ThreePounds
-
Posts
461 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by ThreePounds
-
-
3 minutes ago, Drew Kerman said:
this is used mainly for sound suppression and also I think to reduce vibrations on lift off? Anyways, the main result of this is a crapton of steam on launch, and you get that now from the Tier 3 launchpad trenches so I'm not sure what water supression would add to the game, even visually
The water suppression on most launch system comes on a couple of seconds before launch. I guess it'll be another piece of eye candy along the lines of launch countdown, cryogenic vapor vents etc. But since it's water and it would evolve changing the launch pad architecture somehow I can't see how it could be done.
-
Okay, I'm having a new problem with the mission architect and Galileo Planet Pack and KSPTOT 1.3.8. Basically, I think the issue is that KSPTOT expects the central star to be called "sun". Unfortunately, there isn't such a body in GPP. Instead it's called Ciro. I've linked a body.ini created with GPP loaded. The issue occurs when I open the mission architect and try to open the celestial body catalog, launch window analysis tool or the like. I hear an error sound and no window opens. This is what the log says:
Reference to non-existent field ''. Error in mainGUI>departBodyCombo_Callback (line 175) Error in mainGUI>loadBodiesFromFile_Callback (line 591) Error in gui_mainfcn (line 95) Error in mainGUI (line 42) Error in matlab.graphics.internal.figfile.FigFile/read>@(hObject,eventdata)mainGUI('loadBodiesFromFile_Callback',hObject,eventdata,guidata(hObject)) Error while evaluating Menu Callback Warning: 'popupmenu' control requires a non-empty String Control will not be rendered until all of its parameter values are valid Warning: 'popupmenu' control requires a non-empty String Control will not be rendered until all of its parameter values are valid Reference to non-existent field 'sun'. Error in ma_getSortedBodyNames (line 17) Error in ma_CelBodyCatalogGUI>setupCelBodyListbox (line 74) Error in ma_CelBodyCatalogGUI>ma_CelBodyCatalogGUI_OpeningFcn (line 63) Error in gui_mainfcn (line 220) Error in ma_CelBodyCatalogGUI (line 42) Error in ma_MainGUI>celBodyCatalogMenu_Callback (line 1222) Error in gui_mainfcn (line 95) Error in ma_MainGUI (line 42) Error in matlab.graphics.internal.figfile.FigFile/read>@(hObject,eventdata)ma_MainGUI('celBodyCatalogMenu_Callback',hObject,eventdata,guidata(hObject)) Error while evaluating Menu CallbackWhen I try to make the body.ini created with GPP the default by naming it "body.ini" KSPTOT refuses to start up and instead gives me this message:
Reference to non-existent field ''. Error in mainGUI>departBodyCombo_Callback (line 175) Error in mainGUI>mainGUI_OpeningFcn (line 112) Error in gui_mainfcn (line 220) Error in mainGUI (line 40) Error in projectMain (line 51) MATLAB:nonExistentField Error writing to output stream.In essence, KSPTOT really doesn't like the file at all. I could just rename Ciro to sun and change all the references then, but then KSPTOT and KSP will run out of synch which would spawn a new set of problems trying to use KSPTOT Connect later.
bodies.GPP.ini https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6KLmRpYz5AlVUFZVndXcFlIRkk/view?usp=sharing
-
On 20/08/2017 at 7:26 PM, FutureMartian97 said:
Yes. I have both installed.
Here is what my ckan looks like. Galileo's Planet Pack I installed manually. I was playing it without SETI contracts and the contracts were there.
Yes, because in the definitions it mentions Kerbin instead of Gael. I'll try to replace every instance of Kerbin with Gael and report back.
-
4 hours ago, KSPrynk said:
I think I can confirm from a previous commenter that KerbNet is getting degraded by OPM. I did a test install of no-mods KSP 1.3, launched a stock Viewmatic Survey Sat in Sandbox mode, and the HECS2 probe core had the full range of KerbNet scanning modes when in orbit around Kerbin.
