jevry

my super duper late suggestion for a description:

im doing some research on orbital stuff and there seem to be a lot of explanations for the oberth effect. but im nto sure which ones are right, and which ones are wrong. and which ones seem to contradict each other but are both right. so far the best explanation i found i think is: "To get the most kinetic energy from a chemical rocket, it should be burned when the vehicle is already moving at high speed, This is because the added kinetic energy will equal the force of the rocket thrust (which is constant) multiplied by the distance that the rocket moves during the burn. The higher the initial speed, the more will be the distance moved." however i have found a few different categories of answers so far, these are variantions of: "the rocket moves more distance during the burn, thuss it gains more kinetic energy" "F = M X V^2, and V = Vstart + dV, thuss when Vstart is higher you gain more energy" (sounds reasonably correct to me but i think its missing some details?) "it is a relativistic thing, from the standpoint of the rocket there is no magical increase in kinetic energy gained" (unsure about this one, relativity is only relevant when you are moviong at least 1% the speed of light iirc) "it has to do with the exhaust gasses" (but the effect also works using engines that have no exhaust gasses, e.g solar sails) "it has to do with the planet, you move faster thuss lose less energy as you leave it's gravity well" (to me this sounds only relevant during gravity assists, not while changing apoapsis height) since this place seems kinda smart and kind, what do you guys think is/are the right explanation(s)? and do you have any other thoughts about it?

i actually tried this because i got a little intimidated by ksptot (appearently you need to adjust settings in the files to get the mod working with RSS.) it went pretty well, iirc i managed to save about 1300-1400 dV by doing the 2 year earth maneuvre. it did take 30 minutes of fine tuning though. i am kind of sad i didn't manage to save more dV because 1400 out of a total of 20K or so is still not a lot and i also noticed something cheeky, by doing such a maneuvre you may have to burn more fuel during the capture burn, is this correct? not sure if this is a necro....

huh 5375 m/s? i calculated that from an orbit equal to that of earth to a transfer to venus would cost 2116 m/s (admittedly i already figured somethign has to be wrong since escape velocity is above 2116 m/s), any idea what i missed in the calculation? (for refference i litterally calculated the speed of an orbit, that has an apoapsis of earth's periapsis and a periapsis of venus's apoapsis, at the apoapsis, and subtracted the speed of earth's orbit at periapsis) im defenitely going to try and see if i can make this work with RSS. thanks!

im doing a project about spaceflight and orbital mechanics and i've figured some stuff about the math behind it now now i've tried using my cranky old pc to (barely) run RSS and assuming going to jupiter takes about 7600 dV how much would it cost if i tried to slingshot as much as i could and go via earth-venus-earth-earth-jupiter i though il just use transfer planner to plan a rough route and see what happens sadly i burned up in the earths atmosphere during a gravity assist because i was unsure about the height of the atmosphere and foudn out that indeed yes, it was above 70 km but i noticed that the dV expended i wrote down quickly added up to above 7600 m/s. you already need 3000 m/s to get to venus so that means for the entire journey after that has to be under ~4500 or its a waste of time and dV i guess if i planned more strictly i could have avoided an unnessesary second 3000 m/s burn but even then, 4500 m/s max saved seems so harsh. i mean its great and all since thats a potential 25% fuel saved but around 1500 m/s is surely going to interplanetary course corrections. and unless really well planned that other 3000 m/s is gone sooner than you think. then i checked the internet and according to a deltaV map of the solar system the difference in dV between venus and jupiter is even narrower, less than 3000 so an already tight planning has to be even tighter so how usefull is it even planning for them? is it usefull to do a single assist with venus? or do you need to go full on galileo probe style and hit 3 assists to get meaningfull milage out of it? and on another note why is there no transfer window calculator that can calculate a route from planet A to C via slingshot planet B? it should be possible right?

