match

This should be an entry in "You know you play too much KSP when..." thread. I recognized that website to be OhioBob's the moment I saw it. One point from the original post that has always struck me as one of the more glossed over aspects of the Oberth Effect is the assumption of infinite thrust at a singular point. I recollect that the energy savings is relative to the current velocity against the average velocity of the orbit (that is not precise, but somewhere along those lines). Not only does the greater velocity at PE provide the effect, but application of the thrust in the shortest time period also contributes to the savings via OE. That is, the longer the burn, the more distant the vessel travels from the optimal point to burn, therefore, less optimal. Is this even worth mentioning/examining? My initial feeling is that less eccentric orbits (such as the 350 km x 75 km) will achieve far less benefit from the effect with a low TWR vehicle. A 5 minute burn would be roughly 12% of its original period. My apologies, as this veers away from the current theory/application endeavor, just felt my brain trying to crinkle around this while reading through this thread.

Good analogy to a car dealership. You have to pay extra for the tires, but they'll throw in the "breaks" for free! HAHA ha ha ha ahem ... Well I thought it was funny, of course is just in jest

Once you are launched, started your turn and confidence is high, switch to map mode and mouseover your apoapsis marker and it will show you "Time to Apoapsis". Better yet, left click it so it remains in view and you don't have to chase it with your mousie thingie. If this ever reaches -0-, you are in a pickle, because you are no longer an up-goer, you are now a down-goer. Try to keep this time somewhere between 40 and 60 seconds by increasing and decreasing pitch. (Pitching up increases TtA; Down will decrease it.) Switching This is true, except that I have never complained about it, although it does chafe me considerably in the nether regions when I need to switch back and forth, from map view to pretty rocket view and I need to find and reclick the apoapsis to get the info needed to remain an up-goer... I think I just complained about it... OK, 5th was completely accurate.

I consider the mods that I use DLC and donate a few bucks to the author. This is of course optional, but I like think of it as buying them a drink, or lunch (but not a vacation on a Jamaican beach!)

Just a thought, but with the CoM so far back, won't any body lift generated by the nose be exaggerated? Once any AoA is introduced the craft will lose stability and naturally attempt to align behind the CoM. Might have a battle between control and its natural tendency.

Kdhx. Is a community station that plays... Well almost everything. Each dj has their own style and genre. From old school rap on Friday nights to international folk on Sunday afternoons. Eclectic is the word that comes to mind.

For efficiency, you can wait until your Pe escape burn puts you into the optimal return trajectory. (Retrograde in relation to Kerbin. ) but you may have to wait a while until it aligns. Since you already have an eccentric orbit, you may as well put it to good use!

He forgot the snacks... omgomgomgomg You forgot to pack teh snacks!!!

I worked a restaurant many moons ago and I had a regular customer who called me Mack. He was a kindly old man with nothing but pleasant things to say, so I didn't correct him. Others would stare at him confused when he called me Mack and smirked at this old man who obviously either did not hear or remember very well, probably both given his appearance. This went on for some time. One evening I must have had an off day and for some mundane reason decided I to correct him, once and for all. "It's Matt. My name is MaTT", with the emphasis on the "t". He was mortified and dumbfounded. His abashed look let me know that I had gone too far and that in my haste and conceit, I had hurt his pride. He was silent for a bit and left with an apology. "Sorry Match, I did not realize..." I had obviously overstressed the last consonant. I never corrected him again. Years later, I was introduced to his younger brother, a teacher at the local high school. His older brother had passed away the year before and we recounted old "war stories". I told him of his brother's continued butchering of my name and asked if he had a hearing problem or something. He chuckled at that, "No, he just liked messing with folks like that, that's all." Now it was my turn to look abashed. My shock turned to mirth and we tilted a beer in his brother's name. Here's to you once again, Mr. Mickens, I hope to meet you where the stars part from the sky one day. Until then, call me match. (you old goat!)

Curious about your EC solution for the Mun relay. Iirc, this requires around 5k EC to cover the dark period. I had considered doing the same but went with eccentric polar relays instead.

Nvidia GTX 650 Ti. Have had it a few years and never lost its smoke. Is happy card.

One other thing you can try is trimming up before accelerating. This can relieve some of the load from the front gear and prevent wheelbarrow effect while taking off.

Pretty sure this is the case, just hadn't experienced where other things were falling apart and ship remained intact. I hit it after the first explosion, nothing was really affecting the plane, just the buildings. The last explosion scared the carp out of me, it was so quiet then boom!

