[Conceptual Project] Full idea and models for space station functionality

[sirmonkey]

I am not freaking out about the NASA thing. Just doing two things:

1.) Giving an opinion.

2.) Changing the subject.

this isn't your thread so go change the subject in your own thread. stay on topic or don't post at all, its not a hard concept to understand.

[NovaSilisko]

Will someone clean up this damn mess? It's kind of ridiculous...

[Ronan]

What you have looks pretty awesome Nova!

Personally, I think having a space station that might be viewed as 'too easy' is a better risk than one which is 'too hard'. This is personal because...*sigh* orbits and I just don't get along. However! Why not have both? Of course this is even more of a long-term discussion, but:

If there is an easier-to-put-together space station (for people such as myself), that would be great practice and fulfill some sense of achievement. This space station would just be less cool, you could do less things with it, and since most people are able to assemble it in orbit it will not fully satisfy those needs. A second, more-difficult version could feature enticing incentives in the form of cooler functions, cooler design, and you'll be part of the minority rather than majority. Granted, in my head I'm imagining the types of space stations that you could walk around in. As I said, more long-term! I suppose you'd need to make both of the stations prior to creating their interiors anyway.

[Charzy]

What would be amazing would be if, after we build the space station, we can use it for launching as well as the launch pad.

It would make giant rockets and giant spacecraft more feasible, because we wouldn't be limited by silly little things like 'extreme crushing gravity' or 'atmospheres' or even 'rockets being smashed to bits under their own weight'.

Silly little things indeed.

[rdfox]

Charzy: Only if we could put the components into orbit with heavy-lifters, assemble them at the station, then send up a 'fuel lighter' to fuel them. Remember, the big advantage of orbital launch is that you don't have to throw the whole damned thing into orbit in a single launch; you can send up components and assemble them in orbit. (Witness how von Braun was considering using the Saturn IB and a mildly larger version for the Earth Orbit Rendezvous lunar flight profile, which was his preferred option; the actual lunar ship would have been just as big as the Direct Ascent version, but wouldn't have required a booster even as big as the Saturn V... just four to eight separate Saturn IBs and Saturn IIs.)

Basically, orbital launch is breaking up the 'getting to low orbit' phase of flight amongst several boosters so you don't have to develop a monstrosity like the Saturn V-4X(U) (http://astronautix.com/lvs/satnv4xu.htm), a 1968 study that came up with a way to put a million-pound payload into low Earth orbit in a single throw... by clustering four stretched Saturn V first stages with four Saturn V second stages on top of them. Where, exactly, they were thinking of assembling and launching this beast is completely beyond me...

[Douglasdtlltd]

You're a really smart guy! I've gotten some, shall we say, 'unhappy' comments (*cough*Douglasdtlltd*cough*) in my time here. Not very often people say that. Thanks!

Oh, and everyone, Whaddya think of my Jell-o metaphor, Eh?

I just find you a bit hyper active and silly is all.

[Baker Easy]

I definitely love what you've got here, but I'd really like to see the game start with first-generation unibody space stations like Salyut and Skylab before moving on to the second generation modular stations. Of course, all that really needs at this point in this concept is a space station segment that can't have other station segments attached to it, I suppose. There's plenty of time for the game to get more complicated.

[tziz]

Are you going to release any of the modules as parts? A command capsule with a space probe on top makes a somewhat passable zarya/unity analogue but having more parts that 'fit the bill' would own a lot. Getting bored with launching pods/satellites/landers

[Reginald]

If you haven't tried 'Space Station Manager' here's the link.

http://sites.google.com/site/ssmmods/

Indie game, never finished but the link given has a few additional downloadable parts and a full game download. Maybe some ideas are to be gained from this in how KSP will handle Space stations?

[Lennyoliy]

Ok......

:sos: <says this thread!

Seriously, this thread is for the space station concept, and all anyone talks about here is columbian sugar and pancakes, and that I'm insane.

Everyone, if I admit I'm crazy, will you stop?

I admit it. I am nuts. Happy now?

[NovaSilisko]

You're the one who derailed it in the first place.

[McLuv]

Will someone clean up this damn mess? It's kind of ridiculous...

Thread expectations =/= reality.

What did I just walk into?

ANYWAYS, nice looking station in the OP, nova. You thinking of it as a future build, or as a photo-op similar to your mun thread atm? Damn I wish I could model.

[Sordid]

How about some chill pills all around, hm?

[kerbalkicker]

Charzy: Only if we could put the components into orbit with heavy-lifters, assemble them at the station, then send up a 'fuel lighter' to fuel them. Remember, the big advantage of orbital launch is that you don't have to throw the whole damned thing into orbit in a single launch; you can send up components and assemble them in orbit. (Witness how von Braun was considering using the Saturn IB and a mildly larger version for the Earth Orbit Rendezvous lunar flight profile, which was his preferred option; the actual lunar ship would have been just as big as the Direct Ascent version, but wouldn't have required a booster even as big as the Saturn V... just four to eight separate Saturn IBs and Saturn IIs.)

This. So very much this. The capability to assemble large ships in orbit from parts brought up individually would make me so happy. Because, from an energy standpoint, it makes a hell of a lot of sense, and if I were running NASA's space program in the 60s and 70s, it's how I would have done things.