So im holding a presentation about orbital mechanics for my exams and i need a tiny bit of outside help. -In the presentations I want to explain about some basic orbital mechanics and rocketry maneuvers. The presentation should be around a 10 minute. -For this presentation I also want to plan a fictional space flight to Europa that includes slingshot maneuvers (because that seemed like a great idea and my inner hipster did not want to go to mars because that seemed to mainstream). I believe the correct route would be from earth -> venus -> earth -> jupiter? -For this im assuming time is irrelevant and I can have any planet be at any point in it's orbit at any time (I will ofcourse disclaim this in the presentation). though I might want to know afterwards how long it may take for the planets to align how my route requires them, so then I can explain how the route isn't feasible (or is) because it will take too long (or won't) before we can launch the rocket. -I don't need to explain all the calculations exactly (I don't think) but the more formulas the happier I make the examinators (or so im told), though at the same time it needs to be understandable and approachable. Turns out it's not as easy as ksp makes it seem I've already figured out some of the basics of how to calculate and illustrate orbital trajectories. Things like the two focal points and one of those foci being the orbital body. i confuse the major/semi-major/minor axis (axi?) a little bit. I'm not completely read up yet on excentricity and the time it takes to orbit a body I do (I think) understand how you can calculate the distance with the velocity and vice versa with Msatalite*Vsatalite*Ddistance = Etot One of my biggest sources so far has been this site: https://www.astronomynotes.com/history/s7.htm In case its usefull here is a quick summary of how I so far think how I want to structure the presentation: part 1: explanation planetary orbits take Earth as example Earth moevs around the sun sometimes its a bit slower or faster and sometimes its a bit further away or close to the sun an explanation how you can illustrate the orbit around the sun with some formulas and focal points Stuk 2: doing orbital maneuvers with rockets launch reaching orbit and stabilising escape velocity orbit around the sun changing course: slingshot maneuver with venus and earth final course corrections ariving at jupiter arrivering at europa circularisation landing i've also learned what N-body physics means and.... i mean it's interesting an all as this lad shows of here: And I'm interested to see what will be up with the two planets in ksp2 that are "locked in a dance of death" since I heard those will get N-body physics (I may remember it wrong though). But honestly it sounds like eldritch science not meant for the human brain to calculate and fully comprehend (and it probably is, indeed, only meant for computers to math it out) and I don't think I need to calculate according to them in this case so some questions i have so far: -when performing a slingshot maneuver you gain speed equal to 2* Vp + Vr but is this different under different entree and escape angles ? does gravity, distance of the periapsis, and speed of the planet influence this? how can i calculate this and why has this not shown up in explanations before? -during interplanetary transfers, should i take into account that the planet you are escaping from will nudge your orbit a bit? (your periapsis (assuming your destination is farther away from the sun than earth) will be a bit higher than that of earth if im correct) -does anyone have any advice where to find calculations I need for the route im planning?

im hoping chatterer is also effectively integrated into ksp2 i just want some fancy intercoms chattering from the crew and bleep bloops

this is a really great update it adds enough info to do anything someone using kerbal engineer can do. well except knowing when to suicide burn that is... also a good performance boost, i never looked at the skybox that much so i haven't noticed that much change to it. im fully confident that when you eventually get around fixing up planets you give them the love they need deserve (recently learned duna used to be much more beautifull until a time constrained update remopved all unique terrain features)

oh i dunno man, you know how weird ksp gets when you get too far from sol, with seemingly rectangular orbits and all, besides, an extra science biome in outer space isn't exactly interesting and will only add joy for the duration to get there. not even that actually since you'l be just browsing the forums as you wait for your craft to get there on 100000 speed and finally get that science after like an hour of waiting. which is basically the same problem as the rovers with not having to put a weight on the w key as the only difference.

