Jump to content

Spricigo

Members
  • Content Count

    2,866
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,129 Excellent

4 Followers

About Spricigo

  • Rank
    Literally Nobody

Profile Information

  • Location
    Not here

Recent Profile Visitors

7,554 profile views
  1. Yes. I often bind it to an axis custom group but wheel throttle and wheel steer also works just fine.
  2. I see your point. The problem is that one is already deep in the land of diminishing returns at this point and may easily fall in the trap : moar booster > moar fuel > moar booster. (Throw in some moar struts and moar bugs for seasoning) . In practice is often simpler to put some crude propellers than fine tuning the rockets.
  3. Is not that the easier part? Currently the 1st stage propeller is the way to go. (jets don't work and a hand full of rockets barely do)
  4. I just like to mention that, back when I was a new player, took me weeks to realize that option was in the main menu and not the in game menu.
  5. When you warp each craft is put 'on rails' in it's orbit, and physics interaction are not calculated. Just happens that the debris inside the cargo bay is considered another craft by the game, and it go right past the cargo bay wall during warp.
  6. Eve is so cozy. Why would anyone want to leave?
  7. First, as my not answer, I'd say it is about the efficiency, reaching the objective with small expenditure of resources. Now, there is the catch: you are the one that decide what the objective is and what resources are valuable for you. Someone playing in science or sandbox would not care for Funds and even in career many are more worried about their game time. Find what works for you and go for it. now "an actual answer": Thinking about mission phases and making the stages somewhat correspondent with those phases makes the design process a lot easier. It allow to focus in the
  8. Mind you, may be tricky trick to pull off due heavy engines at the very bottom of the craft. In practice, you don't even need to turn SAS on in the first place. (shameless plug: https://kerbalx.com/Spricigo/Yuri250-70 ) Now, certainly is not so easy when carrying a bulky station and dealing with a considerable amount of flexing between the parts. May exist imbalances in drag and weight distribution because of how the station is designed and all the issues due to eventual limitations in tech/facilities available. A popular solution for the problem is to build a somewhat ove
  9. Problem is: "as high as possible" is not a quantity. If I understood correct your hypothesis can be rephrased as: With an initial ejection burn of no more than [valueA]m/s , using only one assisting body, you cannot get enough energy to raise you apoapsis above [valueB]Gm If you provide valueA and ValueB (along some other restriction I could have missed), then we can look for counterexamples of that. Otherwise we simple have no way to test it. Inability to test don't prove the hypothesis correct, only make impossible to demonstrate if it is wrong.
  10. How much energy "a perfectly prograde ejection" is supposed to be?!! Also "I hope you agree about the thing you are asking about" is not convincing. I asked because I don't see the argument/evidence that made you get from [I will use a gravity assist] to [Kerbin will not help enough]*. Conversely, it seems I'm not able to present you what makes me think it may not be the case. As I said in the previous post, that is an impasse I don't how to resolve and at this point I'd rather let it be. * I get that is not exactly what you said, just pointing where is the missin
  11. *grabs the flamethrower* Your data is probably being shared in a similar manner by another company anyways. Including in my case my employer: The Government. PS: is this really a 'gameplay' question?
  12. Well, we are not in agreement then. It may surprise you how far, far away that point is. K-E-K-K-J is a think not because K-K-K-K-J is not possible(or practical). It is a thing because Eve is more massive than Kerbin and as such can give an assist bigger enough to compensate the need to lower the orbit to make it happen. Also, you can wait for Eve to get in a more convenient position (while you need to settle for resonant orbits for Kerbin) and see the closer approach marking while you depart from Kerbin. Eve is a bit mroe practical, that is it. Anyways, at this point I really
  13. @OHara @camacju if i get it right this time: Is a matter of practicality. At some point the cost of correction burns is more than what you get from the gravity assist. Oh well... That is why I go for a high energy transfer if I can afford the deltaV cost to pull it off. Burn like a madman and get done with it.
  14. What can I say? Done. Despite the lack of any maneuver after the initial burn the orbital energy changed with each subsequent encounter with the same celestial body. No encounter with a different celestial body also. Granted, the resulting trajectory is not as useful as what I can get a few course correction along the way (I'd rather reach Jool in the same century) but that is besides the point. Perhaps what is throwing me off the track is that you are talking about things that don't change in regard the assisting body when I'm talking about what happens in regard to the paren
  15. Yes, I do. That is why I'm asking. I follow what you are telling will happen if you meet the body a second time with the same velocity of the first encounter. But what I'm wondering is why you apparently assume you will get the same velocity in both encounters to begin with. As @Zhetaan points out: velocity is a vector, has both a magnitude and a direction. All it takes is to meet the celestial body slightly ahead/behind in it's orbit and the velocity will be in a different direction, it will be a different velocity. It really appear to me that you are not taking change in the direct
×
×
  • Create New...