Friend Bear

I agree. My only problem is I make my sats in oblong orbits in a star formation represented by the amount of sats that are up there (ie - if I have 5 sats, it will be oblong in the shape of a star, etc.) I do this, requiring more satellites for 100% connectivity via antenna to all sats, because whenever I do the circular orbit he has done above, half a year will pass and they all end up on top of each other. It's because I fine tune orbits manually and don't use mods that can give a much more perfect orbit. Not a big deal for me because I launch 4-8 sats in one rocket, find the outermost circular orbit, release one at a time and oblongify (love making up words) each individual orbit. I wouldn't do it if I had to launch each one individually.

So what I do to make connectivity to other satellites is very similar to yours. Don't think of this as me telling you what to do. I just don't understand what problem you are facing exactly so I will tell you how I setup my system. I have my 4+ satellites in whatever horizontal orbit. Their long-range antenna deal with things in close orbit (in fact, I have about 6 sats and have them connect to each other via antenna vs dish as you seem to have done). Each has at least 2 dishes. Here is why: I then put a satellite or two in a much bigger, polar orbit. Those satellites can have up to 8 dishes...Two broad, wide range like you have on these sats, and the rest long range Duna+. I point the broad range at the planet so it encompasses every smaller orbit satellite that will connect to it and point one of those 2 dishes on my first set (the ones you have pictured above) at this larger orbiting sat. That long range sat is what I use to reach kerbol orbit and other planet orbit instruments. Broken down, my first sats, those you have, use their antennas to connect to each other, to the base, and to launching craft. Those same sats use their 2 dishes to connect to the larger polar orbit sats. Those polar orbit sats (you really only need 2 with that many dishes on each) connect to everything outside of antenna reach.

Yeah you are simply just going too fast. Don't throttle all the way. Not only will you lose potential delta v because you are fighting terminal velocity, but going too fast will make you burn up. Read my post above. What matters anyways is burn time, not necessarily speed of the climb. Climb more slowly then use all that delta v to attain horizontal velocity necessary for orbit.

