x5060 Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 so, Im a bit perplexed as to how I perform this. I know people are able to do it but I cant figure out how to do it effectivly and on a repeatable basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt'n Skunky Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 so, Im a bit perplexed as to how I perform this. I know people are able to do it but I cant figure out how to do it effectivly and on a repeatable basis.It takes quite a bit of practice and is usually done via powered landing vs dropping in on a chute.You need to build a craft capable of doing the powered landing and then putting it into space. Time your deorbit burn to drop you near then just maneuver to a powered landing.Oh, one other thing...Welcome to the KSP Forums!Happy Launching!Arrr!Capt'n Skunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Deorbiting on top of the pad without power is arguably a more skillful maneuver than doing it with engines It takes a lot of planning (or dumb luck), though, because you only have the one shot at it, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Stargazer Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Deorbiting on top of the pad without power is arguably a more skillful maneuver than doing it with engines It takes a lot of planning (or dumb luck), though, because you only have the one shot at it, obviously.This is why real rocket scientists use computers to calculate optimal burn times, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Surgeon Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 This is why real rocket scientists use computers to calculate optimal burn times, etc...Or slide rules... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Stargazer Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Or slide rules...Amusingly one of my friends at KSC commented that an Android smartphone has more computing power right now than all of NASA's computers combined when we went to the Moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x5060 Posted August 15, 2011 Author Share Posted August 15, 2011 Amusingly one of my friends at KSC commented that an Android smartphone has more computing power right now than all of NASA's computers combined when we went to the Moon.That would not surprise me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Surgeon Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Quite a bit more. Hell, the lander computer overloaded. Lots of calculations, sure, but trivial for a modern pocket calculator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Stargazer Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Quite a bit more. Hell, the lander computer overloaded. Lots of calculations, sure, but trivial for a modern pocket calculator.The exact quote: 'NASA went to the moon with less computer power than we have in this phone. We throw birds at pigs.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moach Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 just viewing this web page has demanded more computing from your PC than they had to work with back then...the AGC (Apollo Guidance Computer) was WAAAY ahead of its time in it's power to do what it did... and the only reason it could, is because it had been built specifically to perform that one single task - any other more 'general purpose' machine of its day would have fled with its tail between its legs upon facing such a taskand they managed to pull it off.... they really did not have enough technology - but they had enough 'balls' to go on as if they did....i saddens me to think that now while we all midlessly carry more computer power in our pockets than what was available back then, we're ever more futher away from walking on the moon stupid humans.... with their 'politics' and their 'advertising'... bound to become extinct in an earth-confined struggle against demons of their own making.... *facepalm* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millsw Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 just viewing this web page has demanded more computing from your PC than they had to work with back then...the AGC (Apollo Guidance Computer) was WAAAY ahead of its time in it's power to do what it did... and the only reason it could, is because it had been built specifically to perform that one single task - any other more 'general purpose' machine of its day would have fled with its tail between its legs upon facing such a taskand they managed to pull it off.... they really did not have enough technology - but they had enough 'balls' to go on as if they did....i saddens me to think that now while we all midlessly carry more computer power in our pockets than what was available back then, we're ever more futher away from walking on the moon stupid humans.... with their 'politics' and their 'advertising'... bound to become extinct in an earth-confined struggle against demons of their own making.... *facepalm*Yeah, It's not exactly re assuring is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowfax Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 The exact quote: 'NASA went to the moon with less computer power than we have in this phone. We throw birds at pigs.'I am using that.A Lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBBQ Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Or slide rules...This. The astronauts on moon missions calculated everything by hand so they could make the rest of the flight manually if anything failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchie16 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I am using that.A Lot.Maybe modify it a bit for some parallelism? 