Rakaydos

As someone who did literally dozens of caveman dockings for my own project, I winced. Reccomend enough relative velocity to get a navball relative velocity marker, then use it to correct your course on the way in. If you get too much speed at docking and bounce, tap and shut off the throttle while still in magnet range to stay in contact. Nothing's going to break unless you're going over 5m/s, which you shouldnt be, so you dont need to be quite so gentle when you have plenty of rendevus fuel.

Not that far off. The last known plan was 2023 lunar tourisim, 2024-2027 mars gas station construction

Dont forget part 2:

It's been ages since I booted up the game, but I might. LKO Rendevus is something I got plenty of practice in back then, lets hope it's like a bicycle.

Damn, I completely missed the setup for this challange. Several releases back I made a caveman kerbin orbit-> tylo lander (internal kerbal/no ladder)->kerbin return that should have been able to make it, DV wise, but I did not have the skill to fly it.

Agreed.

Verbally, which was how Deep thought conveyed the message, 0042 and 42 are identical. The zeros are silent.

The ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, AS POSED TO A COMPUTER, is 0042. Or the symbol *, in ASCII. What does a computer mean by that symbol? It's a placeholder- somewhere between "try everything, we'll sort out the right answer later" and "whatever you want it to be"

are those legs? Or are those the orbital refueling feeds?

You're REALLY having problems with this "synchronicity" concept when it comes to deconflicting orbits. A chinook helicopter has two sets of rotors which overlap. (yes, they're different heights, but we'll assume we're talking on startup, when the blades flex downward due to gravity) Clearly this is a severe design flaw that calls for grounding every helicopter ever! Except... they don't. Because the two rotors will never come into conflict, because they are synchronized so as to never come into conflict. The same applies to orbits. Two objects can have their orbits intersect twice, but be synchronized that whenever one is crossing the point of potential collision, the other is on the entire opposite side of the planet. And vice versa when the other one reaches an intersect point. This requires a bit of orbital maintenance, and that's OK and planned for. This is normal for satellite operations, nit the end of the world as we know it.

Citation, please.

But they arnt static objects. Hence my comment about negative feedback loops. Any deviation from synchronicity is corrected. Likewise, anytime the chance of collision between two satelites will be greater than 1 in 10,000, ESA's standard is to correct to avoid any collision. There's no "combinarial explosion", because the maneuvers are too minor to affect anything except the two satellites directly involved.

If we're assuming Starlink is a point, why are we assuming other objects are not a point?

Zero is a singularity. Once you plug one in, most calculations return 0. What's the probability of an object of zero size (your words) colliding with another object? Zero. Done. As for starlink colliding with another starlink, have you heard the term Negative Feedback Loop?

The probability of one starlink colliding with another starlink satelite (after initial tumble deployment, that doesnt count) is zero. They are all operated by the same operator, are in constant communication with each other, and a synchronized to never occupy the same space at the same time. The probability of something else colliding with starlink depends on it not being in the space debris database, so spaceX cant automatically evade it, unable to evade on it's own, AND hitting a 3m by 9m by 20cm target in an average of thousands of square KM, not even regarding cubic volume. All this was already covered in other posts, if you bothered to read them.

Fine. Lets start with... what are you trying to calculate? (Because that's how nonsensical your "calculation" was, that the entire premise is obfuscated)

[Snip] There's inclinations. They make it EASY to dodge other satelites.

with how out of touch with reality Kerboiloid seems to be, I really wanted to drive the point home.

Then you are blind. Let me go over this again, one more time. The circumference of the earth is over 40,000 km. We'll use this as an approximation of the hoop of our orbital path, which is even longer, because it's not at earth's surface. Lets assume all 12,000 sats are in the same orbit. They arnt, but lets assume they are, just to show how ridiculus your claim is. The sats all fit in a city bus-sized fairing. Lets be generous and call each satelite 3m by 1.5m. The solar panel folds out in the short direction about 5 times, so lets call the whole sat 3mx9m So we've got 12,000 satelites in 40,000 km. That's 3 satelites every 10 km, or about a sat every 2 miles. Each sat is nowhere near 2 miles long. To bring back the traffic analogy, there's plentry of room to merge with the freeway traffic.

Clearly you didn't actually read the comment you were replying to. Nor do you have any sense of scale if you think even 12,000 sats in a single orbit "fill the plane."

The emails that were caught in the spaceX spam folder, and still avoided the collision.

... They -did- do it in this case. ...next question.

What's unpredicatable about a 1m/s course change after a week of discussion over email?

It's not hard- the only reason it was newsworthy was because the ESA's email ended up in the SpaceX spam folder, and proper synchronization will mean it will never happen again. But, you know, ALSO upgrading the network while they're replacing it. Not relying on 30 year old tech that absolutely cannot afford to fail with 30 years of operation without maintenance, the way our current sats work. But you're right, it's a bit expensive for the Falcon 9 fleet to maintain. Better upgrade to Starship!

Yes. The ESA dodged one of their sats, like we have been saying. Whats so hard to understand about this?