After installing OPM Galileo v1.1 and associated dependencies (Kopernicus 1.3.0.4, CustomBarnKit 1.1.13), the same craft now says the following when I attempt to use KerbNet:
"KerbNet is Offline. Please ensure that you're accessing KerbNet with a compatible scanning mode."
The Resource scan mode appears to work, when using a scanner such as M4435, but both the Terrain and Biome modes appear to be disabled. This happens above both OPM and non-OPM planets.
You can easily fix it yourself. It's one of the compatibility patches that's messing up.
On 25/07/2017 at 6:40 PM, Ramarren said:Through the scientific process of deleting things at random I have determined that KerbNet in 1.3 is being broken by something in GameData\OPM\KarboniteConfigs , which I presume are out of date with current Community Resource Pack or something.
-
On 19/08/2017 at 4:08 AM, Arrowstar said:
Did you still want a mean anomaly, true anomaly, eccentric/hyperbolic anomaly converter in the tools window as you originally requested? Or are you good now?
No, I'm fine now. Thank you.
-
3 hours ago, gruneisen said:
For what its worth, if you already have an EXCEL spreadsheet set up for these calcs, there is a very powerful iterative solver built in. You have to enable the SOLVER add-in into EXCEL, and then once that's done, head over to the DATA tab and hit the SOLVER button. This will allow to achieve a target value in a single cell by changing multiple cells and also use constraints to bound the values of other cells. If this applies, you may not need to do too much re-inventing!
Cheers!
Thanks for the tip. I have used the solver in the past for other purposes and found that it had problems converging but since this is a much simpler task maybe it can stand up to it. I'll give it a another go. This going a bit OT but do you know if there is an equivalent to the atan2 function from the script above? I wasn't able to find it.
EDIT: Never mind. I am using a non English version of Excel and they gave it a really stupid name. So behold, it's actually working. The solver can even handle negative numbers, which I didn't expect. Yellow are the input fields. To convert M to ν, I let the solver find the value for E and it spits out the true anomaly.
-
Yes. By editing the safe file. You have to look into one of the bottom most scenarios called FLIGHTSTATE{} and find the craft in question. It's best if you replace the entire vehicle definition with one from a modified craft you just launch for that very purpose. Alternatively, you can do the second thing you described and put the vessel you want to dock onto the launch pad and then replace the orbital information in the save file with the orbital information from the first craft changing just the mean anomaly. They'll be in the same orbit after you load the file, just separated by the number of degrees you chose.
-
1 hour ago, Drew Kerman said:
I've already written a JS file to convert True-Mean based on KSPTOT matlab code. It's hard-coded cause I just needed it for when I was building the geogebra dynamic system models, but I could make it into an interactive version with maybe ecc anomaly as well (haven't looked at that):
It's not really that bad. Check out the KSPTOT source code, the functions are all well-named based on their purpose, this code was taken from computeMeanFromTrueAnom
Oh, that's the easy part. Try doing the reverse and you'll quickly see that there isn't a closed-form solution. After I realized that I would have to build some sort of iterative root-finder into the beloved excel spreadsheet that does the usual heavy lifting, I gave up and decided to pray to the Kerbal god of celestial mechanics coliqually known as @wile1411 to expose a function he's most likely already built into the tool to the user interface.
-
41 minutes ago, YNM said:
I'm very, very sorry if my wording sounds too harsh. In truth I know nothing and I can't comprehend anything about their finer details either. My only knowing is that these things exist and are extensively exploited in polar orbits.
I found this Q&A which references... blew my mind to pieces. Even tidal forces are easier to do than them - but they are from near-antiquity ! Even getting Kepler Laws from Newton's Equation of Motion looks easier. I'm really sorry if this sounded like hoccus poccus to you, they sort of are mathematically at a glance, but intuitively they are to be expected. I mean, if you randomly orbit a rugby ball, there are going to be times where one of the more convex poles pulls you harder than the other - you're not always pulled to the center of mass of parent body. That's how the drift kicks in. The only question is whether it's only the nodes or the apsides - you might predict it should be both in some ways though, which it really is. There are just special states where it congregates in one.
