Jump to content

OHara

Members
  • Content Count

    850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

729 Excellent

3 Followers

About OHara

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Got it. That can be true while it is also true that "when you leave Mun with a certain velocity, you'll encounter Mun with that same velocity". When encountering the Mun from a near-stationary apo-Kerb we enter the Mun's SOI at 325m/s and leave at 325m/s in a different direction. After a months orbit we enter the Mun's SOI again with the same 325m/s speed and direction as we left it with, and let its gravity bend our path again. Often we can combine those two small bends into one big bend. Sometimes the surface gravity of the assisting body isn't enough to bend our path in one pas
  2. That seems like a very safe assumption. When the craft's elliptical orbit returns to the same point, it has the same velocity, because orbits under central gravity are periodic. The same holds for Kerbin, so I expect the same relative velocity. (There are two intersections, and if both orbits were significantly elliptical you could leave one intersection and then re-encounter the other, but that opportunity does not come up often.) Substituting Kerbin->Mun, I would expect if your craft leaves Mun with some speed, and does no burns, the next encounter will have the same relative velo
  3. The algebra for this case is not too bad. The algebra didn't inspire any intuition for me, but maybe somebody else is inspired. (Extending it to figure the relative velocity of the satellites was almost inspiring to me.) If the relative inclination of the orbits is I, and the angular coordinate of A along its orbit is υ, then in the coordinate system with the orbit of A in the x/y plane, then position of A : R (cos(υ) sin(υ), 0) position of B: R cos(υ+Φ) (1, 0, 0) + R sin(υ+Φ) (0, cos(I), sin(I)) and after some algebra the distance between them is |A − B| = R sqrt[ 2
  4. If we also suppose the configuration of satellites is stable, meaning the distance between any pair of satellites is constant, then each satellite moves in a circle around a common axis of rotation. . . . because motion of a rigid assembly of points always consists of a common translation, plus rotation about an axis. I'm sure there's some convincing formal proof of this in some kinematics textbook, but right now I can't think of a convincing argument -- it is too deep in my instinctive assumptions about how things move. That's why I thought immediately of the axis of rotation --
  5. Well, the title of the thread indicates interest in a "stable tetrahedron" Of course independent satellites (that is, with no 6-Mm rods holding them in place relative to each other) will not stay in such a shape, unless they are all in a single plane. I think the question is "why not?" (maybe more Science and Spaceflight than Gameplay) The stable, rigid, shape would rotate about some axis, so each satellite needs a force to accelerate it toward that axis. Gravity pulls to the center of the orbited body, not along the closest direction to the desired rotation axis, so the tetrahed
  6. Hotlinking to an image hosted at kerbalspaceprogram.com https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/attachments/55504/hatch.jpg Hotlinking to an image hosted elsewhere :
  7. There is a recent bug (link) where, if you use the EVA selection on the portraits of the Kerbals, you get that message. But if you put your mouse over the hatch itself, click there, and select EVA, the Kerbal can exit. http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/attachments/55504/hatch.jpg
  8. That is a bug that appeared recently with version 1.11.1. Many of us here play an older version when new bugs annoy us. I think that all the places who sell KSP make earlier versions available, The bug tracker has reports, but no good work-around https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/27162 https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/27166 https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/27169
  9. That works for me as well. I would go further and suggest that @Kuula4 freely use the cheat menu (F12 key on PC) and its set-orbit feature to place "planner" probes where they are helpful for planning. You might need to cheat around the Comm-Net limitations if you set the option where communication is required to set maneuver nodes. Many people have suggested making planning nodes be standard in the game (link link link) Low circular orbit around Duna is a useful place for a planner-probe, even though your real craft will only touch that low orbit at periapsis. Even with the probes,
  10. This will work great. I hope @Sequoia is still interested enough in KSP to try it. The original post referenced the in-game Training, which sets a trap for new players. (bug 27250) The first Training, "Basic Construction" tells a new player to build: nose-parachute + 1-man pod + 'flea' booster Then the second training mission "Basic Flight" tells the player to fly that craft "in a nice high arc". In the training, even if you go straight up, the drag is enough that your parachute opens on the way down. In the real game, a craft built with the same parts gives the symptom
  11. You are not alone. Kerbal Space Program has many traps for new players. One trap that matches your description is that in-game rockets fly higher than the training rocket:
  12. That community delta-v map gives numbers as vacuum delta-v. So you include the 2500m/s for for stage when comparing to that map. That map quotes the higher vacuum numbers based on players' experience with typical rockets. So, it is a little sloppy. But, the first part of the launch in deep atmosphere is short enough that the sloppy estimates are very useful in practice.
  13. The lateral shift of the thrust is defined in the model file "LaunchEscapeSystem.mu" so you would need to edit that model. I do not edit models myself, so I can only see that "LaunchEscapeSystem.cfg" references a 'transform' (position-and-direction) called "thrustTransform" and I do not see any alternatives. Other than editing the model, the only choice seems to be to shift the Launch Escape System laterally by 25 cm so its pull is roughly in line with the rocket. Reducing the thrust is easy, and the LES burns longer with lower thrust. With Module Manager you create a *.cfg file i
  14. I had intended to switch to version 1.6.1, but in fact I stayed with 1.3.1 until after version 1.7.3 came out. Version 1.3.1 was is very nice for a lot of the reasons in the top post, and version 1.7.3 shares a lot of those advantages. Each of 1.3.1 and 1.7.3 was the version just before switching to a new version of Unity, which might improve performance but also seems to uncover bugs. A lot of code inadvertently depends on undefined assumptions about the behavior of library it uses, and the worse the documentation of the library, the more behavior is undefined. The new version of
×
×
  • Create New...