More Boosters

Maybe I'm just underestimating how wide transfer windows are then. Is the 300-400 dv you save with the Oberth effect worth the hassle though? I'm sure I lost at least 600 dV as steering losses during a 1.4k burn and splitting burns would only further reduce the accuracy. Funnily enough I recently conducted my aforementioned ejection burn and Mun was on the way... It barely affected me and even gave me a boost. It would have even been somewhat useful if it hadn't turned out that I accidentally time warped past my Moho window and found out too late that Moho was going to outpace me by far. As luck would have it, Dres was in just the perfect position and even though I need to speed up from an orbit I purposefully slowed down to get to Moho, it looks like I'll still have 700 nuke DV to spare after getting a Dres parking orbit. The whole thing feels like a conspiracy by Dres to get a rover on it. :D Edit: Funnily enough Alexmoon LW Planner mentions a slightly lower ejection DV (yes you still need to get up there I know) for a 500 by 500 orbit compared to a 100 by 100 one.

Hey, Usually I depart from a 75x75 orbit with chemical engines but with NERV, I went for 200x200 to compensate for steering losses. However they are still far too great, so I'm wondering if they would be lower further up. Should I just give up on the Oberth effect and depart from a 500x500 orbit or higher? What's good altitude for interplanetary ejection when using Nerv?

[FONT=verdana]But why do we need this? [/FONT]

Hey, I don't really want the other features that come with MechJeb so I'd like to ask if there is a standalone landing autopilot mod where you point where you want to land or if MechJeb can be configured to do that.

[quote name='Yourself']Oh, well in that case the number you're looking for is 2/5.[/QUOTE] I know that, I'm going to measure that number experimentally by finding the I value for my sphere and then dividing it by mr^2

Hello! I've actually managed a dinky Mk1 rapier powered SSTO but I can't seem to do anything more complicated. I'd like to request a larger MkII SSTO with margins for stuff other than just getting to orbit, no use of rapiers, and then instructions on its use so I can figure out where my designs go wrong. Thanks!

[quote name='LostOblivion']They're not only economical, but allows you to send kerbals to Duna in a matter of days.[/QUOTE] Citation needed. How many days and how much delta V? Or do you just mean less than a year?

[quote name='*Aqua*']The questions seems to be: What is better - generalization or specialization? Pro generalization - lower cost due to mass production - reduced development cost because you reuse proven designs Contra - reduced and/or superfluous capabilities because your new device have to fit the design pattern Pro specialization - maximized capabilities because you design the probe/devices according to the task - no superfluous capabilities which are potential points of failure Contra - high development and production costs Even if it looks like the requirements for exploration are always the same that's not true. A probe to Jupiter needs strong radiation shielding, a RTG as a powersupply, large antenna, etc. A probe to Mars 'only' needs some solar panels, smaller antenna, etc. Putting a Jupiter probe into Mars orbit is a huge waste of money.[/QUOTE] I think that solar panels are still pretty sufficient at Jupiter. Or Juno is in trouble.

[quote name='MailletC']Fairing shells are non-persistent debris, so you can keep it closed up until you get into orbit, and it won't become space junk. Just FYI.[/QUOTE] Yeah but they are massive and there was practically no air resistance at that point.

So uhh, I launched a Moho rover with 8 wheels and the two wheels at the back are broken. I launched the entire thing in a fairing so I am assuming the fairing somehow destroyed those wheels when I opened it. I opened at like 45km altitude so could it have been the atmosphere? Wouldn't make sense and only one set was broken. Should I feel bad about contemplating repairing the wheel via editing the vessel's text file? I mean I jumped through all those hoops and wheel pops up while in space...

[quote name='pellinor']Actually you can. Radial and normal burns do exactly that. Maneuver nodes have 3 dimensions, energy only has one. So there must be two dimensions of orbital change that keep the orbital energy constant.[/QUOTE] Your gravitational potential energy is calculated very simply as m*g*h, and radial burns exist to change your altitude. Energy has no dimensions, it's a scalar quantity. Assuming you aren't rotating, your kinetic energy in orbit is still your velocity squared times your mass divided by two. I'm not sure why you guys are assuming these are any different just because we are in space. Your kinetic and potential energy will constantly be converted to each other unless your orbit is perfectly circular.

[quote name='Combatsmithen']For me. Gravity assist has never worked. Because you would enter the gravity field. And then on your way back out of the gravity field you would lose all the energy you gained and change your course significantly. So i never see a point in doing it anyway[/QUOTE] [quote name='Korizan']Actually you have stated the exact concept of gravity assist. We use gravity to make a CHANGE in direction to our benefit. Something that would otherwise cost us fuel. And yes there is a balance involved but what we are doing is more about passing the ball (ship) between friends (planets) and providing just enough force (power) to do it.[/QUOTE] I see some misconceptions here. It's not just about changing direction; you do go faster (or slower if that's what you went for), this happens because the planet is still moving with respect to the sun while it pulls you.

[quote name='K^2']Simplest way is to time how long it takes to roll down an incline. If you know how to figure final velocity, average velocity will be exactly half. So it is super easy, but not very precise. If you want a precise measurement, torsion pendulum is the way to go. Also not super complex, but requires more time to set up and math is harder.[/QUOTE] I don't really want to detail the thing's movement. I just want its moment of inertia so I can divide it by its mass and radius^2 to get the multiplier in front of it so I can do the same thing and approximate Earth's moment of inertia and then compare it to calculations and real life measurement. I'm not sure if assuming that a sphere must have a moment of inertia in terms of constant * mr^2 is sensible to do but I can't mathematically prove why that should be the case (yet, if I'm on the right track it would help a lot so I can mention it's not completely out of my hat) so here we are.

