sta7ic_matt

Software engineer here. 1 - What is JObj? I see that you've included it in the lib directory, but I'm unfamiliar with it. Are you wrapping Swing containers? 2 - Please look into Maven or some other build manager. It'll make life easier. 3 - Tests.

v0.1.4 update. It's a pet project, so it's coming along in fits and spurts. I learned about HighCharts and included those. I'm sure there are other miscellaneous changes that I didn't dig out of the commit messages. The next big part is a 'Pathfinder' module, and I'm gradually learning the astrodynamics required for patched conics and Lambert's Problem.

Some updates. Calling it v0.1.3 -- the power and battery calculations are correct, and it's handling RTGs and fuel cells for power generation. * provides count of batteries required * provides count of solar panels required (around RTG & cells) to sustain base load and desired recharge time * provides mass and cost for all of the above Now up at http://probehelper.appspot.com/ ... Google App Engine has enough free hosting to hang a simple servlet. That's going to take a little more time going forward.

Initial gets-results version of a 'probe helper'. Right now it'll report the mass, cost, power needs, and energy needs of a probe with the selected components and properties. You can specify how patient you are for the batteries to recharge, if the probe's experiments will be transmitted one-by-one or in a big batch, and how long the probe should be able to function in a shadow (I'm looking at you, Ike). v0.1.4 charts! making noise about this again http://probehelper.appspot.com/ Planned improvements: tooltips path finding

I could stand without the NaN Kraken. It strikes my interplanetary ships about half the time

That's an apples-to-oranges kind of comparison, since jet fuel doesn't mix in oxidizer, nor involves cryogenic engine fuel. It's also very much a reliability and complexity problem. It's possible to do crossfeeds, but it's another set of moving parts that can fail, in an environment where failures are often catastrophic and _very_ expensive.

My hard-mode Jeb went "splat" early on due to a staging error, where both the main engine and the recovery chute activated on an early sounding rocket. The chute decided to cut when it wasn't slowing the up, so it didn't slow the down. I've gotten _really_ good about double-checking my staging ever since.

After mis-interpreting what the Titan IIIC's vector adjustment thrusters were for, I slapped together a combined two-stage boosted design with additional SRBs. See http://i.imgur.com/mTuVqDA.jpg What exactly would this configuration be labeled as, with a two-stage central engine, LFB, and SRB? The SRB are primarily for that extra 'oomph' at launch to hit the top of the envelope, with a classic Delta IV Heavy esque 2xLFB+LFE staging configuration all the way through. "Two stage boosted with extra boosters"? Still "two stage boosted"? Something else? (The Mark 55's on the main stage are meant as verniers rather than lifters)

I can think of four common ways to track space objects: visually, with radar, thermographicly, and gravitationally. Visual: If it's not black, it reflects light. If it's black, it'll absorb sunlight, making it invisible to telescopes, but will both "look hot" and require dedicated cooling systems. Radar: The classic, with all the usual modern stealth technologies being applicable. Thermographically: Paint it white and avoid 'hot' propulsion (ie everything but pressurized air), to minimize black-body radiation and thermal spikes. Gravitationally: If it's big enough, it'll perturb the orbits of other objects. If it's big enough to perturb other objects, "stealth" is something of a joke. I want to mention that the STS's RCS units were hypergolic AJ10 thrusters, which means that the bi-propellant combination immediately reacted upon mixing in the combustion chamber. "Visible from Mars" wouldn't surprise me much.

...and that's why I asked the silly question =) "Abort procedures" became useful immediately after I figured out that the big red button could do something useful!

Pfffft... Abort procedures... aren't those where the Kerbalnaut becomes a green spot on the ground? How many people set up abort procedures for your ships? It's something I've only added for my most recent design (adding about 0.68t on a 27t-with-16t-fuel payload), and sure enough, Edan hit the 'next stage' lever while reaching for some snacks. The 'jeez so heavy' escape plan is 'kill the engines', 'decouple the docking jr rings between the Service Module and the Command Module', 'fire seperatrons', and 'deploy landing gear'. 4x RCS for maneuvering away from the exploding rocket pieces, and to decelerate, dock with a rescue vehicle, etc. Oh, and 'deploy the parachute when it's safe to'. But yeah. Traditional asparagus layout, 'next stage' was hit too early, the boosters slam into the unmanned probes on either side of the payload, resulting in the shower of debris in the lower-right. Kill the engines, hit 'abort', watch the seperatrons are doing their job perfectly, RCS away, and parachute down somewhere safer than next to several tons of exploding fuel. Edan is also being re-trained on proper launch procedures, and which side of the ship the snacks are on. Again: how many people actually have abort procedures?