Hotel26

I have to admit that I only noticed this, coming back to your post, after I'd makde a photo-replica of your aircraft. (Mine is aptly called '18Watt'.) I had just determined that it liked 1,701 m/s @ 25 km. I used a service bay rather than a fairing and I included an RTG (omitting the battery), so that extra mass might explain mine going a little slower. It's a fun airplane, though! Thank you for the entertainment, today!

Inconceivable!! Really?? (Or a typo?) Do you mean 1,720, or did you kick in some OX this time?

See the ribbon above your edit window...

The difference between speed and velocity is that speed is a scalar, the differential of distance (rate of change), but velocity is (speed & direction). You are being shown the relative speed, which is not the same as velocity (speed and direction). I am going to put this another way (and then I am going to give up). I am doing 50 kmh down my local street in an easterly direction and you are doing 60 kmh in the same street in the westerly direction. Our velocities are constant but our relative speed (rate of change of distance) is getting lower and lower until we are broadside, at which point in time (for only that point in time) our relative speed is zero and then it changes polarity and the relative speed then climbs asymptotically back toward 110 kmh. For a moment there, the speed is zero, changing polarity even though we pass at what looks like 110 kmh, but our velocities are constant AND DIFFERENT. The direction is DIFFERENT. That is what causes the inevitable divergence. VELOCITY and SPEED are not the same thing!! I think the insight that will expand understanding for you now, is to realize that getting docked to another vehicle, involves two distinct processes: intercept/rendez-vous, gets you into close proximity, but not synchronized in orbit. You will drift if you do nothing else. docking involves constant maneuvering to the dock, making progress faster than the natural drift. Doing this is actually causing your orbits to synchronize and your distance to decrease at the same time. That's probably a separate tutorial (and a docking aid). Meanwhile, you've mentally stalled on what is normal drift and you simply need to proceed to learn how to continue from that situation to the actual dock. I will finish by tantalizing you (for incentive): there is something called "invisible tethering". Without docking, you can fix your proximity to another craft within a small range. get your target relative speed momentarily very close to zero then make a small burn pro/retrograde as necessary to change your orbital period (KER read-out) to be within milliseconds of your target's orbital period. Whatever the residual difference in orbits, that means you will come back to your same position, relative to the target, with only milliseconds of drift (multiplied by your orbital speed for drift distance per orbit, e.g. 2.2m) per orbit (e.g. 34min).

^ yes indeed somehow imbued also with fatalism and/or nihilism... "poison for one's foes", some might think.

The statement "I'm waiting for someone to convince me that we don't live in a simulation", has been attributed to Neil deGrasse Tyson. Occam's Razor (or "an appeal to the elegance of simplicity") would indicate that evidence should be provided in order to believe something. Scientifically speaking, anyway. I was pretty shocked to see a 'name' like NdGT make such a shyster-typical statement, and I recall my involuntary reaction was, "what a poseur!". But I know next to nothing about him, anyway. An internet search seems to indicate him on both sides of the fence, so I'll just write it off as 'irrelevant'; pop-science. Simulations kick the can down the road, don't they? And they answer NO questions. Why would you build a simulation and who would build it? Sooner or later, you need a 'reality' in order to build a simulator -- because simulators run on computers. And we think our universe is inconceivably huge!! How big would this computer be, how much energy would it consume and how much heat would it give off? And who would build it? So I was already an active programmer during the 1970s. I wrote my first program in 1969, to be precise. So I am going to give you a remembrance from that period of the 70s with no good way to prove its veracity. Moore's Law had kicked off in 1965 and computing power was 'exploding' in the 1970s. A lot of focus and fascination came upon the study of computer simulation. All this was on the heels of heavy adoption of Scientism (itself quite older) as a default belief: science was adequate to explain everything and -- building on advances in physics during the 20th century -- the idea was popular that, given complete information about the starting state of any physical system, one could, in theory, simulate and predict the whole trajectory of the whole system. These days, with further advances in physics, those waters do seem a whole lot muddier to many! I remember reading a book in the early 90s describing computer simulations and their power, and I recall one example from it that indicates that level of excitement: a simulation of bird-flocking behavior. Was almost certainly this actually: Boids, because I remember that the original version utilized just three, simple heuristics. When this simulation was demonstrated in the neighboring faculty in Natural Sciences (or whatever; for ornithologists), the professors there were rather amazed at its fidelity. It had been an unexplained puzzle for at least a century. "How did you do it?!!" The simple rules were described. "But how do you know it works that way?" "Well, we don't. We just devised rules that made sense to us (humans) and that appeared to work the best. We just wanted to simulate something challenging." What can I say, to sum up? I think this idea was a passing fad -- titillating (especially served chilled with an olive) but now most truly passé...

