GoSlash27

Meyerweb, I was thinking about it today at work, and realized that the end user wouldn't actually have to manually select the option at all. For any seeder/ final arrangement, the SMA of the final orbit is related to the seeder's "peak" radius (which would be Ap or Pe) by the following relationship: Final orbit SMA * Cr = Seeder radius (Pe if smaller, Ap if larger) Cr = 2*(seeder period/final period)2/3-1 Your webapp could simply check to see if Cr is greater or less than 1 and flag the output as seeder Ap or Pe, respectively. This would work fine for the case where final desired SMA is is known. For the other case where the seeder peak is known, you can flip the equation to seeder radius/Cr = final SMA So for example, say you want a 7/6 relationship between the seeder and final orbit. You want the final orbit's SMA to be 700,217m Cr = 2*(7/6)2/3-1= 1.2164666. Since it's >1, the app knows that the output is seeder Ap. 700,217*Cr= 851,791m If, OTOH, you want a 7/15 seeder/final resonance for a final KSO orbit, it would be Cr= 2*(7/15)2/3-1 = 0.2032832. Since this is <1, the app knows it's seeder Pe. 3,463,334m* Cr = 704,038m HTHs, -Slashy

To place a sat into KSO directly overhead KSC in a stock game: Launch the sat into LKO of 100,217m. Using a seeker on KSC grounds, track the passage of the sat overhead and mark the time. Fire for KSO injection exactly 26 minutes 23 seconds after passage. Circularize at 2,863,334m. Best, -Slashy

Not in stock career, no. Personally, I think is *should* be easier to do unmanned probes at the beginning. As it stands now, it's possible to put a Kerbal in orbit and recover him safely before you even have a probe core. Best, -Slashy

Just so happens we had a very interesting discussion about this problem just last year. I was afraid that it would be hard to track down, but this is it. The result is there is a definite function that correlates a plane change with the amount the Ap should be raised in order to minimize DV. HTHs, -Slashy

For real... all of this discussion is moot for folks who don't have KER or care to set their altitude using the cheat menu. Carrying the accuracy to jillions of decimal points is good for a theoretical exercise, but in reality they only know G to 6 digits, so any computations past that accuracy are statistically noisy. And in reality, we are only able to see our altitude to the nearest meter, Personally, I don't mind if the sat drifts a few degrees per year. It's a pretty simple matter to do a correction burn every now and then. Best, -Slashy

Oh, another scenario where the seeder periapsis may be below the final orbit: Sending a mothership/ lander combo to a planet where it's going to set up it's own constellation, then circ at low orbit to conduct landings. The low DV way to do this is with the feeder orbit below the final orbit for the constellation, preferably with the Pe at low orbit altitude, or close to it. This way the mothership doesn't incur a DV penalty on the way. Best, -Slashy

Did they find them scattered among the wreckage of their spy drone?

Go Falcons! /PatriotsCheat

meyerweb, Yeah, I'm thinking specifically about the situation around Kerbin. For example, a 2/3 seeder/ final arrangement would require a much smaller booster than a 4/3. As an added bonus, the bus is easier to deorbit at the end. That'd be the latter; a 3 sat formation. In some cases, I have found that this "staggered" arrangement allows for more flexibility and a cheaper launch in exchange for a longer insertion procedure. You may not be able to execute a 2/3 pattern due to the Pe being atmospheric (or subterranean), but you can still do a 5/6 and just pop off a sat every other pass. Likewise, a 4/3 arrangement may not work because the Ap is outside the SoI, but a 7/6 does. For other bodies, it always pays to seed from a higher Ap because 1) That's the direction you're coming from and 2) (N+1)/N > N/(N-1). HTHs, -Slashy

BentRim, I believe so. Best, -Slashy

BentRim, IIRC, you go back to your original post and edit it. It will give you the option to set it to "answered". Best, -Slashy

BentRim, Congratulations! Another satisfied customer I think you can set this one to "answered". Best, -Slashy For future reference, When designing a capsule for reentry, you want the CoM as close to the bottom as possible. If it's closer to the front than the back, it's certain to want to flip during reentry. If you're unsure whether it'll flip or not, run an unmanned test from LKO to "certify" it. If it doesn't flip on that reentry, it'll remain stable during faster ones. Best, -Slashy

BentRim, That's for disabling fuel flow from them. Good luck on the reentry! Best, -Slashy

I agree with @AeroGav. Keep the engine and tanks during reentry. Pump all the fuel into the lowest tank. This will allow you to use the engine as a heat shield and will be aerodynamically stable backwards. Once you're subsonic, ditch the stack and deploy the chute. Best, -Slashy

HylnkaCG, "Caveman"= "In accordance with the rules of the Caveman Challenge". Best, -Slashy

meyerweb, I'm sure that this will come in handy for the community. Thanks for sharing! A couple points to add: -There is more than one way to seed a resonant orbit. In addition to having the Ap above the final orbit, there is also the option of having the Pe below it. This approach often requires less DV in the launch bus, but both approaches must be checked. -There is also the possibility that your starting Pe is a fixed value (such as Kerbin's SMA about the sun) and you need to find the Ap (and thus SMA) that will yield a resonance. Or vice-versa... for example: -Semi- resonant orbits are also an option, where the seeder orbit isn't 2/3 or 4/3, but rather 5/6 or 7/6 (releasing a sat every alternate pass). These arrangements, while taking more time to complete, can also result in substantial DV savings. Just food for thought if you wish to expand the flexibility of your webapp. I took the lazy way out (like always) and made mine a spreadsheet. Best, -Slashy

HlynkaCG, In all honesty, it actually takes very little tech to mount a successful expedition to Duna. In fact, it's technically *easier* to do this than it is to go to the Mun. So in all honesty it doesn't really matter if you unlock all of the tech or not prior to sending an interplanetary expedition. What I'm trying to do right now is use the same motherships I employed for my Mun and Minmus expeditions to conduct my Ike and Gilly expeditions as well. I know that playing Caveman on "hard" mode is ridiculously grindy, but it can be done. Best, -Slashy

Nathair, In my case, I do worry about it early on. I like to get through my biomes in an orderly and efficient manner. On the return trip, however... I don't really care where the capsule comes down. Best, -Slashy

I'm on the Falcons bandwagon today. New England cheats. Best, -Slashy

Take a look at how we achieved stable KSO directly overhead KSC in challenge #1. Best, -Slashy

I agree with Enceos; difficulty settings only change the grindiness. Here's the way I'm doing it to keep it interesting: 1) Open your career caveman- style. 2) Build up your roster and facilities 3) Scour the Mun and Minmus for science 4) Try to get all of this done before the first window to Duna (Day 236) without killing any Kerbals. Or even better, Eve (Day 197). If you want to make it especially taxing, disable reverts. Best, -Slashy

Nathanair, I do precision landings all the time in stock. It's just a matter of technique. Best, -Slashy

@bewing is correct; it's because the pressure center is ahead of the CoM. In addition to the CoM being slightly ahead of the CoL, both should be near the longitudinal center of the aircraft. Best, -Slashy

... perhaps with the introduction of the HECS. Players should be able to map out the Munar (or Minmus) biomes when they've progressed to the point in the tech tree where they're ready to launch without resorting to outside sources for the info. As it stands now, players are forced to either land blind in their first few missions or refer to the wiki. Best, -Slashy

^ Aaand here's where it starts to go political. @W. Kerman Not that I'm blaming you, @HalcyonSon. Valuation of currency is a subject that's impossible to separate from politics. -Slashy