if they're both pressure-fed, they're still different designs and purposes). Quick look through astronautix has 40 kgf for RCS, and seems to agree with hypergolics for everything, the level of detail there leads me to believe that's accurate.

Btw, love to see this being worked on, L3 was due some attention.

 

[GLS]

My guess for roll would be each system is a pair of pods 180º apart.

I think there were smaller thrusters on the sides of those pods.

 

[diogom]

I think there were smaller thrusters on the sides of those pods.

Two on each, facing opposite ways. So in theory only need two pods to roll either way, and the backup system could use the other two.

 

[GLS]

Here is the image, showing what seem to be the roll thrusters:

 

[Buck Rogers]

My guess for roll would be each system is a pair of pods 180º apart. This could be off, but if Soyuz commonality applies, I'd say one system operates independently by default, on one combined set of nozzles, and on failure the active system could be switched to the backup (probably irreversible through pyro-valves). Might be possible to get into the weeds if enough info of the crew interfaces exists. As for which set is the main, I'd imagine the one with the greatest torque, so top.

OK so one system at a time, top first.

On the ISP differences, the RCS would have been pressure-fed, the engines I'm not sure but might have been pump-fed? I suppose that would lead to a significant difference (though even if they're both pressure-fed, they're still different designs and purposes). Quick look through astronautix has 40 kgf for RCS, and seems to agree with hypergolics for everything, the level of detail there leads me to believe that's accurate.

Astronautix also states the ISP as 245 kgf/s. I was expecting (from my experience so far) a better performance from the RCS? One needs to be very careful with the RCS then!

Two on each, facing opposite ways. So in theory only need two pods to roll either way, and the backup system could use the other two.

This is what I presumed too. Due to the low thrust I've decided to have all 8 small thrusters active (also due to setup?), and the top 4 big ones (I'll add the others if damage modelling is added).
You've referenced the orientation axis as in the official documentation, which makes it a tailsitter, I've configured it with hover thrusters (and the mains as backup engines pointing in the same direction) swapping yaw and roll (if this is wise?). At least it's completely passive by docking!

Here is the image, showing what seem to be the roll thrusters:

One of the ref. pics I used

Hypergolic exhaust texture, not sure how it should look like in a vaccum.


Onto the LPU...

 

[N_Molson]

Hypergolic exhaust texture, not sure how it should look like in a vaccum.

Remember there's no pressure at all in vacuum. It means that the exhaust plume is expanding in a quite spectacular fashion. Your plume is pretty but looks more like the one on the left (sea level) on the diagram below. What you want is something like the diagram on the right. About the color, transparent white is probably the safest bet.

 

[Urwumpe]

Remember there's no pressure at all in vacuum. It means that the exhaust plume is expanding in a quite spectacular fashion. Your plume is pretty but looks more like the one on the left (sea level) on the diagram below. What you want is something like the diagram on the right. About the color, transparent white is probably the safest bet.

Thats also a point that could be improved in OpenOrbiter - realistic exhaust plumes.

 

[DaveS]

Thats also a point that could be improved in OpenOrbiter - realistic exhaust plumes.

On the list: https://github.com/orbitersim/orbiter/issues/381

 

[Urwumpe]

On the list: https://github.com/orbitersim/orbiter/issues/381

Can you maybe summarize the request in the github ticket?

 

[Buck Rogers]

Remember there's no pressure at all in vacuum. It means that the exhaust plume is expanding in a quite spectacular fashion. Your plume is pretty but looks more like the one on the left (sea level) on the diagram below. What you want is something like the diagram on the right. About the color, transparent white is probably the safest bet.

I modelled it off an LV launch photo, I think the orange is only seen in the atmosphere? Wide plumes are difficult to do, the exhaust texture uses only a narrow band on the left (most of the .dds is not used).
Maybe more like this?

https://ar.inspiredpencil.com/pictures-2023/hypergolic-rocket-engine

On the list: https://github.com/orbitersim/orbiter/issues/381

Can you maybe summarize the request in the github ticket?

Would also be interested what the suggestions for improvement are?

Here is the image, showing what seem to be the roll thrusters:

Nice to see the image uncropped and hi-res!

 

[N_Molson]

I modelled it off an LV launch photo, I think the orange is only seen in the atmosphere? Wide plumes are difficult to do, the exhaust texture uses only a narrow band on the left (most of the .dds is not used).

Maybe you could try to render the exhaust as a 3D model, then play with the alpha and maybe animate it. It probably has been tried before ?