The business of a Virtual Public Aerospace Career

[KCB]

I want to build a motion flight simulator. Not your average sim pit, a detailed tactile immersive cockpit to crew four, and I want cross cockpit visuals and displays of 270°. Next, a static extended platform to the rear through which you enter and exit the motion platform. This static platform will be the aft compartment of our vessel we are simulating, a second static simulator. The motion platform backs onto the static in a soft dock mode when maneuvers like atmospheric flight, injection burns or aero-breaking is no longer required. When orbit is established and the motion platform uses visual motion cuing only. And thus we would have achieved the ability to create mission profiles, stories, continues narratives, something very useful.

Lets call this first motion and static combination our ‘proof of concept’. Around this establish an entertainment centric business plan. A mission or social based business strategy, who’s purpose is to define a new path to advance scientific literacy within the general public. A plan that will allow us to build more systems, repeatedly, I don’t want a flight simulator for myself, I want one within reach of everyone, for everyone.

I want to bring these systems to within reach of every child (or adult) who cares, and redefine accessibility both in cost and location, charge the public to use these systems, use those funds to run, locate, man and replicate the systems to the next population center.

This would allow for nothing less than a ‘virtual public aerospace career’ for teams of four at a time. We don’t teach anyone to fly, we provide shiny new toys, access to flight, orbit, near earth objects, the inner-planets, the outer solar system , the heliosphere, then toss them the keys. We ‘enable’ a social dimension, encourage and cultivate self-organization and self-learning. We are not teachers, but as an informal learning practice our aim would be to inspire and prime for an education, to stimulate deeper relationships, emotional bonds, between the public and the relevant subject matter (was this not the thinking behind the creation of Orbiter?). Within this framework I want us to resurrect our pioneering spirit, cultivate forward looking attitudes in anticipation and hope for the 21st century.

I want a ‘capture strategy’ worthy of this century as we stand on the brink of our revitalized push into and beyond LEO. I want every 14 year old fueled and ignited after watching the next mission to the moon in hi def to find an outlet for that passion, unlike today. If you want greater support for humanities push into space then you have to build the subculture and strengthen that base. We need to build our pyramid on a good foundations.

We need the public in the game. I want us to use entertainment as the greatest jewel encrusted wooden horse we can push through their gates. I want them addicted to the aerospace career path, to the flying, building, and exploring, pushing for the next challenge just out of reach. I envision in every child’s wardrobe new pristine flight suits hanging next to rejected neglected moth eaten scout uniforms of a bye gone era, relics of the 19th and 20th centuries. I want visions and concepts for this century. There is nothing above that cannot be established or built today.

That’s all… does anyone else feel its about time to raise the bar?

 

[Donamy]

http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=33555&highlight=portable+space+lab

 

[kamaz]

Well, briefly...

As the guy who either wrote from scratch or hacked the necessary software components, I can tell you that there are no fundamental technical problems to building this. Okay, I haven't played with motion platforms, but if I have the platform API I can get it to talk to Orb::Connect... Anyway, I am reasonably certain that I could build an awesome Orbiter rig for $5K, and that the price could drop to $2K or below if I was ordering components at bulk prices.

The reasons I am not yet running a company building Orbiter rigs are entirely non-technical:

(a) I don't want to cause trouble into the community by running a commercial operation, given that martins and add-on authors work for free. So as a minimum, I'd need assurance from authors (including, but not limited to: martins, jarmonik, dbeachy1) that they don't object to the such use of their code, and preferrably, I'd like to see some kind of compensation scheme. Legal technicalities asides, why should I make money when they don't?

(b) I'd need $5K - $10K in seed funding to build the prototype, OR I'd need a pledge that someone will buy the finished rig(s). Yes, having an awesome simpit in my basement would be cool, but going into debt over it would not.

On the other hand, it would be a very cool venture, so I'd gladly give it a try if above problems could be solved.

Feel free to state your opinion.

 

[KCB]

For a commercial product we would not be using orbiter software. A project on this scale would require the development of specific software; we are talking an approx $100,000 investment. The hardware would also be a significant price tag, in the $500,000 range. My first conversation with a German company was a rather extensive 360° motion platform and cockpit (in this case a modified A320) for $700,000. however at that price it’s hard to build a business plan.

On this scale, as with any other major project, it’s about funding. In this case a prototype or Proof of Concept would be an essential step to raise the required funds for a commercial product. However, Orbiter is best at what it is, a free online game open to the public and that’s important. An important part of this concept is to enable self-learning and encourage the use of online resources, embrace the full gambit of what already exists and is already being used. Resources like Orbiter I believe could play a major part in a program like this, and introduce it to a much wider audience I would hope. No one program will give us the silver bullet ultimately it’s a coalition and the cooperation of programs pulling in the right direction.