So in the new dev diary on the steam page they were talking about textures. In the comments I was reminded of the planets. The planets in ksp are just a tad dull. And besides the atmospheres, distance, and gravity challenges they have only a few sights to offer. Next to this there is the issue of them being HUGE (duh ) making rovers kind of boring as well since getting anywhere takes longer than doing a maneuver with ion engines divided over multiple passes of the periapsis. especially on low gravity planets (or if the rover is a bit wibbly wobbly... ... ... stuff) this is a problem as it is extra dangerous to let the rover drive on cruise control and do something else in the meantime. So when the devs get around to looking at the planets I would suggest (next to improved textures and adding shinyness... clouds) more landsights and a way to travel accros the surface faster, a sort of fast travel, maybe even discovering waypoints to give fixed locations to travel to. so for example the mohole, entrances to grand ravines, easter egg locations. maybe costum locations as a means to get back to bases. Now yes there is a mod for fast travel (because when is there not a mod for your desires?), but such a feature makes gameplay on planets so much more bearable it is something I feel should be included in the base game. other nice things to add could be more texts describing locations and what the kerbal thinks of the sightings , and collectibles when you surface sample at interesting locations which you can view in a rock trophy room. because people like to look at rocks right? a bit of a side story of the findings as i just described could be interesting. also please add that cryovolcanic activity to eeloo because that sounds really freaking awesome and probably looks really cool.

don't see how it should fit in spacecraft exchange... i spend like 30 mins jamming it together and don't even know how to exchange craft files but okay...

litterally get it? because the parts are called food? sorry I just had to do it btw challenge for anyone to get such contraption into space without using cheats. I couldn't be bothered.

guys guys... it worked! my rovers wheels have been realigned (in orbit because savescumming) and after hours of trying to realign them the rover works 100X better, especially turning rates have improved. it does however still have a problem climbing inclinations but much less then it used to. (i even managed to drift in it!!!)

guys i have theorized the flaw that might have been the problem for my rover, i remember that the wheel are actually attached about 3 degrees at an angle meaning 2 wheels on one side are not properly touching the ground. i will probably figure a way to fix this problem and see if it helps

i figured that, doesnt seem to be the problem, one problem is probably that the weels are too close together to turn well, the power problem however seems alot tougher to fix

hello guys, today i am here to tell a small story that just happened. this here above is my magnificent entry for the duna mobile base mission i had. 8 kerbals, 6k LF capacity. and wheels, which would be added later in duna orbit (i hadn't researched em yet) to explain a bit more upon it: some science modules are located under the mk 1 plane cockpit. the part in the back is the transfer stage, then i also have a puddle connected to a docking port with fuel transfer allowed on. the back part with the parachutes and aerodynamic cones is there to be replaced with a ore refinery after i research it and i collect my mission. transfer went quite fine. gathered some research for the wheels after some docking technical difficulties i managed to dock on the wheels (only took me about 4-8 hours :P) i think it looks pretty nice. it might be not 100% super practical since its assymetry and stuff but i find it important to make my craft look a little nice and unique. now for the hard part, which compared to the rest wasn't that hard but still pretty hard. because as you can see my first attempt did not go so well second try went better. well now i have my duna mobile base where i wanted it to be. just need to fuel it up and collect my rewards. one slight problem however due to its weight and assymetric nature stacked atop of the fact these honestly just idiotic rover wheels inability to turn i can only turn one direction and cannot climb the slightest inclination. seriously who designed those wheels? how do i even use them if duna rejects them? anyways this is what i have been up to the last few days in ksp... well in the time i have written this i have come up with a way i will try it next time i will make the frame with wheels on one bit and the base i will stick ON TOP of it. like a tank and a turret.

guys alt+x worked

well mods auto activating my stuff seems unlikely, the mods i use are scatterer on minimal settings, chatterer, and kerbal alarm clock. those are all of them

oh does that really help using caps? i will give that a try then. never knew that was a feature. yeah i do figuire its likely a glitch fixed by restarting but it is still frankly: extremely anoying

i am currently assembling a mobile base in orbit of duna, and am at the stage of putting on the wheels. however, without interest of adding yet another mod (rcs aligner) due to fear of more instability in my game my rcs thrusters are alligned... less then pleaseable. however, why the hell do my rcs thrusters fire automatically when i disable sas?!? it is driving me absolutely nuts!!! i can't align anything with this bs!!! aargh!!! you would think disabling sas would give the game a hint to stop pushing buttons. but no it appearently means: do everything possible to start spinning around in circles until you break apart!

