GoSlash27

foamyesque, I found an old chart where somebody had calculated the DVs for these scenarios, and you're correct in the assertion that transferring Minmus -> Kerbin -> Duna is actually cheaper than Mun->Duna. This chart has it 306 m/sec your way and 414 m/sec my way. As for the rest of it, I prefer using the Mun for close planets because the transfer windows are easier to plan and I don't have a moon in my way to potentially wreck things, but YMMV. The fact that it takes more DV to get to LMO than Duna isn't a concern so long as you plan on a return trip. A ship that can get from LKO to LMO can also get from LMO to Ike and back or LMO to Gilly and back. But you're right about Minmus being cheaper. Best, -Slashy

foamyesque, 1) You don't necessarily have to bring the fuel from Kerbin, since you can ISRU, but 2) even if you *do* bring the fuel from Kerbin it's still worth doing because it allows you to use a smaller and cheaper ship for the Duna trip. Best, -Slashy

badjass, The super efficient way to do it is by refueling in low Munar orbit and then proceeding directly to Duna from there. Don't dive down to Kerbin, just go straight to Duna. I've done the math on it, and Duna is actually "closer" (in DV terms) to low Munar orbit than the Munar surface is. *edit* Just reran the numbers. 467 m/sec DV from low Munar orbit to Duna. Best, -Slashy

Tater, Well sure ya can. It's not so impossible for "anyone" to suspend their disbelief, just you. People have been making scientifically inaccurate sci-fi since the beginning. It doesn't get in the way of the story for most people. Besides, what's the deal with you trying to dissuade him from having space navies, fighters, etc if that's what he wants? It's his story. He could do "star galleons of the Sirius main" if he chooses. Why not help him instead of dumping all over his vision? Best, -Slashy

tater, I'd argue that such that such things don't already work. We don't currently have directed energy weapons powerful enough to knock down airplanes or sink ships. What we do have is way too heavy and unwieldy to employ as a practical weapon. That's why we use cannons. Invoking the "dumb weapon" maguffin, allows the story to proceed while sidestepping these problems. All directed energy weapons fire at a slow enough velocity to be dodged, which is why volume of fire is important. Small cannons cause sufficient damage to small targets, and enormous cannons cause sufficient damage to large targets. Best, -Slashy

Well, he could invoke a maguffin concept like a "vortex cannon" to slow the fire down. Let's say the energy and equipment required to generate a sufficiently- powerful laser beam is impractically large. They instead use a technology that directs the energy into a toroid to make a more powerful shot. The downside is that the shot travels at a much lower speed. ^ Something like this, but with photons instead of air. Best, -Slashy

Yeah, the old Kirov class battlecruisers. Adm. Gorshkov certainly loved his cruise missiles... Best, -Slashy

Actually, thinking about it... you've got a point here. 1) your opinion has no bearing on this conversation, 2) your opinion has no bearing in the real world either since nobody's considering doing anything so silly as what you propose. 3) Your opinion is uninformed because you haven't studied naval history and doctrine. I don't know why I've bothered arguing with you about it. Seems a pretty pointless exercise. Carry on, -Slashy

Cassell, You will never see a battle between a carrier air group and a flotilla of heavy aviation cruisers because nobody is silly enough to deploy a flotilla of heavy aviation cruisers as a task force. Therefore your opinion will (thankfully) never be proven wrong. Best, -Slashy

That weird corkscrew in the contrail and the instability of the tracking camera... I thought they lost the vehicle for a moment there. That'd make way more sense than using the dead ones -Slashy

I gather they use those to power the pumps? Best, -Slashy

Very cool! I always just assumed they went out there, latched something to them, and dragged 'em back. There's a lot more to it than that. Best, -Slashy

Well, *scientifically* speaking, everyone who knows anything about naval warfare disagrees with you. Wouldn't work out well at all which is why it's not done that way. A flotilla of Kiev class aviation cruisers would have it's head handed to it by a proper carrier battle group. Naval combat does not lend itself to standardization. Each type of ship has unique combat roles, and it's armament and size are optimized to it's role. Best, -Slashy

Cassel, Fair enough, but it's not for you. It's Jhorriga's universe and he wants space fighters. Best, -Slashy And again, I agree with DDE; you really don't want to use a giant all- purpose ship in fleet maneuvers. There are too many conflicting mission requirements and a super- ship is bad at all of them. Imagine taking an entire carrier task force and welding them into a single giant ship. You'd wind up with a behemoth that can't do the job of any of the ships that comprise it. If you put it into combat against another carrier task force, it will be destroyed in short order.

I'm with DDE. I don't believe the OP was looking for reasons why he shouldn't create a supercarrier in his fictional universe or reasons why somebody else's fictional universe might be better. He has the ability to build in any maguffins necessary to make supercarriers valuable. Therefore I'm sticking to the very narrow interpretation of what a spacegoing supercarrier would be like. Best, -Slashy

I never heard back, so I'll assume that we're talking about "how to calculate an interplanetary burn". The DV at each end accounts for two necessities: 1) Escaping Planet A's sphere of influence and 2) Transferring from Planet A's orbit about the sun to an elliptical orbit that intersects Planet B's orbital radius. Step 1) is easy, assuming you are in a circular orbit to begin with. Multiplying your starting orbital velocity by "sqrt(2)" yields the velocity necessary to reach SoI edge. We'll call this value Escape V. Step 2) is simply a vis-viva. The first burn of a Hohmann; Excess DV. Your two values (Excess DV and escape V) are vector added Pythagorean- style sqrt(escape2+excess2) and then you get to subtract the orbital velocity you started with. Yay Oberth! That's pretty much it. You can account for eccentricity of either part by adding or subtracting DV to compensate for the difference between that and a perfectly circular orbit, but I don't do that because I'm lazy The capture burn at the other end is calculated in exactly the same way as you would calculate a transfer burn coming home. The only additional step is calculating what your orbital velocity would be at your desired capture orbit. HTHs, -Slashy

Cassel, No, no cuts. Just a temporary cessation of activity until Congress and the WH reach a budget agreement. Best, -Slashy

Poll is go

Spudmeist3r, There's a lot of politics involved, but what it boils down to is SLS is getting more funding and having it's early mission schedule reshuffled. It will now focus more on low lunar orbit and the DSG proposal. Asteroid redirect and lagrange points have been cancelled. Best, -Slashy

Steuben, Are you talking about interplanetary burns? If so, I can explain the math. It's not actually that hard. Best, -Slashy steuben, Not actually. Those values are calculated based on perfectly circular planetary orbits (thus giving a mean excess velocity) and then rounding to the nearest 10 m/sec. They also assume that the ship is in low orbit for the burn. Nevermind and apologies. I think I just misunderstood what you were trying to say. Best, -Slashy

Oh there is. If you doubt me, go look for yourself

Nibb31, You're not wrong But this thread is about fantasy. Best, -Slashy

Nibb31, Science fiction is about people. You can't make a good story with a ship full of robots. At least not unless they're sentient. Best, -Slashy

PakledHostage, The rocket scientists did an amazing job with the Shuttle, but they're not the ones who created the problems. It was the politicians and administrators who dictated the mission and layout. And to be clear, this isn't about being sanctimonious. We all have the benefit of hindsight. It's just being honest about the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Best, -Slashy

Cassel, you do if what you're repairing isn't in a pressurized hangar. That's why you need one. And not a little one, either. Each tactical spacecraft requires a lot of maintenance hours to stay mission-capable, and if you can't service a large number of craft simultaneously your entire flight schedule would soon grind to a halt. Best, -Slashy