The tactile and immersive simulation gives us access to the emotional pathway, the more senses that are involved in any given activity gives it more meaning, an gives us a better opportunity to inspire, giving educators a better chance at what they do best. We are aiming beyond the ‘single event exposure’ to overarching long term programs to grow and nurture these relationships between those engaged in the program and the subject matter. It will be a combination of what I refer to as the 'kinetic core', the hardware and simulation, and the social dimension, the process of learning etc in the teams own environment in their own time frame, that i hope gives us the greater reach and depth/ social penetration. Ultimately I would want to see these programs dovetail with educators and the education system. When it comes to the younger generation we need to be looking at engaging their entire environment, personal, social and educational. We need a product capable of opening those doors, there is no piecemeal approach, this is going to have to be a cut above the rest. Our shiny new toy will have to blow their little cotton socks off, and they are a demanding bunch.

Orbiter could play an important role in a proof of concept with the necessary permission. I refer to it as proof of concept rather than a prototype as it would cover a wider range of demonstrations not just the engineering, but also its ability to achieve its conceptual objectives as a wide reaching sustainable program.

---------- Post added at 05:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 AM ----------

For a proof of concept I would looking for a custom platform, a conventional 6DOF lets say, but with extra range in the pitch axis. For our commercial product I would hope we can expand the pitch and roll axis. While understanding the importance of fidelity and immersion to the experience we are also looking primarily at an entertainment system, not a professional training system. This gives us a lot of leeway and creative license.

i would love to hear what this communities opinions on this? and understand your concerns kamaz, we can work solutions.

 

[Urwumpe]

If I would design an economic spaceflight 6DOF Motion simulation, there are some simple constraints for me:

- Minimize the size of the simulator. Mercury or Gemini are cramped, but need only a very small platform that can easily be installed indoors. Also, a smaller simulator for the start makes it easier to create the development and operation processes for a bigger one.

- Motion simulators make little sense. You can't properly simulate the accelerations during launch or reentry, microgravity is also hard. If at all, you can simulate vibrations, not that bad to leave it away or use a small hexapod setup for it. The range of an aircraft simulator is not needed. More important would be visual and sound (important: LOUD!). Also feeling the forced ventilation in a spacecraft can be pretty immersive.

- Real spacecraft are made of space and ground segment. You also need to simulate the ground segment, and if it is just a CAPCOM seat for an instructor.

- If you want "emotional" experiences, you can also include IVA maintenance (for example replacing air filters, locating a fire, etc) or simply preparing space food (There are only few actions that can be as emotionally attaching as cooking and eating together)

- If you want more "fun" you can also try some other attraction: Create a mock-up of a rocket on a launch pad. Many manned launchers are not that big that making a full mock-up of them costs more than a middle class car. Launch pads are very simple industrial structures, construction-wise. Only regulations regarding building height might be a problem there. There are even water slides that are higher than a Gemini Launch Vehicle. The slide-wire basket ride from LC-39 is also one option there. The question is just: How many paying guests can be handled?

 

[KCB]

If I would design an economic spaceflight 6DOF Motion simulation, there are some simple constraints for me:

- Minimize the size of the simulator. Mercury or Gemini are cramped, but need only a very small platform that can easily be installed indoors. Also, a smaller simulator for the start makes it easier to create the development and operation processes for a bigger one.

- Motion simulators make little sense. You can't properly simulate the accelerations during launch or reentry, microgravity is also hard. If at all, you can simulate vibrations, not that bad to leave it away or use a small hexapod setup for it. The range of an aircraft simulator is not needed. More important would be visual and sound (important: LOUD!). Also feeling the forced ventilation in a spacecraft can be pretty immersive.

- Real spacecraft are made of space and ground segment. You also need to simulate the ground segment, and if it is just a CAPCOM seat for an instructor.

- If you want "emotional" experiences, you can also include IVA maintenance (for example replacing air filters, locating a fire, etc) or simply preparing space food (There are only few actions that can be as emotionally attaching as cooking and eating together)

- If you want more "fun" you can also try some other attraction: Create a mock-up of a rocket on a launch pad. Many manned launchers are not that big that making a full mock-up of them costs more than a middle class car. Launch pads are very simple industrial structures, construction-wise. Only regulations regarding building height might be a problem there. There are even water slides that are higher than a Gemini Launch Vehicle. The slide-wire basket ride from LC-39 is also one option there. The question is just: How many paying guests can be handled?

Well to address your points; size is important in this exercise as we are not building a personal entertainment system in our garage. We are creating a social system as well and team work and the ability to work as teams for a host of reasons is important. So our kinetic system needs to crew four comfortably.
On the contrary simulators make total sense in trying to achieve our stated goals. You can use a number of effects to create the illusions required. With 6DOF we can create acceleration with surge and pitch combined with visual cueing. You go on to illuminate some of those options yourself, sound and vibration can be effective. As an entertainment system we are not confined to the need to so accurately simulate real flying conditions as to train real astronauts. A commercial product would elaborate on some of the motion axis like pitch and roll for example to help with simulation our fictional horizontal take off orbiter.
The ground component you refer to is an important part of the process and safety operations. One of the major goals is achieving immersion, this concept layers immersion starting with flight suits, cockpit environment and transferring between vessels etc. so that once a crew (team of four) enters the system, and that might be from suiting up, loading aircraft, flying the mission, returning to base and debriefing, they never leave or step outside the story and remain immersed in that story. To enable this two ground and control components are needed. First on site is a two man ground crew; their responsibility is assist the crew to prepare for flight, load them into the simulator and be on hand during the flight then unload the flight, monitor, clean and ready a simulator for the next team. The second is a little more interesting so I need to explain the idea in a little more detail, but I will have to do that in my next post. But it involves developing a sense of ownership by the crew and the difference of a teacher in the classroom or not. Remember we are using entertainment to achieve our objectives we are not creating a conventional classroom but implementing new ideas, new ways to inspire and so open the door for educators, but we are also a learning environment.