There is an astronomy focused stack exchange? Oh well, there goes the rest of my free time. Thanks for the link.
Your wording wasn't harsh at all. I was just afraid you meant that "NASA does what it does and that's why it just works. No need to question it." After all, they also put their pants on one leg at a time. They might have the better tools, experience and better understanding of the maths behind it but at the end of the day, trajectory design isn't magic. It's just very, very complicated around Saturn because of the unbelievably complex orbital perturbations.
-
I normally don't do feature requests, but there really is something I absolutely want. Can you include a panel in the astrodynamics calculator that takes the one of the different anomalies (true, mean and eccentric) and spits out the other ones? I tried implementing my own but it's actually non trivial and I don't want to rely on a random web based tool.
-
1 minute ago, Green Baron said:
Sorry, i was just trying to be courteous because i expected you to know it. But it has paragraphs on the influence of inclination on precession and on those parts that @YNM mentioned.
No actually, that's brilliant. I want to highlight this:
Quote"The potential generated by the non-spherical Earth causes periodic variations in all the orbital elements. The dominant effects, however, are secular variations in longitude of the ascending node and argument of perigee because of the Earth's oblateness"
"Molniya orbits are designed so that the perturbations in argument of perigee are zero. This conditions occurs when the term 4-5sin2i is equal to zero or, that is, when the inclination is either 63.4 or 116.6 degrees."
That can't be a coincidence. The first sentence is actually new info. Thanks a lot. I think that even solved my question.
-
5 minutes ago, YNM said:
@Three_Pounds Even without any gravitational assists, due to mass distribution irregularity, things will go away from what it was (AFAIK this isn't simulated in Principia yet). As I've said, people at NASA must have planned it. They have the knowledge, computing power and man hour to do whatever things they wanted to pull for their probes. So it could be so that they want it to aling with Titan every so often ? Be that it. So they want it to look over different parts of the ring without crashing through it ? Be that it. As long as the propellants and opportunity are there, they'll make it.
I see it this way. If someone tells you something you don't know anything about, it normally just flies over your head and you learn nothing from it. If someone says something you're very familiar with and it makes sense, fine. But if someone tells you something that should in theory make sense, but as you try to comprehend it, it makes less and less sense, you become intrigued. This is normally where you learn the most. As I try to understand the finer points of celestial mechanics and see the masterpiece the trajectory designers have created for the Cassini-Huygens mission, the visualization of which they affectionately call the yarn ball, my heart jumped. As KSP doesn't model anything beyond the very basics of orbital mechanics, I'm struggling to get an intuitive understanding for these kinds of things. I am looking at principia again as a learning tool.
-
Just now, Nertea said:
What do people think of this? It's done this way by convention (practically all KSP cylindrical parts attach like that) but I am open to changing it.
Personally, I'd prefer if they were following stock conventions. If I ever need to attach something in a wild way, I can always use Editor Extensions Redux to make this happen. Normally, when modded parts try to break the mold with attachment rules, they usually become buggy and clunky to use. Not that would ever be a problem with your parts, but a few examples from other mod comes to mind.
-
I'm starting to think this might have something to do with Titan. The trajectory designers used it extensively for plane changes in the several hundred flybys they've made over the years. Maybe you are right, @YNM and they use the precession actively to track Titan in it's orbit. So if they were in a higher inclination, the precession would slow or even stop and an encounter would somehow cause the periapsis to shift into the rings. I guess that's what the trajectory designers told the scientist, who obviously were asking for a higher inclination and this statement has come out as a result.
The only explanation I can see at this point.
-
21 minutes ago, Green Baron said:
Exactly, change the argument with the rate of Saturn's precession. Or, as long as Cassini stayed for a while in a specific orbit, to change the argument with a rate so that it would not dive through the rings before the next orbital change.
