Kerbal Space Program Jebruary Edition - Games

I'm interested - how do you actually use a constant acceleration drive to get somewhere? Where do you aim, what trajectory?

[QUOTE=blazingfly;37441592]I'm interested - how do you actually use a constant acceleration drive to get somewhere? Where do you aim, what trajectory?[/QUOTE] For a constant acceleration drive, you'd need to do a [I]lot[/I] of maths to get anywhere. You need to know how fast you'll accelerate, how much your acceleration would change as you burned through your fuel, how the target body would accelerate as you approach etc. Really not feasible for KSP, unless you're an astrophysicist. But if you were, you wouldn't be asking the question.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;37441821]For a constant acceleration drive, you'd need to do a [I]lot[/I] of maths to get anywhere. You need to know how fast you'll accelerate, how much your acceleration would change as you burned through your fuel, how the target body would accelerate as you approach etc. Really not feasible for KSP, unless you're an astrophysicist. But if you were, you wouldn't be asking the question.[/QUOTE] Well, with all this talk of ion drives I thought there would be an easier way than just maths. That said, trial and error would get you somewhere, I guess.

I got within 800m, so close!

I wish the map could project a virtual 'line of sight' from where my spacecraft nose was pointing. Would make this constant acceleration thing easier. :v:

Is there a way to rotate parts in the VAB? The keybindings on the KSP wiki says nothing about it, but I find it hard to imagine that there is no way to rotate a part. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] Nevermind, trial and error did it for me. Turns out it's the same keys used to rotate when controlling the rocket. :v:

Went to go deorbit some debris. Find it's an RCS tank, took it down anyway. [img_thumb]http://puu.sh/ZGoI[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=blazingfly;37441966]Well, with all this talk of ion drives I thought there would be an easier way than just maths. That said, trial and error would get you somewhere, I guess.[/QUOTE] I'm not a physicist, I'm not even a very big space buff, so I don't know what you guys mean by ion drives, other than what I've picked up, that being that they're super high efficiency, super low thrust. Low thrust =/= constant acceleration. The only constant accel design I'm familiar with (in reality) is the one with the huge ram jet engine that scoops matter in and fires it out the back; which obviously has no parallel in KSP.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;37442974]I'm not a physicist, I'm not even a very big space buff, so I don't know what you guys mean by ion drives, other than what I've picked up, that being that they're super high efficiency, super low thrust. Low thrust =/= constant acceleration. The only constant accel design I'm familiar with (in reality) is the one with the huge ram jet engine that scoops matter in and fires it out the back; which obviously has no parallel in KSP.[/QUOTE] Don't quite me on this, but I'm fairly sure constant thrust no matter how low it is = constant acceleration. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] lol obviously. Newton's second law. If an acceleration is constant, then the force is also constant. F = ma

[QUOTE=Swebonny;37443167]Don't quite me on this, but I'm fairly sure constant thrust no matter how low it is = constant acceleration. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] lol obviously. Newton's second law. If an acceleration is constant, then the force is also constant. F = ma[/QUOTE] I meant that a low thrust engine doesn't mean it is a constant acceleration engine.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;37443200]I meant that a low thrust engine doesn't mean it is a constant acceleration engine.[/QUOTE] Oh, yeah obviously not. But if we hypothetically have an engine that outputs a constant thrust of let's say 10 Newton, and the ship weights 100 kg. Then the acceleration becomes 0.1 m/s^2. We know acceleration is the same as the derivative of velocity with respect to time, so if we integrate the acceleration we get the function of velocity with respect to time. If the acceleration is constant we simply integrate from time 0 to t (how long it accelerates) and acquire the acceleration times t, which is equal to the velocity at time t - minus the velocity at time 0. We rearrange and get. v(t) = v(0) + a*t. Where a is acceleration, v(0) the initial speed and v(t) the speed after time t. In this case it is seconds. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] So as long as we have an engine that can output a constant thrust at a very long amount of time at any thrust, we will have a constant acceleration. Now I don't think there are many engines that can exert a constant thrust. I read VASIMR is the closest we have to such an engine. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] lol I hope I'm not shitting from my mouth. It was a long time ago I did classical physics.

