Hcube

Welcome to the forums ! Your picture is not working... so here's a global answer : if your orbits are nearly identical and the ships are very close, just burn towards the target ship. if your orbits are nearly identical but the 2 ships are in completely different positions around the planet (like one on each side of the planet) then you must either slow down to let the target catch up with you or go faster to catch up with target. (makes sense right ?) To slow down, you need to go in a higher orbit, because higher orbit=>slower orbit. To go higher you have to burn prograde, wich is the green marker (not the crossed one, the other). Make sure your orbit is circular and just a bit above the target's. It will then catch up ! To go faster and catch up, do the exact opposite. Timewarp until the ships are very close and then execute the inversed procedure to bring back your orbit to normal. Here you go ! don't be afraid of terms like prograde, retrograde, normal, radial... it's fairly easy to remember, it will get you good grades in physics (it did for me) and it's the first step towards becoming a badS KSP master

I was talking about NH with some friends and all of them said something along the lines of "it's boring there is no lander and rover" They wouldn't believe it was so hard. So i used v=sqrt(GM(2/R)) to calculate how much NH would need to slow down at its closest approach to get into a prefectly circular orbit. I am lazy so i did it quickly and found an orbital speed of 2131m.s^-1 or so, wich is about 10K m.s^-1 deltaV extra (i was told NH would be moving at about 12km.s^-1 at closest approach, not sure, might have to check that and calculate again. Anyone care to check ? And to my surprise very few of them stared at me, and they may have gotten interested in NH

this is very fun and all, but how about argue through MP ? this is about funny, stupid, and annoying contracts, not about you two arguing over what KSP owes you and highway mentality

Well, if you know the size and the orbits of most objects in space, and have a fair estimation of what orbits the small-and-difficult-to-track debris have, wich is the case, calculating the probability of having two of them collide should be doable... Then you could establish different scenarios depending on how much smaller debris is released for each collision. It sounds doable to me... and yet no one really knows when that could happen. Do NASA, ESA, ROSCOSMOS or any other space agencies actually run models and simulations for this ? They could have a model like stuffinspace and adding newly discovered debris over time, thus updating the model and upgrading the precision of the probabilities... I know such a thing is done for the ISS but what about the kessler effect ?

Surely this can be calculated right ? How come space agencies only have very vague approximations of when it could happen ?

In red are the satellites, in blue the spent rocket stages and in gray the debris EDIT : Found a Thor ablestar debris from 1961... Now that's pretty old. I would have thought that kind of stuff would've decayed by now

Hey hey hey. Contracts DO need more work and i don't like testing the "kickback" SRB on suborbital flight over Eeloo either, but this is not a complain thread ! Just share the most underpaid, the hardest and the funniest contracts the game has come up with if you wish. Because although the contracts are broken, they are often funny. Except when no one tells me that this satellite has to be launched in a counter-kerbinwise orbit and i figure it out when it's too late to revert, dang it !

cool pictures ! have some rep Wow the "no stars in the sky" argument is always very facepalm inducing

Wow, i never experienced any kind of earthquake here in france. How does it feel ? exciting or scary ?

I personally use mainsail+2 orange jumbos. I put some of the longest (striped ones) 1.25m tanks in 4X symmetry around the bottom jumbo, for extra fuel with fuel lines, and i attach the gear to those for a wider base. On top of this a 2.5m bay with a HECS and reaction wheels/power inside when i don't have a 2.5m probe core yet. On top of this, a fairing base, and then whatever decoupler+payload i want. I put 8 airbrakes upside down on top of the top jumbo tank to keep it stable during re entry. This can totally land without chutes provided you keep around 400LFO in the tanks and a bit of skill/practice. I managed to launch 8-9ton payloads and land this bad boy without chutes. But then adding a pair of chutes will make it easier and won't cost much deltaV. ./\ | | <-- payload in fairing --- <-- fairing base and decoupler __ <-- cargo bay with power, probe core and reaction wheels | | | | <-- jumbo orangex64 with a pair of chutes | | | | --- | | <--other jumbo with radial tanks, fins and gear | | | | | | __ \ / /\ <--mainsail Could have posted a pic, but where's the fun in that ?