Also, do you mean burning up as in you lose all your fuel or you explode from overheating? If that is the case, you are going too shallow. Your angles may be alright, but you sound like you are at a low degree at too low an altitude. Let me get you something I typed a while back; copy/pasted. Two different discussions. One is about your apoapsis. The other, attaining orbit.: --- Your apo is formed entirely from two places: 1) your vertical velocity (if no horizontal velocity exists); 2) your horizontal velocity at the peri. This is oversimplified but drives to my point. You need high enough vertical velocity, but a fast enough horizontal velocity to prolong your time spent above a certain altitude. In essence, if you gun it straight up..sure you will make it very very high, but you are coming right back down. Similarly, if you gun it straight up, your time spent at the apo is very limited. You extend that time with horizontal velocity. But of the two lessons above, the most important is your horizontal velocity. And you won't get 2000+ mps when you have only a couple seconds at your apo altitude to complete an orbit (no I won't say circularize. I have no idea why that is trendy to say). Anyways, this means you need to balance your vertical velocity with your horizontal. But with an atmosphere, you need to do so delicately and not in an aggressive turn. I shoot for 250-500 mps in vertical within the first 30sec. This is why the first stage is so important and solid booster are amazing. But you need to plan ahead for your horizontal climb while keeping in mind you move faster outside the atmosphere. In essence, make your climb nice and round, but not too round, rather than straight and pointy. This will give you ample time at apo to burn horizontally. Walkthrough: At takeoff, depending on the speed (if faster make it slightly more aggressive), IMMEDIATELY turn horizontally about 2+ degrees. You have little atmo resistance and you need to have gravity start helping you with your aim towards the horizon. If you turn too late, it will either be really hard to make the turn and you climb too high/sharp (if you are going fast), or you overturn and the atmo points your ship downward (if you are going too slow). By setting the degree like this, gravity will slowly point your prograde closer and closer to the horizon as you will slowly accelerate past you 300-500 mps. If it is pointing down too quickly, a lot of the time the cure is acceleration, so just increase your thrust. But too much may kill potential delta v because of wind resistance. By 30,000 alt, I like to be at about 45 degrees. Compensate accordingly. Slow your throttle as needed. What is important is burn time NOT speed. The longer you burn, the less resistance. Think about it: if you gun it in atmo, you are limited by terminal velocity or the lesser issue of atmo resistance not to the extent of terminal velocity. But by burning long and slow, but in a manner that still gets you out of the atmo, you save all your delta v for lower atmo/no atmo acceleration. Keep your acceleration consistently and evenly dropping, by gravity, from the 45 deg on through the apo and speed up or slow down as needed (if your apo gets to the altitude you want, you can stop and reignite if atmo slows you down a bit). In that burn, keep the gravity turn going as much as comfortable (20 more deg by 50,000 alt, for example), and use throttle to determine your ultimate apo, pre-final horizontal burn. If you have to, aim below the horizon or higher if you are in the target apo altitude but wish to increase your horizontal acceleration. You don't have to only point prograde once in thinner air. By the time you hit the apo, you will be at a much much higher horizontal speed, but still need to burn to get into orbit. Burn before, through, and after the apo as needed. I like to aim so my apo stays on top of me (e.g. pointing up more, 5ish degrees, when I am close to it), but too much of this kills potential horizontal delta v accel. I'm rushing this at work and didn't proof so I hope it makes sense. --- As you launch, immediately, and VERY DELICATELY, aim the rocket a degree or two East. From there on, let gravity turn you and use about half throttle. The idea behind the best, most stable climb to orbit is not speed (although you need it to qualify the climb since too slow a climb destroys any chance of horizontal acceleration a minute into your climb to orbit) but insteadburn time. (as for speed; what I mean is that a low speed reduces the usefulness of your overall deltav, while a high speed can do the same. If you are going fast at low altitude, even near horizontally in preparation for orbit, you lost a lot of potential delta v because you fight atmosphere. On the other hand, if you go too slow and lose your asparagus without burning any horizontal, sure you got into space, but now you have to burn 2000+ delta v horizontally to get an orbit in a short window with a single engine because once you are at the peak of your climb, it becomes harder and harder to stay out of the atmosphere with a low horizontal velocity). But careful; this means your gravity turn will be more aggressive. You do not necessarily need to aim into your prograde the entire time. Back off a bit and aim more vertically if it is too aggressive. 45 deg is ideal at 35-45k altitude, for example. This slow, natural turn prevents the bend you are seeing.

The Japanese are the ones experimenting with deorbiting debris via laser. I think it has to do with breaking momentum, not dissolving the target. - - - Updated - - - It gets complicated (so much so that I cannot say precisely what they are doing but generally the idea since I don't think they even know). All space-faring nations (except North Korea) agree that their debris is their debris, whether privately owned or publicly owned. But countries like Japan and the US are keen on cleaning it all up. While they might leave the mess China made in 2013 with its satellite missile test to them, generally, UN aligned nations are trying to work together on the final outcome, but each are developing their own methods. The other issue is when a satellite becomes defunct or inoperable/out of date, they do not typically just sit there nor are they retro fired into orbit to burn up. Typically, nations will just send them out to high earth orbit and there is a graveyard of that trash there now. This is because most satellites are either in low, including the ISS, and geosync orbits are really far out. That being said, I would imagine low earth/mid earth and geo satellites that have not made it to the junk orbit would be the first target. Ideally, so would the Chinese debris.

Potassium Highly combustible

Part of the liberal agenda! --- As for the idea...I wish I knew more about chemistry but I guess it would boil (*badum tst) down to combustion of oils compared to current fuels. Less power, more burned to get from A to B, more oxidizer, as well. But efficiency may play a role?

They are micro-solid boosters that are, if I remember, in the engine category when building. The other strategy if the boosters are just too often hitting your main engine once decoupled because they take so long to drift past is to place the boosters lower, about 1/3 of the booster will be below the main thruster in the middle, and putting the decoupler slightly above the boosters center of mass. This will cause the top of the booster, once decoupled, to push away from the rocket more free and clear from the rest. But it is important you place the booster lower because if you don't, the effect also is that the bottom of the booster will spin inward and hit the center.