I have a shitton of the largest 3 meter tank there is polluting the space around kerbin. I really want a collision to happen.

I like mechjeb because the satisfication i get from just building a ship capable of getting to orbit and even to other planets is the best.

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;37443391]I have a shitton of the largest 3 meter tank there is polluting the space around kerbin. I really want a collision to happen.[/QUOTE] You have to be observing it at 1x for it to happen (collisions don't occur on rails)

[QUOTE=Swebonny;37443321]Oh, yeah obviously not. But if we hypothetically have an engine that outputs a constant thrust of let's say 10 Newton, and the ship weights 100 kg. Then the acceleration becomes 0.1 m/s^2. We know acceleration is the same as the derivative of velocity with respect to time, so if we integrate the acceleration we get the function of velocity with respect to time. If the acceleration is constant we simply integrate from time 0 to t (how long it accelerates) and acquire the acceleration times t, which is equal to the velocity at time t - minus the velocity at time 0. We rearrange and get. v(t) = v(0) + a(t). Where a is acceleration, v(0) the initial speed and v(t) the speed after time t. In this case it is seconds. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] So as long as we have an engine that can output a constant thrust at a very long amount of time at any thrust, we will have a constant acceleration. Now I don't think there are many engines that can exert a constant thrust. I read VASIMR is the closest we have to such an engine. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] lol I hope I'm not shitting from my mouth. It was a long time ago I did classical physics.[/QUOTE] At least you've done classical physics at some point. You've thrown maths at me that I don't recognise so you officially know more than me.

Are there any websites that give basics on ship and plane building? I feel accomplished just for being able to launch a new payload into orbit, I still haven't made anything that has the fuel or power to get to the Mun yet. I know there is a ton of stuff on youtube, but for some reason I hate watching videos. I like reading and looking at pictures.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37443514]I know there is a ton of stuff on youtube, but for some reason I hate watching videos. I like reading and looking at pictures.[/QUOTE]I'm not too fond of video tutorials, either. Combination of being able to run through text and pictures at my own speed without having to rewind, pause or wait for the person speaking to speed the fuck up. That, and quite often the one doing the speaking has this rather irritating voice I can only describe as a relatively high-pitched American white nerd voice; usually the kind that always opens the video with "Hey guys!" or something similar.

I have no idea how to make big payloads to put into orbit. All of my satellites are really small and like 2 tons. I don't really see a need to make giant satellites and stuff.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;37443687]I'm not too fond of video tutorials, either. Combination of being able to run through text and pictures at my own speed without having to rewind, pause or wait for the person speaking to speed the fuck up. That, and quite often the one doing the speaking has this rather irritating voice I can only describe as a relatively high-pitched American white nerd voice; usually the kind that always opens the video with "Hey guys!" or something similar.[/QUOTE] Yea, and the people are fucking talking about what they fucking had for dinner or whatever while trying to show a video. If someone was really good at articulating in a precise and expedient fashion, and stay on topic, it might be more bearable. I've not yet found anyone capable of doing this. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Dacheet;37443698]I have no idea how to make big payloads to put into orbit. All of my satellites are really small and like 2 tons. I don't really see a need to make giant satellites and stuff.[/QUOTE] I want to put landers on the moon, those are fairly big payloads traveling a fairly long distance. It's impossibly long for my current level of aptitude.

[QUOTE=Dacheet;37443698]I have no idea how to make big payloads to put into orbit. All of my satellites are really small and like 2 tons. I don't really see a need to make giant satellites and stuff.[/QUOTE] in my opinion it's not about payload size, it's about launcher capability. For example, you could make a 5 tonne payload that takes you all the way to the mun, or you could place a 25 tonne payload that can reach a modest orbit. What I do is make a large launcher and stack 4-5 satellites and detach them at their intended orbits, that way you can get a lot done from a single launch, provided you have the fuel.