An inclination of 0 towards Saturn's axis would mean that the orbit is in the rings' ecliptic. No change necessary as long as both apsides are outside, but no nice pictures as well :-)
As soon as one apsis is below ring radius inclination must be chosen so that, as long as the probe stayed in a given orbit it would not precess into the rings.
Was that right ?
Edit: i hope i don't annoy you with this link
The rings are rotationally symmetric, aren't they? So how would a changed argument of periapsis put the space craft into a collision orbit. Links are never annoying, even though I know of that perticular document already. What exactly is it that you want me to read again?
10 minutes ago, YNM said:All orbit precess due to irregularity in the gravitational field. Even under General Relativity all orbits are unclosed, unperiodical; but they are usually close enough to be approximated so.
What I presume happens is a bit like Molniya / Sun-Synchronous orbit (surprise surprise, Molniya are inclined 63.4° !). Saturn's flattening is thirty times Earth's (figures vs figures), so inclined, eliptical orbits are going to precess, even more than back home. The guys at NASA must have worked out that to avoid having the Longitude of Apses precess, or at least to equalize them to another figure (say, precession of Right Ascension of Nodes) they have to make the orbit *that* inclined and **that** ellipse and ***that*** big.
tl;dr it's because RL is complicated. Maybe you should try this mod in KSP. And could that mod emulates irregular / non-"spherical" gravitational field ?
This is closer to the answer I expected, thanks for the input. But again, I don't see how Dr. Spilkers remark is related to that. As am amazing scientist as she is, her job is not trajectory design and I am starting to think what she said there might have been a bit imprecise and makes my head spin as a result.
-
5 minutes ago, Green Baron said:
Since almost every orbit's apsides, in respect to the parent body (in this case that includes the rings), precess (that grammatically ok ?) the probe would have sooner or later ended up diving though the rings if (one of) the apsides had been lower than the rings' radius and the orbit wasn't changed (limited dV-wise).
I always thought that apside precession essentially changes the argument of periapsis, not the periapsis itself. But I guess it has something to do specifically with Saturn.
-
I just posted this to reddit, but I figured you guys are even smarter so I expect to get even better answers here. So here it goes.
The title sounds awfully specific and rightfully so. I was watching an awe-inspiring talk about the cassini probe and it's mission around Saturn. One of the statements made by the awesome Dr. Linda Spilker confused me a little bit as I lack the proper understanding of advanced orbital mechanics to appreciate it fully. I was hoping someone out there smarter than me can shine some light on this issue and point me to the right direction.
Here is what she said.
I just want to point out one difference between Juno and Cassini, Juno is in a polar orbit, basically going over the poles. (With) Cassini we're only tipped at 63 degrees. And that's basically our optimum orbit to keep the periapses from precessing and putting us into the rings.
Source: https://youtu.be/YchCuFvyAZ4?t=3393 (at 56:37)
The first thing I am unfamiliar with is the relationship between inclination and apsis precession. Secondly, what does she mean by "putting us into the rings"? Does she talk about the orbital plane or the perichron? And how does precessing fit into any of this - I always thought it's just the argument of periapsis that changes.
Can someone explain?
-
No, there isn't.
-
23 minutes ago, Murican_Jeb said:
Well maybe I want an actual flying aircraft that can actually go fast and catch up to other planes
Also, alot of other people replicate things, and they get the look and peformance very close to realistic.
I am not sure why you don't just balance them yourself. If you feel the engine is underpowered, just make it more powerful by all means. You even have an engine you think closely resembles what you want. Just model the stats after it. You can even turn this into a MM patch that you then share with all of us.
It would be a hell of a lot more productive than arguing with blackheart612 over something they clearly think differently about.
-
14 minutes ago, Shnyrik said:
It is included in Heisenberg mod:
Nice creation! Do you know if there is actually any aero dynamical advantage of encasing the rotors in some kind of fuselage or is it just for looks?
-
56 minutes ago, WanderingKid said:
Is there a good link you know of for an introduction to vis-viva equation? I've never heard the term before and would like to get acquainted.
