DerekL1963

I frequently RP astronaut assignments, I keep track of who is in which programs, when they last flew, have a rotation, etc... etc..

Guys... Not only is this not the SpaceX/BFR thread, you're also just talking past each other and never will convince each other.

Sonobouys can be active or passive... And active buoys have the same disadvantage that any other active sonar does - they cue the listener that somebody is looking, and they mark *where* they're looking. Other than that, you're spot on. Nobody is going to close a channel with a heavy cruiser, they'll use tin cans and air assets if they're available. And if they'll have subs of their own, they use them at the entrances and exits to the strait. Depending on the scenario, defensive minefields might not be out of the question as well. And no offense to the OP, but the "recon sub" is a ridiculous idea... With no "teeth", there's no point in deploying it. Use it close to home instead, and there's no sense in not equipping it with a full battery of weapons because that frees up other assets. And that's not even getting into the difficulty (read: damn near impossible in a tactical time frame) of the recon sub communicating with other units in order to cue them in. And Gargamel is correct, no sub is going to use active sonar unless it has absolutely no other choice. Thanks to the inverse square law, the submarine's active pings can be heard considerably further than they can provide useful returns. It sounds like you're trying to bend reality to create a specific scenario... and that's rarely a good idea.

I use MJ, which automatically controls the throttle, so I just open a browser window and do other stuff. If you don't use MJ, you could use KAC and set an alarm to pause the game a minute or two before the end of the burn.

I did the whole thing with two landers and tanker/crew transfer vessel. The Laythe lander was specialized and abandoned in Laythe orbit. (Also because I didn't want to haul it back out of the gravity well.) The core of the Tylo lander (which started life with a crasher stage and two radials) also served as the Vall, Bop, and Pol lander. My problem with Bop was it's tiny SOI... Even though MJ assured me I was going to intercept, the orbit lines didn't show the intercept until I was practically in the SOI.

Shuttle doesn't perform any abort maneuvers until after the SRB's burn out. (As a simple google search on Shuttle abort modes would have made clear.) There were four such tests, only one of which resulted in failure. So, no. The tests did not show that it " tends to end in spectacular failure". A worrying concern, certainly (which is why they terminated the M-21/D-21 program), but not a certainty or a tendency. During an early abort, the stack won't be in a dive - and neither will the Orbiter be in a dive when it separates. (It will still have considerable upward momentum.) Much more important than gravity is the direction of the lift vector... And I seriously doubt the Orbiter can pull a supersonic Split-S anyhow. The Orbiter isn't exactly a fighter... But in reality, none of that matters - because the Shuttle cannot perform a controlled departure from the stack while the stack is under thrust. It's going to tumble and get torn apart by aerodynamic forces (as Challenger was)... tl;dr - The Shuttle can't safely separate while the SRB's are burning, so... No. Rolling heads down was not done for crew safety reasons. It was done to control aerodynamic loads and to aim the antennas on the Orbiter towards the downrange ground stations. Reading through the whole thread... SLBM's don't pitch over aggressively and early for efficiency reasons... They do so to provide clearance for the remaining missiles.

Yes... and no. Yes, because they will appear as a single contact to both active and passive. Possibly no depending on how well the sonar characteristics of the mothership are known to the opposing vessel. Flow noise is an issue here, as well as "hotel" noise (air conditioning, the electrical system, etc... etc...). Engines aren't the only source of noise and there are... let's just say passive sonar uses some pretty sophisticated analysis methods. As far as active goes, I don't know enough to be certain. (Not only has it been thirty years since I last sat a sonar console, the active system I'm familiar with was ancient and obsolescent even then.)

Yeah, I have to agree. KSPI was fun as heck... But KSPI-E just has too many moving parts and too much complexity.

I once saw a comparison of the lines of code for different (then) popular mods... MJ was about twice the size of the nearest competitor. (Kethane I think, but don't quote me on that.) Yeah, I know LOC isn't a solid metric, but it's not without it's uses. Don't forget r4m0n, MJ's original creator... and there's a ton of other folks who've contributed code over the years.

If you didn't know, you could have asked. Or you could have read my very first reply to you (about 5 hours ago), in which I explained how I reached the starting conditions. I reached the starting conditions depicted in the video (50 meters between the vehicles) using nothing but the rendezvous autopilot. At 1km out, IIRC the active vehicle was tail first to the target and counting down to the final braking maneuver. Then the video begins, then I engage the docking autopilot about thirty seconds into the video. I can capture the rendezvous procedure if you're interested.

The claim "I looked at the video before posting" and the claim "you burned a significant amount of monoprop to get to those starting conditions" are mutually incompatible statements. No, you aren't really being clear at all.

I'm trying to parse what you mean here... And honestly it makes zero sense. It seems that you believe I used a significant amount of monoprop prior to the start of the video, which is untrue. (Go back and check for yourself, you can see the mono tanks are full at the start of the video.) I reached the starting conditions entirely on LF (for the nuclear engines) using only MJ's Rendezvous Autopilot. I'm just shaking my head here... You think the expenditure of a few hundred m/s in rendezvous fuel (less than 50 m/s IIRC for the final approach) used up "all my fuel"? Again, I refer you to the video where my fuel quantities are plainly visible.

That's how I did mine. The mothership hung out between Tylo and Vall, and the landers and tug fanned out from there.