[quote]I have no idea how this blog post works, but I'll give it a shot (I've never been much of a forum guy, I just have a personal blog for other non-kerbal related animations). As Harvester has shown you, this release is going to include two guys Gene Kerman and Wernher Von Kerman. Those two will help you master the (somewhat difficult) art of space flight inside the Kerbal universe. Gene is based upon Gene Kranz, former NASA director and manager. He's characterized by Ed Harris on the Apollo 13 film. And Wernher, well he's got Vincent Price's mustache. If you follow @KerbalSpaceP on twitter you've seen Bobak Kerman, and yesterday we uploaded Neil "Armstrong" Kerman to our blog. So far that's what we've characterized as Kerbals. And it's not a bad idea. Maybe there're more to come. Stay tuned for more updates Gene [img]http://i.imgur.com/pwox3.png[/img][img]http://i.imgur.com/Zz2XO.png[/img][img]http://i.imgur.com/EuSZT.png[/img] Wernher [img]http://i.imgur.com/nd6Dx.png[/img][img]http://i.imgur.com/lhPi2.png[/img][img]http://i.imgur.com/z3QA7.png[/img] [/quote]

I'd like to see the original crew eventually becoming "veterans" and having their own tutorials, Jeb being reentry 101: crashing with style of course

[QUOTE=Swebonny;37443321]Oh, yeah obviously not. But if we hypothetically have an engine that outputs a constant thrust of let's say 10 Newton, and the ship weights 100 kg. Then the acceleration becomes 0.1 m/s^2. We know acceleration is the same as the derivative of velocity with respect to time, so if we integrate the acceleration we get the function of velocity with respect to time. If the acceleration is constant we simply integrate from time 0 to t (how long it accelerates) and acquire the acceleration times t, which is equal to the velocity at time t - minus the velocity at time 0. We rearrange and get. v(t) = v(0) + a(t). Where a is acceleration, v(0) the initial speed and v(t) the speed after time t. In this case it is seconds. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] So as long as we have an engine that can output a constant thrust at a very long amount of time at any thrust, we will have a constant acceleration. Now I don't think there are many engines that can exert a constant thrust. I read VASIMR is the closest we have to such an engine. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] lol I hope I'm not shitting from my mouth. It was a long time ago I did classical physics.[/QUOTE] Isn't it: v(t) = V(0) [B]*[/B] a(t) [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Dacheet;37443895][/QUOTE] Needs a "nonononononononoNONONONONONO DONT DO THAT" animation.

[QUOTE=-Xemit-;37444114]Werhner looks evil in that second picture.[/QUOTE] He probably is

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/X0V3D.jpg[/IMG]

Floyd... You are a barber, not a rocket scientist... Why are you dressed like that? What are you doing?

[QUOTE=gta-man12345;37444200][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/X0V3D.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Pretty clearly shopped. Notice how that's the UI from like 0.10. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] and the dodgy compression on everything other than the portrait of Gene

[QUOTE=Chubbs;37444235]Pretty clearly shopped. Notice how that's the UI from like 0.10. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] and the dodgy compression on everything other than the portrait of Gene[/QUOTE] no shit sherlock Its just what i want to happend in the first flight tutorial and made it on[B] photoshop.[/B]

[QUOTE=Chubbs;37444235]Pretty clearly shopped. Notice how that's the UI from like 0.10. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] and the dodgy compression on everything other than the portrait of Gene[/QUOTE] no fun allowed

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;37442923]Went to go deorbit some debris. Find it's an RCS tank, took it down anyway. [img_thumb]http://puu.sh/ZGoI[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] oh Gosh KOSMOS :D gosh that makes the Nerva look tiny haha.