Seyvern

[quote name='dantedarkstar']Geschosskopf, I still hold that you are wrong. Let me explain it again. Assuming no irreversible processes happen (like atmospheric braking) then spaceflight is *fully* reversible. There is no time arrow defined -- if time is reversed, we couldn't tell (as we can for example for thermodynamic processes like gas escaping from container into space since reverse process is HIGHLY unlikely), since the dynamics would be exactly described by the same physics. This means that considering going from different APs to same PE is *exactly* equivalent of going from PE to different APs. Of course this ignores atmosphere, but since you are going to the same predicted PE, it ignores atmosphere anyway. So let's assume that Kerbin has no atmosphere for a moment, and just track how much of the trajectory is "below 70km" or any other set altitude. Then my previous claims hold true. The higher velocity at given fixed PE, the higher the AP, but at the same time less curve and therefore trajectory always above the lower-velocity trajectory. We have 2 trajectories (both are after any burning you did at AP, so both are ballistic trajectories from that point): A) from AP 12Mm to PE 37km, B) from AP 1.5Mm to Pe 37km This is exactly equivalent to trajectories: C) from PE 37km to AP 12Mm, D) from PE 37km to AP 1.5Mm. It should be obvious to anyone playing KSP that trajectories A and C have the same velocity at periapsis, and that velocity (Va=Vc) is higher than the periapsis velocity of trajectories B and D (Vb=Vd<Va=Vc) (can't cheat conservation of energy without burning engines, which I assume you don't do except at AP to adjust PE). If your velocity is higher, then the curvature of the trajectory (at a given altitude) MUST be smaller. This is because the gravitational force is proportional only to masses and the distance from the body that you are interacting with. And the mass of the object itself cancels out when calculating acceleration, so it only depends on mass of the planet and distance form the planet center -> altitude. Given higher velocity, the curvature must be smaller = larger curvature radius, as described by r = V^2/a (this is simple relation for circular motion, but if we consider local curvature then it works as well), since a = acceleration from gravity which is the same for both A/C and B/D trajectories. While it is obviously possible to draw an ellipse of higher eccentrity (and higher AP) with same PE, that is also narrower, such ellipse is not a physical trajectory and will not have Kerbin as one of focal points (which is always true for trajectories in point gravitational field, as calculated in KSP). In the below picture, the low AP orbit (actually lowest possible, since it's circular) is blue. The high AP orbit is NOT the red one that indeed would spend more time in atmosphere, but the green one, which is always above blue one, except at PE. Black points are supposed focal points of the ellipse. Note that the red one does NOT have focal point at the center of Kerbin (cyan circle), since PE is always *closest* point to the focal point which must be (according to physics) the body with gravity field (so by definition PE is closest to focal point). An even higher AP ellipse would be again wider around kerbin and always above green trajectory. [url]http://i67.tinypic.com/24o9b0o.png[/url][/QUOTE] Dante is correct. Another way to think of this is that the higher the AP the shorter the time in the atmosphere - as he said - as seen in the limiting cases: In the limiting case of a circular orbit, the lowest possible AP for a given PE, the time in the atmosphere is infinite (assuming no drag). The other extreme, a near inifinate velocity hyperbolic pass, has the shortest possible time in the atmosphere, as the orbit becomes a line tangent to the circle which describes the circular orbit with the same altitude as the PE of the hyperbolic pass.

OK, perhaps a stupid question, but I downloaded this pack today, and I both love it and hate it. Its gorgeous. But its so not-balanced with stock, its not even remotely close. I mean there is an engine in there that weighs 2.25 tons, has 480 Vacuum thrust, and an ISP of 470! Its stats are better at sea level than a skipper in vaccuum! So how do people play with this mod? Do you guys just use these parts and ignore stock? Looking for input here. -Seyv

