GoSlash27

Well.. it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've misunderstood a question. The way I read his question, tho'... it actually does, especially if he's looking for efficiency. Best, -Slashy

I've wondered about the "optimal plane change problem" for a while, but never took a serious look at it. I took a stab at it this morning and came up with a surprising result (at least to me): It isn't worth leaving low Kerbin orbit for inclination changes less than 53.8°, but changes 53.8° or more are most efficient by running all the way up to the SoI. There doesn't seem to be any point where it is most efficient to raise apoapsis to any less than the SoI. What I did was look for the "break-even point", where raising the Ap, doing the plane change, and retroburning back down costs the same as doing the inclination change at low level. 2DVprograde+DVrad/degree hi = DVrad/degree low I simplified the math a bit. DVrad/degree would normally be "2Vsin(theta/2)", but I cheated and called it "thetaV/60". Reorganizing the equation, I was able to find close approximations of the cutoff point by %orbital velocity prograde". Rather than finding a progressive function, I found a plateau where the global minima were low orbit and SoI. I haven't had much coffee this morning, so I'm interested in seeing how I've screwed it up Assuming I *haven't* screwed this up, my answer would be to raise my apoapsis all the way out to the SoI, perform my inclination change and periapsis increase, then circularize at the new periapsis. I wouldn't do *any" of the inclination change at r1 or r2. Best, -Slashy

Raideur Ng, I think you're hung up on the wrong thing. The ballast is not used, so that's not an issue. More importantly the ballast isn't the point. The point is that if you build an aerodynamically clean space plane, you don't need a lot of engines and therefore don't need a lot of wings. Best, -Slashy

Sounds like a winner. If you get around to posting your findings as an extension of the DV subway map, I'm sure the community would be eternally grateful! Best, -Slashy

Maltman, It's a Von Braun thing. Best, -Slashy

Agreed (not harping on Plusck, but the concept). Minimal DV expended is an excellent way to track the relative efficiencies of maneuvers, but not spacecraft. Minimum DV does not mean minimum fuel expended, minimum stage mass, or minimum launch cost. It's an easy metric to track, but it's the wrong metric. Kinda like the drunk guy losing his keys in the alley and then searching for them around the lamppost across the street because the light is better over there. Best, -Slashy

The "radio" part of it is exceptionally easy; barely more complicated than a simple crystal receiver. All the difficult bits happen in the software (firmware?) Best, -Slashy

Did @bewing ever respond in this thread?

As long as we're going to the trouble, let's send it past Prox. B and take some pictures! Best, -Slashy

Yup. Not recommending you try that. You'd burn up like a road flare. Best, -Slashy

"Shuttle hate politics". I think I have a new favorite phrase

dire, That ship is just an example, not a full- on working design. It was just meant to show that you can get useful payloads to orbit without needing to spam engines. Most of the extra fuel is actually jet fuel in the wings, but yeah... fuel used as ballast in the nose stays locked there for the whole trip. Best, -Slashy

Yeah, it was plenty capable for what it was. The problem was that it wasn't what was originally intended and wasn't what was promised in the final form. It was beautifully designed and brilliantly executed, but a botched plan. This is one of those situations where real life diverges from KSP. In KSP, there's no worry about customer pressure, cutbacks, cancellations, etc. You just outline the mission, design the craft, and proceed. The shuttle had to contend with all these hazards and wound up being something wildly different from what was originally planned as a result. Not hating on it, just telling it like it is.

I don't know of any way to restore a JTAG programming port once it's been burned, but even assuming that it's possible... it'd be silly to go to all that trouble just to reprogram a commercial chipset in situ. Much simpler to put your "pirate GPS" program into a blank FPGA and be done with it. Best, -Slashy The official limits are 1,200 MPH and 59,000' altitude. http://ravtrack.com/GPStracking/cocom-gps-tracking-limits/469/ Best, -Slashy

I have it on good authority from Prof. William McGuffin (inventor of many plot devices including the "alien space bat" and "big dumb object") that all the science behind replicators is up to snuff. He has no idea, though, why Twilight is such a lousy love story. Best, -Slashy

I want one of those "illuminati owls"

It varies by manufacturer, but here's what happens in the "Aries" chipset I worked with early in my career: If it detects a condition outside of COCOM limits, it immediately disables output, replacing it with an "export restriction mode" flag and 15 minute countdown. It then dumps the scratchpad ram, ephemeris data, and channel keys. Without this "almanac" it has no idea where it is or where the satellites are. It won't attempt to find a satellite after that until the countdown timer elapses. Furthermore, the chip is programmed serially using JTAG and the ports are severed using a fusible link. There's no way to reprogram the part or look at the program that went into it. That was over 15 years ago, so things might've changed. Best, -Slashy

Sadly, no. GPS chipsets for commercial use have "export restriction" built into them. It's not something that can be bypassed or hacked. If it detects accelerations, velocities, or altitudes that exceed the limits, it will refuse to track for 15 minutes. This is to keep someone from using a commercial receiver to guide a missile. Best, -Slashy

I know what you're thinking, and I came to talk you out of it. You need to accept that Jeb Kerman is dead, not try to bring him back. I know you're thinking of putting him up there in that old indian burial ground. Don't pretend like it hadn't crossed your mind! You're thinking that if you bury his body there, it will come back to life. But sometimes... Dead is better...

This reminds me of the "how many kerbals can you get into the control tower" challenge... Best, -Slashy

They went bankrupt and couldn't afford to support the Buran. The Ukranians Kazakhs, OTOH, needed Soyuz running to keep their economy afloat. Nobody was getting paid at the time ( ugly situation), but the techs and scientists continued working on Soyuz for IOUs and subsistence pay (when available). Soyuz soldiered on and Buran died. Best, -Slashy

True, but you can "ballpark" it well enough for planning purposes. It's simply the orbital velocity + the DV of a theoretical transfer. Doing a hypothetical transfer to Jool... 70 km above Kerbin to 100 km above Jool would hit Jool's atmosphere going 7,107 m/sec. There's variations, but that's a good ballpark. Assuming Catbus wants to avoid aerobraking, the cheap transfer to the Jool system is actually Pol. The gate orbit at Jool's end is 177Mm; conveniently close to Pol's 180Mm SMA. Vxs at Pol is only 1,242 m/sec, which reduces the DV for a Pol retroburn (and subsequent shot home) to 1,122 m/sec. Best, -Slashy

While we're on the subject... You picked up right away that escape velocity is a function of orbital velocity, and both are therefore a function of orbit radius. If you rewrite the whole thing in terms of radius, you will notice that there's a happy spot where the DV hits a minimum, and that's not actually low Kerbin orbit. Taking the first derivative will yield the "gate orbit". That opens up all sorts of new possibilities that don't fit on a DV map Best, -Slashy

Yes... unless you plan to aerobrake. Same exact way. Pretend you're doing a transfer from that planet home. The capture burn is the same DV as a transfer would be. Best, -Slashy

Truth. I noticed that myself a while back, which is why I defined it as such above. Point in fact, it is actually less than that in KSP due to it's patched conic model. It induces a slight error in the calculation, but the error works in your favor. Best, -Slashy