This is most common, especially when approaching quickly (as opposed to making many orbits and slowly coming into contact). 150m/s is not that hard to kill. You might be trying to burn it too late. Also, in conjunction with the instructions below, if you end up being at 0m/s relative to the target even 3000m away, just point at it and gun it at 50m/s or slightly faster, time warp, repeat as you get closer (since, because both of you are orbiting and rotating around each other, you will not always head directly towards the target). That is why when you are far away, a higher speed when trying to go straight to it is important. Only difference, however, is at higher speeds, you are doing a lot less trimming, discussed below, and doing a lot more point at target and forward thrust, then, when you are starting to move away from the target, pointing at retrograde and thrusting until 0m/s again; rinse, repeat. This is also why the movie Gravity was wrong when she thought she could point and move towards something 300 miles away at a low speed...One of the many things wrong with that movie. How difficult is it to ask an astrophysicist before spending millions on something outrageously lame and off. K done, sorry. All you need to do is: 1) make sure the target station is targetted. 2) make sure the m/s section on the navball says "Target" (you can change it one of two ways. If there is something targeted, it does so automatically when you are within something like 4000 m, or you can simply click that little window until it says "Target") 3) point at your new retrograde. This retrograde will be your movement/forward momentum relative to the targeted vessel. 4) burn as you get close. Do a slow burn a few hundred m out to gauge but as you get on top of it, kill your momentum and have your m/s relative to the target read 0. Then, docking: I'm just going to copy/paste what I posted for someone about docking here so ignore the numbers, I'm too lazy to edit: It took me a second to realize but your prograde is everything. Once you figure it out, docking is as simple as a letting a cow stand in the middle of a room that is exactly the size of the cow, and the room doesn't let the cow sit or move in any direction. 1) Target your destination. 2) Rendezvous using thrusters and get within 500 or fewer meters from target. 3) Right click on the docking port you want to connect to (on the other vessel) and select it as the new target. 4) Aim at retrograde and kill your thrust. Depending on your vessel mass and your thrust to weight, you may use main thrusters at low or RCS. Only go towards it. 5) Aim at the new target (or any direction you need to go to make it to that target, if the vessel happens to be large and you need to make your way around it, for example). Here is the magic: When you are at low speeds relative to the target (5 m/s or fewer (higher is possible, too)), you do not have to turn to face the retrograde/prograde to make it an as perfect as possible forward movement. In fact, turning too much, with or without RCS, changes the direction of travel a lot of the time. Instead, point at the direction you want to go, period; whether that is the target or beyond it. Make your prograde aim that direction as much as you can by engaging thrusters/RCS forward ONLY. Try to stay under 10m/s. If you are not heading directly towards that target and you are heading, say, just left of it, then engage your linear, left facing RCS to correct your forward movement and scoot your prograde over into the direction you are facing/want to travel. As you slow down when you approach, you start having to micromanage in the same way. (FYI: In docking mode, Linear is when the button under staging is blue, the other is green and this allows you to turn the vessel rather than scoot up, down, left, right without harming forward movement or needing to change the direction you are facing) Heading downward when you don't want to? Use your downward facing RCS. If I remember, the new keymapping will have you using WASD, Shift, and Ctrl for docking procedures. Space bar switches between blue and green mode (linear vs whatever the other one is). Poof! (magic) 6) Re-aim and re-adjust as necessary to dock. 7) Make sure SAS is turned off when trying to connect to the other port, but have it on the rest of the time. *Also, if I have to turn, I like to turn off RCS and use only reaction wheels. This reduces the amount your ship changes its forward direction. Docking port alignment indicator is really nice to have, but when you dock as much as some of us have, it is unnecessary, except for large craft where you camera angles make it hard to tell whether you are actually pointed directly at the docking port. But this is combated with the ability, even necessity, of right clicking and selecting the target docking port as the target, not just the target vessel. This makes is so when you point at the target in the navball, you are pointing directly at the docking port. ------------ For some reason I can't turn of Italicized and I don't want to retype it =P. Sorry.

