Jump to content

magnemoe

Members
  • Posts

    11,163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by magnemoe

  1. I agree with the invalidity of absolute velocities but still don't think you don't change the vector length much, now you could reverse the vector direction if the target was heavy and dense enough. Or simply how an Mun flyby coming in behind the Mun will kick you out into solar orbit but using more dV and coming in in front can give you an free return trajectory back to aerobrake. And yes you are stealing energy from the object you are flying past but this can be ignored for spaceflight for the foreseeable future Now my Jool or Tylo question was related to an KSP event there I sent 5 ships/ bases to Jool, doing orbital injection by burning at Tylo, initial goal was Pol with Bop as an secondary. I miscalculated total dV, an problem using ore as part of your fuel reserve Now I was able to get two on my bases down on Pol and one of the tugs so was able to capture the reminding ship in Jool orbit then they came close to Pol. But I know that KSP calculates burns based on instant force at burn point not over 5 minutes who lessen the oberth effect so my thought was that the much higher velocity low at Jool would magnify the oberth effect letting me get into an orbit then using gravity assist to make the resulting orbit more circular.
  2. Yes the denser bodies let you get more out of the gravity assist but the bodies are also lighter and move slower, however Laythe and Tylo has earth level surface gravity, nothing like that among Jupiters moons but Jupiter "surface" gravity is 2.4 g. Now an gravity assist does not change your absolute velocity, it just changes the vector, however this can be extremely useful. One thing I wonder about in KSP is if its cheaper to do an orbital insertion burn with Pe, close to Jool and then use Laythe and / or Tylo gravity assist to make the Jool orbit more circular than an orbital injection burn on an Tylo flyby.
  3. Not tested direct burn from the Mun but from Minmus an burn from Minmus orbit was more expensive than an burn from LKO who is very non intuitive. For Eve just getting into any orbit with low Eve Pe and Ap inside the SOI lets you aerobrake over time or catch it. Duna is perfect for aerobraking as its low gravity don't increase your velocity at Pe much, Eve, Kerbin and Laythe cause inflatable heat shields to fail fast if you come in much faster than escape velocity with an heavy ship. Something light can aerobrake much better as it looses velocity so fast.
  4. The best way to do this is to refuel at Minmus who is more efficient or Mun orbit who is easier. set up an transfer burn node on an satelite in LKO towards Eve or other planets. Leave the selected moon and drop Pe down to LKO so Pe end up at the satellite node. Do this well ahead so adjust Ap to match the time of the node and avoid the Mun. This has the benefit of adding 7-900 m/s dV and the oberth effect giving you an couple of hundreds m/s cost or go fast as i obviously did in the dramatic Duna aerobrake. That one require modification of the ship in flight as I would come in very hot and at 7 g having drag and mass at the center line is critical, the Duna base had two stages it had dropped. The Eve landers however was refueled in LKO and sent to Eve, mission was not time critical and the transport stage used fuel from the lander, the cone tanks is for fuel and oxidizer as the tug only used fuel as its LV-N. If you have an base you should also have an tug who can catch you
  5. That works, this eve accent craft uses it to keep balanced. Note that its two layers for double drag, the rear tank is almost empty. Now this is exploiting KSP drag model, biplanes works because of two wings, layered parachutes does not double drag. You could also add airbrakes on the tank to adjust drag. Here its seen with an Eve orbital tug and its rover still connected. I dropped rover first it did science and then the return rocket to get kerbal out. Had to do lots of passes to get into an reasonable circular low Eve orbit as the orbital velocity is high. Use drag plates a lot on ships going between Minus and LKO. Another way is rear heat shields to generate stability and drag. Here I launched the two extra heat shields separately and docked them to the tug at the rear. I reused the RCS thrusters on the tug as I forgotten to add them
