steuben

I started a screenplay adaptation of an author of preference`s book. As I think about it, it probably could have been done as stage play as well. I`ve read books on screen play writing as well as a few scripts... I should really post my library. That section survived the recent trimming that I had to do at the behest of the missus and one of the kids. What I have found is, what I`ve gleaned from the screen writing books and the book writing books have been complementary. First because what makes a good story is common across all medium. Second the direction on pacing, scene blocking, speech, details, etc. from one helps in the other.

obligatory reference post. POV (warning here be TV Tropes) works history: I don't think I've written something in the first person. Just remembered I have done some stuff in the first person here. The second person I know I've never done. As for the third persons... I tend to work with the Limited/Subjective. I think I may done a couple of Objective/Dramatic. I have used multiple thirds once, that I can immediately recall. Not in the KSP 'verse through, over here "Olwen's Travels". I haven't played with the omniscient ones... it feels like it would be a lot of work to write and write well. Holding with the basic third person POVs is a bit of laziness on my part. They're simple and easy to keep track of. I just strap the camera and the mic to the shoulder of the character and away I go. A lot of the stuff that I've read on the craft would poke at people who shifted viewpoints without warning... even within the same paragraph.

*wince* Writing is a marathon not a sprint. You've got 200 words and picture. You've got a start. Once you've got more laid down we'll see.

Comment pending more. However, if you looking for focus/general feedback/techniques come over to the writers thread for a chat.

1. Why not? 2. for the cool 3. for the challenge 4. for the realism 5. for the awesome 6. the general build stuff liquiding contest 7. for the cool 8. because we can 9. ??? 10. Profit!

In the Groundbound the original four are there, but only as walk-ons in the later ones. I ended up putting together an excel sheet that can build kerbal names, so I could staff the rest of the program.

citation or proof required.

There exists a Δv such that when the planets are aligned is the global minimum Δv to go from edge of SOI A to edge of SOI B. Let us call this point of global minimum Δv Able. Let us call this Δv Harry. For Harry there exists a Δv Harold such that Harold is greater than Harry. Harold allows two things. The first is to shorten the transit time, the other is to allow the transit from points away from point Camp. There also exists a Δv such that when the planets misaligned is the local maximum Δv to go from from edge of SOI A to edge of SOI B. Let us call the point of maximum Δv Charlie. Let us call this Δv Tom. For Tom there exists a Δv Thomas such that Thomas is greater than Tom. Thomas allows one thing, to shorten the transit time. Between Harry and Tom there is a Δv Dick. Dick is greater than Harry, but less than Tom. As Dick gets closer in value to Tom the point in the orbits that Dick will just get from edge of SOI A to edge of SOI B gets closer to Charlie. I'm looking for Tom.

You may not be interested in the upper bound. But I am. And running it as a torchship was ruled out in the OP.

Actually chucking Oberth and Δv conservation is what I'm after. The capture and ejection Δv are trivial and well solved problems, which is why I'm ignoring them.

Playing the alexmoon site I'm getting ranges from 3 to 13 kps Δv for lKo to lEo, depending on date. So a less rough gestimate, based on there, is that worst case I'm looking at approx. 15kps Δv to get from Kerbin to Eeloo. Though, if I'm reading it right an extra 5 kps will third the travel time, with a corresponding increase in capture Δv . Looking it through the vis-viva equations... and ignoring for the moment the capture Δv. My worst case Δv will be when Eeloo will be at periapsis on arrival and I'm leaving Kerbin when it's velocity is anti-parallel? In the critical case, where the trajectory just kisses the SOI, the apoapsis velocity and periapsis velocity can be considered the same as the ending and starting speeds respectively?

The subway map is good for low orbit to SOI edge. But it only gives averages for SOI to SOI.

Probably not. Though you'd need a probably need a pronouncement from the mount on the question. Leaving aside the Kerbal as TM issue, which is trivial case. My take is: Kerbal (with capital) would be used like you use Man, Woman, etc. so the monolithic collective kerbal (without capital) would be used like you use man, woman, etc.

I'm looking for the max delta-v required to go from orbit to orbit, assuming a Hohmann style transfer. So one burn at each end, and maybe one in the middle for plane change. The math is looking pretty dense for me to take a run at it myself. And a lot of what I'm seeming to find just calculates the Hohmann Δv. Or I'm not reading it very well... also probably true. Anybody got some pointers? Absolute preference is a nice precalculated table. But, I'm kind of prepared to do the lifting needed to build it... I just can't seem to find a decent place to start on the calcs.

