jevry

my super duper late suggestion for a description:

im doing some research on orbital stuff and there seem to be a lot of explanations for the oberth effect. but im nto sure which ones are right, and which ones are wrong. and which ones seem to contradict each other but are both right. so far the best explanation i found i think is: "To get the most kinetic energy from a chemical rocket, it should be burned when the vehicle is already moving at high speed, This is because the added kinetic energy will equal the force of the rocket thrust (which is constant) multiplied by the distance that the rocket moves during the burn. The higher the initial speed, the more will be the distance moved." however i have found a few different categories of answers so far, these are variantions of: "the rocket moves more distance during the burn, thuss it gains more kinetic energy" "F = M X V^2, and V = Vstart + dV, thuss when Vstart is higher you gain more energy" (sounds reasonably correct to me but i think its missing some details?) "it is a relativistic thing, from the standpoint of the rocket there is no magical increase in kinetic energy gained" (unsure about this one, relativity is only relevant when you are moviong at least 1% the speed of light iirc) "it has to do with the exhaust gasses" (but the effect also works using engines that have no exhaust gasses, e.g solar sails) "it has to do with the planet, you move faster thuss lose less energy as you leave it's gravity well" (to me this sounds only relevant during gravity assists, not while changing apoapsis height) since this place seems kinda smart and kind, what do you guys think is/are the right explanation(s)? and do you have any other thoughts about it?

i actually tried this because i got a little intimidated by ksptot (appearently you need to adjust settings in the files to get the mod working with RSS.) it went pretty well, iirc i managed to save about 1300-1400 dV by doing the 2 year earth maneuvre. it did take 30 minutes of fine tuning though. i am kind of sad i didn't manage to save more dV because 1400 out of a total of 20K or so is still not a lot and i also noticed something cheeky, by doing such a maneuvre you may have to burn more fuel during the capture burn, is this correct? not sure if this is a necro....

huh 5375 m/s? i calculated that from an orbit equal to that of earth to a transfer to venus would cost 2116 m/s (admittedly i already figured somethign has to be wrong since escape velocity is above 2116 m/s), any idea what i missed in the calculation? (for refference i litterally calculated the speed of an orbit, that has an apoapsis of earth's periapsis and a periapsis of venus's apoapsis, at the apoapsis, and subtracted the speed of earth's orbit at periapsis) im defenitely going to try and see if i can make this work with RSS. thanks!

im doing a project about spaceflight and orbital mechanics and i've figured some stuff about the math behind it now now i've tried using my cranky old pc to (barely) run RSS and assuming going to jupiter takes about 7600 dV how much would it cost if i tried to slingshot as much as i could and go via earth-venus-earth-earth-jupiter i though il just use transfer planner to plan a rough route and see what happens sadly i burned up in the earths atmosphere during a gravity assist because i was unsure about the height of the atmosphere and foudn out that indeed yes, it was above 70 km but i noticed that the dV expended i wrote down quickly added up to above 7600 m/s. you already need 3000 m/s to get to venus so that means for the entire journey after that has to be under ~4500 or its a waste of time and dV i guess if i planned more strictly i could have avoided an unnessesary second 3000 m/s burn but even then, 4500 m/s max saved seems so harsh. i mean its great and all since thats a potential 25% fuel saved but around 1500 m/s is surely going to interplanetary course corrections. and unless really well planned that other 3000 m/s is gone sooner than you think. then i checked the internet and according to a deltaV map of the solar system the difference in dV between venus and jupiter is even narrower, less than 3000 so an already tight planning has to be even tighter so how usefull is it even planning for them? is it usefull to do a single assist with venus? or do you need to go full on galileo probe style and hit 3 assists to get meaningfull milage out of it? and on another note why is there no transfer window calculator that can calculate a route from planet A to C via slingshot planet B? it should be possible right?