  6. Well you need larger colonies to build large stuff like fuel for touch ships Some random ideas, Dress or Ike has higher enriched uranium because some interstellar asteroid crashed there 64 million years ago spit out of an system starting forming. Some indication that Jool is important for the huge fusion drive, say you need to farm H3 from its atmosphere. And I can not be the only one who saw that clip with the starship, first thought was: Epic, second was: Musk this is an starship, you are building an very heavy lift rocket who is fully reusable. Or the holy grail of rocketry and the thing who let us build stuff to make interstellar crafts. And as an fridge moment thought, yes like this but with 1+8 asparagus. Then its power, generating metallic hydrogen will eat power as crazy, now it does not work for us but kerbals live in an universe there gravity is 10 time stronger, speed of light can not be measured over interstellar distances and Planck time is milliseconds. Still how much power do you want? All of it obviously. http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1200/fv01163.htm
  7. Well one issue in KSP 1 is that if you do stuff around planets or moons the game time goes pretty slow so one year take perhaps weeks of playing this makes interplanetary missions pretty drawn out missions. Having played with orion pulse nuclear mods this helps a lot as you have an ship with say 30 Km/s dV you can move much faster. And as orion pulse nuclear is confirmed in KSP 2 its something I will take advantage off in KSP 2. Now automated supply rotes might increase the speed of the game a bit. Lots of my KSP 1 missions is fuel run from Minus down to LKO. Then you get even better engines
  8. Benefit is that its a bit safer than dropping nukes and detonating behind or an external feed orion drive.
  9. Agree, now I like Tac life support, it has food, water and oxygen. On an small ship you simply bring that you need but for an larger crew and longer duration as in interplanetary you want water recycling and co2 scrubbing but its some losses but you need to bring less resources. With ISRU you get oxygen and water but you need greenhouses for food, greenhouses also consume water so they are only really practical at bases. This might be a bit complex for ksp 2 so they might only use one resource. Now an colony probably need life support to operate and this is not something who will run out once set up unless you crash an rocket into an greenhouse or an life support module.
  10. Some is playing an 0.17 version of KSP, they need to update the game. More so in an world there first stage reuse start to become an very obvious requirement if you want to game for commercial launches down the line and you would start thinking about second stage reuse. And yes its some thinking about scaling down SpaceX starship to an fully reusable medium stat launcher.
  11. Wait, they they was flying with 4 broken bolts instead of replacing the broken ones and risk loosing an helicopter and crew. The only way this makes any sense is that the 4 broken bolts handled the torque and the 4 reminding held the rotor in place. Solution here is to redesign the connection so the structure handle the torque, and the screws keep it from falling off.
  12. This also using lower trust but lighter and more efficient engines for upper stages and interplanetary missions is smart. Also this is the map of the Kerbin system based on Dv cost. Its pretty useful as it show the cost of various missions, counter intuitive Minmus is cheaper to land on than the Mun even if the cost to reach it is more expensive because the much lower cost to land. It works both ways, the 280 dV cost from flyby to enter orbit is also the cost of going from low Mun orbit back to Kerbin but here you can use aerobraking to land. This is also for perfect burns so you will use more than 580 m/s dV to land on the Mun but to get back into orbit will be close to it. Add up the values so going to Duna is 3400 to get into orbit then 930+130, add up to 10 for inclination, you can then aerobrake into Duna orbit
  13. I agree, the missing aerocovers might simply be that they are not needed for static tests and make the engines easier to inspect between tests. More so in that the upcoming tests are the outer engines who is spin up with nitrogen from the base. Benefit with B7 is that you can splash it rater than try to recover on first flight with just simulated flight data as its already an previous version while B8 is better.
  14. And I about security and orbital operations. But yes grabbing something in the outer atmosphere and pulling up would be nice but if you had tech like that lifting ship sized cargoes to orbit would be easy.