Always a ton of fun ! I want much more money for this kind of stuff ! Mind you, this is mid career... I might get this contract just for the challenge though Although the contracts are very random and weird, i must admit they are often very funny

Oh yeah it's that guy that i may have enlightened (hopefully). Well, this one is as retarded as the others. I laughed so much at this beard dude at the beginning of the video ! Hell, it was Aristoe who thought that if the earth was spinning then dropped objects shouldn't fall to his feet.... theory wich was debunked like 20 centuries ago EDIT : this guy has not posted any videos since our discussion. Is that a good sign ?

Ouch that aloe plant thing... but well, it's not a very ugly plant to own i guess. Hey could you please share that Apollo 11 launch shot ? i'd like to see it !

hi ! 1) Not sure what you mean here, but in KSP you totally can bank and pitch to achieve a turn just like in real life ! just use the roll and then pitch up. You don't have to yaw all the time. 2)Uh, this happens to everyone. It's some kind of bug i guess. Try simply steering the jet on the runway, usually it deviates very little anyway. 3) If you bounce a couple times before take off, it's probably that you don't have enough lift, and so your jet needs to go faster in order to get that needed lift, hence not lifting up on the first time. Try increasing wing surface//increasing lift-to-weight ratio. If you feel that yourplane has enough lift but won't point its nose up, then try putting the back wheels closer to the center of mass. The closer to it, the easier it will be to nose up. (but also the easier to smash your engines on the runway when pitching up) I hope it helps !

(Long post ahead !) WOW ! AMAZING NEWS : i did the impossible ! the dude who published the video that robotengineer linked ! He's actually the guy i quoted before in this facepalm thread... Here's what happened: I was enjoying some ESA's earth from space video, and that bloke (he had already stalked some other similar videos, i had already "discussed" with him before) posted a comment about NASA and ESA being fake, conspiracy and the usual stuff. Here's what happened next : (i cut the part where i wonder about the number of neurons and glial cells in his brain to keep it to the point it's quite facepalm-y anyway) He finally decided ot listen to my arguments about the subject Flatbrain : Alright, tell me how a satellite stays in orbit then. Me : uh, it doesn't actually stay in orbit forever... But if you at least believe in Newtonian physics and in math i can mathematically demonstrate to you that an object with constant speed can be in a circular orbit around a parent body. Be careful what you ask though, because you can't argue and use ........ arguments over mathematics like you do with the other stuff. Flatbrain : don't need a long equation or formula. When I ask someone they say satellites constantly fall down to earth, but because the speed is just right they fall 'with the curve' so they keep going around like that. is that correct ? Oh wait ! he's actually being less idiot than before ! Me : you don't understand. You cannot say that something is impossible and then refuse to read "long formulas". If you limit yourself to "constantly falling towards earth and curves stuff" then don't write on the internet your stupid conspiracy stuff. Flatbrain : I just want to know the basic principle that makes it so they can stay in orbit. I know they don't stay in orbit forever and need to adjust their course/speed a little sometimes. If I throw something up in the air it always comes right back down, unless it's lighter then air. So if I would throw a object at a insane speed in the right angle it would get in a orbit .... in theory. I think I'm correct ? That's what the nasa explanation says. Me : Of course the basic stuff is that given enough horizontal speed and a normal (normal means towards the center) acceleration, the considered object is "falling" around the planet. It's just like spinning a small object attached to a string around your hand. The string acts as the normal force that pulls the object towards your hand. but that's a cheap-ish and undetailed explanation... There's something i don't understand : If you didn't know that in the first place, why did you start saying that it's all a conspiracy and other BS ? it's like shouting out stuff you made up while you have no clue... Flat(but getting rounder though)brain : say it's BS because I try to research all this stuff for months and you can't find any info that makes sense. So if this pricinple is correct and satellites keep 'falling' around the planet. ... how does a geostationary satellite stays in orbit. I could understand it could work for low earth orbit. A geostationary satellite is much further away from earth so there is alot less gravitational pull from the earth, probably nothing anymore *facepalm*. Those satellites need a much higher speed to keep up with the rotation of the earth, since most of them stay in the same spot above earth at all times. Noone so far could give me a explanation for this. (A bit facepalm-ish but OK not to know that i guess) Me : blablabla telling him about that thing called Kepler's 3rd law (soo to be round?) flatbrain : so in low earth orbit a satellite circles the earth 20-30 times / day at a much higher speed. I would think in geostationary orbit you need more speed since you need to do alot more distance to circle the earth. I will do some calculations today and some more research to understand this. Thanks for you answers ! (""calculations"" lmao) Aaaand OMG ! What do we have here ? I convinced a hoaxer ! The impossible became possible ! The satisfaction was overwhelming... After all, before this conversation, he was posting videos like ... oh wait is even worse.I hope that he really learnt something. What do ou guys think ? do you think he is convinced ? or do you instead facepalm because I am completely oblivious and he actually wasn't convinced at all ?

