[1.11] RemoteTech v1.9.9 [2020-12-19]

[darklightBoy]

Hi All,

I love the idea of this mod but I'm having trouble even getting my first sat launched.

I've made a little qbe-sat with a Z1 battery, solar panels and a C16 antenna. I can launch it up into a ~100km parking orbit and activate the antenna so it picks up signal from KSC when it comes round above.

I make a maneuver node to change the apoapsis up to a higher orbit, but when I try to give the flight computer the instruction to execute the node I get the error "Signal Delay is too high to execute this maneuver at the proper time."

Am I doing something wrong? I thought that's how it should be able to work, I set the node and get the FC to execute when it's out of contact from KSC?

Thanks!

[Varsi]

12 hours ago, tjt said:

Thanks for the feedback and the write-up of improvements. Your explanations will help me when I go interplanetary.

How does NASA do deep space comms with our probes? Do they have dedicated satellites for each probe or do they use an Active Vessel model? (my guess is it's likely a hybrid because it's been 5 decades, but just wondering what their prevailing thought is on it.) If there's a good article on it that I should read I'd love that too.

They have Deep Space Network on Earth. Usually all communications with probes is done via ground stations.

[HMatthew]

I have a quick question. I seen videos of Remote tech where there is only Kerbal Space Center as only way to connect satellites to network.

I'm talking about the RED circles that indicated KSC and I was curious if there is way to disable the orange circles (like "Eastern Peninsula" , "Eastern Mountains" etc) to make it more harder. Is there a way? I seen a lot of YouTube videos and was wondering how to set that up?. I just want is that KSC Red Circle be only one way to connect to.

[blu3wolf]

How do you add the orange ones? They are not there with just RT installed...

[Diche Bach]

On 8/9/2016 at 0:45 AM, tjt said:

Installed RT over the weekend on a new career save. Read the tutorials and set up the Kerbin system...I'd love any feedback on whether I got it right. What you're looking at is 4 sats in a 500km orbit with omnis and a KR-7. One opposite pair (sats 1 & 3) has their KR-7 pointed at Minmus, The other opposite pair (sats 2 & 4) is pointed at the Mun. The Mun and Minmus each have an identical satellite in a highly elliptical polar orbit with its KR-7 pointed back at Kerbin.

 

*Gazes with envy and wonders "Tutorials, where are these tutorials?"*

Ah yes! Small link in the "github intro" page!

RemoteTech Tutorials

[DrPastah]

I made a space station and added a probe module to give SAS without the need for pilots. But now I cannot control the station due to no connection yet there are crew present on the station. Help please.

[ExplorerKlatt]

55 minutes ago, DrPastah said:

I made a space station and added a probe module to give SAS without the need for pilots. But now I cannot control the station due to no connection yet there are crew present on the station. Help please.

Pictures would help. 

what command pod do you have on the station?

[DrPastah]

26 minutes ago, ExplorerKlatt said:

Pictures would help. 

what command pod do you have on the station?

The probe location.

The location of where my kerbals were when I can't control my station nor even transfer the kerbals.

 

[SilverlightPony]

According to the wiki, the Mobile Processing Lab is not a command pod.  You'll need to stick a Kerbal (preferably a pilot) in that Cupola module.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Mobile_Processing_Lab_MPL-LG-2

Quote

The lab is not a command module; any craft it's a part of will need a probe body or command pod to be piloted.

 

Edited August 13, 2016 by SilverlightPony

[blu3wolf]

Doesnt matter, he has a probe core and should have remote control.

[przybysz86]

question - is it possible to add 2 things (or tell how to do it as I cant see it):
-relative delay from last command - for example I want next step to execute exactly 1,5s after previous one

-option to write the sequence down locally and then "upload" the whole sequence with delayed start?

It would make the mod much more useful in RO/RSS/RP-0 games without need to use kOS for every slightly more complex sequence of actions.

 

[SilverlightPony]

18 minutes ago, blu3wolf said:

Doesnt matter, he has a probe core and should have remote control.

He specifically mentioned having no connection to the KSC, and was wondering why he didn't have local control even with Kerbals on board.  It's because his Kerbals are in the lab, which is not a control pod.

[Diche Bach]

So I followed the tutorial on setting up an Omni-Only Network . . . whooph! That was a challenge!

Problem I had was: With number 3 (and 4 to some extent) I'd manipulate the burn to get the apoapsis in the ballpark and at 1947km distant from the previous target . . . do the burn . . . only to realize: YOU SET THE DAMN THING ADJACENT to the previous target! (e.g., setting 3 to be behind 2 and winding up setting 3 AHEAD of 2 and nearly the exact same position as 1! ) . . . but I did eventually get it sorted out. Thankfully I sent them up with plenty of extra dV. I think they all still have like 1500 to 2000 dV of hydrazine in them! Managed to get most of them setup using the last couple hundred dV in the next to last liquid-fueled Vesta engine stage.

Here is the design I used

 

[/spoiler]

I'm wondering if the numbers I achieved (have not edited the save file, but will do if that is really advised to make it maintenance free for a long time) are good enough for this to remain functional for a good long while (say 10 years or so at least?) (KCS = Kerbin CommSat; Hrs/Min/Sec refers to the orbital period):

Satellite	Target	Dist km	Apo m	Per m	Hrs	Min	Sec
KCS 1	KCS 4	1931.5	777,154	776,081	1	30	0.257
KCS 2	KCS 1	1920.7	777,147.4	776,089	1	30	0.246
KCS 3	KCS 2	1965.6	777,151	776,081	1	30	0.248
KCS 4	KCS 3	1967.2	777,149.8	776,085.7	1	30	0.254

Seems like I'm pretty golden on the orbital periods, but not sure if anything else really matters.

Also curious about targets for the DTS-M1 antenna. Here is how I have them all setup at present:

I realize that pointing at the preceding Sat (e.g., 2's antenna pointing at KCS 1, etc.) is not necessary given the Communotron 16s are omni and everyone is in range of everyone. I knew I'd want at least two of the antenna (one to point at Mun one to point at Minmus) but it was just about as easy to build one with 4 (and enough power to make it through the blackouts) so as I make a habit of, I built in redundancy. LOL, this helped me in a different way as I was launching #2 . . . I got him up above the atmosphere . . . the launch vehicle had a small decoupler and an aerodynamic nose-cone on top [attached to the docking port]. I decoupled at a bad time/angle and the dang decoupler doubled back and took out one arm of solar panels! Luckily I've got two sets of four on them, so that is still within operational tolerance.

Any suggestions on my targets for the antennae? Like, other than Mun, Minmus and Active Vessel, what might I do with that fourth one?

Really love this mod: pure awesome-sauce!

Edited August 13, 2016 by Diche Bach
fix table, edit typos

[komodo]

Mobile, so difficult to quote... But as far as I know it is only the period that matters ultimately. They may drift closer/farther around the orbit, but it will oscillate periodically. However, those orbital times, while "tight", will be magnified drastically over many orbits, particularly 10 y worth. But how much exactly? Each orbit they will get ~0.008 sec closer/farther. There are 24 h/day, and that is ... 18 orbits at that pace ?( arithmetic is not my strong suit!), so 18 orbits a day, * 7d/w, ... 126 orbit / w, * 52 w/y ... ... 6300 + 252... 6552 orbits /y? And ~1600 m/s orbital speed? So... 1600 m/s * 0.008 sec/orbit * 6552 orbit/y *10 y = meters drift per ten years. ( not doing that in my head, though !  )

so, I don't actually know at that scale. Those are the numbers you'd need to find out, assuming I didn't botch anything in there of course. The point though is that seemingly small values can make a big difference over a long time and at a high speed, e.g., like that in orbit.

now I'm curious though, let me know what turns out!  

[BgDestroy]

switch commsat set target  and switch vessel is very very bad system i need play no switch vessel set target on dish party system !!! Why you not use only range system ? antenna with antenna, dish vs dish. And antenna1 range + atenna 2 range for realist. 

Example: Radio transimmet have same transmit antenna, but on my receive radio change radio change range. Antena is bet predampliffer for radio. So for better is better antena 1 range + antena 2 range.  

and away switch vessel party system !

[Diche Bach]

9 hours ago, komodo said:

Mobile, so difficult to quote... But as far as I know it is only the period that matters ultimately. They may drift closer/farther around the orbit, but it will oscillate periodically. However, those orbital times, while "tight", will be magnified drastically over many orbits, particularly 10 y worth. But how much exactly? Each orbit they will get ~0.008 sec closer/farther. There are 24 h/day, and that is ... 18 orbits at that pace ?( arithmetic is not my strong suit!), so 18 orbits a day, * 7d/w, ... 126 orbit / w, * 52 w/y ... ... 6300 + 252... 6552 orbits /y? And ~1600 m/s orbital speed? So... 1600 m/s * 0.008 sec/orbit * 6552 orbit/y *10 y = meters drift per ten years. ( not doing that in my head, though !  )

so, I don't actually know at that scale. Those are the numbers you'd need to find out, assuming I didn't botch anything in there of course. The point though is that seemingly small values can make a big difference over a long time and at a high speed, e.g., like that in orbit.

now I'm curious though, let me know what turns out!  

The appendix for the tutorial I followed has this:

Appendix: Orbit Tolerances

The precision with which you need to match the periods of your KEO satellites depends on how much drift between satellites you’re willing to tolerate:

Period Error	Drift Rate	Time to drift out of contact (38°)
0.01 seconds	0.00067° per orbit	10 Earth years (33 Kerbin years)
0.1 seconds	0.0067° per orbit	360 Earth days (3 Kerbin years)
1 seconds	0.067° per orbit	36 Earth days (140 Kerbin days)

Thing is I'm not entirely sure what differences in period matter. I would assume it is the difference between any two "adjacent" sats, and if that is the case then there are (at least) five different comparisons?

On 8/13/2016 at 10:57 AM, Diche Bach said:

 

Satellite	Target	Dist km	Apo m	Per m	Hrs	Min	Sec
KCS 1	KCS 4	1931.5	777,154	776,081	1	30	0.257
KCS 2	KCS 1	1920.7	777,147.4	776,089	1	30	0.246
KCS 3	KCS 2	1965.6	777,151	776,081	1	30	0.248
KCS 4	KCS 3	1967.2	777,149.8	776,085.7	1	30	0.254

K1 - K2 = 0.011 ~<10 years to drift out of contact (and I guess the direction should be pretty obvious based on their relative velocities) . . . I'm guessing number 2 is catching up to number one?

K2 - K3 = - 0.002 >~10 years for them to drift and presumably the sign means they are drifting in the opposite direction relative to the first and second ones

K3 - K4 = - 0.006

K4 - K1 = - 0.003

So it seems that the only one that is "concerning" (if I'm doing this right) is the K1 to K2 comparison. It seems that K1 is just a tad bit "too fast?" . . . but then K1 compared to K4 is "fine" . . . so where is the best place to "fine-tune" in this set?

I'd presume that determining the mean value for orbital period for the whole set (well just that final fraction of a second) and then determining which ones to adjust to move one or more of them "toward" that central value?

Or . . . do I want to just adjust ALL of them to be slower? (so they are closer to 1 hour 30 min?)

How does one do this? I would guess: if you want to slow the orbital period, you burn prograde at peri (just a bit) then circularize at apo

[komodo]

10 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

The appendix for the tutorial I followed has this:

 

 

The quote is a little wacky... Yes, those numbers seem rational. I think the 'time to drift out of contact', the 38 degrees sounds like the angle at which line of sight is broken by the planet. Depending on what antenna is being used, this may result in loss of contact much sooner.

Yes, num 2 seems to get closer to num 1, and sightlyyyyy faster than num 3, so a bit farther away from it as well.

It doesn't matter really what 'base' to compare them to. It might be simpler as you say, to push them all towards 1:30.00. Making sure things are circular is a lower priority than the period. These are all nearly circular (at least, they are not very elliptical!), so unless your antenna is at the farthest reach of its range, I would just adjust the orbit at almost any point, although ap or pe are convenient, such that the period(s) match. If the orbits are not perfectly circular, imagine it like this: With the current situation, some are moving closer/farther slowly, but they are still all in range. If the orbits are not perfectly synced in terms of ap/pe, but the periods are the same, they may drift closer and farther as they orbit, but it will cycle back and forth like a pendulum. The effect on communication should be negligible.

What I mean to say, is to try to adjust each once, without worrying after circularizing. It will be easier to get the numbers down, and you will go , well, less crazy  

[Diche Bach]

Thanks Komodo! I think for now I'll just leave them be and see what transpires in 5 years or so. Lots of other missions to do, but making slightly adjustments to sats might be fun to do in a few years.

But thanks for reflecting on the technicalities of it a bit

I find the whole thing fascinating and can literally sit and play with the maneuver node thing when I'm getting an encounter with a celestial body and observe what various types of maneuvers do for hours.

Last night, I managed to get a Mun explorer probe (basically exact same design as these CommSats [one Comunotron 16; four DTS-M1 dishes] plus a magnetometer and an RPWS antenna) into the necessary orbit to fulfill a mission (after he has been orbiting for 75 days) and I literally just played with the orbit for an hour till he was nearly out of fuel. I find the Flight Computer in this mod, combined with the considerations of range, numbers of targets/numbers of dishes and the planet shadowing effect to be a pretty ideal balance between playability and 'realism.'

[Siege]

So, in a discussion over in the Probes Plus thread, a few topics came up regarding that mods' RTG power output and antenna power cost, when something occurred to me:

Shouldn't antenna's generate heat, too?

Copying the salient points from my post in the (above-linked) thread:

Quote

Also, is it just me, or shouldn't antennas create heat? Particularly in the context of small, compact probes, at that? Based on my understanding of radio engineering, I'd think omni's would be more prone to creating notable heat, especially when they were actively transmitting, and particularly when in clusters. ... <snip> ... it would seem to me that the longer-range the omni, the more heat it would produce whenever it has an active connection, that each active connection would increase the heat of the antenna, and that actively transmitting (ala, science data transmissions) would increase that heat again by a notable factor for the transmission period (warning NP-hard Science: it looks like dishes aren't excluded, either, if for other reasons that what I was thinking).

It wouldn't be a HUGE amount of heat, in most cases, necessarily (unless you're prone to going overboard with your antennas, like I am - in which case, having your antenna heat increase as a root of the number of antennas in a group might not be a bad balance measure to prevent people from spamming omnis in concert with the range-bonus-from-multiple-antennas feature), but it would probably be worth considering, anyway, particularly in the context of RTG-powered probes that are already as minimalist as possible and likely carrying only what they need - especially in terms of thermal management - and little else.

[DracoSilverpath]

I'm having a bit of a problem I could use some help on in regards to this mod...

So, I got a octo probe core, sitting directly ontop of (4) 1600 change batteries, yet after sitting on the launchpad for just a minute or 2, or floating in space for that matter, it says "out of power" on remotetech, despite my power meter in my resource list saying next to full!

I thought it might be that the adapter I had originally put in wasn't able to pass through or something, so I got rid of it and placed the core directly on the abtteries, ti seems to make no difference...

Help? :3

Edit: Please disregard this. The problems was stemming from the batteries themselves, despite being read as full, they didn't seem to be functional. Replacing them in the VAB made it work again.

Edited August 16, 2016 by DracoSilverpath

[Diche Bach]

21 hours ago, Siege said:

So, in a discussion over in the Probes Plus thread, a few topics came up regarding that mods' RTG power output and antenna power cost, when something occurred to me:

Shouldn't antenna's generate heat, too?

Copying the salient points from my post in the (above-linked) thread:

It wouldn't be a HUGE amount of heat, in most cases, necessarily (unless you're prone to going overboard with your antennas, like I am - in which case, having your antenna heat increase as a root of the number of antennas in a group might not be a bad balance measure to prevent people from spamming omnis in concert with the range-bonus-from-multiple-antennas feature), but it would probably be worth considering, anyway, particularly in the context of RTG-powered probes that are already as minimalist as possible and likely carrying only what they need - especially in terms of thermal management - and little else.

Do antenna actually generate heat? I had a look at that article you linked to and . . . well, a fairly quick skim didn't reveal anything about "antenna heat generation." Can you refer to a specific point in the article?

Given the article is about a probe that is intended to go as close as possible to the sun, It makes sense that HEAT is a major consideration, but I didn't see where heat FROM the antennae was the issue

I am a social/biological scientist so my skepticism is merely a reflection of "innocence" on the topic, not of an informed counter position. I can understand how high amounts of radiation going into and coming out of a chunk of metal/plastic/fiberglass WOULD result in heat generation . . . but I'm impressed if that is ever enough to be of any significance.

I also don't know if this tweak the mod allows in the configs (the range stacking for omnis) is in anyway realistic or not, and would be interested to hear anyone who knows more comment on that point.

[SilverlightPony]

4 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

I also don't know if this tweak the mod allows in the configs (the range stacking for omnis) is in anyway realistic or not, and would be interested to hear anyone who knows more comment on that point.

Well, I know that truckers sometimes use a dual co-phased antenna setup for their CBs to increase the transmission range in specific directions.  Two identical antennas with identical connecting cables are mounted parallel to each other approximately 1/4 wavelength apart—about 9' for 27MHz CB radio, usually on either side of the cab, mounted vertically; the interaction between them reduces range to the sides, but increases range forward and aft.  Some quick research shows that it can slightly negatively impact the rig's ability to receive, though.

However, CB radios are entirely analog as far as the actual transmitted signals go.  The addition of some digital signal processing can allow an array of multiple antennas (even that aren't set up in a co-phase configuration like above) to act as a single larger antenna.  Take the VLA radio telescope facility in New Mexico for instance; those are dishes rather than omnis, but I'd think with the right processing programming a similar thing could be done with omnis.

[przybysz86]

it does not matter as with anything that emits waves you can, with proper placement, amplify signal in some directions. They will no longer be "omni" but frankly even "real omni" antenna is not. Based on nearby metal planes you can attenuate signal in some directions and amplify it in others. Putting more than one antennas will also add to that - signal in some directions would be amplified while other can cancel out totally.
It's too complex to be easily simulated in games like KSP, we do not even have proper directional antennas now that have to be exactly directed toward the source - this is more of a concern in small probes without RCS than antenna heat.

[Siege]

9 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

Do antenna actually generate heat? I had a look at that article you linked to and . . . well, a fairly quick skim didn't reveal anything about "antenna heat generation." Can you refer to a specific point in the article?

Given the article is about a probe that is intended to go as close as possible to the sun, It makes sense that HEAT is a major consideration, but I didn't see where heat FROM the antennae was the issue

I am a social/biological scientist so my skepticism is merely a reflection of "innocence" on the topic, not of an informed counter position. I can understand how high amounts of radiation going into and coming out of a chunk of metal/plastic/fiberglass WOULD result in heat generation . . . but I'm impressed if that is ever enough to be of any significance.

I also don't know if this tweak the mod allows in the configs (the range stacking for omnis) is in anyway realistic or not, and would be interested to hear anyone who knows more comment on that point.

Actually, the more I look into it, it seems the larger concern (unless you have a great deal of impedance, or are trying to transmit huge wattages on a small antenna, or have a large dipole array or the like buried or semi-buried in the ground, which is a resistor) is less the heating of an antenna, but rather the antenna's emissions causing heating in dielectrics nearby them.

So it's not actually that they get hot themselves, but rather can induce heating in their nearby environment - depending on frequency, metals and liquids would be the prime targets. Dishes would be largely excluded (except for that note in the prior article about solar probes, and the dish reflecting heat at other parts of the spacecraft), but rather, omni-antennas radiating huge wattages and similar could heat up materials nearby. 

However, at this level, while I suppose it wouldn't be all *that* hard to simulate, I suppose it would be probably too minor in the long run to be a consideration for the RT maintainers to want to bother with... that said, maybe I'll see about brewing it up for myself, and if I can figure that much out on my own, well, we'll see.

[przybysz86]

8 hours ago, Siege said:

 is less the heating of an antenna, but rather the antenna's emissions causing heating in dielectrics nearby them.

that makes much more sense - omni antenna emits energy roughly spherically (good enough simplification) and you can calculate how much will return just by calculating angular ratio between your ship and whole sphere (forgive my English but I think you will get the idea).
Then you have to check how many of that would be reflected, etc but it's not unlike the calculations done for IR radiation from Sun, etc