I have no doubt you could better! I posted the video mostly to silence the folks who think MJ drinks monoprop like a Mainsail drinks LFO. It can and does if you don't know what you're doing... (But that's true of manual piloting as well.) Like all tools, it's really only as good as the person using the tool. That's not the tool's fault. There are several tricks... First, use RCS Build Aid to ensure your RCS is balanced around your CoM. (I generally use Average CoM (average of full and empty CoM) to cover all bases.) Next, turn off the RCS actuation toggles for yaw, pitch, and roll. (It goes without saying you need enough SAS.) MJ doesn't always respect the actuation toggles, but it does often enough to be worth the bother. (I *think* that's been fixed... This was filmed in 1.3.0, which is my latest fully populated install.) Since this is a nuclear powered tanker with only LF onboard, I hedge my bets by using TAC Fuel Balancer to balance my tanks on approach. (Which brings the CoM to the average CoM.) Balancing a craft that uses LFO only is a bit tricksy, but not impossible. Ah almost forgot, don't use too many RCS blocks. The vehicle in video could probably get away with three if it were a unitary vehicle, but it needs two on the tug for when it's operating unloaded and then two on the cargo tank to balance those two. Why he need to do a complex multi-planetary bank shot? I mean, it's certainly worth bragging rights but it's not like you can't build a ship that will get to Jool without doing one. Or, to put it another way, it's darn silly to look down on someone for not being able to do some purely arbitrary (and absurdly complicated) task. Yes, it does use only one burn. (Though I usually do a mid course correction, it very rarely exceeds 2m/s.) And yes, it does fix inclination. And no, it doesn't set a trajectory to pass at AN/DN. Setting a trajectory at AN/DN is silly, because that's only rarely going to fall into a Hohmann transfer window. What the advanced transfer function does is create a porkchop plot to locate the cheapest combination of inclination burn and Hohmann transfer burn.

You cannot cheat in a single player game. Either that was several years ago, or NathanKell didn't know about or use the Advanced Transfer option. (Which combines the ejection burn and the plane change burn into a single burn.) That shows that you have no idea what you're talking about, because you're unaware of the current capabilities of MJ. Here is MJ docking a vessel weighing nearly 90 tons - using only 46 units of monoprop. (Also note that I deliberately put my foot in a bucket of cement by selecting a docking target 45 degrees off of my approach vector.) When you can do that from the same starting conditions with only .46 units of monoprop, get back to me. If you use MJ, why are you so in the dark as to it's capabilities?

The functions that only work for the SOI you're in aren't the one's you're looking for... Try the Advanced Transfer function in the Maneuver Planner window. I'm not sure what you mean by "eyeballing the brown line".

MechJeb will do that, and calculate a burn that will place you on a direct trajectory from where you are to where you want to go. (That is, it combines the ejection burn and the plane change burn into a single burn.) It's much cheaper than doing plane change burns out in solar orbit. Then you can either manually fly the node, or let MJ do it for you. "Cheaper" is of course a relative term, it's expensive to transfer Moho <-> Kerbin no matter how you cut it.

I am completely certain that, even with realism mods, it's not "accurate enough for NASA". There's not one mod out there that models shockwaves and their interaction with the aircraft for example. (They don't simulate actual airflow at all for that matter.) No do any of the mods (I am given to understand) simulate body lift. Nor do any of the mods deal with the airflow to an intake changing with speed, altitude, and angle of attack. (You stick an intake on, you've got Intake Air and Bob's your paternal sibling.) The list of things realism mods don't simulate (or only simulates in an extremely simplified fashion) is much, much longer than the list of things it does. Nope. Not only does KSP (even modded) not properly simulate the aerodynamics of the aircraft+rocket... (There's zero aerodynamic interaction in KSP between the aircraft and the rocket. KSP literally doesn't care how close the rocket is mounted to the aircraft - in real life this is vitally important.) It emphatically does not simulate one the hardest parts - the separation dynamics. (The aforementioned aerodynamic interaction, among other things.) Nor does KSP accurately simulate the structural dynamics (the 'twang' the dropping vehicle experiences when it suddenly becomes tons lighter). etc... etc... So yeah, KSP can seem "accurate enough" if you have a limited understanding of the issues... But once you do understand the issues, that illusion vanishes like a soap bubble in a thermonuclear fireball. (And I must say, I don't grasp the point of setting up and knocking down the "NASA in the 60's" strawman.)

When somebody puts a title on a post that doesn't match the text, yes you can say such a thing. Huh? Go back and read what I wrote - not once did I suggest that anyone mod their game. I pointed out that mods existed that implemented life support and suggested the OP examine them to understand what life support is and does. Since the topic is life support, not crew support... I'm not sure what your point is. Changing the name won't change the underlying issue - this isn't a life support proposal. Words mean things, and in a science based game it's very poor practice to change definitions away from the commonly accepted one. If you want a life support function, then you're going to have to deal with life support logistics. Not to mention, by the time they're running missions long enough to require tons of life support supplies they're no longer a beginner. If you can launch and rendezvous all the parts of a space station, then you can certainly launch and rendezvous the moral equivalent of a Progress. If you look at TAC-LS (or other life support mods) the weight of the supplies need for something like an orbital mission is trivial.

What does this even mean? And what's the problem with people not being able to do those things?

You forgot two things.... D) they haven't used MJ in eons and have no idea how it works now (docking has been fixed for years now for example), E) they haven't actually ever used MJ and know it only by the routine exaggerations made by the haters. That being said, 'A' very much. MJ won't save you from a bad design, or lack of control authority, etc...

Absolutely correct. However, this is not a life support proposal. It's not even a simplified reasonable simulacrum thereof. It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of life support. If anything, it's a morale system - which is a different kettle of fish entirely. If you want life support look at what TAC-LS or Snacks! does. If you want to play The Sims, play The Sims.

My thought is that if you want to play The Sims, you should play The Sims. And welcome to the forums!

Trust me, having lived in not dissimilar isolated conditions (serving on an SSBN), those cheap trinkets and the entertainment they bring are worth 10x their weight in gold.

I'm starting to think that a certain... lack of sanity and stability is a precursor to attempting the Jool-5. Congrats!