PakledHostage

For anyone who's interested reading a reasonable summary of the mothballed TSSM mission to Titan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Saturn_System_Mission The mission was originally planned for launch in 2020 and would include a balloon phase and possibly even the Titan Mare Explorer. While the Europa Jupiter System Mission was given priority for funding (although I think it too has been mothballed), lets hope that the TSSM mission eventually does go ahead.

@KhaosCorp: It is an interesting idea. I'd need the help of an artist to create the 3D models though. I have no such skills. MrPwner did the 3D model for the Figaro Receiver part that is distributed with this mod. Maybe if someone wants to volunteer? Also, in at least some of the satellites that make up real-world GNSS systems, the GNSS hardware is only one of many payloads flying aboard a given satellite. For example, the EGNOS, WAAS and GAGAN systems are/will be payloads on geosnchronous satellites that carry other payloads as well.

You can. I just takes a fair bit of math. I used Lambert's method when planning my Duna slingshot mission. I also picked my transfer window such that I'd be arriving at Duna when Duna was near its ascending node. (If I remember correctly, the second Duna transfer window after starting a new campaign is almost perfect.) This made it a 2D problem because no significant plane change manoeuvres were required. There was a bit of discussion recently in the How To sub forum about Lambert's method. Meyst and Tavert gave a good description of the method to use in the How does one execute and calculate Delta V for non optimal planetary transfers thread.

I hosted a “Minimum Delta-V to Duna†challenge thread this past winter that, unfortunately, was lost along with so many good threads. Delta-V maps, such as the one that is the subject of the current Delta-V map thread, predict a minimum delta-V for a transfer from LKO to Duna of about 1060 m/s. One entrant in the challenge managed to reach Duna's surface from LKO using about 1100 m/s for a direct transfer. I managed to save about 80 m/s off the minimum predicted by the delta-V charts using a gravitational assist off the Mun. I managed to get from a 100 km orbit about Kerbin to Duna's surface using just 980 m/s. I could have maybe saved a dozen m/s or so more delta-V had I been a bit more precise, but not much more than that. I still have the screen shots: Starting Fuel Starting Orbit Post transfer burn fuel Planned Munar slingshot trajectory Actual Munar slingshot trajectory Munar periapsis Transfer trajectory – Post gravitational assist Transfer trajectory – Duna arrival Arrival fuel Landed on Duna Math

Could it be that it works so well only because it has been tuned really well? Physicists experimented for decades in labs and accelerators all over the world to refine the standard model of particle physics. As a result, it does an excellent job at predicting some observations, but it still fails completely at explaining other experimental observations. The standard model may be more refined than climate models, but they are both based on well understood and experimentally verifiable physical principles. If you can justify tossing out predictions made with one model because they don't fit your selectively chosen data, then why shouldn't you also throw out the other for the same reason? I fully agree that it would be easier to make decisions that could affect our future well being if we had better data, but we often have to make such critical decisions based on incomplete data. We have to make do with the models we've got, work to improve them, and hope that the decisions we make today that are based on those models won't bite us in the future. That, really, is the art of engineering and it takes me back to my earlier point: It is always reckless to do whatever we want, damn the consequences, because we believe that our models are probably wrong anyway.

While I appreciate the premise of your argument, Stochasty, aren't you effectively throwing the baby out with the bath water? All of science is based on models of one form or another. Those models are tuned and re-tuned as we gain more understanding, but they are only ever models. Why should climate models be dismissed as nothing more than underdetermined systems of arbitrary variables, tuned with equally arbitrary coefficients to match existing data, when we accept other models such as the standard model of particle physics as gosphel? While it is true that the standard model successfully predicts some amazing and counter-intuitive experimental observations, it still fails to predict plenty of others. Climate models may not be perfect, but they are based on our best understanding of fundamental physical principles. Much of our standard of living in the developed world is the result of engineering. That engineering is based on scientific models that predict the behaviour of systems, structures, etc. There are occasions where our predictions, based on those models, turn out to be wrong… But that doesn’t mean that we should do nothing because we’re afraid to fail. And certainly, it doesn’t mean that we should be reckless and do whatever we want, damn the consequences, because our models are probably wrong anyway.

Yes it still works. That is how I do it in the video in the OP of this thread. You can also change the acronym if you'd rather use something other than 'GPS' for your network. There's an entry in the Q&A on the first page of this thread that explains how to change the setting in the part.cfg file.

Some of you guys might be interested in the CBC's "Quirks and Quarks" radio science magazine show's segment on quantum biology from about a year ago. They interviewed Dr. Seth Lloyd of MIT, Dr. Greg Scholes of the University of Toronto and Dr. Jennifer Brookes at Harvard University's Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology. There are links on the episode's web page to a Nature article and a Wired article about quantum biology. The segment and articles aren't directly related to brain chemistry, but if quantum effects are starting to be observed in some areas of biology then they are bound to appear in a lot more as we gain more knowledge.

OK, but what about the PB-ION engine then? It has even higher ISP and lower thrust, but no risk of raining radioactive material down on the citizens of Kerbin when there's a launch failure or when you de-orbit one. If low thrust balances high ISP, what balances the risk of radiating the citizens and environment of Kerbin? I'm not saying that everyone needs to take that into account when they play but for those of us who do, the LV-N isn't a good choice.

