Jump to content

JRF2k

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    42

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by JRF2k

    SpaceX's Falcon 9 - a question about wings.

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Rockets don't usually need wings. Stabilisation and guidance is done by gimballing the engines: the nozzles are on ball joints with mechanical actuators. By directing the nozzles in the proper direction, you can control roll and attitude.

    Thanks for answering.

    When would wings be needed? If non-gimbaling engines are used?

    Going back to KSP, since you do have engine gimbaling then I guess my wings really aren't needed.

    SpaceX's Falcon 9 - a question about wings.

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Greetings and salutations!

    So here it is, the Falcon 9! Epic!

    vnAPwBR.jpg

    I've watched several of SpaceX's launches and after playing KSP for a while, I got to thinking why don't they add stability wings? Is it is a determent to the rocket overall? Is the aerodynamic shape all that's needed for stability? Does it just not need them due to its size?

    I usually put 4 wings on the lifter stages of my rockets in KSP.

    Wasn't sure how to prefix this, so I chose physics, because it all comes down to physics. :cool:

    Thanks for answering my question fellas!

    Why the Hate Towards Mods

    in KSP1 Mods Discussions

    Posted

    I'm curious why people always have to qualify just what they use MechJeb for during a mission?

    There are people who proffer a mindset that using MJ is cheating and will always be cheating, but if it is cheating then NASA cheats because they have autopilots and computers that do some of the same stuff as MJ does.

    I think KSP asks a player, "How do you want to play?" And it's up to that player to decide the answer. For me, I use MJ sometimes to get into orbit, other times I do it manually. I never used the autopilots until I learned how to do it manually. Most of the time now I am using just for the TWR/DV calcs and the time warper it has. Saves me from overshooting maneuver nodes.

    This is how I play and it makes the game fun and interesting for me. Some people want total control of every and some people want to hand off the "Did this 1000 times" over to something like MJ.

    I don't like to use a lot of part addons. I try and stay as stock as possible. Other people love millions of parts to choose from.

    My point: There is not WRONG way to play KSP. It's single player. Enjoy it how you want.

    It's almost a silly thing to admit, but sometimes while playing KSP...

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by JRF2k

    ..I fall under the Overview Effect. I really can't help myself. I draw the parallels between Kerbin and Earth and our solar system. And I find myself in love. In love with such a game that is not only awesome to play and fool around with like a LEGO set, but subtlety under all the code, under all the 1s and 0s speaks to that part of us that are still

    . We still want to set off in a direction, come what may, and discover something new.

    KSP gives the 'normal person' a chance to do this. I am wholly ignorant of much of the physics and other things related to space travel and rocket design, but, you know, guess what? I've left my home planet. I've traveled to the stars, maybe only briefly, only to the the Mun, only to Minimus, only to, with much struggle, to Duna, but I achieved this. I've expanded my view. It has grown past those little green men. I've grown past my planet. I've seen that, in the solar system I am given, that only life persists on one of them.

    At that point, I cannot but feel the corollary between Kerbin and Earth. I cannot help but feel that we humans are the little green men and I am left watching

    over and over again. Such a powerful statement on what it is to be human and to live the very short existence afforded to us.

    And they say video games are a waste of time.

    SQUAD, man, you all are doing something amazing with this game. You are capturing minds and you are igniting curiosity. Consider this as you move forward. You have the chance to change the world with a simple game.

    (I posted this over at Reddit, too. Username, VaccusMonastica. I just want to make sure Squad sees this, so they know what this game is doing.)

    [0.24.2] Docking Tutorial 1.1.3

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    I never knew you could do something like this with the in game tutorial system. This is fantastic!

    I've watched so many tutorials on Youtube about docking and rendezvousing, but this was great!

    Great job on tutorial!

    Now, let's see if I can get a small science module on my space station core.

    Thanks this was really great!

    More useful Kerbals

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    We know Kerbals are masters at fixing broken tires on rovers. Why not make them good at fixing other things like crashed rockets.

    This could be tied into career mode as you would need to train up a Kerbal with skill in repair and then make it take so many hours/days in order to fix whatever.

    Maybe have it cost something for the repairs or have it as a repair kit you have to add to the rocket itself. Or maybe they could salvage what they can from the crash and attempt to fix the rocket.

    If they fail, then it could necessitate a rescue mission be planned.

    How did you come across KSP?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    I saw it on STEAM. Checked out the video on STEAM. Was like 'meh' at first, but then watched some videos on Youtube and was like, 'Real physics, build rockets, orbit, go other other worlds?! WOW!' Finally after watching the STEAM movie for the umpteenth time, I downloaded the demo and played it ...for six hours straight! That's all it took to know. I became the 'SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY' meme and I can't tell you how happy I am that I bought the game! It has made me smarter that's for sure! :)

    Hohman orbit transfer

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    Yes, the first burn is made at the first Delta-V. In a perfectly circular orbit there is no apoapsis or periapsis, or if you want to look at it that way, ANY point of the orbit is the apoapsis AND periapsis simultaneously.

    Yes, this is the second burn that circularizes your orbit to match the red line. If you do not perform that second burn, your ship will continue to follow the yellow dashed line of the elliptical transfer orbit and fall back towards the fist, green orbit...

    Thank you for responding. I understand it better now.

    Hohman orbit transfer

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    In that graphic, orbit 1 is your starting orbit, say, Low Kerbin Orbit. Orbit 2 is the transfer orbit created by your first burn with a PE the same as your first orbit and an AP the same as your destination orbit. Orbit 3 on that graphic is your destination orbit, which is circularized by your second burn.

    Thanks. I get it now!

    Hohman orbit transfer

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    The Hohmann transfer orbit is simply an eccentric orbit whose apoapsis intersects with your target orbit and the periapsis intersects with your original orbit.

    You need to burn at the apoapsis (the Delta-v' point in your example) to circularize into orbit 3. If you don't, your trajectory will stay in orbit 2 and follow the yellow dashed line back down to orbit 1.

    It's exactly the same as a launch trajectory really. You have to burn at the apoapsis or else you will fall back down.

    It seems like I have over-complicated this in my mind. Thanks for responding!

    Hohman orbit transfer

    in Science & Spaceflight

    Posted

    I am a complete ignorant idjit when it comes to this advanced orbital mechanics stuff, but I am trying, I am trying.

    So I am looking at this graphic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hohmann_transfer_orbit.svg and I read that a Hohmann transfer requires two velocity changes.

    So, 1 represents the current orbit. And then where the first Delta-V is, the first burn is made, right? This expands the orbit so that 2 is now the orbit. And 1 is perfectly circular in this graphics and this is probably not so in reality, maybe, hmm, in a perfectly circular orbit how do you find out a apoapsis and periapsis? Sorry tangent....

    So we get to Delta-V^1, is this the second burn or is this showing that if you want an even more circular orbit you would do another burn there to get orbit 3?

    So from going from orbit 1 to 2, I see only one burn that would need to be made. And so, I know, I must be not seeing it right or understanding it correctly.

    Are there any good resources for a lay person like myself with an enormous curiosity for it to get a better grasp on these things? I figure the more I know the more enjoyment I'll get from KSP.

    Thanks,

    JRF2k

    The Pale Kerbin Dot

    in KSP Fan Works

    Posted

    Just as a note to any readers, and out of respect to such an amazing individual, the quotation is a modified version of the late, great, Carl Sagan's famous "Pale Blue Dot":

    Shoot! I meant to mention that. Thanks for the assist!

×
×
  • Create New...