Re: Station-building: a vessel proposal

[David Henderson <orbiter@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Roger Burton West wrote:

> >If you're going to be lugging big things up, a booster makes a lot more
> >sense than an aerodynamic design.
> Mm. Maybe. I'm not convinced that it's going to be cheaper to build lots
> of boosters than to build few spaceplanes. (I'm not talking about "one
> space station to show the world we can do it", here, but a serious
> development of infrastructure.)

Well, empirical evidence suggests it is at present, but that's no reason
to stop us doing it in Orbiter. :)

Perhaps we should make two versions (I prefer launching rockets, you
prefer flying space planes it seems)? Wouldn't be too hard. ;-)

> >Hmm, fuel module wouldn't be a problem (mount it above the dragonfly), a
> >fuel-transfer MFD. Hmm. Is this needed?
> I think so.
> >How do the current stations do it?
> >(The ones that are classed as vessels.)
> They don't.

Ah, then that's a problem, you're right. I only started playing with the
new stations-as-vessels yesterday (old ones are a bugger, how do you get
the HUD docking target on them? Exactly how does the XPDR line work
in the scenario file too?).

> >If it is, again, it shouldn't be a
> >problem.
> The trickiness comes with the new multi-tank spacecraft. You need a way
> of saying "drain fuel from my tank #2 into the opposite side's tank
> #4"... not hard, I grant, but fiddly at least.

I've not dug through the new API yet, might have to print that one out
tonight.

-- 
yours etc.                                             [gin.aibs.org.uk]
                                               Mobile:      07960 217459 
David.                             Work (Direct/Vmail): 020 8898 6565x38
d.henderson.96@cantab.net          Work (Main):            020 8893 3884


-- 
Orbiter discussion list:
- mail orbiter-request@firedrake.org with subject "unsubscribe" to leave
  or ask the listmaster (@firedrake.org)
- archives at http://lists.firedrake.org/orbiter/