This is EGO Hedgehog in a 46/13 Mm equatorial orbit around Eve, touching Gilly's outer node. I've been sending/collecting Zephyr lifters to Eve for some years. I must have at least a dozen or so. This shot shows 4 of them, plus 2 Zippos. I'm now starting the project to send them down to a 2Mm LEO for refueling there. Each one of them will perform as a giant retrograde "heatshield". Mount a medium-mass vehicle upon one, for transit to the Eve surface, and the Zephyr will provide the ferocious deceleration to deorbit the payload safely. Like this:

The marvels of Rich Text Format. You type and it formats, using all the horizontal space, generally making things unreadable (on a wide screen), but scaling onto small screens dynamically. If you explcitily hit <enter> like that, you are asking for a new paragraph, and so you get an empty line between. If you want a soft break, try <shift><enter> and it's a simple new line (this one), but not a whole new paragraph. There are a number of things about RTF I really detest, so do not feel alone. You can enter <code>, using the "<>" icon in the ribbon above, but it's probably not what you want, in general: maybe like this which is more verbatim about everything. I'm rusty but I think the HTML terms are <p> and <br>, respectively, but that's only an fyi, no practical help.

tl;dr I wanted to design and test an aerial bomb to be carried under-wing or in bomb bays, but without loading it into an airplane and flying it every test iteration. So this is rough but kind of fun. Mach 6 enroute at 23 km with approx. 600km range. Warhead detaches and coasts over the target and then begins a controlled dive. Speeds when wing-launched would be slower with no intention to control. A jet fighter version might be possible for lower, 'aimed' release. Then it would just be a matter of parking a hostile-flag e.g. aircraft carrier in some position "threatening" KSC. Decorate the deck with a row of obsolete, surplus equipment. Just for military exercise drills, you understand... We can never get enough peace, I say. Ah yeah, code-name: Tallboy. UPDATE: actually, it goes to orbit. Watch out!

"picture or it didn't happen" (sorry, that just slipped out! but coz actually, I find that I am not cognizant with this construct: "old fashioned glass". What is it? A picture would assist.)

I don't want to sound picky, but while the above may be true, it doesn't explain well to someone who doesn't know what you do. First consider this case: craft A and B are in the precise same orbit around a body, experiencing graviational acceleration, but separated by 100m. Their relative speed will remain 0. And distance, 100m. Because they are in the precise same orbit, separated only by position within that orbit (Orbital Elements: True Anomaly). (So gravity isn't the sufficient condition.) So the better, and simple explanation, is that the two craft (in the user's case above) are in slightly different orbits -- hence their distance separation will vary. Then helpfully suggest: "open the Map view and look at the orbits and see that they are visibly different, or failing that, that their apoapses and periapses differ." Apologize for the above (especially after ten years long gone) but I suggest it makes 100% difference to the utility of the answer.

The perfect gravity turn is elusive! One method, employed during exhaustive testing, is the Clockwork Arrow. Use a "clockwork" procedure, over and over, tuning it for best result. Publish the 'clockwork' in instructional form. A simple form of recipe is: to launch SAS Sfc Radial Out; pitch downrange 5 degrees reaching speed X m/s, raise the AP to Y km, then coast to circularization. Sometimes, it is cute to pre-tilt the vehicle on the launchpad by 5 degrees and ignite with SAS Hold, allowing some build-up of horizontal velocity to achieve the precise initial trajectory before transiting to SAS Sfc Prograde. With very high TWR (modular) boosters, one can stipulate launch with a retarded TWR (e.g. 1/3 throttle) to get a more accurate transition to SAS Sfc Prograde at the precisely-desired speed. Super-precision is fine, most of the time, but what about when you just want to get to space in one piece? Or when you are in the midst of all those test launches and you know the current one is tending to the pear shaped...? Or you are launching a complete unknown, designed by someone else. This is where I use a technique I call "Power Shaping". If your launch is not turning fast enough, you can retard the throttle. (Since drag is the square of speed, this is not a terrible option in the low atmosphere.) And you may want (or have) to take a retardation or pause in thrust to avoid 'sploding in a heat-induced fireball by imposing speed limits in the lower 20 km... And if you think things are going well, you can add power. Or switch to SAS ORB Prograde (as long as you are confident of having the attitude control authority to take the nose 'off prograde'). The metric to watch is the Time to Apoapsis. I have this displayed in a KER HUD. The moment it stops increasing, one needs a) to increase power and/or b) (most likely) to go to SAS Hold on the attitude. Be advised that this will induce more drag and heat, but it will likely be necessary then to save the launch. In the worst case, you may have to pull the nose up, applying full power, but this will indicate that you are experiencing a terrible launch, never to be repeated. Think instead about ESC-Return-To Launch to save your own valuable time. Other ideas? Techniques? Please feel free to share/discuss.

Or c) before you do the damn-fool thing with the hammer! (Or d) before you even think it...) I don't know which of the three simulations you are living in, but that Doom music is pre-emptive in mine. Some kind of Sixth Sense (yes, I see dead people (resembling myself)) plays before I entertain any such kind of damn fool nonsense.. ymmv.

Pure conjecture is like pure heroin. Gets up your nose.

