PakledHostage

Thanks, KhaosCorp, as always! It also works without modifying the part.cfg file if you just place the "FigaroReceiver" directory into the KSP\Parts directory and the "KerbalGPS.dll" plugin into the KSP\Plugins directory. This is how I did it when I tested the mod for compatibility with v0.20 of the game. I will be updating the installation instructions, part.cfg file and plugin when v0.21 is released. No sense doing it now, because v0.21 will probably be out within a couple of weeks.

Had another go at it this evening. Here are the screenshots:

OK. My bad. I'll have a look at it again later and give it another try.

Here's my entry. I'm on my way out to go sailing so I'll have to fill in the details later, but here are the screen shots:

You're using Newton's second law to calculate acceleration given mass and force. Newton's second law is often written as: force = mass * acceleration. You've used algebra to rearrange the equation into: acceleration = force / mass. There's nothing wrong with that. The result of your example calculation is correct because you're using the correct combination of units. 1 metric tonne is 1000 kg so your spacecraft's mass is 150000 kg. 1 kN is 1000 kg*m/s2 so your spacecraft's thrust is 1500000 kg*m/s2. 1500000 kg*m/s2 / 150000 kg = 10 m/s2 (because the kg units in the numerator and denominator cancel each other out). Edit: Nija'd by K^2... Seems my nerd finger's just aren't quick enough... [cracks fingers] Wax on, wax off, wax on, wax off...

Sal hosted an orbital rendezvous race about a year and a half ago. It was called the "The KSP StarRally 2012 - The Great Orbital Rendezvous Race!" and it was a lot of fun.

An idea that I read about was to disrupt comets from the Oort cloud so that they fly by the Earth and nudge it outwards via successive gravitational assists. The idea was that it could be done by an advanced civilization to save the Earth from being destroyed when the Sun becomes a red giant. There is a theory about the evolution of the solar system that suggests that gravitational encounters between small bodies and the planets we know today shaped the solar system. Look up the "Nice model". The Nice model was even mentioned in an article in this month's National Geographic.

@Westair: I just realised that I misread your post. (Edit: OK, maybe I didn't misread it. You snuck in and changed it...) You are talking about the Chicago crash. That was the result of a structural failure of the pylon, not an engine failure. AA had done an inspection on the pylon using an unapproved method. They unknowingly caused the rear bulkhead of the pylon to crack. It failed shortly thereafter and took out the slat mechanism when it and the attached engine departed the aircraft.

It would depend on whether you're talking about indicated airspeed (IAS) or true airspeed. As K^2 mentioned, airspeed indicators measure dynamic pressure. Dynamic pressure is a function of true airspeed and air density. Wings produce lift as a function of dynamic pressure too. In other words, a wing will behave the same at a given IAS, but not necessarily so at a given true airspeed. This is the source of the infamous "coffin corner" of the U2 spy plane. At high altitude, air density is low so dynamic pressures and IAS are low for a given true airspeed. The aircraft has to fly faster and faster as it climbs to maintain an IAS above stall. The U2 is a subsonic airplane however, and the speed of sound is basically a function of air temperature not density. Eventually the aircraft reaches an altitude where it must fly at high subsonic Mach numbers to avoid stalling. But subsonic aircraft are generally not designed to approach the speed of sound. They have an MMO above which they may encounter all sorts of nasty effects (i.e. flutter, etc)

Nobody died in the "crash" that I am referring to. 6 people were slightly injured escaping the aircraft because they fell into soft mud at the bottom of the escape slides. The aircraft remained in service with CP for many years afterwards until it was eventually returned to the leasing company and subsequently leased to Biman Bangladesh. I think it may have since been converted to cargo, but don't quote me on that.

I gather from some of your other posts that you're an ATP, but I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "airspeed at which you can safely continue a takeoff". To be clear, I don't mean that you can lift off at that speed. You are correct that V2 is the takeoff safety speed. V1, however, is the dividing line between being able to stop within the remaining runway distance and being able to safely reach V2 within the remaining runway distance after having experienced an engine failure. "Take your hand off the thrust levers and don't touch those brakes" would, presumably, be good advice once you reach that speed. My use of V1 is consistent with the FAA's use of the term in their definition of takeoff field length for transport category aircraft: Note: VEF and VEVENT in the figure above are the velocity at which the aircraft is moving when the occurrence happens that leads to the go/no go decision. You might be interested to read about a related incident that occurred about 18 years ago at YVR. In that occurence, a fully loaded DC10-30 went off the end of the runway after experiencing an engine failure two seconds after reaching V1. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada AVIATION OCCURRENCE REPORT NUMBER A95H0015 contains the details of what transpired next. EDIT: Sorry, didn't refresh before posting this... I got distracted while looking for the references. Apparently it took longer than I thought to find them...

