OFSS IV-discussion thread

PhantomCruiser

Wanderer
Moderator
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
5,483
Reaction score
10
Points
113
Location
Cleveland
The launch site a Kourou is a good place to launch a Soyuz, tons of other stuff as well. I'd guess the orbital inclination would have to be dependent on where Castor selects as a base of operations. Sagan? Capo Passero? (that'd put Eridanus into play maybe), Wideawake? and of course Baikonur and KSC...

Early in the IMS project I had modified pipers modules for use. IIRC it's a modification to the .cfg file, and no difficultly at all. But compared to SSBB, they look really rudimentary. But you are certainly correct though, that there are many modules out there (on the 'hangar and Francophone site too) that should work fine.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
35,648
Reaction score
139
Points
153
Location
Langendernbach
if you want to have a more stable orbit, use about 63-64° inclination. Reduces the effects of non-spherical gravity. But also costs performance of the launch vehicles. Not so much a concern with XR-vessels.

For altitude, if you are planning to use XR-vessels, you can easily use 800 km (assuming you still want to be in LEO). For the fun, you could also attempt a geostationary space station, but this costs more fuel and makes rendezvous manoeuvres a bit harder and longer.

If you want to have some fair play, define a standard configuration for the XR-vessels.
 

jedidia

shoemaker without legs
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
9,433
Reaction score
161
Points
153
Location
between the planets
SSBB is okay, but there are a lot of other station modules floating around, such as Piper's and the ISS modules that were on Francophone.

Is it possible to configure these for use in IMS?

It depends on the modules. If they have embedded functionality, you can't adapt that to IMS, as IMS has its own code to handle functionality of different parts. You can still use the mesh, though.

Solar Panels and comm arrays have some limitations in their animations, for example Kulchs's solar panels cannot be adapted. Other than that, you can adapt pretty much any mesh to become an IMS module.
 

Castor

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm curious, since I think the XR5 is just as unrealistic as the XR2, what you might have done to the XR5 to make it more realistic.

Thanks for bringing me back down to earth! You are right, a very realistic approach might take about 20-25 missions to get something substantial up in orbit. So, we have no choice but to use the XR5 for major parts of the station building.

Also, what is the purpose of the station?

The station is primarily intended for general scientific research, study on the effect of microgravity on humans over long durations and astronomical observations.

SSBB is okay, but there are a lot of other station modules floating around, such as Piper's and the ISS modules that were on Francophone.
But you are certainly correct though, that there are many modules out there (on the 'hangar and Francophone site too) that should work fine.

These modules can also be incorporated into the station later, possibly in a second phase.

I'd guess the orbital inclination would have to be dependent on where Castor selects as a base of operations

Recommended bases would be CSSC, Wideawake, Kourou and Baikonur.

if you want to have a more stable orbit, use about 63-64° inclination. Reduces the effects of non-spherical gravity. But also costs performance of the launch vehicles. Not so much a concern with XR-vessels.
For altitude, if you are planning to use XR-vessels, you can easily use 800 km (assuming you still want to be in LEO).

At this point, the XR vessels seem to be the primary choice for passenger and cargo transport; in which case your suggestions seem to be the best.


Thank you all for your feedback:cheers:

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

Hey I think 4th Rock did some texture wizardry for the SSBB. They might be worth a look too.

I can't find this anywhere. Could you please post a link to it ?
 

orbitingpluto

Orbiteer
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
618
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Thanks for bringing me back down to earth! You are right, a very realistic approach might take about 20-25 missions to get something substantial up in orbit. So, we have no choice but to use the XR5 for major parts of the station building.

Not no choice, just the other way is harder:lol:. Sorry for bursting your bubble BTW, it's not always a good feeling to find you were inconsistent somewhere.



The station is primarily intended for general scientific research, study on the effect of microgravity on humans over long durations and astronomical observations.

if you want to have a more stable orbit, use about 63-64° inclination. Reduces the effects of non-spherical gravity. But also costs performance of the launch vehicles. Not so much a concern with XR-vessels.

