News Space Plane Eridanus, final development steps

fausto said:
:thumbup:


No, you are not going to be killed with Eridanus, because it uses fuel cells in addition to solar panels.. you have much more time than 30 minutes!
Click to expand...

Sweet! :thumbup:

That launcher is pretty, though, this may provide a good excuse to get over my multistage bias. :lol:
 
NEWS:

UMMU development improvement: every crew member has a dedicated key to EVA and transfer, and an own mesh..

User can set from the very beginning crew number (for example, the first mission STP-ER-1 has a crew of 2)
 
Re-Entry & Fuel

Hi Fausto,

Just wanted to say how much I am looking forward to the release! Can't wait: )

I'm also excited about the station! Looking forward to building that too!

I just wondered about the re-entry flight dynamics in the beta - are these going to be the final ones? I could not seem to reduce my vertical speed on re-entry even when I pitched straight up.

Also was wondering whether the shuttle fuel capacity would be the same? (I'll have to get better at on orbit manoeuvres :P )

Best Wishes,

D, :)

---------- Post added at 02:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------

Sorry,

Just came across your post on The Italian forums:

'UPDATE: Fixed the throws and weights, significant improvements during re-entry with the new aerodynamics ..'

Sorry for the post!

D :)
 
Last edited:
Question:

Theoretically, how much work would it take to reconfigure the same launcher for inline? Adapter modelling aside, wouldn't it just be a matter of tweaking xyz attachment coordinates in a multistage config file?

I'm fine with how it is, personally. But if I really wanted to make it inline, what all values would I have to change? Could it be done without getting into dll coding?
 
Ark said:
Question:

Theoretically, how much work would it take to reconfigure the same launcher for inline? Adapter modelling aside, wouldn't it just be a matter of tweaking xyz attachment coordinates in a multistage config file?

I'm fine with how it is, personally. But if I really wanted to make it inline, what all values would I have to change? Could it be done without getting into dll coding?
Click to expand...


The original Eridanus design was inline.. we decided to change it because of criticism on Forum Astronautico, an italian forum where we discuss with guys involved in ASI projects (ASI is the italian space Agency)
What about configuration changing? Mmh bad idea.. eridanus.dll is designed to perform in sidemount configuration.. however the laucnh is managed by multistage, so you can modify it without problems!
 
Heya!

Okay I just want to ninja-add my two cents here!
I THINK that during launch the following problems occur with a winged vehicle:

Wings produce lift, and thus drag. You don't want drag, so you HAVE to reduce or avoid lift at all. Avoiding lift would be the best option, but it can't be done.. however you can put the vehicle at the side of the stack and roll / pitch accordingly, minimizing drag and optimizing your lift / drag // ascent profile.

The problem with this is, if you think about it, that the lift of the wings in a side-mount stack points 90 degrees normal to the velocity vector. This screws up your ascent profile, or am I wrong? So.. you'd have to compensate for all of this by gimbaling and so on. and if you do, you'd try to do so in the most efficient way as the STS engineers did (and get the best benefit from your weakness-compensating-measures).

If you put that vehicle on top of your stack, you get an awful lot of new problems. The wings still generate lift normal to the vel. vect., I wouldn't even compare them to canards because canards do not have an airfoil that generates lift (they have a neutral airfoil), but our vehicle's wings don't have a neutral airfoil.. and that is even worse... you still have to compensate for that by engine gimbal and elevon deflection. And the slightest deviation from your calculated course would cause MASSIVE stress on the orbiter / stack link segment, and I think at MaxQ such a deviation would rip your vehicle apart like confetti (a gust of wind, for example).

Back so the STS:

In fact what they did is a rock solid approach to "solve" the basic problems with a winged, reusable vehicle. It's called faulty design. Whatever you do to correct your design, it's still faulty and all that TPStile-checking-in-orbit and safety measures / upgrades and whatnot did not change that fact - still faulty design. In the end, the STS engineers had to live with what they got, and they did pretty well, but you better not look at the cost per flight.. it was the most expensive space vehicle ever.