That's the point... or at the least the dominating side effect of it's definition.

because it works if you are using mks, mgs, fps, mtd, or any other combination of distance/mass/time you can things of. The oddest I've seen has been smoots/apples/milli-torontotoottawa.

And there was much rejoicing. Good luck to all you console folk, you'll need it. Remember it's called rocket science for a reason.

adsii1970 you're looking at the wrong scale. Narrative Filigree is the part of the concept I'm after. Science Fiction Hardness is another part. All under the umbrella of World Building. I'm recalling an essay I read somewhere, or maybe I'm blending essays. To distill it out; the 'verse has FTL. But arbitrary point to arbitrary point FTL is pretty sucky from a plot point of view. So constraint add a constraint: if the hyperspace gradient is greater than 3.14 units the fuel costs of FTL rise nearly exponentially and you risk the drive melting... very aggressively. Now you have two things, a workable plot with a lower risk of plotholes and more interesting verse. Tramp traders will pop out with a lower gradient and coast in. Military ships can go routinely go higher say 6. But, can push 7.5 if they're willing to spend three months in dry dock afterwards. At this point it sounds like an alright 'verse, and at least sounds like it will be internal consistent. If we call the unit a Mikl, after the initials of the two folks who discovered it. Another constraint. Fuller 'verse. More interesting. They were working independently on opposite sides of a very antagonistic geo-political situation. Another constraint. Fuller 'verse. More interesting. More stock from the plot pot. We all have a vehicle, four wheels, engine in the front, trunk in the back. The framework provided by KSP. But how many seats, trunk space, and those silly hydraulic thingies and underglow lights, well that's writer's choice. We all have different cars.

The little details are part of the fun of building a 'verse. It's easier to add those little things when the framework is given to us. But they add so much to the story. Carving those details when building a 'verse from whole cloth is an extra layer of work that never seems worth it at the time... until you read Dune, The Lord of the Rings, etc. A filled in 'verse provides much more room then and empty one.

I think you'll want to establish two timelines. The first is the general 'verse time line. Major events, tech changes, etc. You'll want this one to extend beyond Jeb's career in both directions. The second will be the Jeb timeline, this one will layout all his wins, loss, shows. The didn't finishes, to quote Pratchett, "Highly skilled at achieving results, when [Doughnut Jimmy] treated 'Dire Fortune', it didn't fall over until the last furlong. A miracle perhaps, considering the fact that the horse had, in fact, died coming up into the starting line." Assuming he's that good. The other stuff in his life. Extend the line a few years beyond the end of the story, unless you're going for a hard now what ending. For the actual process, I'm going to recommend getting a bunch of index cards. Write out the event, some details, and roughly date them. For example quarter 2020. Lay them out in order. Now put in the fine detail dates. This will let you see if there's any places where you've got things clumped up, or large gaps in the time line. You can use Excel for it as well, but it doesn't have the same kind of visual thing going for it. And it is easier to shuffle around events.

Short of reading what you've written, which I'll probably have to do to give you a specific answer. Are you looking to define a general story time line from 2000 to 2060? Or specific events and place them relative to each other?

The cool factor is not is a non-stop trip. The cool factor is not in the homestead approach. The cool factor is in style. The look of your ship. Sure you can do it in stock in a clunked together set of parts that is minmaxed to do the job. But to paraphrase Doc Krown, "The way I see it, if you're gonna do an Eve return, why not do it with some style?" If you have the tech and the resources to get there and back, don't just do it. Do it right. Do it with style.

The rule that I've always followed is write the number out as words... unless it is math or a year. But yeah, it is the number more than the style that's tripping that example up. A precise number like that is a Chekhov's Bullet. It's isn't the gun itself, but it should point to the presence of the gun.

Changing it to local minimum might be better. Even with the pilot set to hold craft in the direction of the burn not all of them are responsive enough to take out that last little bit of error. Having, it at 0+/-x.y can mean they burn all the fuel trying to get there. Seconding for landing gears. But, it should be case by case for the parts. Not sure what parts it would make sense for live tweakables.

"Ignition!: An informal history of liquid rocket propellants" by John D Clark. The whole book.