simple as that, i made a vehicle designed to be a mobile base on duna, it's quita large as the missions wants me to store like 8k LF in it. but whenever i add fairings it explodes the second physics load in. any explanation for this? i have A: patato pc B: fairing glitching in a part though unlikely as i already extended the 3m faring as big as i could C: a part having a strange physic model like the plane cockpit on the top of the vehicle (ment to be attached to the side when in orbit) or D: aerodynamic nose cones on the outside of the fairing are too close making it explode o yeah and btw, with "explode" i mean, implodes into nothingness with only every now and then having enough luck the cockpit is spared by the space kraken. however the other 90% of the parts are usually destroyed

this mod seems really interesting, say is there a possibility of a feature to set a certain max speed? so like i can set the autodrive to not go above 4 m/s because if i would normally drive the rover would tip over. also, is a 1.3.0 version also available?

i accepted a contract to put a base on duna. because i was already preparing for that anyways. then i read after accepting that it has to be a "mobile base" and if i decline i will probably lose half my budget if not all... i have 25 ingame years tho so that should be fine. so that's interesting... anyways the plan for some other day is to first put down a lab on legs, together with an ore scanner. i will assemble living quarters on the sides. and finally i will attach two uber wheel modules at both end.... how much fuel did i need to have in it again? i swear if i have to have it carry it 6k fuel!!.. nah game wouldn't be so cruel woul.... *remembers a mission appear to test paraxchutes in jool under 34 kilometers* oh.... i should check that when i continue work on that project i also earned like 3 million by completing 3 seismic survey missions on minmus with a rover...

well again. seti is what i always ended up at when looking for new tech trees. and i actually have little against the manned spaceflight part. so i have now i think changed the science cost of aerospace tech to from 180 to 120, 300 to 200-250 mattering which of the 2 you choose as heavy aerodynamics is even less usefull. 550 to 500 and 1000 to 900 i think this might be slightly better balanced imo though i think it might be better to lower cost at the early wing parts while keeping the parts with for example engines at the same cost. i will see as i continue along i also changed miniaturization to 30 science. because that is the most i would ever pay for such a garbage tech node.

first of all, thanks bananaman. also ohiobob. i will very likely take a look at those files and see if i cant make a few adjustment myself. but i'l clarify a bit more. i understand a bit better now why the tech tree is made how it is. i guess i am a bit of a probe guy. since probes are much cheaper than big manned craft. and i care little for the surface samples. i just love sending a rover to minmus on a single max lvl srb and an extra fuel tank for the needed oompf to get into orbit. and it is quite fun to be midway trough your game and have 3 mill in your back pocket incase you need all of it because for example you blew up a building "by accident" however. it still doesn't justify the aerospace part of the tree. until you are halfway the nodes are litterally not worth the science. because what are you going to get from kerbin? everything starts fully scienced on your home planet! you'r not going to get that plane into space with rocket engines. besides, what use are wings in space? now you have massive wings and you can't earn jack science points with them. personally i actually think the full aerodynamic tech tree should have a 30-50% science discount. that or move every node in that tree one space to the left putting them a tech tier lower. and one single node exists that bothers me even more. miniaturization. it does absolutely nothing is completely usseless and imo all the parts in that ndoe should be placed amoung other nodes and the node itself should be removed or replaced with actual usseless parts. in one of my older careers it was litterally the last thing i unlocked. the best thing from that node are useless. oh look a nice looking size counterfitter to make your rocket look pretty and earodynamic. exept there is no air in space. so you just wasted mass and space. personally if i want pretty i just cover those parts up with for example science experiments, actual usefull parts. again, i guess one could argue that it is personal prefference, but even someone who finds looks important would say meh to miniaturization.