 

[jarmonik]

(a) I don't want to cause trouble into the community by running a commercial operation, given that martins and add-on authors work for free. So as a minimum, I'd need assurance from authors (including, but not limited to: martins, jarmonik, dbeachy1) that they don't object to the such use of their code, and preferrably, I'd like to see some kind of compensation scheme. Legal technicalities asides, why should I make money when they don't?

(b) I'd need $5K - $10K in seed funding to build the prototype, OR I'd need a pledge that someone will buy the finished rig(s). Yes, having an awesome simpit in my basement would be cool, but going into debt over it would not.

Since I received a PM requesting my opinion in the matter. I can only speak for my own behave and I really haven't given any serious thought for the matter at hand but for now I don't have a problem with commercially build simpits. The D3D9Client isn't created for commercial use but the license do grant a permission for that like every open source license do. (Funny thing that there aren't any licenses that would prohibit a commercial use).

A simpit is a hardware, so is your computer, flight-stick and other flight gear you might have but that gear isn't an Orbiter specific. So, if you build a simpit and an interface API that doesn't link into the orbiter, then I don't really see a problem there. However, if you or your business-partner will create a vessel that will interface with the Orbiter and with your interface API then that might actually across the line. I can't really tell where the line goes.

On the other-hand, if you build an awesome simpit then the use of it could be limited by Orbiter side issues and constraints those are out of your control. So, having an open source flight software, created for a commercial use, at hand would not be a bad idea.

So, I think the primary question is: Is there enough markets for your simpits and a commercial flight software ?

 

[KCB]

[QUOTE=
- Real spacecraft are made of space and ground segment. You also need to simulate the ground segment, and if it is just a CAPCOM seat for an instructor.

One of my goals is creating a unique environment and giving participants room to create their own story line, in other words, getting the hell out of the way. Instructors, tutors and teachers are for schools and other educational institutions. Getting out of the way allows the teams ownership of their experience and work better as a team gaining confidence and provokes deeper learning. However, there might not be an instructor in the cabin but there is a mission controller on the other end of a MFD. This individual monitors the crew on video or a series of videos and communicates as CAPCOM lets say. But is also a remote tutor stepping in with hints and useful suggestions when the time looks right, we just keep them at a distance. There is nothing new here, as I have toured the US visiting various STEM based institutions, science museums etc. there are examples already at work see attached photos from Oklahoma Science Museum and Huntsville Alabama Space Camp (Space and Rocket center). Someone is watching with a finger on the stop switch, and some even have two way comms. This individual can operate remotely at a distance or on site. This gives us three personnel attached to each working simulation. This is the staffing model I have being working on for a while if anyone has any ideas or suggestions how we might improve on this I would love to hear. Ok don't seem to be able to attach pics from phone sorry

 

[KCB]

so other than fund raising strategy, the other interesting elements for creating a virtual public Aerospace program are designing the hardware/software and understanding how a mission would flow from a single cockpit motion platform? how would we create extensive mission profiles; from a runway to LEO to another body and back to the runway? this is where a second static platform comes in. a few graphics showing a very simple 6dof motion platform and using a ISO container as a static platform

 

[KCB]

from the perspective of the crew, they would be in the cockpit of a large spacecraft slimier to the XR-5 for example, the horizontal take off and landing is needed to expand the scope of the Aerospace program in a progression from atmospheric flight to space. but we would need some noticeable differences in this design to make the motion and static platforms relevant. the static platform becomes the aft part of our ship, and to be able to move from platform to platform we need to be able to break the ship apart like so; borrowing the XR-5 for sample graphics...

 

[KCB]

for our simulator crews enter and exit through the rear of the ship so we have to work that into the mission flow. so rather than just simply dock the whole ship to an in orbit platform the crew is required to separate from the wing/cargo section, this is not all bad as our wana be crews need to stay busy in orbit. so the forward parts cockpit and (lets call it) science bay or simply aft bay can become a separate spacecraft capable of docking with any other element.

 

[KCB]

building on this idea we can extend the range of our crew by bringing into orbit those parts needed in the form of an engine/fuel component or construction in orbit for even longer duration missions, you get the picture.

 

[Donamy]

Does the K in your handle stand for Kerbal ?

 

[KCB]

eerr...no Karl C Bushby

KSP is another interesting example or template for a virtual program, however, I want to see us taking it a step further leaving purely PC gaming and seriously adopting the mantra ‘learning is doing’