## Recommended Posts

Hey guys with the equations , NO! THAT IS NOT THE KERBAL WAY..strap on boosters and blast off to the target is the kerbal way..

##### Share on other sites
According to this data my rocket has enough fuel to make it to Duna with extra fuel!

My Wanderlust interplanetary (flyby) craft is just as good, yay!

##### Share on other sites
Were you the one who came up with the "get into parking orbit, wait for the mun to rise over the horizon, then burn" method? That was the best trick ever!

Hah, no! That's a great way to eyeball the angle, sure as sure, but no, that's not the way I go about it. I'm the blogger that's been doing intercept stuff: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/blog.php/6794-nivvydaskrl

-Would you mind sharing the formula you use?
-I'v got used to this formula, its not the best... I'v picked it up somewhere a long time ago.. Modified it a bit..

-Looks nicer on paper with roots and fractions, rather than a linear formula..

X= Target Orbit

Y= Parking Orbit

R= Orbiting body Radius

|{|Square root|(X+r)^3]/Square root|(X+Y+2r)^3|}*180-180|=

-It looks intimidating first glance, but its basically two orbital period formulas

(one being your target, other the excentirc transfer orbit)..

-Divided by each other to get the relative periods..

(when one dose a full revolution the other one dose x % of that..)..

-Multiplied by the 180 and subtract by 180..

(to get the burn angle)..

Simple as that..

Ah, see, I go about it in a very similar way; the orbital period equations are, hands-down, the most important navigational tool aside from the map that I can recommend. Mine's slapped down into a spreadsheet...but, you know, someday I should write a little white paper and post it for people; these equations would look very good in LaTeX. However, I'll share my equations here:

So, the way that would look in map view is:

Hey guys with the equations , NO! THAT IS NOT THE KERBAL WAY..strap on boosters and blast off to the target is the kerbal way..

Everyone plays the game their own way! Besides, interplanetary transfers are like trying to hit a peanut in London with a BB gun...while you're in Paris. It's very finicky!

##### Share on other sites

Considering that I have unlimited time, no life support to worry about, and lots of time acceleration, I'm not really too worried about nailing the SOI when I get there. If I completely miss, once I am on approximately the same orbit I can keep my period shorter to catch up. That's basically the hassle free method. Obviously if they ever do implement life support I will need to be more precise.

Edited by VincentLaw

##### Share on other sites

They are in fact the same/more less.. I use relative distances for my insertion calculations because i need jut the angle...

While you use the whole equation with 2Pi and the Gravitational Constants of the orbiting body..

I just noticed how i could approximate gravity of the target body, without consulting the wiki..

Time to test it on Kerbal..

Thx for sharing and Keep up the good work..

##### Share on other sites
i am 13 i understand alpha minecraft whould of been 1000x worse if it did not have its alpha and beta versions

Again, Im sure Nutt doesnt mean that ALL 12 year olds are whiny people. Many adults are immature idiots as well. But it usually is more common in the younger audiences.

Also, where was that interplantary calculator that showed you what angles and speed to leave planets to get to your destination?

##### Share on other sites

Yeah guys, don't worry about Nutt007, he is opinionated, just as many supposedly mature adults can be too

Stay on topic now yeah?

##### Share on other sites

Ok guys, just thought of something

TRACTOR BEAMS!!! Anyone? huh huh

##### Share on other sites
Ok guys, just thought of something

TRACTOR BEAMS!!! Anyone? huh huh

yea because that's totally realistic

##### Share on other sites
Ruler in hand, Excel 2007 open, I assaulted Nova's picture. The orbits will be off, I just went horizontally across the sun. KU is Kerbal's SOI unit.

Okay, using those for mass figures.

Moho 3.38e22 kg (0.64 Kerbins)

Eve 1.14e23 kg (2.16 Kerbins)

Duna 4.56e21 kg (0.086 Kerbins) Mars-like.

Jool 4.41e24 kg (83 Kerbins) Saturn-like.

Also, the scaled distances are quite close to those of Mercury/Venus/Earth/Mars/Jupiter in the real world. Hm...

Hey guys with the equations , NO! THAT IS NOT THE KERBAL WAY..strap on boosters and blast off to the target is the kerbal way..
I'm really more of a Bill than a Bob or a Jebediah...

edit:

UmbralRaptor, is this correct, Duna is 0.1 Kerbins, but Moho is 0.46 Kerbins?
That's what I got. Because I'm using an equation with mass proportional to (semi-major axis)^-2.5, small errors in distance get multiplied by a fair amount, though. (See the differences between these numbers and the previous ones. Also, none of these are definitive.) Edited by UmbralRaptor

##### Share on other sites
yea because that's totally realistic

Tractor beams, are indeed already possible.

