Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,140 Excellent


About Hotel26

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. OK, so I finished my testing with the following variables being noted: target station at 100km altitude my launch vehicle was a Genesis Hotel26 at the controls (YMMV) And I found that a target phase angle of 335 gave me a 14.1 km intercept (which I ignored), an actual closest distance of 10km (while still performing the circularization burn) and a final lagging distance of 19km. (That's less than 5 secs of travel at orbital speed). If I were to do another test iteration i would try phase 337, which translates to a target longitude of 98W. Hopefully, it the abov
  2. So, just for fun, I've started testing this with regard to the OP's question. I'll describe the methodology and then publish some results when I get finished. Two things become clear at the start: Differences: different vehicles perform differently different pilots fly differently different days: different results (but hopefully this will average out) It should be possible on any standard launch to rendez-vous in one orbit. The conclusion of point 1 above is that everyone interested would have to test this for themselves. I used to
  3. Every interesting challenge KSP presents is fun to study and master. That's why I don't think this is either-or. It's good to start with exactly the question the OP is asking and the result is important when you have a minimal dV launch that fails if it is not efficient.[*] Then (as you say) it's fun and instructive to master the direct launch to rendez-vous. So master both. Then think of SpaceX and its "burn back" self-landing boosters. These CANNOT be optimally efficient in terms o
  4. A night-time launch; couldn't be helped. (Tremendous screw-up @ 5:55, but survived.) Critique: I should have selected Retrograde immediately after selecting Target Mode. and waited for attitude stabilization before S2 separation out of habit, I used a long, flat trajectory which delays the rendez-vous, resulting in a bulging apoapsis (121km) for a target at 90km altitude. It does demonstrate, however, that this approach is quite resilient to noise in the inputs. All that matters is a) how close you get, b) how prompt you are on triggering that target-retrograde bur
  5. tldr: many adhere to the rule of thumb of when your target is over the nearest southern tip of the desert to the West of KSC and over one body of water. That's 110W or 36 degrees uprange [KER Rendezvous display Phase Angle 324 deg.]. I find KAC, Better Burn Time and KER indispensable for a "direct launch to rendez-vous". If the initial phase of the launch goes well, it's easily possible to tune the apoapsis directly from the KAC "Closest Approach" display for "within 1 orbit". With practice
  6. The Incremental Refinement Dept has been at work today -- on my Zephyr workhorse lifter. Fine-tuning the weight & balance for easy return to KSC... and "canning" the procedure for replay every time Final descent rate is 9.8 m/s... too much for the Rhino or fuel tanks -- but OK for the nose gear and tail fin Inspection confirms full recovery. I doubt it's rated for water landings, but when you can pinpoint your touchdown to within a hundred meters or so, who would want to land in water?
  7. My very first envoy to Eeloo will be arriving in 1h 50m to top up fuel for departure (in 7d), so KX1 Pole Star has begun preparation... [Translation from Kerbalese: "all KSC Mission Controllers are instructed to change wallpaper on all mission-critical monitors"]
  8. I've been playing a 1.7.3 world, Orbit, since January, 2018. I have an iron-clad no-warp-past-30m rule, so it's moving at about the same pace as NASA. Footholds on Gilly and Ike, so far. I booted up a parallel, 1.7.3 world, Splice, a couple of weeks back. So breezy to run a world with only a few craft. Anything that doesn't go well gets torpedoed immediately. Debris is fine. Missing Kerbals?? "We have no record of that." Warp speed ahead. (I have to watch the old habits carefully, though!) I have 3 ships in the final orbit for Moho, all looking good. (One of those slid by
  9. Congratulations. New name fits on one line, etc, etc. Very nice & tidy.
  10. (I was just starting to update my post above to abbreviate/make it more helpful/productive -- and clearer about Snark being correct -- but I'll let it stand.) In the general case, a bi-elliptic is simply a series of two Hohmann transfers, but linked at the common apoapsis/periapsis. I think a bi-elliptic to a lower orbit is always high-energy (meaning, more than a Hohmann). And a bi-elliptic to a higher orbit is mostly always high-energy (and a waste of time because you could have waited at home for the window and got there sooner), except in the special case described in Snark's r
  11. Great tip in your post, by the way, Snark! My reading of the bi-elliptic transfer is that it is a low-energy transfer in a particular case, in fact, in which it takes longer to arrive but pays off by using *less* energy than the Hohmann. It would have its own transfer window, so wouldn't be the way to "go anytime Therefore, I think you may be right. The above statement from the poster is the litmus test. Everything else in the maneuver sounds more like a high-energy transfer. We'd have to ask the poster whether the intention in his case was to "go anytime" or arrive cheaper.
  12. This one sounds like a high-energy transfer...? (I can't find a better reference for the moment.) It spends energy (more than the Hohmann) to get there sooner than waiting for a transfer window.
  13. An interesting approach (and I am by no means an expert on Moho). If I understand you correctly, noting that Moho and Kerbin share a mutual AN and DN (of course), you depart Kerbin at one of those, lowering your PE (at the opposite node) to the orbital altitude there of Moho. Burn there to reduce AP to get an intercept with Moho one orbit later. At this point you've made no inclination change (except possibly trying to incorporate one in the Kerbin departure burn (very difficult to judge)). The idea then is to enter the Moho SOI and handle the inclination there (at much lower relative spe
  14. Granted although I wish anybody knew what was just asked and granted. Something bad is bound to happen! I wish everyone knew that 2 microns is 1,000 times larger than 2 nanometers. Then all of us could all breathe again.
  • Create New...