So im holding a presentation about orbital mechanics for my exams and i need a tiny bit of outside help. -In the presentations I want to explain about some basic orbital mechanics and rocketry maneuvers. The presentation should be around a 10 minute. -For this presentation I also want to plan a fictional space flight to Europa that includes slingshot maneuvers (because that seemed like a great idea and my inner hipster did not want to go to mars because that seemed to mainstream). I believe the correct route would be from earth -> venus -> earth -> jupiter? -For this im assuming time is irrelevant and I can have any planet be at any point in it's orbit at any time (I will ofcourse disclaim this in the presentation). though I might want to know afterwards how long it may take for the planets to align how my route requires them, so then I can explain how the route isn't feasible (or is) because it will take too long (or won't) before we can launch the rocket. -I don't need to explain all the calculations exactly (I don't think) but the more formulas the happier I make the examinators (or so im told), though at the same time it needs to be understandable and approachable. Turns out it's not as easy as ksp makes it seem I've already figured out some of the basics of how to calculate and illustrate orbital trajectories. Things like the two focal points and one of those foci being the orbital body. i confuse the major/semi-major/minor axis (axi?) a little bit. I'm not completely read up yet on excentricity and the time it takes to orbit a body I do (I think) understand how you can calculate the distance with the velocity and vice versa with Msatalite*Vsatalite*Ddistance = Etot One of my biggest sources so far has been this site: https://www.astronomynotes.com/history/s7.htm In case its usefull here is a quick summary of how I so far think how I want to structure the presentation: part 1: explanation planetary orbits take Earth as example Earth moevs around the sun sometimes its a bit slower or faster and sometimes its a bit further away or close to the sun an explanation how you can illustrate the orbit around the sun with some formulas and focal points Stuk 2: doing orbital maneuvers with rockets launch reaching orbit and stabilising escape velocity orbit around the sun changing course: slingshot maneuver with venus and earth final course corrections ariving at jupiter arrivering at europa circularisation landing i've also learned what N-body physics means and.... i mean it's interesting an all as this lad shows of here: And I'm interested to see what will be up with the two planets in ksp2 that are "locked in a dance of death" since I heard those will get N-body physics (I may remember it wrong though). But honestly it sounds like eldritch science not meant for the human brain to calculate and fully comprehend (and it probably is, indeed, only meant for computers to math it out) and I don't think I need to calculate according to them in this case so some questions i have so far: -when performing a slingshot maneuver you gain speed equal to 2* Vp + Vr but is this different under different entree and escape angles ? does gravity, distance of the periapsis, and speed of the planet influence this? how can i calculate this and why has this not shown up in explanations before? -during interplanetary transfers, should i take into account that the planet you are escaping from will nudge your orbit a bit? (your periapsis (assuming your destination is farther away from the sun than earth) will be a bit higher than that of earth if im correct) -does anyone have any advice where to find calculations I need for the route im planning?

im hoping chatterer is also effectively integrated into ksp2 i just want some fancy intercoms chattering from the crew and bleep bloops

this is a really great update it adds enough info to do anything someone using kerbal engineer can do. well except knowing when to suicide burn that is... also a good performance boost, i never looked at the skybox that much so i haven't noticed that much change to it. im fully confident that when you eventually get around fixing up planets you give them the love they need deserve (recently learned duna used to be much more beautifull until a time constrained update remopved all unique terrain features)

oh i dunno man, you know how weird ksp gets when you get too far from sol, with seemingly rectangular orbits and all, besides, an extra science biome in outer space isn't exactly interesting and will only add joy for the duration to get there. not even that actually since you'l be just browsing the forums as you wait for your craft to get there on 100000 speed and finally get that science after like an hour of waiting. which is basically the same problem as the rovers with not having to put a weight on the w key as the only difference.

So in the new dev diary on the steam page they were talking about textures. In the comments I was reminded of the planets. The planets in ksp are just a tad dull. And besides the atmospheres, distance, and gravity challenges they have only a few sights to offer. Next to this there is the issue of them being HUGE (duh ) making rovers kind of boring as well since getting anywhere takes longer than doing a maneuver with ion engines divided over multiple passes of the periapsis. especially on low gravity planets (or if the rover is a bit wibbly wobbly... ... ... stuff) this is a problem as it is extra dangerous to let the rover drive on cruise control and do something else in the meantime. So when the devs get around to looking at the planets I would suggest (next to improved textures and adding shinyness... clouds) more landsights and a way to travel accros the surface faster, a sort of fast travel, maybe even discovering waypoints to give fixed locations to travel to. so for example the mohole, entrances to grand ravines, easter egg locations. maybe costum locations as a means to get back to bases. Now yes there is a mod for fast travel (because when is there not a mod for your desires?), but such a feature makes gameplay on planets so much more bearable it is something I feel should be included in the base game. other nice things to add could be more texts describing locations and what the kerbal thinks of the sightings , and collectibles when you surface sample at interesting locations which you can view in a rock trophy room. because people like to look at rocks right? a bit of a side story of the findings as i just described could be interesting. also please add that cryovolcanic activity to eeloo because that sounds really freaking awesome and probably looks really cool.

don't see how it should fit in spacecraft exchange... i spend like 30 mins jamming it together and don't even know how to exchange craft files but okay...

litterally get it? because the parts are called food? sorry I just had to do it btw challenge for anyone to get such contraption into space without using cheats. I couldn't be bothered.

guys guys... it worked! my rovers wheels have been realigned (in orbit because savescumming) and after hours of trying to realign them the rover works 100X better, especially turning rates have improved. it does however still have a problem climbing inclinations but much less then it used to. (i even managed to drift in it!!!)

guys i have theorized the flaw that might have been the problem for my rover, i remember that the wheel are actually attached about 3 degrees at an angle meaning 2 wheels on one side are not properly touching the ground. i will probably figure a way to fix this problem and see if it helps

i figured that, doesnt seem to be the problem, one problem is probably that the weels are too close together to turn well, the power problem however seems alot tougher to fix