Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,934 Excellent


About swjr-swis

  • Rank
    Self-proclaimed Groomer of the Orbits

Profile Information

  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

10,319 profile views
  1. I don't vote on public polls, but my list would be: bug fixes. bug fixes. bug fixes. Preferably in that order of priority. Going beyond that, the only other thing I can think of that I'd really want, is bug fixes. But only if there's any spare development time after the above.
  2. Craft files can become corrupted in a way that leaves KSP in a bugged state. Unless you are inclined to edit the craft file manually to fix whatever is broken, you won't have much choice other than to start from scratch.
  3. I take from the above that the many tips given on your previous thread on this matter were either not to your liking or inapplicable to your needs, and that the working no-flatspin variant I made of your shuttle also doesn't meet your requirements. Much of what was said and shown in that thread is generally applicable to any shuttle-type craft. Since you are posting again asking for new feedback on basically the same matter, even if it is for a different shuttle, it would help to know what made the previous feedback not fit your design parameters (or your mission objectives). So we can av
  4. If so, we are deviating from what I asked. I know there are solutions that do not keep the regular tetrahedron configuration intact at all times. This is why I keep telling you to mentally reorientate the system (or your observational point of the system) to make one of the orbits equatorial. It's quite easy to see then that regardless your choice of inclinations or angular positions, the distance is a right (sorry, English is only my third language) triangle with the base in the equatorial orbit, the standing face an orthogonal projection onto the plane of that orbit, and the d
  5. I have to admit, I'm not at ease with the properties of and rules governing momenta. Perhaps if I were this would be as clearly obvious as you make it sound. In particular, and to my shame, I have quite honestly no idea what the below sentence means, at all: In any case, thank you for offering another way of answering this question.
  6. That straight line will still always be the hypotenuse of a rectangular triangle, which changes continuously as a sinusoide function. Regardless of the angle of intersection, the standing side of that triangle will change from zero to a non-zero value and back again, and thus the hypotenuse/distance will also change. it does though, at four moments (or two if they coincide - and somehow phase through each other): when they pass through the AN/DN of their respective orbits. Which is the moment of least distance between them.
  7. Because they intersect, it's always possible to rotate your position around the planet such that one of the orbits becomes equatorial, from your perspective. It really doesn't matter if it's equatorial from the planet's perspective, the system moves the same way regardless of frame of reference. Consider the special case of both sats exactly meeting each other at the points of intersection (AN/DN). Easy to see that the distance increases and decreases as they go through their orbit, yes? The distance is the hypotenuse of a rectangular triangle with the base on the projection of orbit B on
  8. I am still seeing a much too tall rocket for the task it is meant to do. As mentioned in previous threads you've started, you really need to start by significantly reducing the size of the rockets you build. You will find that simpler rockets are also, ironically, simpler to control.
  9. This is the essential -and exquisitely simple- element that was right there in front of me, but I was failing to visualize. There isn't any way to construct two orbits around the same body that differ in inclination but keep the distance between the orbitals the same. If it can't be done for just two, it certainly can't be done for four. And the inclination difference is required to construct any three-dimensional configuration, or they'd all be in the same plane, as @OHara already mentioned. Thank you all for the kick in the pants. I have taken my brain behind the shed and thoroughl
  10. A way to directly pick which types of contracts we want or not to be generated would certainly be a welcome addition, and might alleviate most of the aggravation you mention. If there is any (development) room for such a thing to still appear in KSP, I'd be all for it.
  11. Good point, and along the lines of the 'simple' reasoning I feel there must be to reach a conclusion. I'm sitting here trying to visualize for myself what spatial path the other vertices are forced to follow in the general case, but it's likely to be constrained much (or exactly) as you describe. And @OHara to be perfectly clear: I'm not dismissing that your 'of course' isn't exactly as obvious as you state. I'm just failing to envision it right now and wondering what part I am missing.
  12. Absolutely and entirely, not maybe. You say 'of course'... but I'm missing the obviousness here. Why is it 100% certain that it only works if they are all in the same two-dimensional plane? And that is the case I illustrated in the OP. Now reason this for when it's not simply 'an axis', but its own center of mass. It will require rotations in multiple axes, possibly all three. Is there an obvious reason why it's impossible for all vertices to be describing a valid orbit due to the combination of rotations?
  13. We are definitely not on the same page, that was indirectly my point in the previous reply. You're offering me a practical answer to a theoretical/fundamental question. Not to dismiss the validity of your assertion in its own right, but it's simply irrelevant to my question here. Coverage, whether full or all-time or in any form, and practicality, are remotely secondary considerations of why I even started this train of thought in the first place. They were left behind completely once I questioned whether it was even at all possible. Right now, the only consideration (and reason for
  14. It does matter for what I'm after, although rather than practical it's really more of a 'wait a minute... is this fundamentally even possible' type of questions. The one special case I am looking for, if possible and stable, would theoretically maintain full coverage without any interruption at all. Wether it would be practical is an entirely different matter. I know of full-coverage solutions relying on eccentric orbits, in which coverage is maintained except for the short moments when the individual relays race through their periapsis. This is in fact my usual way of creating a relay ne
  • Create New...