So I'm an accessory to your cyber-slacking? Nice. @KhaosCorp: I will repack it that way when I release the next update. I have one or two things I'd like to add when I get a chance. I'll do the changes and repackaging all at once.

I agree that this poll is badly biased. Many forum members (myself included) might like to vote for an engine that isn't listed. Lump me in with the heretics, but I'd vote for the LV-N as my least favourite engine. In my opinion, it is unbalanced because there are no consequences to using it despite the obvious safety concerns.

I don't think that's likely for the Earth-Moon system. The two bodies need to be in fairly close orbits around each other and their masses need to be fairly closely matched for the parent body to become tidally locked. There's a good introduction to the subject of tidal locking on Wikipedia. And incidentally, I recall reading in a book called "The Life and Death of Planet Earth" that the Moon may have been instrumental in the development of life on the early Earth. The moon used to be in a closer orbit that caused tides hundreds of times larger than our current tides. The resulting vastly larger intertidal zones on that early Earth were rich environments in which life could flourish.

There was also the Optimal Ascent Profile for This Spacecraft challenge. The rockets we build in the game have changed a bit since then but, as far as I know, the drag model and atmospheric properties are still the same. Zephram Kerman made a very nice plot showing the relative efficiency of different ascent profiles but the link to the plot seems to be lost. Zephram, if you read this, could you maybe re-post it? Edit: Maybe we should host a new challenge to experiment with this subject? I don't have time to host it myself, but I'd find time to submit an entry. I saw a post by stochasty in another thread that suggested an efficiency challenge based on the FAR mod.

An "Apollo style trajectory" is fine when you're making a free return to the parent body in the system (like in the case of an Earth-Moon-Earth or Kerbin-Mun-Kerbin trajectory) but it isn't possible for a Kerbin-Duna-Kerbin trajectory. I chose to skim Duna's SOI in this case because I didn't need a gravitational assist to return to Kerbin. If you look at the video below, you'll see that my spacecraft was already on an intercept trajectory with both Kerbin and Duna even without the gravitational assist. Also, this mission was flown in version 0.17 of the game without the help of MechJeb or other such mods. And we didn't have maneuver nodes then, so the degree of precision possible wasn't as high as it is today. Feel free to take up the challenge, however, and use the added precision of the maneuver nodes to set up a gravitational assist into a true cycler trajectory.

For reference, here's the old KGSS thread: Kerbin Geographic And Science Society They tried to "officially" name some of the geographic features in the game. I don't think any of those names stuck but there are some nice maps and interesting discussion in there.

I think sturmstiger's suggestion to use Octave is a good one. I flew a similar mission to what is described in the OP back before manoeuvre nodes were added, and I used MathCAD (similar principle to Octave or Matlab) to plan my burns. I planned my flight to Duna (a Duna flyby with free return to Kerbin) such that the spacecraft would arrive at Duna as close as possible to an ascending/descending node. That minimised the out-of-plane manoeuvring required, and turned it into a 2D problem. Here's a video showing how the orbits looked in the map view (it was flicking back and forth between Duna and Kerbin encounters because I'd intentionally set it up to graze Duna's SOI to avoid a significant gravitational assist from Duna screwing up my return trajectory): Edit: Here's the link to the original forum thread: Proof of concept Duna cycler trajectory. - The second screen shot was taken while still inside Kerbin's SOI. It was just over 32 1/2 days from then until Duna intercept. - The fourth screen shot shows my spacecraft at Duna Pe of 47500 km (just inside Duna's SOI) going 3043 m/s relative to Duna. - The fifth screen shot shows my spacecraft returning to Kerbin after 212 days.

Squad had mentioned at one point that they were planning to make SAS and ASAS gains tweakable. The announcement was probably on one of the pages that was eaten by the Kraken...

You COULD start a new challenge that avoids those problems... Maybe an updated version of this challenge: Optimal Ascent Profile for this spacecraft. I'd participate. I just don't have time to host it.

That's almost better than Tex Johnston's infamous stunt... Almost.

Engineer. I started out in a job where I was the guy who'd get called at all hours of the day to approve the repair that would "make it go" when the "ship" was broken. Now I develop firmware for control systems.

ialdabaoth's revision to r4m0n's mod does look promising. I'm willing to offer ialdabaoth the code from my old re-entry heat plugin too, but I'm afraid that it would just lead to confusion and complaints among users of such a mod. The old re-entry heat plugin would have spacecraft being destroyed long before the visual effects are displayed.

Threads like this pop up from time to time and people are usually happy to suggest ideas. It helps if you give us some idea of what level you're at/interested in. One objective that is kind of an interesting physics problem is determining the mass and size of a celestial object by putting something in orbit around it. You can compare your answer to the values on the Wiki when you're done.

Yup... Your spacecraft'd blow up when it touched down.

In the real world, entering at too shallow an angle can actually cause you to burn up too. The reason is that both the magnitude of the heat flux and the length of exposure are a problem. You can see the consequences of entering at too shallow an angle in the top-right corner of the plot in my post on page 3 of this thread. It doesn't take a very sophisticated re-entry heat model to simulate that effect either. It would be nice if it is implemented.