It took me a second to realize but your prograde is everything. Once you figure it out, docking is as simple as a letting a cow stand in the middle of a room that is exactly the size of the cow, and the room doesn't let the cow sit or move in any direction. 1) Target your destination. 2) Rendezvous using thrusters and get within 500 or fewer meters from target. 3) Right click on the docking port you want to connect to (on the other vessel) and select it as the new target. 4) Aim at retrograde and kill your thrust. Depending on your vessel mass and your thrust to weight, you may use main thrusters at low or RCS. Only go towards it. 5) Aim at the new target (or any direction you need to go to make it to that target, if the vessel happens to be large and you need to make your way around it, for example). Here is the magic: When you are at low speeds relative to the target (5 m/s or fewer (higher is possible, too)), you do not have to turn to face the retrograde/prograde to make it an as perfect as possible forward movement. In fact, turning too much, with or without RCS, changes the direction of travel a lot of the time. Instead, point at the direction you want to go, period; whether that is the target or beyond it. Make your prograde aim that direction as much as you can by engaging thrusters/RCS forward ONLY. Try to stay under 10m/s. If you are not heading directly towards that target and you are heading, say, just left of it, then engage your linear, left facing RCS to correct your forward movement and scoot your prograde over into the direction you are facing/want to travel. As you slow down when you approach, you start having to micromanage in the same way. Heading downward when you don't want to? Use your downward facing RCS. Poof! (magic) 6) Re-aim and re-adjust as necessary to dock. 7) Make sure SAS is turned off when trying to connect to the other port, but have it on the rest of the time. *Also, if I have to turn, I like to turn off RCS and use only reaction wheels. This reduces the amount your ship changes its forward direction.

Solid boosters are usually fine without the sepratron since they weigh so little (unless you are using huge ones from KY or NovaPunch). Just make sure you are facing prograde when decoupling and yes, that they are attached in the middle so the ejection is at their center of mass. If you need sepratrons, you have a couple options: 1) use stock sepratrons, two to a booster, one on either side, faced so they launch the booster they are attached to away from the rest of the vessel. Have them staged with the decoupler. Make sure you try to connect them to the booster at the booster's center of mass. 2) use KY Heavy Lifter mod. This gives sweet decoupler/sepratrons that are in a single package. The decouple also engages the sepratron booster embedded in the decoupler, itself. - - - Updated - - - I agree. However, learning to land there as the first body with an atmosphere is ideal since it is so light and at such a low altitude. I don't see too many people leaving orbit and re-entering to design their atmosphere based craft meant for other celestial bodies, but I suppose it is possible. Does that base mod let you do this? I can't remember what it is called, but I do think USI Kolonization has a manufacturing platform you could fly and land there, mine the place, and build, etc.

Keeps me sane at work.

Thank you for not getting mechjeb. Its fun to learn from scratch and that is not a jab at mechjeb. Your apo is formed entirely from two places: 1) your vertical velocity (if no horizontal velocity exists); 2) your horizontal velocity at the apo. This is oversimplified but drives to my point. You need high enough vertical velocity, but a fast enough horizontal velocity to prolong your time spent above a certain altitude. In essence, if you gun it straight up..sure you will make it very very high, but you are coming right back down. Similarly, if you gun it straight up, your time spent at the apo is very limited. You extend that time with horizontal velocity. But of the two lessons above, the most important is your horizontal velocity. And you won't get 2000+ mps when you have only a couple seconds at your apo altitude to complete an orbit (no I won't say circularize. I have no idea why that is trendy to say). Anyways, this means you need to balance your vertical velocity with your horizontal. But with an atmosphere, you need to do so delicately and not in an aggressive turn. I shoot for 250-500 mps in vertical within the first 30sec. This is why the first stage is so important and solid booster are amazing. But you need to plan ahead for your horizontal climb while keeping in mind you move faster outside the atmosphere. In essence, make your climb nice and round, but not too round, rather than straight and pointy. This will give you ample time at apo to burn horizontally. Walkthrough: At takeoff, depending on the speed (if faster make it slightly more aggressive), IMMEDIATELY turn horizontally about 2+ degrees. You have little atmo resistance and you need to have gravity start helping you with your aim towards the horizon. If you turn too late, it will either be really hard to make the turn and you climb too high/sharp (if you are going fast), or you overturn and the atmo points your ship downward (if you are going too slow). By setting the degree like this, gravity will slowly point your prograde closer and closer to the horizon as you will slowly accelerate past you 300-500 mps. If it is pointing down too quickly, a lot of the time the cure is acceleration, so just increase your thrust. But too much may kill potential delta v because of wind resistance. By 30,000 alt, I like to be at about 45 degrees. Compensate accordingly. Slow your throttle as needed. What is important is burn time NOT speed. The longer you burn, the less resistance. Think about it: if you gun it in atmo, you are limited by terminal velocity or the lesser issue of atmo resistance not to the extent of terminal velocity. But by burning long and slow, but in a manner that still gets you out of the atmo, you save all your delta v for lower atmo/no atmo acceleration. Keep your acceleration consistently and evenly dropping, by gravity, from the 45 deg on through the apo and speed up or slow down as needed (if your apo gets to the altitude you want, you can stop and reignite if atmo slows you down a bit). In that burn, keep the gravity turn going as much as comfortable (20 more deg by 50,000 alt, for example), and use throttle to determine your ultimate apo, pre-final horizontal burn. If you have to, aim below the horizon or higher if you are in the target apo altitude but wish to increase your horizontal acceleration. You don't have to only point prograde once in thinner air. By the time you hit the apo, you will be at a much much higher horizontal speed, but still need to burn to get into orbit. Burn before, through, and after the apo as needed. I like to aim so my apo stays on top of me (e.g. pointing up more, 5ish degrees, when I am close to it), but too much of this kills potential horizontal delta v accel. I'm rushing this at work and didn't proof so I hope it makes sense.