##### Share on other sites

What happen this time with the thread. i leave the forum for 2 days and the old ksp 0.17 gets shut down. Really }

And yes moho is add to the map now we just have to wait for what it looks like

Edited by Navy4422
edit your posts instead of double posting

##### Share on other sites
Also, where was that interplantary calculator that showed you what angles and speed to leave planets to get to your destination?

You mean this on: http://ksp.olex.biz/

I don't think the values are the real ones yet, but it will be a very useful tool when updated.

##### Share on other sites
Tractor beams, are indeed already possible.

How about a robotic arm like the one on the ISS, you can use it to bring in vessels for docking. Or you can attach it to a vessel for grabbing debris in space.

##### Share on other sites
You mean this on: http://ksp.olex.biz/

I don't think the values are the real ones yet, but it will be a very useful tool when updated.

Correct. The values in there are pure guesswork now, I guess I'll update it with the data you guys worked out from Nova's picture As soon as 0.17 is out I'll get the correct data in there.

Eclipsey! . .

##### Share on other sites

Evil Magiks!

You made the sun disappear.

We need to sacrifice more Kermans to the Sun God!

##### Share on other sites

Oh my god. If only there were shadows for the planets...if only.

##### Share on other sites
Ok guys, just thought of something

TRACTOR BEAMS!!! Anyone? huh huh

-Is it just visual, or dose it change the environment lighting?

-Keep up the good work..

Edited by Atimed

##### Share on other sites

Getting back to NERVA engines and thrust to weight ratio: its not true that NTR (NuclearThermalRocket) engines had TWR less than 1 or they had really low thrust - NTR had TWR of ~4-6.

This mean that this engine could lift (but go very slow or none, so for serious acceleration payload should be lighter) 4-6 times more payload than engine weight...

it seems to be not bad, but chemical rocket engines had average TWR between 60-80 to 1, for example Saturn V F-1 engine had TWR of 91 and new SpaceX merlin 1D engine had record TWR of 160 to 1 (this mean that falcon 9 rocket engine can held (not lift) 160 times heavier payload than it's own mass !!!), so NTR engines aren't very weak (little worse TWR than Concorde aircraft engines) but they can't compete with chemical rocket engines in this field (thrust).

Btw, stock engines in KSP aren't had good Trust to weight ratio either, so difference between them could be smaller .

Edited by karolus10

##### Share on other sites
Getting back to NERVA engines and thrust to weight ratio: its not true that NTR (NuclearThermalRocket) engines had TWR less than 1 or they had really low thrust - NTR had TWR of ~4-6, this mean that this engine could lift (but go very slow or none, so for serious acceleration payload should be lighter) 4-6 times more payload than engine weight... it seems not bad (stock engines aren't pretty better), but chemical rocket engines had average TWR between 60-80 to 1, for example Saturn V F-1 engine had TWR of 91 and new SpaceX merlin 1D engine had TWR of 160 to 1 (this mean that falcon 9 rocket engine can held 160 times heavier payload than it's own mass !!!), so NTR engines aren't very weak (little worse TWR than Concorde aircraft engines) but they can't compete with chemical rocket engines in this field (thrust).

Btw, stock engines in KSP aren't had good Trust to weight ratio either, so difference between them could be smaller .

True we should compete to realistic engines and crafts, even if little green jelly Kerbals are flying on ICBMS..

But things should be fun, and be changing.. If you ask me Hard as hell...

One thing I hope that they make NERVA engines, Heavy, Prone Overheating and Powerful..

Compared to LV-Ts.. 50%-80% more Thrust..

I'v tried to emulate them by some basic .cfg edits.. and if u use the 800 IPS you can do wonders with just one tank..

A 1m engine around 6t, thrust 300 and ISP~600 would be perfect for my rocket(s)..

Edited by Atimed

##### Share on other sites

Okay, because everyone is freaking out about it, here are the stats for the NTR:

The TWR is greater than 1 for moderate payloads, enough that I was able to use 3 engines mounted radially as a Mun landing vehicle:

This single vehicle was able to perform TMI, MOI, Landing, takeoff, and return, and probably could have re-inserted itself into Kerbin orbit as I still had the small radial tanks available.

##### Share on other sites
Okay, because everyone is freaking out about it, here are the stats for the NTR:

Thx for the info..

Now i know what to work with.. And my it looks nice with the warning on ti..

Are there mushroom clouds when we crash it?? well don't answer it, i'll find out soon enough..

##### Share on other sites
Thx for the info..

Now i know what to work with.. And my it looks nice with the warning on ti..

Are there mushroom clouds when we crash it?? well don't answer it, i'll find out soon enough..

set the nuclear engine's explosive potential to 10000 for planet-wide nuclear winter

Edited by royalkingofgames