[quote name='Foxster']One of the big reasons for me is the speed you arrive in the SOI of the target planet. If you sneak up on it from behind after a low energy transfer then you need a lot less dv to make orbit than if you come crashing into the system at a wild angle. You likely won't be able to slow for a capture at all.[/QUOTE] Aerocapture tho Can't wait until they fix Jool, I have to fire my engines like a barbarian.

[quote name='SargeRho']But Earth's temperature IS changing measurably. With the exception of some areas that are cooling down due to things like shifting ocean currents, etc, Everywhere is getting warmer. Land ice is decreasing while sea ice is increasing, which is another indicator of increasing temperatures, the ocean is heating up, And it's already known that CO2 absorbs heat, preventing more energy from escaping into space. Will it cause catastrophic damage to us? I don't know, but warmer oceans do mean more powerful hurricanes, higher global average temperatures mean higher sea levels, most of it from thermal expansion. Most of the warming IS indeed being absorbed by the ocean, that's already known. So, what makes you more qualified to talk about the subject than thousands of climate scientists?[/QUOTE] Not going in either camp as I don't feel informed well enough but I see nothing in your post (going by it and it only) that suggests that heating isn't just part of a natural cycle but caused by humans.

[quote name='KasperVld']Rocket Builders is a place that actually breaks our community rules constantly, in particular the 'thou shallt not roleplay' rule. You're still welcome to offer the craft you make, or even take requests in the Spacecraft Exchange forum though, the only thing that will change is the 'company' part of it, with the employee/director/ceo roles and inter-company drama that comes with it.[/QUOTE] They're harmless though. What's wrong with fans adding some flavor to their experience? I mean I don't see a reason behind this, unlike that "no Kerman nicknames" thing which certainly makes perfect sense.

[quote name='Motokid600']... And probably still playing KSP.[/QUOTE] Hopefully 1.1 by then.

I have to perform it as well so stopwatch-fu here I come. I used the conservation of energy actually, and used the formula mgh = (1/2)(Iw^2 + mv^2) where h is the highest point of the incline and v is the velocity at the bottom. No idea how I will actually measure velocity there, without going into time and slope angle but yeah. Any ideas?

Hello! I'm a freshman in Physics and I'd like to design an experiment to measure a sphere's moment of inertia except, well, I'm not very familiar with the concept beyond the formulas it comes with as it was not covered in class yes and in typical student fashion I didn't look into it earlier. :huh: Can anyone give some ideas on how I could go about it?

[quote name='LordFerret']Well?, when you live in hole in the ground... it can seem that way.[/QUOTE] Or when you are on the side of the Earth opposite to the ISS.

[quote name='Streetwind']Well, what do you want to achieve with a Kerbin -> Moho -> Eeloo trip? Lower dV from Kerbin? Then I have the duty to inform you that a Kerbin -> Moho trip takes more dV than a Kerbin -> Eeloo trip in the first place, even without a Jool gravity assist. Moho is the highest dV destination in the stock game. ;)[/QUOTE] No I thought I had clarified that in the OP but apparently it didn't work out. Yeah, I know Moho is the most expensive place to be. Ignore the first Kerbin -> Moho bit. ISRU helps us pretend we're launching from Moho; sure there is no giant launch stack but we don't need one to begin with. What's cheaper in terms of Delta V, your typical Kerbin -> Eeloo or Moho -> Eeloo? Edit: And as Snark answered, the "free plane change" and Oberth effect you get from being so low don't even come close to making up for the penalty of being so deep in the gravity well.

[quote name='juanml82']I wouldn't bet too much on aerocapturing at Kerbin. It's doable, depending on the ship design. But I'd try to save some 1,000 dV for that part of the journey just in case aerocapturing doesn't work[/QUOTE] Well if your setting lets you "see if aero capture works", you can always launch a secondary rocket to catch the poor guys.

[quote name='eataTREE']Like everyone who goes to Moho, I initially thought my mission was ridiculously overbudgeted for delta-V.[/QUOTE] I even refueled my nuclear propelled craft while it was on escape trajectory from Kerbin to see if I could eyeball it. That still was not enough, even after I dumped the rest and just got my lander, it still wasn't enough. And three underpowered rescue missions later I just gave up.

It just occurred to me to check inclination for Eeloo and Moho, and they are 6.15/7 degrees respectively. Those two values are very close to each other so unless they are on opposite directions, it seems like a Moho vehicle that fills up nicely with ISRU can do a more efficient transfer to Eeloo than it would from Kerbin. I didn't actually get any numbers for this and I don't know if being that close to the sun would make the Oberth effect you get not worth it (as from Kerbin you start with Kerbin's higher energy orbit), so can someone tell me if a Kerbin -> Moho -> Eeloo round trip may actually make sense? Or is a straight transfer to Eeloo more efficient? Keep in mind that I know Moho is hell to get to and there's no way Moho to anything will save Delta-V much less when landing is involved, but consider ISRU and just a fully fueled spacecraft at Moho surface.

[quote name='Streetwind']Well, they're constantly tweaking the contract parameters. In 1.0.5 too they changed a lot about how contracts determine when they should generate... if enough players feel like solar orbit should not be considered "further ahead" than a Mun landing, then perhaps it can be changed too.[/QUOTE] This! Nothing I hate more than solar orbit giving more science or a throwaway "station" in solar orbit making ridiculous money. If possible just remove solar stations, there's no rhyme and reason for them. Asteroid-based stations can simply make way more money when brought to the target SoI instead.