Community
On Orbit => Space Shuttle Mission Simulator (tm) => Topic started by: dynocomp on January 24, 2010, 05:45:35 AM
-
This simulation is called Space “Shuttle Mission 2007”, not “NASA Missions Combined”. Perhaps I speak alone, but I feel that you should stick to adding more Space Shuttle missions and enhancements, and put the ARES missions on a brand new sim called ARES Mission 2010.
My 16 year old son and I have spent many valuable hours reenacting the Shuttle missions. We love it! We were both mildly annoyed when we saw that ARES was added to our Shuttle Mission 2007 simulation.
You've created a wonderful simulation with Space Shuttle Mission 2007. Please keep it special and unique. When the ARES Mission 2010 (or whatever) is released, it will be special in its own way. ...And we will certainly purchase it!
Would it be too much to ask for an update that removed the ARES?
-
Yap, that would be too much to ask (in my opinion). The team has put some valuable time and money into the Ares mission, so it is here to stay. Just like all other features the team has put in the sim, removing any of them would be a pity.
However, I do think that there won't be much non-shuttle additions to ssm anytime soon, since the future direction of american spaceflight is highly uncertain.
-
Great first post. :-\
The GC is committed to fulfilling all of the STS missions.
The ARES mission was a bonus and found fitting for a Christmas release to reflect real world happenings that will surely go into the history books. This will happen whether or not the Constellation program flies or gets axed. It was nice eye candy and a testing ground for future improvements. It doesn't require user interaction, nor does it reward a mission patch. I think you could simply ignore it in your mission list, seeing how it is at the very bottom. Welcome to the forum/community.
I'll leave further comments for those more in the know.
-
This simulation is called Space “Shuttle Mission 2007”, not “NASA Missions Combined”. Perhaps I speak alone, but I feel that you should stick to adding more Space Shuttle missions and enhancements, and put the ARES missions on a brand new sim called ARES Mission 2010.
My 16 year old son and I have spent many valuable hours reenacting the Shuttle missions. We love it! We were both mildly annoyed when we saw that ARES was added to our Shuttle Mission 2007 simulation.
You've created a wonderful simulation with Space Shuttle Mission 2007. Please keep it special and unique. When the ARES Mission 2010 (or whatever) is released, it will be special in its own way. ...And we will certainly purchase it!
Would it be too much to ask for an update that removed the ARES?
With Ares I-Y pushed back from 2012 to 2013, you can be certain that there won't be many non-STS missions released for "SSM whichever version".
On the other hand, the Ares Test Launch really belongs here since the Constellation program is planned to replace the STS which will probably (or certainly?) be retired by the end of this year. Some of the STS NASA staff have been already moving to the Constellation program :)
/Admin
-
I kinda agree with you
No I do not think it should be removed. Yes it was unrelated but that was not my problem. My kinda disappointment was the fact that it was an uninteractive mission like all others on SSM. Don't get me wrong GC it was nice and all but it wouldn't have been among my top priorites. But it is what it is. We can look forward to a new shuttle mission in a month or so. :)
Still great job. We all know you try very hard and put much time into these. :)
-
I rather thought that the Ares I-X test flight was a nice addition and in keeping with SSM 2007 ground team's emerging tradition of going outside the box on its Christmas Day releases. Last year was STS-401, a mission that thankfully never flew. Otherwise, the team has stuck to its guns in only producing actual historic Space Shuttle missions.
Would it be possible for the team to produce a larger volume of the missions by combining models and procedures already existing to produce other missions that would only require minor modifications. For example STS 26 could easily be modified to be flown as STS-6 (Challenger), STS-29 (Discovery), STS-43 (Atlantis), STS-54 (Endeavour) and STS-70 (Discovery). STS-6 and STS-54 featured EVA's but the others could be released as a "Historic TDRS Series."
Thoughts?
-
Would it be possible for the team to produce a larger volume of the missions by combining models and procedures already existing to produce other missions that would only require minor modifications. For example STS 26 could easily be modified to be flown as STS-6 (Challenger), STS-29 (Discovery), STS-43 (Atlantis), STS-54 (Endeavour) and STS-70 (Discovery). STS-6 and STS-54 featured EVA's but the others could be released as a "Historic TDRS Series."
Thoughts?