OST does not allow weapons in orbit or on celestial bodies. Moon concerns bases and conventional weapons (argued because of ambiguity in language, also why not signed by, basically, anyone) Under the OST: "States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner" So I did remember correctly =) But this is off topic. This blog is about mining. So the issue is about resources acquired under international law. As such: "States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities." As I recall, nations are having a hard time deciding what route to take regarding resource collection and distribution since all non-space faring nations argue they should get resources, as well. Yes, space faring nations are not signing the OST, but they are members of the UN. That is where the issue arises. -------------------- As for arguments about nothing happening, no matter the law... Americans will complain and complain and complain, persistently, and without knowing everything ('tis the American way of life). But Internationally, this is not the trend. Canada, Britain, Japan, Russia, now China; they are all acting on threats, or at least acting towards/forwarding those threats. They are all also heavily involved in molding a future that allows for less negative interaction internationally. Additionally, their populous stay out of these affairs a good amount of the time. Conversely, Americans pretend to know then complain. We have a "U.N. Free Zone" in central Utah full of people who think they can do this and have that same mentality. Other first world nations' peoples lean heavily and trustingly on their international representatives since those people are there to benefit their nation and not their political agenda. Believe it or not, that is what we do with our UN rep. All the rough stuff points in the President's direction because it's easy for people who don't read the hugely short Constitution to do. One superb example is the international collaboration in holding China accountable for its 2013ish missile-to-satellite military test. The explosion caused more than 11,000 (again, off top of head) tackable pieces of debris. If I remember correctly, trackable is the size of a quarter and larger. This is the same debris you heard ISS was nervous about a couple months ago. Accountability, however, is difficult in this scenario under the UN because the test was just that. People are upset because it is pretty obvious what would happen and there was no international request to commit the test. Even so, this is not required entirely under the OST and the UN has been trying to move forward to amend the treaty as such but no agreements can be found. People did not complain loudly. The governments got together and tried to come to their conclusions as per their international obligation. All I'm saying is...do what these nations do. If people want to complain about a bill, read it first then discuss. Limbaugh doesn't tell it how it is. This is not aimed at anyone in the blog. Everyone here has merely pointed out that people will act this way. I am simply showing the international community will not act the same as the American public, so deeper thought needs to be put into legislation and treaty formation. Also, I realize my opinion is rather abrasive, but I think with my exposure it is a rather accurate depiction of what goes on, unfortunate as it may be. ------------ Yes! In this arena, people holding banners against anything plays absolutely no role. I would also like to add that the country in which that company is based has every incentive to ensure it is performing to their standards. Countries are bound by the decisions/actions of companies and persons, whether private or public, in space, and recourse for wrongdoing is sought against the launching nation, not the company. The country seeking recovery from the company is a different matter.

Lets go with your post. I am throwing out things based on memory from a couple years ago, rushing to post here at work. I appreciate the clarity. I knew one was one, the other was the other. However, I do remember that an issue of conventional weapons on celestial bodies was a topic of discussion vis-a-vis the Moon treaty. Even then, again, I think only two nations signed it. Did the U.S. even sign it?

