Hotel26

Or to paraphrase an old Russian air force joke, "wheels down"...

The new Kitson SP Launch Point (75.7S 152.7E) undergoing trials... (Why is it always so dark near the poles? Don't blame this on my photography!) I just love it when I get a nice, tight seam. "Amphibians go in. Amphibians come out."

Which (KK? KSR?) components did you use to construct this?

Saw this posted elsewhere (Airport Exchange) and wondered "what coordinates"? Never mind. I see it is on the map in the Opening Post.

SPACE NEWS GAZETTE Working the drag shift at Mission Control 1d+ ago and a KAC message for an SOI change crossed my screen: "Kerbol -> Eeloo". What? Blinked a couple of dozen times in rapid succession to revive my senses. A mission that started 3y 169d ago, which would put its launch date in early 2020[1]... A Zenith starter kit: with (L-to-R) Mule tanker, ORB miner, some unidentified early prototype space station hub, Spider sky crane and an MP-propelled RA-100 for Meerkat call-home comms duty. Philfrid, Robrett, Bilbur, Barvis and Butthead Kerman on board[2], just auto-aroused from cryo-sleep. "Hi guys; time to stretch for some calisthenics!". I still cannot believe it. This is my first manned mission to Eeloo arriving. I can't even remember what I was doing in early 2020!! Can you? OK, Mission Control Handbook outlines a wake-up call; bio-signs validation; all-systems check; coffee pot engaged (and on the vessel, too!). Then SMS messages to registered family members of all crew to let them know their brave loved ones have arrived at their destination/new home (and remind their names). Busy, busy, busy. (That unidentified space station hub is bugging me now. Gonna have to go hang out in the archives for a while to figure out what it is; and how to power it up.) [1] started this current Orbit world in January 2018. Really. The no-warp rule enforces real-time by prohibiting any warp longer than 30m. Regs clearly state: "find something else to do".[3] [2] OK, a couple of alert readers have written in to remark that there appears to be accommodation for only four Kerbals in the Zenith ship... So I may have at least one stow-away in the crew complement? [3] which is why I am currently managing 932 flights. Oy!

I would have guessed it was "you will own nothing and be happy", but that doesn't fit. Or "GREAT RESET", but the space doesn't match with 7. Down, for which I have "EXTERMINATE". (I don't think the space would be legal, anyway, like everything that comes out of Davos...) So I guess it has to be EXTERMINATE. Yeah, that works.

About this, you are perfectly correct. We all know Moho is difficult. The key question is why is it difficult? In the standard interplanetary transfer, you leave your orbit when the transfer time matches when the target will arrive at the same place you do, when you arrive in the target's orbit. (This is the "transfer window".) A consequence of this is that any inclination change must (very likely) be performed as a mid-course maneuver (without the aid of an Oberth effect). In the case of Moho's 7-degree inclination from the ecliptic, this inclination change is a major expense. Therefore, the strategy Laie suggests is to make the transfer, targeting not Moho, but one of its nodes, AN or DN. The one at the lower altitude (nearer its PE) turns out to be more efficient in terms of matching orbital speeds of Moho and vessel, requiring a lesser burn for capture. Upon arrival at that node, a retrograde burn is performed to adjust the orbital period (for one more short orbit, something >102d), to synchronize an (inclined) encounter with Moho upon the next loop. This leaves one with the question of where to perform any required inclination change. The obvious, or default, choice is to perform the capture at Moho and then adjust inclination within Moho's SOI, at a much lower orbital speed. If you intend anyway to land out of low orbit, you may not even have to bother with the inclination. The other choice is to include an inclination change in the transfer injection burn at Kerbin. This can be done to quite easily lower the inclination differential to very nearly 0. This might make ultimate rendez-vous with Moho easier, but would be a personal choice whether worthwhile or not. I think Laie's strategy reliably makes Moho a quite accessible target. The chief (and only) disadvantage I see is that your arrival will include at least an extra 102 days for the rendez-vous sync orbit -- plus the Kerbin annual wait for departure (average 213d; whereas the usual Moho window would be every 102 days) I feel this is offset simply by the good frequency of Moho opportunities. I have no doubt repeated a lot of the content in Laie's tutorial, but my slant is to compare his strategy with the conventional transfer.

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/196048-when-is-the-annual-moho-transfer-again/?do=findComment&comment=3830984 This link is directly to the comment by Laie within the topic. Good luck.

