Project XR2 Ravenstar - Mk II

[ercsim]

And a fair bit of weight, right?

You are absolutely right. Hydraulics are definitely much heavier than electric powered actuators.

 

[Cras]

you still need an APU for Hydraulics. You are not going to be moving the control surfaces for atmospheric flight on battery power alone. And least you shouldn't.

When I said about the APU being uneccesary for certain things like the bay doors, radiators, and the airlock, I was thinking of the Space Shuttle, which uses AC power for those things (well the airlock is actually totally manual, but the APDS is AC powered.), but the Shuttle does use APUs for gimbals, for control surfaces, and the gear.

 

[ercsim]

you still need an APU for Hydraulics. You are not going to be moving the control surfaces for atmospheric flight on battery power alone. And least you shouldn't.

When I said about the APU being uneccesary for certain things like the bay doors, radiators, and the airlock, I was thinking of the Space Shuttle, which uses AC power for those things (well the airlock is actually totally manual, but the APDS is AC powered.), but the Shuttle does use APUs for gimbals, for control surfaces, and the gear.

Lets address this issue, from an engineering point of view then.

First of all, shuttle was designed in 1971. It ain't exactly current, even as compared to today's standard.

In 1993, NASA has already started its development on the usage of electric actuators on flight control surfaces.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1998/98-84_pf.html

Plus, this is an article of the general myths on electric actuators
http://www.thomsonlinear.com/promos/actuators-MOH/Debunking_Myths_of_Electric_Actuators.pdf

This is an article on the possible usage electrical actuators on flight control surfaces.
http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/about/ngtr_journal/assets/TRJ-2000/FW/00FW_Botten.pdf

*Sorry, I am an EE engineer, so of course I would promote the use of FBW (fly by wire) and PBW (power by wire)*

edit: and oh yeah, XR2 is suppose to be a vessel in the near future, we should make use of technologies that is currently in research which will be introduced commercially in the next 20 years or so. We have a naquahdiah reactor, but we are still running on hydraulic actuators? Time to move on, electric actuators ftw.

 

[Cras]

Lets address this issue, from an engineering point of view then.

First of all, shuttle was designed in 1971. It ain't exactly current, even as compared to today's standard.

In 1993, NASA has already started its development on the usage of electric actuators on flight control surfaces.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1998/98-84_pf.html

Plus, this is an article of the general myths on electric actuators
http://www.thomsonlinear.com/promos/actuators-MOH/Debunking_Myths_of_Electric_Actuators.pdf

This is an article on the possible usage electrical actuators on flight control surfaces.
http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/about/ngtr_journal/assets/TRJ-2000/FW/00FW_Botten.pdf

*Sorry, I am an EE engineer, so of course I would promote the use of FBW (fly by wire) and PBW (power by wire)*

edit: and oh yeah, XR2 is suppose to be a vessel in the near future, we should make use of technologies that is currently in research which will be introduced commercially in the next 20 years or so. We have a naquahdiah reactor, but we are still running on hydraulic actuators? Time to move on, electric actuators ftw.

Yes this does make sense. I sort have taken my use of the XR-2 as a second generation space shuttle and attribute my knowledge of the OV and kind of force it on the XR-2.

But you are right, the XR-2 is not meant to be something built today, it is meant to be something built tomorrow (or more like the tomorrow of tomorrow), so maybe we should see the APU functioning as more like how the APU operates in an aircraft (since the XR-2 is a spaceplane after all), that the APU is providing a higher and independent source of electrical power for those bigger items (the doors, the gear, the air surfaces, the radiators). That would then keep with the philosophy of having the APU require its own fuel source, and its use be managed (both ideas which I really like in the XR-2).

Then I guess we can say the Fuel Cells, the super batteries, or what ever the main power source is on the bird is stritcly for critical or continuous systems, Life Support, Engines, fuel pumps, the freon loops and ammonia heat sink flash evaps or what ever system is used for cooling, lights, that sort of thing.
And here I see possibilites of add on things, which may not be in line with the developers. Which is fair. But I would think it quite fun having a battery with a certain amount of draw on it, use it to kick on 2 or three fuel cells, link those cells to the essential bus, use that to then start up the APU (which I guess if we are in line with aviation, the APU could be turned on by a GPU also). Fuel cells fail, you got only the batteries to get you home (ala Apollo 13), or burn the APU to supply some extra power, for what ever limited time set by the fuel consumption.

And as far as no more using Hydraulics anymore, that day is certainly coming. The Dreamliner is a clear sign of that.

 

[White Wolf]

Those are some good arguments, but when it comes down to it. this ship belongs to Doug and Coolhand. Regardless of what may or may not be the most efficient way of doing things, the devs have their own ideas of how the ship operates.