Not over here... South of France (tlse FTW), gets to 40°C when the sun is high... luckily my ventirad is good enough to keep my CPU under 55°C... I don't own an AC though, and i'm considering building some kind of cooler myself out of the leftovers from my PC build: a stock ventirad, USB cables... I suck (like really really suck) at tinkering (is that even the correct word ? not sure) but with a big ice block in an isolated container with 2 holes, air intake and output, with a fan sucking air into the intake, it should probably produce some cool (pun intended) AC-like effect !

As always

Translated from french, found it in (again) the youtube comments section for a CNES video (btw their channel is quite good, if you know french you should totally check it out) : (the video was about ExoMars and Curiosity) "When you look at the photos taken by the Curiosity rover, one can only be astonished by the amount of manufactured objects and structures left by humans who used to live on Mars. It is not possible to have doubts on this because it is obvious. About the next european rover, i'd say that it's going to look for clues, like Curiosity. (*you don't say, that's the whole point of the video above*) But wil it also take photographs of these man-made objects ? " I replied "It's a joke, right ?" And here's what he answered : "Well look at this : there is no doubt at all." That is quite a facepalm-y video, mind you... Even the CNES (the youtube channel) made fun of him : "We thank you for your enthusiasm, but the only man-made objects we found on Mars are curiosity's own instruments. But maybe our researchers aren't as clever and observers as you are ?"

I actually have never used any OS other than Windows Millenium (talk about abomination) and windows 8. Since it's possible to de activate all the touchpad/tablet stuff from the start menu, i actually quite like it. It's probably because win8 is FAR less of an abomination than win millenium and all the other appleOS crap i had to stick with for all these (long) years. I know next to nothing about Win10 : when is it coming out, is it free if i own win8, will my files and all data be saved, will my hardware be fully compatible, will i have to re-install every single driver...etc etc. I probably won't be upgrading to it since i won't notice any difference and i might be too lazy for this.

Oh i thought that it was 100% admitted that type1 was an autoimmune disease caused by genetic factors... Anyway OP, i don't have any of those, but many of my friends do and showed that the earlier and the more seiously you deal with type2 at first, the easier it will be : so have a lot of courage and avoid it if you can !

@Kiwi1960 : just "FOX NEWS" made all the joke

This sounds very hard and time consuming to implement... I'd love my kerbals to move around stations but developing this doesn't really fit in KSP... It's a great idea but i think it would be good for a mod, not for stock

Ooooh i missed the launch... (7hours long train trip) Good thing that the Progress made it ! Too bad it only carries very little supplies (~1month worth of supplies) CRS-8 better make it

Apollo 11(don't forget the"1" or that would be embarrassing) for all the reasons that you already know ,and Gemini 6A/Gemini 7 because docking is awesome, Titan looks amazing for a launcher, and no proper escape system ! So many amazing things

Well, lucky you, you must be the one in a million. Or do you happen to have a supercomputer to run it ?