I think you will find this post by Laie to be very helpful. It links also to a tutorial Laie wrote. The claim is 4,600 m/s dV (low orbit to low orbit[1]), if you leave at the right time. The gist is that Moho is so inclined (so deeply in the gravity well), that a different approach is required. (Whereas the standard method is to leave when the target will arrive at your transfer destination (so-called transfer window), this approach targets arrival at Moho's DN, which is its node closest to its PE. You can also make (most of) the inclination alignment on Kerbin ejection, which should(?) be cheaper than doing it at Moho capture.) The tute is The annual and reliable Moho Transfer Opportunity. And will definitely "expand horizons". If you read these a couple of times carefully and still have questions (still likely), I recommend you return to this post of yours and ask those questions here. [1] and refueling in LKO is highly recommended

very much getting that way, thanks to les agents provocateur...

This is my new international airport on Prince Edward Island, 32N 9E. I scaled the runways back to 1200 meters, in line with constructing a reasonably compact airport. I had my surveyor stand at the seams of components (runways, taxiways, ramps etc) and examined his shadow in the morning sun in order to verify precise alignment to avoid bogey bumpity bump...

Something like this, with Kerbin from the Map View.

Ha ha ha. "A kerbal after my own heart." Always make a backup of the universe before jiggling with your universe...

Exactly my point that when rules are loose or vague or not ultimately cogent, they are liable to be applied arbitrarily and/or defeated easily. (Starting at the base of the cliff and returning to it comes to mind as well.) For example of 'loose': "Your path should not deviate significantly from the intended direction.". In legal terms, this is known as a 'weasel' word. Even 'intended' is ambiguous. "Using thrust of any sort to control or change the trajectory". Parachutes apply drag. So, no complaints from me. I did ask, and I did get a workable answer. And I do now think a separate "Elcano Speed Run" challenge with badge for completion might be appropriate, especially as the owner of this challenge appears to be absent.

I don't see why. It's not to gain any advantage in progress. Just to enable a route. Chutes don't propel; only cushion. Like equipping a rover to perform mountainous ascent/descents.: e.g. roll bars. I'd also say "yes, it's 18Watt's challenge, but it's an Elcano Challenge (3rd rerun) and there's a dictionary definition of circumnavigation: 1) to prove the planet is round not flat (e.g. in Magellan's day (obs.)), or these days b) an endurance run. And my distance would be longer, not shorter. So I have a standard rover circumnav under way 75% complete and stalled for two/three years and I deliberately went off the line, just for way better scenery (i.e. exploration). Instead of just a mere brawn endurance test. In my case, I'm innovating. Everyone believes a circumnav has to be around the equator. OK, why? And it's an endurance race, so of course, the only way the human brain can get involved (in an otherwise muscle/sweat/boredom display) is to figure to do the equivalent in less effort. Potentially 13 hours travel to go round Kerbin on the surface. The rules themselves make the exception of 'dune jumps'. "You may unavoidably go temporarily airborne." Or replacement. "Oh dear, I smashed my rover off an ice cliff and had to fly a replacement in and place it on the water at the location of the debris..." All aboard. I think I like the definition: "you must travel from A to the opposite point on the globe, A', remaining entirely within one hemisphere; then travel back to the original point A, remaining entirely within the other hemisphere".

Diamond Lake is easy to miss. The surrounding grasslands are elevated 600m higher than it. Discovered it on an equatorial ASR sweep of spent boosters and the like. Meanwhile, my new Bluebird has achieved a stable 218 m/s, 785 kmh, 498 mph across the ice with a full fuel load. It is also capable of surviving a plunge from the ice cap into the ocean -- a key requirement in its amphibian mission. Next comes the tuning of hydrofoil/planes for good speed across the ocean surface.

You did, and I'm glad you did. I realize it's not directly under the control of the Forum/moderation team and requires perhaps some work from Invision, but I think this is a feature that could go a long way to salving certain "rifts" (shall we say) currently plaguing the forum. And my opinion is that the KSP Forum is large & diverse enough as to be an interesting case study for Invision (if it cares about product improvement).

Thank you! My concern was about the two hemi-circumferences (of the circumnavigation) being enough in the same plane. A trial shows though that entry and exit at the South Pole would be 55W in and 150E out. (A change in course of 25 degrees.) At the North Pole, in along 81E and out on 109W (about 10 degrees change in course). To exaggerate the concern for clarity, if my route were to go from the starting point, travel to the opposite side of the globe, and then, rather than continue on in the same direction, reverse course and retract the outbound journey, it would mean not visiting one side of the planet entirely. Though the effort (and scenery!) is the same. (Ah yes, just like @damerell suggested.) Meanwhile, it seems Sea Spray III will clock 80+ m/s on water and 120+ on ice reliably. Not so lucky getting it to dive off the southern polar cap (right side up) yet. But I'm thinking a purpose-built craft could set some traversal records. Something like THIS: (That look like Mk2 to you? That certainly looks like Mk2 to me...)