The Moon treaty does not allow testing and conventional weapons on celestial bodies. The OST does not allow WMDs in orbit. Two treaties we are discussing here. Absolutely right. What we were getting at is Congress's act of legislation to counter the Executive's sole ability to deal with foreign nations. Yes, treaties are subject to the Constitution, but they merely need the advise/consent of the Senate. It is Congress's (Senate and House) act of trying to illegitimize the Executive's Executive Action that was unconstitutional.

True, and if I accomplished it once, I won't let that need to re-accomplish impede other possibilities.

Definitely get: RemoteTech TAC Life Support, and USI Kolonization Makes it a whole new game. TAC = keep them alive; USI = colonize/orbital stations, etc., renewables, all coinciding with TAC; RemoteTech = in prep for 1.1, requires line of sight for remote control use and incorporates signal distance. ---- I may be wrong but as for crashes system RAM is more the worry, not so much VRam, which is why 32bit is so limiting (but I am crossfiring 6950s so I could be way off) --- To help with memory, use: Texture replacer http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107471-0-90-TextureReplacer-2-1-2-new-thread-the-old-one-is-broken Active texture management http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59005-1-0-Release-5-0-April-28-2015-Active-Texture-Management-Save-RAM! both work fine for the current version.

It might be a worthwhile project. Kerbal could even do it. Wouldn't act as DLC but instead be an entirely new game, even if it had a similar solar system and kerbals, etc. (enlarged and more realistic with n-body, etc.). Benefit for them is they have a lot of the programming down and it can be a secondary program while they continue to add to and fine tune KSP. They have the player base and understanding; much better than if a software company with no foot in the door tried to do it themselves. It would be a ton of effort but worthwhile I think.

I like that idea. But I also would like it to be so above and beyond realistic and different that I would still play KSP as my release game (as difficult as it may be). You have so many more things to plan for in a real simulation and I can see that being awesome. And this way, you keep them separate enough its all good stuff.

Yeah I've done that, but I feel so dirty doing it. Thanks

I thought they were in early development late 90s as one of those first to ever try open beta things. It's fine I was on CS back in the day and can't remember. I appreciate actual, thought out analysis. I always question my own beliefs and ideas but need people who are willing to discuss, not just complain without evidence. I agree with your analysis and I definitely oversimplified. But a lot of growth has been artificial. For example, cost of bread goes up consistently more often because of raises to minimum wage (whole different discussion) rather than oil and other claimed reasons. In that, while I agree a lot of it is sort of out of their hands, a lot of it is not. Like football...players will keep making millions (and going bankrupt) and tickets will keep costing thousands because people are willing to pay it. I hate football but you get it. Same happens here. They test release things and certain prices, primarily with indie games, and see whether the price is justified in the amount of sales. They don't measure it against effort expounded. --- But seriously, I really appreciate it. For some reason, thought out discussion turns into brawls more often than not, so it is nice to run into someone else who understands it is a discussion and not a contest.

Simple issue/question/discussion. Is it possible to open contracts in sandbox mode? No, you won't get to benefit from science and that, but it would give direction and infinite resources to reach those goals.

Yeah. The real problem is on Earth where land is usually owned by someone profiting from the mining operation (even Federal land profits the Federal government). But in space, no one can hear you scream...wait wrong idiom. I mean, in space, everything is everyone's. The universe is a large drum circle. However, I do think mining creates ownership of the extracted thing in space (read earlier, I believe this is subject to proportionate distribution among space-faring and/or non-space-faring nations but can't remember how the UN finally concluded in this regard) and not the rock landed on. Been a minute but they kinda tried to address it in the OST. Someone else have input on that section?

True. That is why it might be better for companies to work together rather than completely compete. That way, they can coordinate efforts. Kind of like how oil fields work now. They are owned by the landowner (sometimes a company, sometimes not), a contractor is hired to organize efforts, an excavation company is used, an extraction company or two is used, the end. It actually might be hard for a single company to spend the money to get up there, lock an asteroid in orbit, then mine it, alone. - - - Updated - - - Not far off, I totally believe it. The reason we have wars on earth =P