This game should be about options: assemble your rocket on the ground, or do it in orbit. Use a SSTO, or a 3 stager. There is no single correct answer to any challenge, and as the game progresses in development we should see *more* ways to accomplish tasks open up.

Plus, if space stations *do* give us the ability to assemble things in orbit, you can bet the first thing I do in the (non-sandbox) game is start lobbing potential space station parts into orbit as fast as I can.

[rdfox]

This. So very much this. The capability to assemble large ships in orbit from parts brought up individually would make me so happy. Because, from an energy standpoint, it makes a hell of a lot of sense, and if I were running NASA's space program in the 60s and 70s, it's how I would have done things.

As it turns out, the real-world Lunar Orbit Rendezvous concept is pretty much the only way to go, at least with the technology of the day. There were two really big problems with the Earth Orbit Rendezvous concept that nobody really wanted to acknowledge...

1) How in hell do you have a pilot in an Apollo command module at the top of the stack land something as tall as an Apollo CSM with S-IVB descent stage on the lunar surface, when he can't see a damned thing below him because the whole descent stage is in the way? (Seriously, the Direct Ascent/EOR options basically used an S-IVB as a descent stage for landing the whole Apollo CSM on the moon, then would use the SM engine to lift off, leaving the descent stage behind.)

2) Once you figure out how the hell you're going to land this beast, how in hell do you get to the surface for your EVA, then get back up to the command module for departure? Rope ladders were tested and quickly proven infeasible for a man in an EVA suit ('Did you see Ed White swing around like Tarzan yesterday?'), so you'll need some form of fixed ladder starting at the command module and stretching all the way down the service module and descent stage, then down the lander leg. Will it be feasible for a man in a pressure suit to climb the whole distance down? How about up, when he's tired out after a six-hour EVA? What will the ladder do to the weight? How about drag during boost, is that going to be a problem?

All in all, Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, with the dedicated lander, was definitely the way to go, even if you used a combination EOR/LOR setup akin to the plans for Constellation, where you use multiple launches to put the vehicle up into Earth orbit, then use an LOR setup once you get to the moon. Indeed, I've yet to see any post-Apollo manned planetary mission proposal *not* use a separate lander instead of trying to land the whole vehicle, except for 'one-way' proposals where the plan was to send everything needed to establish a permanent colony and not bring the crew back to Earth...

[kerbalkicker]

All true, but I was more referring to if they had assembled the lunar mission in earth orbit instead of lobbing it all off of the ground in 1 go, there would have been no need for the obscenely powerful first stage of the apollo rocket. It would have simplified the whole rocket design, and drastically reduced the importance of trimming weight (which is expensive as hell). I dimly remember some statistic that was something like every additional pound added to the CM/lander stuff up top required an additional 300 pounds of propellant (or maybe it was 300 lbs of thrust) in the first stage.

It would have required developing the ability to do actual engineering-type work in space, which would have set us back a few years. But, and this is a big but, that capability to do detailed rocket assembly in space would have set us up to more easily launch other long-range exploratory missions, such as to Mars.

IIRC Von Braun lobbied hard for this strategy. He saw the moon mission as a stepping stone to bigger and greater missions, and eventually having people live permanently in space. NASA saw the moon mission as an e-peen contest with the Russians. Thus, developing the ability to assemble big rockets in space, and having an orbital facility with the capability to do this, looked like a waste of time from the perspective of 'get to the moon first'.

Anyway, part of my lobbying for the in-game ability to put rockets together in kearth orbit is, to some degree, to pay homage to Von Braun's idea of doing space exploration the *right* way. Maybe that's silly of me.

[Meatsauce]

It would be neat to build this station with friends; to launch parts, perform docking with the aid of instrumentation and data - and manage sub systems.

While a public server would likely become a space tragedy; it could still be metric tons of fun. Personally, I've always found multiplayer environments to be much more enjoyable that building such a complex vehicle alone. Add in the ability to reset the scenario in-case of screwups, and make the world persistent should overcome many troubles.

The possibilities are endless but we are resolved that the devs have their own plans for the sim & the undertaking is in itself, complex. Such thoughts tickle my inner rocket scientist, although I get the feeling that multiplayer is not planned.

[Braun]

where are the batterys? as far as I know stations have to orbit planets several times a day to keep their altitute, which would put them in the planetary shadow at least half of the day.

[NovaSilisko]

where are the batterys? as far as I know stations have to orbit planets several times a day to keep their altitute, which would put them in the planetary shadow at least half of the day.

Let's just say they're in the utility modules.

[greatorder]

That station looks entirely too competent. We need to make it more somehow.

explosions?

[LukeTim]

Just put the docking ports on the hub of the wheel, and match your spacecraft\'s rotation to the rotation of the wheel itself.

Someone\'s been watching 2001: A Space Odyssey...

[Braun]

not necessarily. the center of a rotation exhibits no force at all, so it would be the best docking place.

[Damonjay]

Capola needs to be bigger >

[ludsoe]

Can i make a space station orbiting your space station orbiting the mun?

[Sab3r]

wow great idea! this would give the game some more meaning to play for the time being ;D

Hmmm, I guess saved games would first have to be implemented, where you can \'load up\' a saved kearth with the space station in orbit where you left it in the last save and where you can select to continue to fly the current rocket(provided it is still in one piece) or launch a new rocket.