You are right that density affects engine performance as well as lift and drag, but density altitude is a very significant concern for pilots and aerospace engineers because it also affects climb performance. In extreme cases, an aircraft might be able to get off the ground but be unable to climb out of ground effect. Many, many accidents have happend this way. In jet aircraft, air density also affects the balanced field length because of the detrimental effects of high density altitude on performance. Jets are required to be able to reach V1 (loosely defined as the speed at which they can safely continue a takeoff after an engine failure) and then stop again without going off the end of the runway. Wind affects balanced field length, but so do factors such as braking action (i.e. how slippery the runway is). In extreme cases, flights may need to depart with less fuel than needed for the whole trip and make an enroute fuel stop.

Yes, temperature affects the air density. "Density altitude" is the measure of equivalent air density, relative to standard. Higher temperatures result in higher density altitude (i.e. lower air density). Takeoff, landing and climb performance are a function of density altitude because lift is directly proportional to air density. For example, you need a longer runway to takeoff at high density altitudes than you do at sea level. Compare runway lengths in high elevation cities like Denver, CO or Calgary, AB to those in JFK or LAX. They're about 4000 feet longer in Calgary and Denver. Temperature also affects the speed of sound. Airliners typically cruise at a mach number rather than an indicated airspeed. Higher temperatures result in higher speed of sound, although the effect isn't that significant at typical cruising altitudes. The speed of sound at 15°C is 340 m/s, while the speed of sound at -57°C is 295 m/s.

Thank you, mods (Rich?), for dredging this thread out of the Junkyard and back into the Science Labs! [dusts off a few coffee grounds and banana peels]

@Dkmdlb and Spooks: Thanks for posting those links. I'll certainly be showing those to my friends and family.

I think it was closer to $200 million for the satellites. And I don't think anyone over about 14 (physical or mental age) thinks this is funny. It is, however, natural curiosity to play "accident investigator" and try to figure out what happened from the evidence available. The silver lining in that cloud of smoke is that launch industry professionals will do their own investigation, and hopefully launch safety will be improved as a result.

Or maybe we could just link to the thread in the Junkyard because, not only is there some good science discussion in there, there's a moral too: Too much "Herpa derp Proton ASAS derp MechJeb derp derp" gets a good thread moved into the junkyard... Edit: Here's the link Major Proton launch failure

I think NeoMorph is looking for help in how to actually calculate the intercept, rather than learning how to mimic MechJeb. He’s been around here for long enough to master the basics. In (partial) answer to the question: There's a related thread in the How To section titled "How does one execute and calculate Delta V for non optimal planetary transfers". Calculating the direct transfer from Kerbin to intercept the asteroid in question is going to require the same math as is discussed in that thread.

Thank you, KhaosCorp, for your help answering user's questions. Another thing to be aware of, bigmos, is that your satellites all need to have "GPS" in their name and they must be above the horizon to be visible to the Figaro receiver. I am currently working on implementing ialdabaoth's suggestion to include an antenna array/transmitter part in the mod package. That part will eliminate the need to name your satellites "GPS" and allow you to have multi-purpose satellites. MrPwner has already made the model and I've done the coding. I'm just testing and waiting for v0.21 of the game to come out before I release it. (It will be backwards compatible for those of you who already have satellite networks.)

@adamada: I think this is a great challenge! Like Mr Shifty, I like to do some degree of pre-planning of my mission trajectories rather than just winging it. I don't have a lot of time for that right now, but I hope that nobody minds if I necrobump this challenge in 3-4 months. Also, it is interesting to point out that the gravitational assist that Voyager 2 received from Neptune actually slowed it down. Not enough to prevent it from escaping the solar system, but it was slowed by more than a kilometre per second due to the encounter.

You can make your own with just a couple of key strokes. Copy the part you want to make unmanned, then change the part name and crew capacity in the part.cfg file. I have unmanned command modules for exactly that reason.

I agree. My first goal is to bring my Kerbals home safely. The Kerbal public would not support my space program if I kept killing off their astronaut heroes. My second goal is range safety. My spent stages must crash into the oceans and I don't allow myself to use Nervas because of the potentially catastrophic environmental consequences of a launch accident. And as with others here, another constraint is part count. I play the game on a crappy little laptop. That necessitates a lot of unmanned missions. In almost two years of playing, my Kerbals have only ever landed on the Mun, Minmus and Duna. Most of my kerballed missions don't go beyond LKO. Of course I probably play a lot less than many people here. I'm actually waiting for career mode to be implemented before I get active again. Maybe it will be ready by the fall when the weather forces me back indoors.

Sure, lump me in that pile too.

Nope. Well, not an SSTO space plane, anyway... I've never even tried. I like building small unmanned probes and flying them around the Kerbol system on efficient trajectories. It's the mission planning and navigation that I enjoy. I even go so far as to delete the space plane parts from the game directory to improve the game's load time.

There was once a Steve Kerman but he died. Fortunately there's no Scott. He's a dick.