Well, this is sort of true, but ... In reality, think about it this way. The probe that is flying past pluto today (or was yesterday actually) was launched ~10 years ago. - 2005. It was designed and specced years before that. Call it ~1998 or so. Any equipment flying on it, most especially the computer systems and solid state memory - had to be space certified - in other words, been tested in space previously and believed to have a high likelyhood of surviving a 10 year space flight with little chance of degradation to performance from many factors, not the least of which is damage due to high energy particles. Generally, that means that the stuff that is put into spacecraft is about 10 years older than state of the art at design time, in order to have had enough time and data to meet space certification. I wasn't part of the design team, and I haven't seen the documents, but its a good bet that the computer systems and memory associated with them that passed pluto in 2015 were early 1990s technology. This would be the first time that solid state drives were really available, and of course the MB/weight were atrocious compared to what we view as good today. This is a long way of saying that any spacecraft is designed with compromises - weight vs. capability / reliability vs. capability (and lets not forget cost) - so yes: it was all planned, but no: they didn't launch with as much memory as they would like, they launched with as much as they could afford. - - - Updated - - - so did a bit of digging. Just to answer more completely, NH launched with two 8 gig modules of solid state memory. (one primary, one backup). pretty good considering when it went up. -Seyv

First I heard of this conspiracy theory as well. Had to read about it. Very sad cult behavior. The woman driving this cult apparently convinced a lot of people to kill all their pets in 2003 because of the impeding apocalypse. I suppose thats better than the Heaven's gate cult, but certainly cut from the same cloth.

Thanks, but no worries for me. I'm not part of the pluto team. Its a big lab, and i work in another area. But I have a few friends in the Space sector (which itself is pretty big and does more than just NH) and a few of us hung around with them - you know, waiting it out, till we knew it had made it.

Stayed at work until we got the downlink message. Very good vibe today at work -Seyv

The whole american taxpayers giving images to the world for free thing is something I'm fairly proud of as an american. Don't know if people here have seen this, but there has been a campaign for SpaceX to release images as public domain, which has made some headway. http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/20/8262525/spacex-images-public-domain-creative-commons http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/spacex-releases-its-photos-under-creative-commons/388200/ note that esa doesn't automatically do this, although they have in recent years been better about releasing information into creative commons. I'd suggest that continuing the push for free use of space imagery is something everyone in this community could get behind.

Yes. The spacecraft will be out of comms for a good chunk of tonight to tomorrow. First downlink from the bird is supposed to occur at 8:53 pm ET tomorrow (having been sent 4.5 hours earlier) and even that downlink is jsut a status message - it wont start dumping data until some time after that to allow more science collections to occur. Good site summarizing it here: http://www.vox.com/2015/7/13/8949499/new-horizons-pluto-schedule-nasa

Just thought I'd delurk to say that I work at JHUAPL and we're all really excited about this. ON the down side, 700 people are showing up to our campus tomorrow and I hope i can find a place to park. Its sort of ironic, because we will have nothing to see all day tomorrow as the robot does its job, but thats the day all the festivities are going on!

THIS! Plus give me orbital information on a HUD so I didn't have to switch to map mode to see my peri/api, etc. Drives me nuts that harvester is so freaking unresponsive about this. They claim they want to make a game where you can pilot the ship in ship view so they don't put staging capability in map view (yes, good, well done!) and then refuse to acknowledge that any decent pilot needs to see orbital information. So instead we get at least 3 mods I can think of that provide it instead because its so critical (engineer, mechjeb, VOID)

Mechjeb. I've been flying KSP ships since 2011, and can pretty much outfly anyone. But it does get tedious, so mechjeb for boring launches. Also, I tend to use mechjeb in manual assisted mode (SAS) mode more than anything else. By this, i mean i'll do things like: 1) enter the pitch, heading, and roll and click execute, so that mechjeb holds it for me. 2) use mechjeb's prograde/retrograde/radial/.... buttons to do manuvers by hand (but that way I don't have to align the dots, i let hte computer do it for me). 3) enter maneuver nodes by hand, but then click the 'node' button so it aligns the ship. I do the burn myself tho. Basically I use MJ to reduce the tedium a bit and improve the responsiveness of a ship (stock SAS controller is so squirrely -its not fun for me. Noone would design an actual ship to be as horribly over/under damped as the stock system). MJ's interplanetary tool is also a must. If you want to compute good launch windows, you need to code it yourself, or use the standalone tool, or use the standalone tool that was imported into mechjeb. -Seyv