If they did this they would spend a lot of time and money producing them in sets and goodbye "free" feature/mission packs. :o
-
For now, we prefer keeping with our tradition and releasing missions which are not "similar to" - on the contrary, we're looking for missions which are unique in some way. Eventually however we'll run out of them and reach the missions you mention. Then it is likely that we can reuse many of the mission elements we've developed already for the previous "unique" missions. Even today, ISS missions are more or less routine for us as we already have most if not all of the necessary elements in place. Ares was developed from the ground up, and in record time, considering that we had to build all the content from scratch, and add something we never had before - namely, the splasdhown. Now, that element is available for eventual inclusion into the STS launches, so Ares has not been a complete waste of resources after all ;)
Now, most of the effort goes for developing the next release of the Space Shuttle Mission. With it will come new major features - many from the Suggestions board, and from our own roadmap, and of course, new, cool and "unique" missions.
We hope that most of you will like the ride. We know we do.
/Admin
-
With it will come new major features - many from the Suggestions board, and from our own roadmap, and of course, new, cool and "unique" missions.
Oh no ;). He is teasing again. 8)
Who's suggestion are you talking about?
/Armin
-
Teasing again.... Admin sure loves teasing us. xD
...and we love to be teased.
-
With it will come new major features - many from the Suggestions board, and from our own roadmap, and of course, new, cool and "unique" missions.
Oh no ;). He is teasing again. 8)
Who's suggestion are you talking about?
/Armin
I believe numerous suggestions, since /Admin is referring to SSM2010 ("the next release of the Space Shuttle Mission"), not the next features pack. Should we make a SSM2010 tease threat? ;D
-
Good stuff!!
-
With it will come new major features - many from the Suggestions board, and from our own roadmap, and of course, new, cool and "unique" missions.
Oh no ;). He is teasing again. 8)
Who's suggestion are you talking about?
/Armin
Yep! I found new ways of torturing you! YAY! 8)
/Admin
-
Who's suggestion are you talking about?
Yep! I found new ways of torturing you! YAY! 8)
Damn, he did not walk into my trap. :-\
-
The Ares I-X mission makes absolutely sense within SSM, as the Ares I development and its I-X test flight falls into the Shuttle era. SSM is a simulator that intends to recreate the STS era. And Ares is part of the STS era. It uses STS hardware, it was launched from a STS pad, and it is going to become the STS replacement, well for now. Even if Ares I is not going to be part of Constellation, Ares I-X already has become a permanent historic feature of the STS era.
And Ares mission 2010? A simulator that simulates a single test flight mission? The entire Ares I program is u n c e r t a i n and nothing that could become a useful simulation within AT LEAST the next 5 to 7 years!
-
I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of your posts. It's refreshing to see that everyone is knowledgeable and respectable, unlike some of the ridiculers you see in other forums. Thanks!
As for the ARES, since it's here to stay, I'm happy with it. After all, two good things don't make a bad. I guess my concern was that the SSM would begin to concentrate on the upcoming 'non' Shuttle missions instead of continuing the historic and ongoing Shuttle missions. I'm happy to hear this is not the case.
So keep up the fabulous work! I look forward to your next update. Meanwhile I think my son and I need to practice the 'fly around' maneuver... :)
-
Again, welcome aboard dynocomp and kudos to you for integrating your son into your hobby! See you on orbit!
-
This simulation is called Space “Shuttle Mission 2007”, not “NASA Missions Combined”. Perhaps I speak alone, but I feel that you should stick to adding more Space Shuttle missions and enhancements, and put the ARES missions on a brand new sim called ARES Mission 2010.
My 16 year old son and I have spent many valuable hours reenacting the Shuttle missions. We love it! We were both mildly annoyed when we saw that ARES was added to our Shuttle Mission 2007 simulation.
You've created a wonderful simulation with Space Shuttle Mission 2007. Please keep it special and unique. When the ARES Mission 2010 (or whatever) is released, it will be special in its own way. ...And we will certainly purchase it!
Would it be too much to ask for an update that removed the ARES?
With Ares I-Y pushed back from 2012 to 2013, you can be certain that there won't be many non-STS missions released for "SSM whichever version".