It's nothing fancy really. It's this one here:
v: relative speed; μ = GM = G*M: standard gravitational parameter; r: distance from elliptical focus, i.e. radius of central body + altitude; a = SMA: semi-major axis
EDIT: For those who think I butchered the equation, please square both sides.
-
1 hour ago, bjerrang said:
And next question , how many solar panels and batteries on this probe with the RA-100 antenna. (cant find any good info on this , and since i guess transmitting/relay science from a another planet takes some power , i would like to have this correct the first time)
The relay itself doesn't need any power besides what you need to run the probe core as they don't have an EC requirement by themselves. If you want to transmit, however, it depends on the kind of antenna you use. Lets assume a simple research probe with four science experiments on board and look at how different antennas effect the power requirement.
power requirements when transmitting science Experiment Data Size DTS-M1 RA-2 RA-100 Material Study 25 Mits 156 EU 600 EU 168 EU Mystery Goo 10 Mits 60 EU 240 EU 72 EU Temperature Scan 8 Mits 48 EU 192 EU 48 EU Atmospheric Scan 12 Mits 72 EU 288 EU 72 EU all of the above 55 Mits 336 EU 1320 EU 336 EU From this you see that the RA-2 is terrible in terms of energy cost. If you want to transmit all your science at once you'll need to bring some batteries. The DTS-M1 and RA-100 both only use 6 EU/Mits for transmission and are therefore economical.
In terms of energy usage, you can look at the tool tip of various solar panels to figure this out. Solar panels at eve produce about 90% more power then they do at Kerbin due to them being closer to the sun. Energy usage on probes comes from the probe core alone and the reaction wheels if you are using them. Both of these values are found in the tool tip of the probe cores in the editor and R&D centre. Make sure you convert them from EU/min to EU/s by dividing them by 60 s/min.
-
40 minutes ago, bjerrang said:
Ahh that seems logic. But why i am missing signal with level 3 and ra-2 on eve then?
After the first reply on this post it should be enough with lvl 3 trackingstation...
Can you post a picture of a good deep space comnet satellite.
Have you set a multiplier on your difficulty settings? iirc, there is a 0.6 DNS multiplier on the hard preset.
-
At first, welcome to the Forum!
I assume you have the lvl2 tracking station (DSN). It has a signal strength of 50G. The RA-2 has a signal strength of 2G. With those numbers, we'll know that they'll communicate from up to 10Gm or 1e+7 km away. Now the RA-100 has, as the name suggests, 100G of signal strength, allowing it to connect with a RA-2 from 1.41e+7 km away (41% more). I have prepared a graph showing the distance from Eve to Kerbin as they revolve around the sun.
You'll notice that they are between about 4e+6 km and 2.35e+7 km apart at different times of the year. So neither antenna guarantees a connection to your eve probe. You either have to upgrade your tracking station or send a new relay satellite equipped with a RA-100 to Eve.
1 hour ago, bjerrang said:But the signal does not improve and goes directly to kerbin.
Strangely enough, the game will prefer a direct connection over a routed connection even if the routed connection has better signal quality. At least that's what I have observed in my games as well. I am not sure what to do against it. However, the signal might not be that much better. Lets say you are 8e+6 km away from eve and your signal strength is thus 10% when connected directly to the DSN. If you'd somehow switch the connection to RA-2 to RA-100, you'll get a signal strength of about 40% - a little better I suppose. If are just 1e+7 km away, just as the signal from the DNS cuts out, you'll still get about 20% signal strength for your connection.
Hope that helps? Sort of?
Also, alot of other people replicate things, and they get the look and peformance very close to realistic.
[Most 1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (August 26)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
I thought you and freethinker fixed this a while back? The change logs indicate there was some work done on it.
0.6.0 - (KSP 1.2) ------------------- Added ARP icon data for RealFuels Added/Updated distribution data for: - Antimatter - Helium3 - ArgonGas - XenonGas - LqdHydrogen Added several new resources, including: - HeavyWater - Deuternium - Helium4 - Silicates - Borate - ColonySupplies - RefinedExoticsIs it still borked?