'NASA threw men at the moon' instead of 'NASA went to the moon'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 just viewing this web page has demanded more computing from your PC than they had to work with back then...the AGC (Apollo Guidance Computer) was WAAAY ahead of its time in it's power to do what it did... and the only reason it could, is because it had been built specifically to perform that one single task - any other more 'general purpose' machine of its day would have fled with its tail between its legs upon facing such a taskand they managed to pull it off.... they really did not have enough technology - but they had enough 'balls' to go on as if they did....i saddens me to think that now while we all midlessly carry more computer power in our pockets than what was available back then, we're ever more futher away from walking on the moon stupid humans.... with their 'politics' and their 'advertising'... bound to become extinct in an earth-confined struggle against demons of their own making.... *facepalm*If I recall correctly, the computers were so outdated because they were stable, because in space you can't have somebody go up and reboot Windows, or reset the modem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchie16 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 If I recall correctly, the computers were so outdated because they were stable, because in space you can't have somebody go up and reboot Windows, or reset the modem.This was in the late 60s. windows was far from even existing. Personal computers didn't even exist yet. The Apollo computers weren't outdated, they were state of the art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdfox Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 That's true of the Shuttle's computers, which never advanced beyond early-80s tech, and of the computers used in space probes (*still* 486es!), partly for reliability, and partly because with time comes skill in radiation-hardening a given chip design.The Apollo computers were absolute bleeding-edge state-of-the-art technology, because that was the only way to get enough computational power into the spacecraft to fly the mission automatically instead of manually. Just the storage alone (core-rope) was a massive advance in reducing weight and bulk; it let them duplicate the functions of an entire room filled with tape drives and punchcard readers in a box the size of a toaster, albeit at the cost of the storage being ROM, not read-write storage.And yet your toaster today may have more computational power than the entire AGC did. Think about THAT for a second... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowfax Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 If I recall correctly, the computers were so outdated because they were stable, because in space you can't have somebody go up and reboot Windows, or reset the modem.That's somewhat true of the Shuttle's computers, but Apollo's stuff was pretty state of the art. Remember Apollo happened when most computers filled a large room. Apollo used one of the first integrated circuit computers made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchie16 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 And yet your toaster today may have more computational power than the entire AGC did. Think about THAT for a second...Toasters have computers in them now? Microwaves, sure, and probably even dishwashers and stuff these days, but toasters? Really? What possible use is there for a computer in a toaster? ??? I am fairly sure every toaster I have ever used has nothing more complex than a timer IC… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowfax Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Nope, toasters have microchips.http://express.howstuffworks.com/toaster-autopsy.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchie16 Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Nope, toasters have microchips.http://express.howstuffworks.com/toaster-autopsy.htm ???That said, I still maintain that that doesn't make a toaster more powerful than the apollo guidance computers. A toaster today contains more advanced electronics, in that the microchips in a toaster are made with newer processes and smaller than was possible for the Apollo computer. However, my guess is the only 'microchip' in the toaster is a simple timer chip, which can't actually do any computation. So the Apollo guidance computers are still more powerful computationally than today's toasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xivios Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Back on topic, there is a decent alternative to complex maths and calculations available to those who wish to land upon the pad. Fuel!As said before, powered landings are possible, but it doesn't take much fuel to de-orbit a ship at KSC's opposite end and hope your close enough to muscle your way to KSC when you enter the atmo a rough half-orbit later.But with a gross excess of fuel, (and who doesn't like gross excess in this game?), you can pretty much stop the vessel directly over KSC and bomb in near-vertically. It requires a HUGE investment in ?v, and then use whatever is left to tweak your descent. It works, and it's fun, but you wouldn't be likely to see it ever happen in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteevyT Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 The exact quote: 'NASA went to the moon with less computer power than we have in this phone. We throw birds at pigs.'Found my signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorEvo Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 If I recall correctly, the computers were so outdated because they were stable, because in space you can't have somebody go up and reboot Windows, or reset the modem.You mean 'Mission Specialist: IT' wasn't a job on the Space Shuttle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdfox Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 You mean 'Mission Specialist: IT' wasn't a job on the Space Shuttle?Hmm. That might be Payload Specialist, actually... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts