Jump to content

[Video] I'm Scott Manley and These Are My Kerbal Space Program Videos

illectro

By illectro
in KSP Fan Works

 Share

Recommended Posts

illectro

illectro

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The most popular youtubers for a certain game don\'t come in contact more often with the forum communities as they should! Whats up with that? :D

I\'ve been here for a while, It\'s just that most people didn\'t know my real name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tim_Barrett

Tim_Barrett

Posted
Posted

I\'ve been here for a while, It\'s just that most people didn\'t know my real name.

I know, it was just surprising to me because your name rung a bell before realizing what the video was. Still, in general that seems to be the case with all games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kizarvexis

Kizarvexis

Posted
Posted

Jeb goes for the rematch, and Bob, feeling cocky, triples his bet and promises to polish Jebs medal collection if Jeb can EVA to the surface of Minmus from orbit, and, return to the capsule.

I love the RBM, Regolith Braking Maneuver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
illectro

illectro

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I got a bunch of armchair rocket scientists telling me how to build better unmanned rockets, and I felt compelled to make this video to address a specific comment that people made which illustrates a common misunderstanding in rocket dynamics:

The Pendulum Rocket Fallacy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr_Orion

Mr_Orion

Posted
Posted

4 Parts on Developing completley unmanned, fire & forget rockets, attempting to go for maximum range

I think the reason that the spin-stabilized rockets tipped over so quickly was that the extra fuel tank on top caused it to tip over quicker due to it making the rocket top-heavy. Every rocket launch so far then had started slightly tipping, and I think that the extra fuel tank simply amplified how quickly this happened. I may be wrong here, though, as in my experience it may just be a lack of control meaning I cannot get my rockets back upright and negate the momentum!

Also, you had an issue with the thrust of rockets hitting a decoupler; I think that if you had flipped the decoupler 180 degrees, it would\'ve stuck to the command pod instead and leaving the rocket free to go up.

Also, your explanation of the pendulum rocket fallacy is really quite inaccurate. It\'s nothing to do with gravity; it\'s all to do with where the thrust is coming from. No matter how high or low the thrust is, it\'s always coming from the same thrust vector as long as you don\'t can\'t where it is horizontally. You seemed to think it was actually due to gravity working equally on each part (in itself also an accuracy, as since every object no matter it\'s mass accelerates the same amount more force must be working on objects with more mass).

If we bypass that to what I assume you meant, gravity is still completely irrelevant. It\'s just to do with how the thrust is coming from the same vector. You must\'ve missed your first few classes on astrophysics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
illectro

illectro

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Also, you had an issue with the thrust of rockets hitting a decoupler; I think that if you had flipped the decoupler 180 degrees, it would\'ve stuck to the command pod instead and leaving the rocket free to go up.

OK. I knew that already, it was staged that way to illustrate the evolution to spin stabilizing vehicles using rocket thrust, which required that I place the rockets away fro the axis.

Also, your explanation of the pendulum rocket fallacy is really quite inaccurate. It\'s nothing to do with gravity; it\'s all to do with where the thrust is coming from. No matter how high or low the thrust is, it\'s always coming from the same thrust vector as long as you don\'t can\'t where it is horizontally. You seemed to think it was actually due to gravity working equally on each part (in itself also an accuracy, as since every object no matter it\'s mass accelerates the same amount more force must be working on objects with more mass).

If we bypass that to what I assume you meant, gravity is still completely irrelevant. It\'s just to do with how the thrust is coming from the same vector. You must\'ve missed your first few classes on astrophysics!

Wow! I don\'t get it, you just took what I explained in my video, re-explained it and then said I\'m wrong, yes my whole point was that the perceived action of gravity is completely irrelevant. Indeed, it\'s also irrelevant in the case of the extra fuel tank on the front of my my spin stabilized rockets that you mention, please did you actually watch the video in question. (I think you must\'ve missed your first few classes on English! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vanamonde

Vanamonde

Posted
Posted

In that last one, the big gyrostabilized rocket, I\'m curious as to why the rotation accelerated to a point and then settled to a constant rate. Without another force acting on it, shouldn\'t it just have kept spinning faster until it threw itself apart? After it runs out of fuel, the rotation does seem to slow, as if there is indeed some force counter-acting the rotation. What could be doing that?

As for a pendulum rocket, I get why gravity wouldn\'t stabilize it, but under acceleration shouldn\'t the trailing mass always be resisting deviations? It wouldn\'t actually be stable, but wouldn\'t it be more stable than a pusher rocket, in which getting out of balance ahead of the thrust would magnify the deviation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
illectro

illectro

Posted
  • Author
Posted

In that last one, the big gyrostabilized rocket, I\'m curious as to why the rotation accelerated to a point and then settled to a constant rate. Without another force acting on it, shouldn\'t it just have kept spinning faster until it threw itself apart? After it runs out of fuel, the rotation does seem to slow, as if there is indeed some force counter-acting the rotation. What could be doing that?

I suspect this is an artifact of inaccuracies in the physics engine. You\'re absolutely right, once that reached the vacuum of space nothing should have slowed its rotation until it flew apart.

As for a pendulum rocket, I get why gravity wouldn\'t stabilize it, but under acceleration shouldn\'t the trailing mass always be resisting deviations? It wouldn\'t actually be stable, but wouldn\'t it be more stable than a pusher rocket, in which getting out of balance ahead of the thrust would magnify the deviation?

Heh, this is why the pendulum fallacy is so persuasive, again, go back and remove gravity from the equation and you realise that the only force, the rocket, is directly coupled to the rotation of the rocket, with a perfectly aligned rocket motor there is no torque and the rocket rotates at the same rate regardless of whether the engine is firing or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JanoFett

JanoFett

Posted
Posted

Scott, your videos are great. My wife loves when I play them when she\'s in the room because she LOVES Scotland and thus, your accent. Anyway, after realizing that my previous .16 Munar missions probably wouldn\'t have been successful without the fuel consumption bug, I\'ve been trying to design Munar rockets that will get there and back on full throttle. Seeing you do the delta-v calculations has been a big help. Keep the videos coming!

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...