On the other hand, the Ares Test Launch really belongs here since the Constellation program is planned to replace the STS which will probably (or certainly?) be retired by the end of this year. Some of the STS NASA staff have been already moving to the Constellation program :)
/Admin
I know you don't like me, because I often fail to join the "everything is great" crowd and I like to argue. But do you remember my long blurb expressing doubts about the validity of goals of the space program outside of earth orbit? Well, based on Obama's speech the Ares program seems to be killed for all practical purposes. I don't like Obama as a president, I am iron clad conservative, so I oppose a lot's of things he is planning to do, BUT......I am afraid he got this one right. I mean, obviously it was not his recognition, but certain scientists recommended it.
-
... SNIP...
I know you don't like me, because I often fail to join the "everything is great" crowd and I like to argue. But do you remember my long blurb expressing doubts about the validity of goals of the space program outside of earth orbit? Well, based on Obama's speech the Ares program seems to be killed for all practical purposes. I don't like Obama as a president, I am iron clad conservative, so I oppose a lot's of things he is planning to do, BUT......I am afraid he got this one right. I mean, obviously it was not his recognition, but certain scientists recommended it.
??? I am not sure to whom you refer that "doesn't like you" but since this post seems to be a reply to my quoted post, I assume you are referring to me <g>.
In that case, I think you assume too much:
1. That I don't like you (???) - why? because we disagreed about a few things in the past?
2. ...because you don't join the "everything is great" crowd. Hmm, here I thinkk you are slightly insulting a few people here who also disagree with you at times. Does that make you then part of the "everything is bad" crowd? I guess you get the point.
3. Now TO THE POINT: you can voice any opinion about Obama (or any other Prez) decisions - in a civilized way, as you've been doing anyway. Everybody does it, and sometimes discussions become slightly heated, but IMHO still within the "civilized" boundaries. What's so bad about that? You are entitled to your opinion just as everybody else here. That does not mean that we (or I) "don't like you", or that you or the others belong to a specific "crowd".
4. Last, you say that you "like to argue". Hmm - are we to believe now that when you voice opposing arguments, it is just because you "like to argue" and not necessarily because you firmly believe in the arguments you support? I hope that this is not the case ;)
Have a great weekend,
/Admin
-
It seems highly probable that the Ares 1-X test launch will be the only mission ever flown in the Constellation programme....
-
It seems highly probable that the Ares 1-X test launch will be the only mission ever flown in the Constellation programme....
Yep. Most likely by > 99% ;)
-
... SNIP...
I know you don't like me, because I often fail to join the "everything is great" crowd and I like to argue. But do you remember my long blurb expressing doubts about the validity of goals of the space program outside of earth orbit? Well, based on Obama's speech the Ares program seems to be killed for all practical purposes. I don't like Obama as a president, I am iron clad conservative, so I oppose a lot's of things he is planning to do, BUT......I am afraid he got this one right. I mean, obviously it was not his recognition, but certain scientists recommended it.
??? I am not sure to whom you refer that "doesn't like you" but since this post seems to be a reply to my quoted post, I assume you are referring to me <g>.
In that case, I think you assume too much:
1. That I don't like you (???) - why? because we disagreed about a few things in the past?
2. ...because you don't join the "everything is great" crowd. Hmm, here I thinkk you are slightly insulting a few people here who also disagree with you at times. Does that make you then part of the "everything is bad" crowd? I guess you get the point.
3. Now TO THE POINT: you can voice any opinion about Obama (or any other Prez) decisions - in a civilized way, as you've been doing anyway. Everybody does it, and sometimes discussions become slightly heated, but IMHO still within the "civilized" boundaries. What's so bad about that? You are entitled to your opinion just as everybody else here. That does not mean that we (or I) "don't like you", or that you or the others belong to a specific "crowd".
4. Last, you say that you "like to argue". Hmm - are we to believe now that when you voice opposing arguments, it is just because you "like to argue" and not necessarily because you firmly believe in the arguments you support? I hope that this is not the case ;)
Have a great weekend,
/Admin
Okay, let's assume you are right about 1,2 and 3, and for that I apologize.
About 4. Well.....yes and no. No, because I don't argue just for the argument's sake, just to play devils advocate. Yes, because I more often see the "darker side" of certain issues (the less popular side) than the average. Such as the relatively hopeless nature of the space exploration on a website which deals with just that :). This duality appears in my own life, since at the same time I am also a space exploration "addict".