I think the main problem is trying to have both: a crew transportation system AND "reasonable" payload capacity. After all that concept was the main problem of the STS. Okay, building the ISS was quite some work and the shuttle provided a means of getting things up there, but the main problem was that the shuttle was too complicated, still experimental, a compromise of contradicting design requirements and mission profiles.
Okay I'm losing the thread here.. :hailprobe:

I think Eridanus will be VERY COOL, and I think a side mount concept is a good approach.

But multistage? :(

Does that mean I won't be able to use Eridanus with the D3D9 client? :(
 
Last edited:
If you put that vehicle on top of your stack, you get an awful lot of new problems. The wings still generate lift normal to the vel. vect., I wouldn't even compare them to canards because canards do not have an airfoil that generates lift (they have a neutral airfoil), but our vehicle's wings don't have a neutral airfoil.. and that is even worse... you still have to compensate for that by engine gimbal and elevon deflection. And the slightest deviation from your calculated course would cause MASSIVE stress on the orbiter / stack link segment, and I think at MaxQ such a deviation would rip your vehicle apart like confetti (a gust of wind, for example).
Click to expand...

This is my main concern, but how much of a concern is it, legitimately? What countermeasures can be taken against it, and how effective are they?

How have similar designs- i.e. inline spaceplanes, dealt with this problem?

Can it be done in an advantageous manner?

and I think a side mount concept is a good approach.
Click to expand...

I think, that if you have to use a side-mount configuration, this is most definitely not the way to do it. I think it's very ineffective from a design point of view.
 
Agreed.

So...release date? :lol:

Also, you stole my signature quote. I demand copyright royalties.
 
I beg to differ: I need to download it and I need to fly it. Otherwise I'll fall to a well known medical condition called AWSHUCKSJANE (Add-on Withdrawal Syndrome Highly Unlikely to Cause Kinetic Stress but Just Annoying to No End).

In short, either I fly this thing soon or my Hannibal Lecter instincts could get the better of me. Hmmm, fava beans and Chianti.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmmm, fava beans and Chianti
Click to expand...

With spacecraft? :sick:

My personal favourite is the Appetizing Appetizer. I think we must include this in all manned spacecraft addons from now on. It is just that important.

2528639509_7e367b8dd2.jpg
 
kirog said:
But multistage? :(
Click to expand...

as written some time ago, the multistage-based rocket is my responsibility.
The team has focused his dll-programming on the Eridanus spacecraft; for now, multistage with his basic autopilot is sufficient for our needs. In future, a dll-based version of our rockets will be (maybe) developed...

:thumbup:
 
OF Staff Note: A significant number of the posts in this thread discussing the merits of a side-mount vs an inline mount configuration have been moved to their own thread here in an effort to keep this thread clear for development updates.

Please keep this thread free from argument and allow the developers to post more lovely status updates, and less arguments about long-decided design fundamentals.

Thank you.
 
Landing.JPG


Just take it easy and enjoy this landing at KSC (no sidemount vs inline here, just spaceplane :lol:)
 
K_Jameson said:
as written some time ago, the multistage-based rocket is my responsibility.
The team has focused his dll-programming on the Eridanus spacecraft; for now, multistage with his basic autopilot is sufficient for our needs. In future, a dll-based version of our rockets will be (maybe) developed...

:thumbup:
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to belittle Multistage!

It works, in fact it works very well. What I meant was: It's not going to work with the D3D9 client, but I guess there's nothing one can do about it.

Looking SO forward to flying that thing! :cheers:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Andy632
Problem China Manned Space Program - Orbiter 2010
Replies
4
Views
2K
Andy632
Andy632
MVA
Hardware Developing low-cost flight control (WIP)
Replies
3
Views
3K
MVA
MVA
DecoFox
Problem My vessel DLL crashes on launch, but only sometimes
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
Blake
B
B
General Question Enjoying Orbiter as a Totally Blind User
Replies
9
Views
3K
N_Molson
N_Molson
Matias Saibene
Update Multistage2026 - Development thread
5 6 7
Replies
137
Views
21K
gattispilot
gattispilot
Back
Top