For altitude, if you are planning to use XR-vessels, you can easily use 800 km (assuming you still want to be in LEO). For the fun, you could also attempt a geostationary space station, but this costs more fuel and makes rendezvous manoeuvres a bit harder and longer.

At this point, the XR vessels seem to be the primary choice for passenger and cargo transport; in which case your suggestions seem to be the best.


Since your leaning towards the XR-Fleet anyway, going to GEO for better imaginary science looks like an option. Guessing at the viewpoint of imaginary scientists, I think the better viewing and difference GEO has on humans in microgravity would make placing the station there one of those "unique opportunities' that scientists would rally for. It's also more challenging, so interested pilots ought to speak up about their preference. If GEO is unpalatable, an Urwumpe orbit seems like a good idea. No reason to make this less fun if we don't have to to.

Also, if the XR vessels are the primary transports, then there is less of a need to limit inclination to that of the main base. It would be good to have one, just that the vehicle choice doesn't limit us as much as it would be if we were using things on the harder end of the realism scale.
 

Castor

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Just a small doubt :
Can spacecraft3 vessels be incorporated as XR payloads ? If so, could someone please detail the steps ?
 

PhantomCruiser

Wanderer
Moderator
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
5,483
Reaction score
10
Points
113
Location
Cleveland
I think they just need an attachment point? There is a tutorial at the 'hangar that tells how to do it. I've managed to do the same with that Farscape vessel.
 

jedidia

shoemaker without legs
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
9,433
Reaction score
161
Points
153
Location
between the planets
Can spacecraft3 vessels be incorporated as XR payloads ? If so, could someone please detail the steps ?

If you go with IMS, you don't have sc3 (you can't have, to be precise). the configs for SSBB that come with IMS have XR5 payload parameters defined.
 

Castor

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If you go with IMS, you don't have sc3 (you can't have, to be precise). the configs for SSBB that come with IMS have XR5 payload parameters defined.

I was actually thinking of some way to integrate the Soyuz docking adapter from [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=2857"]here[/ame] into the station. I guess there is no way to do that, unless I convert it into a custom module. Should I go ahead with that after getting permission or drop the idea of a CTV docking at the station altogether ?

After doing some detailed planning, it seems that it would take about 6 XR5 missions to get everything up there. Just to keep with tradition, the core module will be launched by the Themis-A launcher and be put into its initial orbit (800x800 km) by its second stage.Crewed missions to the station will start possibly after the first three launches( one Themis and two XR5's), but actual station habitation will take place after the fifth launch. The station will attain full functionality only after the seventh launch.

First module launch is scheduled for late 2023, with a deadline of early 2025.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
35,648
Reaction score
139
Points
153
Location
Langendernbach
First module launch is scheduled for late 2023, with a deadline of early 2025.

Sounds pretty ambitious... ever considered making a flight manifest first and then looking how fast you can do that?

Remember to only plan for about 60% of the time to be useful, with the remaining 40% simply being buffer. Maybe somebody needs an additional orbit for docking, maybe you need to launch a day later because something did not get done in time.

Its orbiter, you still don't need to plan as precise as a real spaceflight agency. But getting some ideas about how fast is possible and how fast is impossible is important.
 

Castor

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Remember to only plan for about 60% of the time to be useful, with the remaining 40% simply being buffer.

Thanks, I will keep that in mind. Just how much time do you feel would be just right for a station of this scale?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
35,648
Reaction score
139
Points
153
Location
Langendernbach
Thanks, I will keep that in mind. Just how much time do you feel would be just right for a station of this scale?

Can't tell - at least not without being wrong by a factor of four in any direction in the end.

Sure not 10 years of simulation time. But also sure not one year, unless you launch daily and have multiple vessels in orbit at the same time.

I would start by planning the station first, by analyzing the dependencies. Which services does every module offer to the station and which module needs the services of which module to function. Then I would decide, in which order I can launch the module, if I would need additional temporary modules or spacecraft to keep the station intact. Since the XR-5 can easily launch multiple modules, I would group modules together as good as possible, but never try to fill the payload bay with modules, if this could result in some modules being just dead weight. The station also needs to stay controlled, after you undocked.