Now finally, I understand the fascination with clocks. They have dials and that is an anagram for the impressionist. Time is clearly not on our side. Clocks work only on their own time. Never smash one or they will ALL come looking for you...!!

Had to hunt for a "watch/clock" but found a dusty old heirloom amongst my wife's possessions in the attic. Followed instructions with the hammer. Nothing but triangles... (The sound was deafening and monotonal; quite alarming, really.) Did I hit it TOO hard? But why, if this were a simulation, simulate BVM[1] such as we are producing right now, hmm??

"Don't ask. Don't tell." Oh the disappointment to learn this! I am taking the rest of the day off... @Kerbart @adsii1970 and yet it gets worse. We're not really here? I need to go lie down. Or never take another shower again... (After all, why should I: this sweat and grime is merely illusory?)

Smart people who go into trades often end up running small businesses of their own, employing other tradies, and then doing very well for themselves. Nothing to sniff at.

Shades of Gimli glider...

So I dummied up the following, Kometeer, without knowing exactly which parts you can use. The main feature is the staggering of the panels. You can point directly at or away from the sun and they will all receive 100% without shadowing each other. When the panel axis needs to be pointed at the sun, you simply rotate the craft 180 degrees longitudinally and you are back in business. That longitudinal rotation will give you 100% solar exposure at any[tm] attitude. At Kerbin's altitude, out in deep space, the panels will run the Dawn continuously. (This is why I, in general, like RTGs or fuel cells: they will work at Eeloo and during the night.) Looks like this has 17+ km/s dV. And you can launch it within a fairing. You may need an antenna for science and some way to get the kerb back to Kerba Firma. Part List: lawn chair (kerbal lying on its back) facing prograde Z-200 battery 5x PB-X150 6x OX-4L small RW Dawn ion engine

The answer to your question, in general, is yes for fuel cells. (But probably not for your comet application.) NB: The fuel cells, btw, have some battery capacity themselves. Terrapin Terrapin is a useful final or penultimate drive stage for medium-light interplanetary payloads. It is e.g. featured in my Scout mission vehicle. By itself, 6+ km/sec dV and 0.98 m/s acceleration. Don’t forget to activate the fuel cell arrays to power it!! In general, peruse my hangar: Mighty Ion P.S. I see I used Terrapin as the final propulsion stage in an unpublished work named Kontiki, a 7-kerb craft.

Hearty congratulations!! But that is not why I am here today... I am here today to announce: Our very first landing on Pol! We had over 3 km/s dV remaining after Jool capture, but there was Pol, orbiting right there mighty purty and, being oil men, we looked at each other in Mission Control, exclaimed "Let's Do It!" and high-fived. And Here We Be!!! Dang. ...14.08% Brent crude... Light & sweet! (628,000 kallons to be refined before lift-off!) Champagne time! (This is nearly 9 years after I was introduced to KSP: Dec 2014...)

Certainly true in the West for non-scientific reasons. "China plans to build as many as thirty nuclear power reactors in countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative by 2030." "Advanced pressurized water reactors such as the Hualong One are the mainstream technology in the near future, and the Hualong One is also planned to be exported." And, no doubt, financed. Consider any country that is a) developing with determination, b) low on population, c) stable geologically, and d) has plentiful water (e.g. large lakes). Start a candidate search with e.g. the Stans... Don't be surprised if other countries begin making the scientific and economic determination that nuclear power is both safe and economic. YMMV.

Split the difference then: keep it on Earth and power it with nuke. That would be the scientific solution.

I always find Map View image posts, such as this below, rather inscrutable to read, so I'll simply point out the salient points, after a narrative. JB14a Jool Beep is a small pod of 3x RA-2 relays that has arrived in the Jolian system in an unfortunate 174-degree inclination. I played a little with gravity assists but playing chicken running at high-speed in reverse is pretty scary (and futile). After adjusting inclination to a bold 180 degrees, I lucked into a low perijo with an apojo matching the lugubrious Pol. Moving backward so slowly at Pol's alittude that it's inclination in the Pol SoI would be 'easterly'. Yay. What the orbital speed will be at peripol will be announced by Mission Control whenever we get there. (And, of course, my mathematical intuition is warning me that I may be interpreting the "polarity" of the Focus View schematic wrongly.) OK, so actually, you can skip the details in the image! With my luck holding up, an Atlas III miner showed up shortly after and this vehicle just happened to have a perijo close to Pol's altitude and that got me thinking about establishing a mining station at Pol to assist with a) rescue of distressed orphan flights and b) Minmus-style departures(? almost certainly a very bad idea). Call it an outpost then rather than a station. And this has all stimulated some review of my harmonic GEO (Gilly-Eve Orbit) plan to have successive fuel depots periodically visit the vicinity of Gilly for fuel transfer/distribution to LEO. But it has now dawned on me that direct transfer to Gilly from LEO has very much the same (easy) solution equivalent to MKO: the Minmus-Kerbin loop for rendez-vous. A number of rows of my mental Tetris puzzle thus just collapsed in on themselves. Nice.