Porkjet, as you update this mod, just a couple of simple requests (things I do with my mod of your mod anyway). First, I think that these engines should be set up as GENERATOR rather than ALTERNATOR parts. The reactors and RTGs would be generating power even when I'm not firing propellent through them (in fact, when considering an RTG, with no ability to throttle - if you aren't cooling it by firing propellent through the heat exchanger you better be doing something to keep it cool). Second, I think some of the values used in your parts are slightly out of line with the two relevant stock parts, 1) rtg and 2) LV-N. I'd suggest that the candle probably should weigh somewhat more than the RTG (maybe double) but put out power (point 1) as well as serve as an engine. This makes it a nice (but costly) choice for long range probes. The LANTRN shouldn't pay any ISP penalty compared to LV-N when operating in fuel only mode (its the same core temp, and its using hte same fuel, so it should have the same ISP). But it should be heavier (extra plumbing). Third lightbulb gets in range of speculative stuff, so not sure how to balance it - i'd argue instead how I play with Lightbulb. I don't want to play the interstellar mod, because it carries way to much baggage with it as cool as it is, and I don't want to play with mods that are completely in the realm of fantasy (e.g. kerbanite+ with torchdrives), so that pretty much leaves your mod with lightbulb. As such, I want lightbulb to be overpowered, but realistically overpowered, extremely expensive, and end-game tech tree tech. I'm thinking perhaps two engines The lightbulb you've got, but significantly lighter. Right now its TWR is worse than LV-N. 30 tons? I'd say something between 6-10. And then, something better than lightbulb. Like gas-core reactor, or possibly fission fragment, Different nitch - much higher ISP - 5000-8000, much lower thrust. (~80 ish). Basically , option 1 is the 'lower isp, high trust' engine, and the second option is the 'ion engine for big ships' alternative. -Seyv

Keep on spinning, then. I disagree, obviously, as does most of this forum, and most of reddit apparently. And you can tell by my join date (earlier than yours) and my post count (much much smaller than yours) I've been part of this game for a long time, and it takes a lot to make me jump into the pig sty that is the internet. You get the last word, internet warrior.

To elaborate, in order to be constructive. My expectations: 1) some sort of acknowledgement that 1.02 has a really bad memory leak. 2) If that memory leak couldn't be fixed in a timely manner, either due to bug-testing requirements or personal schedules, a roll-back to a v1.01 or 1.00 which did not have the memory leak. A different, perhaps less satisfactory (arguably) aero module is less damaging than a game that crashes too often. 3) Some sort of internal recognition within squad that announcing a PS4 port, without any real context as why I should care, would be met with a giant MEH from a forum/reddit board/etc. of PC users. It doesn't need to be a 1 page hour long post either. It could be a bulletized list. The way that this was handled shows a shocking lack of community awareness. It is not like this occurred in a vacuum. We had a number of teaser posts over a number of weeks that something REALLY BIG and REALLY COOL was about to be announced. yes it big & cool for you! Gratz! Seriously, Gratz. But its not big and cool for us. I don't know how this basic communication dysfunction happened, but I think Squad should realize that they made this happen by the way they generated per-announcement hype. Fair? --- another edit --- "Yeah that's why it's getting fixed, but until the update you can turn off that plugin, a 3rd party plugin which has a bug in it. Or you can leave it on and let your PC crash. " Yes, and you realize that something like 80% of PC users dont use mods, right? As it happens, I do use mods, I know of the fix, and I would point out that the fix has its own disadvantages (like I can't monitor heat!), and while you may think that an acceptable response by a company is to say 'meh, go use a mod' (Which i will admit they did NOT do, YOU are putting those words in their mouths) I don't believe that's a proper response.