Don't expect that every assembly step happens in zero time. Even on a good day, moving a module to the right spot of the station with a RMS can take 30 minutes. Launch, orbit, docking, deorbit, etc as well. Try to use best estimates there and look how soon the next mission could get prepared. Better have more time for some task than really necessary: Haste makes waste. Better let the vehicle orbit a day more, if a hurried deorbit could result in a crashed XR.

And finally: Remember that you can't instantly launch again after landing. The next launch window will likely open at least 11 hours later.
 

Loru

Moderator
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Warsaw
Thanks for bringing me back down to earth! You are right, a very realistic approach might take about 20-25 missions to get something substantial up in orbit. So, we have no choice but to use the XR5 for major parts of the station building.

I don't want to sound like advertiser but HCLV-4 can lift ~120 tons to LEO. 4 launches of HCLV = 1 launch of XR5
 
Last edited:

Castor

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I don't want to sound like advertiser but HCLV-4 can lift ~120 tons to LEO. 4 launches of HCLV = 1 launch of XR5

You are right but then parts like radiators and docking ports can't just be launched aboard a rocket. It would also require the deployment of a tug of some sort (maybe, the Tranzit) to get it to the station.
 

Loru

Moderator
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Warsaw
You are right but then parts like radiators and docking ports can't just be launched aboard a rocket. It would also require the deployment of a tug of some sort (maybe, the Tranzit) to get it to the station.

Why not?

All you need is tug to haul it to space station and some form of RMS equpped shuttle with few UMMUs to attach it to the station. If your payload is large, you can use HCLV-4 Inline adapter with Kulch's Buran-T container (plenty of room inside). Or even 2 of them attached to each side of the rocket.

 

ADSWNJ

Scientist
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,668
Reaction score
1
Points
38
One of the things I enjoyed the most from the original OFSS was flying some vehicles I'd never used before, with realistic dV's that really test you if you are used to DG or XR level performance. Just something to bear in mind for the technical challenge of doing the construction.

The other thing is flying the missions. I would give a fixed time slot (e.g. 7, 10, 14 days) per section, and encourage the whole team to fly them (for the whole experience and to try out these different vehicles). For each section, we nominate a lead mission and a reserve mission, and then we have maybe 10 others also flying the mission in that time slot.

Ask everyone to post their completed scenario post-section. When the time slot expires, we take the primary team's completed scenario if posted, else the reserve, else the first one posted from any of the "alt" team.

This gives a much higher likelihood that it will be built in a fixed schedule, and keep the interest level up.
 

Castor

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
0
One of the things I enjoyed the most from the original OFSS was flying some vehicles I'd never used before, with realistic dV's that really test you if you are used to DG or XR level performance.

I tried out the tug mission Loru proposed earlier. It was challenging enough with the Tranzit tug. The CTV could also provide a realistic theme to the missions.

For each section, we nominate a lead mission and a reserve mission, and then we have maybe 10 others also flying the mission in that time slot.

That's quite a good idea, though it depends on how many volunteer to fly the mission.

Another doubt that just popped up in my mind (please forgive me if it's a stupid one) :

Should the missions be a single try sort of thing ? What I mean is that the if the pilot botches something up in the mission, he can either try and fix it or make an abort landing. In the latter case, future missions would attempt to resolve the problem.
 

jedidia

shoemaker without legs
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
9,433
Reaction score
161
Points
153
Location
between the planets
I was actually thinking of some way to integrate the Soyuz docking adapter from here into the station. I guess there is no way to do that, unless I convert it into a custom module.

That should be possible without problems, you just have to write up an IMS config for it (use the already existing docking adapters in IMS as a start, all you have to change are the port positions, add an attachment point, and change the mesh).

IMS will then use the Mesh with the values you provided, bypassing SC3 (then again, I don't see why that module would use SC3 in the first place. t doesn't seem to have animations).
 
Top