The "Unread Threads" (with "Mark Site Read") feature is something I heavily use now. I do not believe there is currently a technique under the Invision forum software for an individual user to mark a particular topic (thread) "of no interest" such that any activity in that thread is filtered out of the Unread Threads list presented to that viewer. I've looked at the "Follow" menu and believe I am either correct or just missing something. Please advise?

I've also been thinking along similar lines: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/174601-shower-thoughts/?do=findComment&comment=4322536 It's a polar route that attempts to keep as much as possible to flat ice and flat water: It would: start at KSC head south to the only stretch you have the coastal opportunity to mount the southern polar cap proceed directly to the south pole then toward the channel at 150E, dismounting the southern cap (using chutes) proceed through the 10S 150E channel up toward 50N 90E to enter the northern tundra for the only land segment of the whole journey pass through the lake at 75N 75E and head up to the North Pole then direct to 60N 100W to re-enter the ocean and head south pass through the channel at 10N 95W circumnavigate the southern cape and return to KSC My amphibian, Sea Spray III, would be a starting candidate for this mission, as it is relatively fast on water, and is likely to be stable and very fast on ice; only needing to be fitted with chutes for the maneuver to exit the southern polar cap. I'll be doing some sea trials shortly to test feasibility. I'm posting this here to gather thoughts and any possible objections under the rules before I invest heavily. I understand @18Watt is "on leave", so I think I could be guided by those other interested parties with an opinion. In sum, the route departs from and returns to KSC and visits both poles. "Circumnavigation or no?" Thoughts?

Some would say that 106 mods is an "own wound", you see. Nothing is free. Anyway, I do hope that my colleague (Lisias) has got a good fix for you. Peace & prosperity, friend.

Zis is ze way. You have reason.

So, I am in the shower (hypothetically). And I'm a busy man so I don't get a lot of time to shower; thus I do like to use that time proactively. And I was thinking what a lot of time wastage in this thing, Elcano Challenge, so most naturally, I'm thinking, "how to save time (& cut costs)?". I attach below what I came up with. And I admit I haven't been paying attention in all the years (and iterations) this thing has been running... so this may not be an original idea. [But I will be the first to patent it!] After all, most people waste a lot more time in the shower than I do! Easy to outclass me on innovation... The first key to it is that it begins at the North pole, visits the South pole and returns to the South pole. Circumnav 101... The second key to it is that it takes the flattest (fastest) route. It also has the advantage that it minimizes the time-wasting distractions of e.g. scenery. Just two kinds of scenery, in fact: water and frozen water. So, one kind, really. (Maybe a coupla hundred kilometers of frozen green H2O, if you wish to be finnicky.) The vehicle to be used would be designed for very high speed on ice. And high speed on water. (Maybe Sea Spray III?) I thought it might have to have chutes on it to dismount the polar caps. Ah yes, it would have to. Leaving the southern cap. I think a direct, free fall (no wings or other exploits) -- well, OK, I might be going very fast at the time the cap self-terminated -- would not invalidate the rules, or at least the spirit -- of the challenge? (OK, see: "Brief jumps over dunes and such are permitted".) Seems, too, like this expedition could depart southward from KSC and return to KSC (from the north and around the southerly cape) with little additional expense. Still seems like a huge waste of time. I think I would have to pay a flunky to do it for me. (I know. I'll have my assistant call Greta Kerman and see if she's available...) After all, Big Business is pretty brisk right now! And Time, as you no doubt know, is Money!

A better way is to use a "binary chop [bisection]". You disable half the mods, A-M say; then test. If that's no good, pick another "half": N-S say, and disable those also. Or if it is good, re-enable "half": e.g. G-M. And so you go, until the very culprit is found. Just 7 or so iterations. It sounds painful, but track what you are doing on a piece of notepaper and it's fun in the same way that only some people like to read Sherlock Holmes.

In your report to High Command, I recommend you write along the lines of: "Our mission to deflect a dangerous Class D (or possibly even Class C?) asteroid succeeded in protecting the KSC and other major population areas from catastrophic apocalyptic damage, and -- after launching a single ADD (Asteroid Deterrent Device) -- was able to confirm that the asteroid harmlessly impacted the desert (population 0), with the benefit also of producing large-scale seismic information about petroleum deposits over a wide area that will be useful to major exploration companies". Yes, I do think "Mission Failed" is almost certainly more information than High Command wish to hear.