paul23

Members
  • Content Count

    643
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

227 Excellent

1 Follower

About paul23

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Actually greenhouse gasses keep a planet warm, without those earth (and other planets) would be frozen over: so it's perfectly normal, just like the average temperature on the moon is also around -70 degrees.
  2. Hmm I wonder: is there a converter to allow me to enable editing like it's stackexchange/github? To convert markdown to forum posts, and also vice versa? Especially the editing is abysmal.
  3. I have a real aversion to things like wormholes and warp drives: mainly because it removes a core function from the game: the orbital mechanics. When you travel faster than light gravity can no longer be an influential factor. As such the whole idea of "orbits" is removed from the game, and you can almost travel in a straight line. Even if relativity is not taken into account. "near future" things like orion engine, or vasimir and solar sails (infinite specific impulse for a solar sail) would be perfectly fine with me: they have theoretical roots and do not violate physical laws.
  4. My biggest gripe, apart from what mods like far/kopernicus fix, is the fact that ksp considers kerbal a perfect sphere. Being an oblated sphere adds a lot of fun to the mix, from having to do station keeping, so actually using it to change argument of periapsis "for free".
  5. Where did I do that? I am not talking about the trajectory at all, I'm just outlining a baseline for calculations. You are the one making a statement, so the burden of proof falls upon you. Again I'm not talking about a straight line. Though I'm considering a simple trajectory where you always fire prograde, but instead of lowering thrust to make a "gravity turn" you turn just like doing a hohman transfer. Indeed I am. However as the vacuum specific impulse is not that much higher than the sea level impulse. Combined with the fact that the more simple proposal, of just firing much more straight/with full thrust, and "firing again during apoapsis", means a larger proportion is fired in vacuum. Not at all, I'm not talking about thrust to weight ratio. The gravity loss I do consider to be equal, since the distance traveled (70km) is small compared to the total radii (600 and 670 km). Again not at all, where do you get his impression? What we need is something that can easily be repeated by anyone. Something that can be verified, a craft with instructions how to fly. Either a video talk about the control input and design or something else. So long as anyone can repeat your results. I'll test out the design later once I got time away from the family. This I get a chuckle with "fuzzy math". If there's one field you simply cannot be fuzzy in it's math. I come back to my earlier statement which is that the burden of proof lies with the claimer, the "simple" formulas show otherwise. As for why you see such low thrust to weight ratios in real life applications: this is due to (a) payload restrictions, and (b) it's hard to make rockets with more thrust, and more thrust means often much less thermal efficiency. No what I propose is just firing enough power to get a short burn to get the apoapsis up, the direction I am not even talking about, I'm just talking about doing a very short burn. Doing a short burn will mean you will fly "straight" as you call it for the latter part/coasting to the end of the atmosphere. After which you complete the circulation near the apoapsis. I am advocating always burning at full thrust, or at least after reaching a minimum altitude, and not lowering thrust to "keep doing a gravity turn". The direction I have not made any statements about.
  6. I work a lot with code, and most of my posts will be things like codeboxes and other ways to have monospace text - or mathematical notation. When we joined this forum I clearly remember no rich editor being in place. So the code should still be there, and it must be just a way to undo some kind of update to the forum software.
  7. That's captured by the `M0/Mf`, starting mass over the final mass component: heavier engines will give a smaller fuel fraction. If fuel burns "less efficient at low altitude" is the driving force the best solution would be to go perfectly vertical and then once you are at sufficient altitude do a turn. however this is not a gravity turn at which you minimize offset between prograde and gravity. It would be a much sharper turn, and unless you come up with some form of calculation or test I cannot verify such statements. What? This is just repurposed bovine waste, the direction has no (in ksp, and very very very minimal in real life) influence on the way a fuel burns, or even how a nozzle works. I'm out, this is exactly why I said: "verifiable proof", not "I can do x, you need to get good". This is not scientific and reeks of claims that are just false, [snip] claims.
  8. Well quite often when I try to insert text I accidentally forgot to remove the formatting of the pasted text. Thus I have weird formatting in posts. Then if I wish to later edit it I have to find everywhere in the buttonbar (using mouse, tabs apparently don't work, this is silly) what format is where. On top of that some things cannot be edited anymore (anything between [code] tags). The most annoying this is when trying to insert a hyperlink. In some way the forum always makes a pasted link a hyperlink. Thus you get a lot of text that looks like: [url=https://www.google.com]search engine[/url] So can I stop using this silly rich text editor and just use bbcode? (better would of course be a markdown flavour like github and stackexchange family uses, but that's another topic altogether) EDIT: I just realize the engine is even worse: it tries to fix things where I deliberately left unclosed tags so they should be interpreted as text like any sane xml parser.
  9. I'm using the tourism plus contract pack. This contract has a mission "space camp" which gives new kerbals. I wonder, can I modify this mission to give "random traits" to the new kerbals, instead of always 1 pilot, 1 scientist and 1 engineer? I tried creating a module manager patch but am wondering if it will actually work: @CONTRACT_TYPE[Tourism_SpaceCamp]:AFTER[ContractPacks]:NEEDS[UmbraSpaceIndustries] { -BEHAVIOUR:HAS[#type[ChangeKerbalType]] {} BEHAVIOUR { type = ChangeKerbalType onState = CONTRACT_COMPLETED KERBAL_INFO { kerbal = @/candidates.ElementAt(0) trait = [Pilot, Engineer, Scientist].Random() kerbalType = Crew } KERBAL_INFO { kerbal = @/candidates.ElementAt(1) trait = [Pilot, Engineer, Scientist].Random() kerbalType = Crew } KERBAL_INFO { kerbal = @/candidates.ElementAt(2) trait = [Pilot, Engineer, Scientist].Random() kerbalType = Crew } } } Mainly am I wondering: is the way to define the list correct? Or should the traits be between quotations (being a string)? `["Pilot", "Engineer", "Scientist"].random()`. The original contract type also doesn't use strings.
  10. Well they have a (temporary) orbit and all orbital parameters are "in the save file" (though not visible so it's hard to calculate manually).
  11. Using a mainsail, you have 8000 = 310 * 9.81 * ln(m0/mf) or: m0/mf = e^(8000/(310*9.81)) = 14 so total weight needs to be more than 14 times the operating empty weight. Looking at the tank: Kerbodyne S3-14400: empty weight is 9 tonnes, full weight is 81 tonnes. So the maximum fraction m0/mf we can get is 9. So this means we do indeed need a minimal specific impulse of: 8000 = Isp * 9.81 * ln(9) Isp = 371.147 In stock outside the conventional engine ranges. There is a slightly more efficient tank: R-4 'Dumpling' External Tank. It's a small tank so you'll have to spam those. But this tank has a fuel fraction of 12. 8000 = Isp * 9.81 * ln(12) Isp = 328.179 Which is "almost" possible using the skipper, and possible with the poodle, though then you're back at bad thrust levels.
  12. You don't have to get to 0 degrees when doing a burn. The sphere of influence is bigger than a point, and for transfers to another planet: it really doesn't matter, and you'll just fix it "mid way" in the solar soi.
  13. Not really, except for a few "pre defined scripts". If you wish to add scripting and "ai", there is a special mod for that purpose: kOS.
  14. Is it possible to use this mod to plan transfer windows to asteroids and other objects?
  15. Well I need to capture a highly elliptic asteroid (class B) (apoapsis is almost at kerbin soi's and periapsis 1/4th moho's orbit). I wonder: how would I plan for this? - How much delta V would I need to reserve, how do I know when the next transfer window is? Is there a tool to make a porkchop plot for such custom objects?