Copernicus seems a reasonably big housing module, doe, is it really big enough to hold a half and more year of provisions n/orr an space cultivation lab ? Also, in search for it, i found that Trans-Hab module project ...
An interesting idea of conserving mass. I see the apparent problems during space-construction (if any layer got cut or tangled due to manipulation or space-factors ( debris and tiny meteorites )), but recent material sciences had a lot of things happening, to make those layers being stronger and more resistant. Also, special packaging techniques may just need it to be internally pressurized to inflate them in a safe and proper way. The modularity capabilities of textiles is interesting in this :
http://www.archiprix.org/2015/index.php?project=2388But simply, making such light-weight modules for hydrophobic chambers or purely supply modules wouldn't be a bad cont reduction idea out there. Possibly, if such materials could be created in space conditions, making fitting modules at place could be and interesting addition (in form and structural strength aspect) to printing techniques. So, question is, is still NASA bound with the congressional ban on that program ? That would leave them depending on such a project purely on that commercial venture.
... thats some great news Uriah ! Im doe not sure if splitting objects from a single model file for such separations is possible. Doe, if all would be separate models, witch after spawn at the same location fit together, you could probably make somehow a projection of those modules to the position/rotation data of the main one, then at separation, cut this projection and give it proper forces combination to cut it loose and give its momentum.
... well, maybe, if you just make a separate set of physics data ... you probably could actually do that, but the problem is, that origin points(or pivots) of the models separate meshes are taken to account to the main hierarchy. That is, you have to make a script for ascending of each detached part (just simply give it the proper momentum and let it fall due to gravity with some altitude-bound buffers due to air density) as addition to what you have and trigger them at separation. The most problematic thing is, doe, computing the relative position difference from the main module ! First computing, the part of how the separated module would fall off and make the position projection re-calculated to the position of the stage separation from the main module + a similar calculation for the main module prolonging its flight from that moment.
Its a really bulky way of doing this with lots of math involved due to the fact, that you have to refer the modules position to the main module pivot point and not the altitude/latitude/longitude towards Earth. And only reasonable, till modules burn off in the atmosphere (so you can cut that script then and make the mesh invisible after burning).
Problem could be too, due to LODs, that it probably makes them disappear at some distance from the main one (well, maybe not if its just a single LOD level there).
Can imagine some script like this, doe, ill say there will be a lot of things to be computed, specially, if ya go on rotating with the main (or remaining group of them) module in some ways after the separation. ... thats why i would prefer them stages as separate models, getting theyr data from the main one till separation and letting the base engine physics then take the job off your hands.
... if ewer OT could separate some meshes from the model due to selecting some frome the hierarchy and create a separate model whyte physics "on the fly", than it would be awesome for such things, doe, im sure, in the future, those rockets will have other "payloads" and set-ups witch oppose the one model structure a little further too.
Author
Topic: AeroKinetics Mod (Read 174391 times)