I had almost forgotten this incident from about a month ago when I came across it today. I've experienced the phantom launch clamps, but this one was a new one for me. Gremlins? or physical manifestation of the NAN virus? Disclaimer: This video contains scenes of (small) explosions and (minor) destruction; in other words, a ho-hum day on Kerbin.

Well, sort of. Theory is correct, but conclusion is flawed. Mounting the wings with a slight angle will provide additional stability, but the airflow is still predominantly moving from front to back of the airfoil (re-entry is normally pretty fast). The stability of the dihedral is derived from opposing forces. That is, they are providing a force (lift) against each other, cancelling each other out and providing stability at the cost of some lift overall. If you held a 1 kg bar in your open hands and stretched your arms straight out, you probably could keep it relatively stable. your arms are acting in opposition to gravity and can achieve equilibrium by providing a constant force against it. Now introduce some other elements such as doing this while walking down the sidewalk on a windy day. The static situation has turned dynamic, all sorts of other forces are working on that bar now and it may prove difficult to keep level. If you closed your hands around the bar now and added slight pressure inward, towards the other hand, you would find that it is easier to hold the bar level. Some of your strength is devoted horizontally, so you wouldn't be able to lift quite as much, but you would be able to exert more control over the object in question. To further this thought, would mounting the wings with an anhedral angle also give the same benefit?

Is it me or are they eating melted Kerbals? I hate when my food stares back at me.

I am a dirty filthy cheater who is entertained by other dirty filthy cheaters, but I do love onions.

In map mode with focus on your ship, click on the info button (the "I" button). Listed among other details is burn time to 0 m/s.

You could do either front or back, I guess. I use translation down to change the AoA so I can keep making needed changes on final apporach with the standard directional controls. Having the vernors only in the back allows an asymmetrical thrust resulting in torque instead of translation. (All that time docking with bad RCS layouts gave me the idea). Butt goes down, Nose comes up, wheels go round and round.

Well, on approach flaps increase lift and drag which is good for lowering stall speed. Some planes need a bit more nose up than the flaps provide. A pair of vernors on the elevator pointing up (pushing down) can provide this via RCS. I use it with the fine tune off so it does not attempt to stabilize. YMMV

Re: high AoA requirement for landing Have you tried placing. Vernor engines on top of your elevators? These can aid attaining desired AoA and be shut off for the remainder of flight.

Nav Ball has big mojo. Listen to Nav Ball. Windows lie!! You go dock now! Brought to you by Dockers without Borders I really have nothing further to add except hoping you persist until successful. Is a good feeling once you get it.

I am on 1.0.4. I distinctly recall the F3 log indicating the first failure was between MkIII Passenger and MkIII Rocket fuel fuselage. This did occur at hypersonic speeds deep in the thick (~200 m) though, which might have had something to do with the failure. Plane had control issues (could barely get the nose up) and I enabled RCS to change AoA while moving somewhere between 300 and 400 m/s. When it raised nose about 10-15*, the craft came undone. It was as much pilot error as mechanical failure.

Old SSTO vs New SSTO: Similar to girlfriend vs wife- Girlfriend would do amaxzing things that would bring a smile to your eyes and a tear to your face; Wife has her own play book which includes more work and less fun. Jokes aside, I am rather enjoying the "new" SSTO. When I have a failure, which is uh... alot, it forces to me to find the part that I am "forcing". That is, I am being lazy and not putting thought into the design. Normally the part that fails is the part that I already knew would fail but tried it anyway just to see if I could Get Away with It. For instance, I just started playing around with Mark III parts and had a design that seemed to have too much nose and butt, without much in the middle. The numbers all added up, CoM and CoL looked good, but the fuselage sheared off during takeoff. The thing is, looking at it just before I hit "Launch", I thought to myself, "I'd never get on that, it'll fall apart on the takeoff roll." Sure enough, about 200 m off the deck, I pulled up and only half of the spaceplane listened. I haven't had too much issue with re-entry heat, but I played a bit with the FAR/DRE combo, and that will definitely instill good habits. Best I can offer is get instruments! Whether it is KER or MechJeb or any similar mod out there, you need to keep an eye on what is going on out there. The stock GUI actually does provide the info needed, however it is not well presented. The analog dials are suitable for landing, but it is difficult to tune your descent. I shoot for around 200-250 m rate of descent and flatten it out before things get too hot. If it gets far beyond 300m, things get a bit toasty and may not make it out of the oven.

In KSP lift is only developed when an angle of attack exists.