 

[Coolhand]

Like I've been saying, I don't really care if its hydraulic or electric. It could be either, it could be both. From my POV It's not worth getting bogged down in a debate about... Some interesting points all round though, perhaps we should say that everyone is right and leave it at that

 

[ercsim]

Like I've been saying, I don't really care if its hydraulic or electric. It could be either, it could be both. From my POV It's not worth getting bogged down in a debate about... Some interesting points all round though, perhaps we should say that everyone is right and leave it at that

nods nods

 

[markl316]

A few things that might be cool:

1. Maybe a more complex APU kinda like SSU that requires a bit of a startup and shutdown procedure?
2. Simulated failures (Engine failure, RCS jet failure, decompression, etc.)
3. More realistic EVA (put person in airlock, close inner door, decompress chamber, open outer door).

Just a couple ideas, feel free to implement them or not :thumbup:

 

[Ark]

For system functionality I like everything the way it is. It's a fun ship to fly, and I don't see a reason to clutter everything up with switch-flicking.

 

[Eli13]

I agree. The one thing I always wanted in the XR2 was a autopilot similar to the DG. But I too thought it was a great ship to fly.

 

[halcyon]

I agree. The one thing I always wanted in the XR2 was a autopilot similar to the DG. But I too thought it was a great ship to fly.

What's wrong with the current XR2 AP?
It still allows you to hold a fixed AoA and the ability to change it on the fly in coarse or fine increments.

Why does XR2 need to have AP exactly like the DG?

 

[Zane]

What's wrong with the current XR2 AP?
It still allows you to hold a fixed AoA and the ability to change it on the fly in coarse or fine increments.

Why does XR2 need to have AP exactly like the DG?

I'd really like to see an atmospheric flight autopilot like there is on the DGIV. Other than that, I'm quite satisfied with the XR-series autopilots.

 

[Eli13]

What's wrong with the current XR2 AP?
It still allows you to hold a fixed AoA and the ability to change it on the fly in coarse or fine increments.

Why does XR2 need to have AP exactly like the DG?

Pretty much what he said. And I didn't say 'exactly' like it. Also, an auto docking autopilot would be nice, it'd save me a load of time.

 

[Keatah]

I don't think we need to make the existing systems more complicated. A tweak here and there? Sure. A new gauge or indicator? Why not.. After all, a ship of the future is going to have a high level of automation and will need little more than on/off functionality for the major systems.

Sure, we can add in *MORE* (distinct and different) systems and things, like a communications & radar subsystem for example. Windshield wipers. Heaters. Emergency escape system? Arrestor hook, yeh. In-flight entertainment? Bring it on!

But making the existing systems that have already been "flight-tested" on board the XR2-Mk1 more complex is probably not necessary.

Once something is working right it is human nature to try improve upon it. Or more often, to just change it for changes sake. And, in big corporations, this process goes unchecked far too often. And it results is a less effective product. One that could potentially be more complex and clumsy and less user-friendly than its predecessor.

Let's be sure that changes and additions that are incorporated into the Mk2 are worth something, add value, add realism, improve flyability, make the cockpit a better place to be. If this means keeping the APU subsystem, down to a button or two, and 2 or 3 gauges, then fine by me!

I'd much rather see some sort of scanner and sensors and communications stuff, including weather radar (space weather solar flare and radiation monitor) be developed. It could be as simple as a particle density counter - and could be part of a multi-sensor MFD. There could be UV cameras, IR cameras, radiometers, graviton mappers(gravity-well visualizer), stellar cartography:yes:, spectrographs, fictional and non-fictional sensors and indicators alike. More stuff! But not necessarily complicating existing stuff.

Besides, if we get EVERYTHING crammed into the Mk2, what will be left for the Mk3 ??

 

[Arrowstar]

...Windshield wipers...

There you go, getting my hopes up! :rofl:

In all seriousness, being someone who likes to fly, I'm not so caught up on all the systems and whatnot. Give me a joystick and an atmosphere to leave and that sounds great. The XR manual calls these vessels "pilots' ships" and that they are. I can see too much complexity taking away from that. Let's not ruin a great thing.

 

[Keatah]

I believe that all atmospheric autopilots today should be able to maintain an assigned altitude, execute FLCH, maintain a specified rate of climb and speed. Many can Autoland. They should also be able to follow waypoints as well. These are basic to any commercial airliner, and are now entering general aviation as well. Any new ship would be remiss without these capabilities.

 

[White Wolf]

Just remember that the more we ask for in this ship, the longer it will take to finish. you can't please everyone with one addon, that's why there are different ships with different levels of complexity and different functions.

 

[jinglesassy]

If i could have one feature it would be the attitude hold autopilot using the ailerons/elevens when they would be more effective then the thrusters. Sorry but they really would not to anything at 12,000 feet even. Still it is one of the best ships for orbiter even with this minor issue .

 

[Keatah]

Mmm... Orbiter has always been lacking with lower atmospheric flight. Perhaps I'm spoiled with x-plane.

 

[Urwumpe]

Mmm... Orbiter has always been lacking with lower atmospheric flight. Perhaps I'm spoiled with x-plane.

Orbiters aerodynamic model isn't really optimal, it is based on a pretty old aerodynamic theory, that works better for subsonic flight with straight wings. If you try to implement just sweep theory there, things get already tougher.