I'd be a lot more forgiving and maybe even congratulatory if I had a version of KSP that didn't have a crippling memory leak bug that was introduced in a rushed patch that has then not been patched for three weeks because they want to do an aero rebalance or some other lame excuse. But ya, its our fault, the people who supported them back in alpha.

no... (periods were added to make the count 5 characters, original post was 2 characters)

Shame on you guys! Noone has nominated StreetLampPro yet! I nominate StreetLampPro for Categories: Best Video Overall, Best Artistic Video, Best Showcase Video Tough choice, because his KSP 0.18 cinematic trailer is awesome as well. Both of these i emailed around to people to get them to buy KSP.

Really nice work. Outstanding.

Fair enough I suggested an open poll, you are doing a closed one, but you'll get the same results. Thx for the clarification

Think hard about this: "Instead of arbitrarily deciding on a new tech tree layout, we’re going to do this in a more ‘scientific’ way. I’ve created a new version of the tech tree which features absolutely no dependencies between nodes. This means all notes are researchable from the start. Also, all nodes have the exact same cost. This tech tree will be included on the QA builds, and during testing, we will ask the testers to note down the order in which they went on unlocking the nodes. From that data, we should be able to run some statistical analysis to help us determine which parts are needed first, and how we should better organize the tech tree. This process can also be repeated multiple times, to refine the tech tree layout more and more. We hope that at the very least, this method will give us more accurate insights than just relying on anecdotal feedback." because i dont think it will do what you expect. If you are gaming the system, i would unlock the most useful things first, which means the least useful things last if ever, even though they argueably go on the tech tree first. For example, I'm going to unlock a science lab, and science modules near the begining, and go science my way to a complete tech tree. In reality, both the current order, and what I would do in your world, are both wrong from teh game perspective. It should go simple scientific instruments (thermometer, barometer) - more complicated instruments - simple experiments - complicated experiments - science labs. Similarly, why would i ever unlock the stupid drone core, when I can unlock the good one with sas and node pointing and such? Why would i unlock the inefficient engines when I can go straight to the best ones? Counter-suggestion - open a thread asking people for suggestions on what the tech tree should look like and why, and use those as inputs. -Seyv

My input - first you are already adding some new features - e.g. aero overhaul, that are pretty big (fairings and resources being the others that have been mentioned). If I were you guys, i would polish these new features along with balancing the existing parts list, science list, tech progression tree, and economy system down to a 'release polish'. This is the game that the reviewers will review. Add more new stuff in v1.1. -G

Wow. In my world, you just stole the title from streetlamp for best KSP video of all time. Very nice. Great music / cinematography.

I want functionality akin to the Engineer Redux plugin in the engineer report. Specifically, I want delta-v per stage and thrust to weight ratio per stage so I don't have to calculate them by hand (not going to happen for a game) or run a mod (as much as I like the mod) to build high performance rockets. I'd also prefer to hear that 'people don't want to see numbers' as a response to this.

I find this comment amusing - I'm a Ph.D. physicist and work at a national laboratory. I would find this tedious! I don't play games (even geeky ones that i adore like KSP) to scribble down numbers on a pad of paper and work them out to fly my ship. I expect any reasonable piece of software to do that for me, and if it doesn't exist, I'd make it myself. In fact, I suspect the only people who want to play the game 'this way' are people who don't actually do this stuff day to day but were moderately interested in math/science in high school.

I'm picking on riocrokite here - sorry, but you are a stand in for a bunch of posts. Why is it so many people feel that resource depletion must be included (is it because Kethane did it that way first?) Quite frankly, it they are making the argument from a 'realism' POV, its wrong. IT would be nearly impossible to deplete even a comet's worth of volatiles to create reaction mass for a space program of the size produced here over any reasonable time frame, much less a planet or moon. If its from a gameplay argument, thats fine because thats preference, but there is ALREADY a mod that plays that way.