  15. Not having aerospace vacuum chamber makes obvious sense, your are reducing drag not emulating space to test for vacuum welding With the counterweight I assume the other side also reach the wall unlike shown in this preview shot. Have two rails close to the sidewall, this run outside the hole for the exit tube. Lift counterweight a cm above the rail and spin up. release the payload and the counterweight, the counterweight is still connected to the bar. You could magnets here to brake. Recover the aerodynamic shell like falcon 9 fairing? You still have the rotation of the payload after release but with you might be able to cancel out some of this releasing the front attachment first? For an fast closing door, well how about an rotating dish with an oval hole in it? You would want an second door for an good seal but that could be slower, Not that they uses however.
  16. Raises an question why? Pulling an hostile ship inside the shield and armor of an capital ship has some security issues. Better to deploy an shuttle with an boarding crew Not saying it would not been an cool thing for salvage and stuff.
  17. Found that the small octagonal struts are perfect for putting way stuff you can not surface mount, second very nice part is the small ladder segment, an kerbal can carry it and put down to have someplace to work.
  18. Spent some days on some bases or Eve accent rockets. Now stuff like the standard base I tend to modify over time and depended on needs like out at Jool solar don't cut it. However the worst was then I came in fast at Duna, I realized I would come inn much faster than I expected so I had to do lots testing and move stuff around in transit to get the base and tug to be stable at 7 g aerobraking Firebird one at hardbrake. Pulling it off was awesome.
  19. Then you make silicon crystals for chips you grow an 20-30 cm diameter crystal 1-2 meter long this is pure silicon, you then cut it into wafers. Now you put down masks on this and add impurities at place to make transistors, diodes and resistors, remove mask add an new one, add insulator then deposit metal for pathways, repeat. At least how it was done 30 years ago. You don't use much metal. I don't see much point of producing these crystals or chips in space as its huge structures, more exotic crystals for other stuff like lasers perhaps
  20. Weird info, the fence angles inward to stop alligators climbing the fence as they do with straight ones. Leaned this at an guided tour at KSC some years ago, lots of alligators there saw one in an pound outside pad 39 B and its rules that you have to drive cars, you can not jog or bike. On the other hand you get some very scary security guards for free.
  21. Can see plenty of use for it but it need to be standardized, had been nice if keys changed depend of application or game more so if you pressed ctrl.
  22. I don't think the year we get into orbit changes much, as in probably a couple of years as the underlying technology was not there Now if orbital velocity is just 2.4 km/s = 8640 km/h well an falcon 9 first stage is an SSTO who can deliver the second stage into orbit. x-15 is 1 km/s below orbital velocity. So its an world there its much easier to launch heavy payloads and spaceplanes and SSTO works.
  23. Notice the fence. How many know why its designed this way? Yes getting stuck in the cramped return module for an day with no toilet does not sound fun. And you jettison it because you need the margin but once you done your deorbit burn you are committed.
  24. But they know how much fuel they have left and how much they will need to deorbit, add margins and you know how much you have left. Think its more that they would have to do to deorbit burns. One to deorbit the trunk then an second burn to avoid the trunk. A bit like in KSP you want to point north or south then dropping service module after deorbit burn dropping it ahead of you is dangerous as its likely to have higher drag/ mass than your capsule so it will move towards you. Now I don't think this is much an issue with an dragon 2 capsule as I assume its designed to use gps. Dragon is also a bit unique in that the capsule contains the engine part. The trunk is just for storage, power and cooling, (yes its also needed for an abort in the atmosphere) All other capsules I know about need the service module to deorbit, Soyuz has some thrusters for control after separation and it also drop the orbital module, Soyuz also land on land so I assume the orbital module also comes down over land as Russia is hard to miss For the rest I assume the service module move out of the way after separating.
  25. An proton beam == hydrogen knife, they are used for cutting and making holes. No its not an standard knife, however this is an obvious gun Outside of gun laws, hunting laws and range rules Probably also vehicle laws who tend to outlaw mounting fixed guns on vehicles, now you could argue that the vehicle is build below the gun to make it mobile.
×
×
  • Create New...