come on... Challenger was fun. everyone always wanted to see what a full blown explosion of a rocket looked like.
but in relity everyone knows pushing something back a week just a precursor to pushing it back a month.
[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;35699587]come on... Challenger was fun. everyone always wanted to see what a full blown explosion of a rocket looked like.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry this is a joke right?
[QUOTE=LarparNar;35699675]I'm sorry this is a joke right?[/QUOTE]
Well of course it is challanger video always makes my blood feel icy..... But on a serious note. You have to admit you were always curious weren't you? Same with Columbia. yeah it really sucks but you know you always went "wonder what they do when they fail to come back right..."
Same with 9/11. When we went to NYC when i was younger it was neat to be atop the WTC. but you cannot help but go "would suck if this fell wonder what that would look like:"
it is why people watch nascar. and this video has 5 million hits. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQa4PpIkOZU[/url]
[QUOTE=HarvesteR]Well, I have good news here.
I've succeeded in writing an algorithm that calculates your future orbits based on the current one and the calculated SOI transitions. This is essentially patched conics already, only that they're not yet patched... so I guess it's just 'conics' for now.
The system is able to calculate in advance your trajectory with any number of patches (for sanity's sake it's clamped at 3 now). That is, provided there will be an encounter in your next orbit, the system is able to tell you what your orbit will be after the encounter, and what the orbit following that will be also.
I think a screenshot will illustrate the point better:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Bbqzi.png[/img]
As you can clearly see, no effort in presenting this to people has been made yet. The lines you see are just debugging aids for now. Once I'm sure this is all working as it should, I'll move on to rendering the trajectory properly.
Let me explain the mess of lines you're seeing though: I've cloned the Mun on my test scene, to test out multiple SOI transfers. The outermost orbit is the cloned Mun, and the active ship is the one nearest the original Mun orbit. At the time of this screenshot, it has not yet entered the Mun's SOI, but you can already see the hyperbolic orbit it will (and does) have after entering it.
You can also see the orbit after leaving the Mun's SOI. That's the closed, eccentric orbit that flies out past the second Mun's orbit, and then you can see there is another hyperbolic path around the second Mun, which is the trajectory the ship describes as it flies by the second Mun.
The Kerbin-centered leg of the flight has a lot more energy to it than the original orbit, and yet no other forces than gravity are being taken into account. Why is that you may ask? Well, the first Mun passage is in fact a slingshot trajectory. It enters the Mun's SOI by the trailing side, which means the Mun's gravity will pull the ship 'forward' towards it. Then, the ship escapes through the 'leading' side, having added some of the Mun's momentum to itself. That means your exit orbit is much faster on the periapsis than the original one, and you basically get some free boost with that.
Interestingly enough also, this algorithm is actually more accurate than the flight simulation itself. I discovered that if you run the SOI transitions at low warp, the resulting orbit is much closer to the predicted one than if you keep the sim going at high warp. That is because the patched conic solver finds the exact moment of SOI transition, down to a hundredth of a second, while the flight simulation itself is reactive. That is, it recalculates for the next SOI after it detects you're already in it, which means you've already overshot a bit.
I'm very happy with how this is going so far, although I have to say, judging by the amount of work still to be done, I'm not at all confident the entire flight planning system will be in for the next release. In fact, I'm already planning the work in terms of what will be ready enough, and here's my current plan:
So far I've almost completed the patched conic solver and the orbit restructuring needed to make that happen. However, Maneuver Nodes aren't yet started, so I'm thinking that will have to wait for 0.16. It should be possible though, to add the patched conics solver in 'immediate mode', that is, have it render out your current trajectory, taking into account SOI transitions ahead of you. It should already be a very useful thing to have, even by itself. It should make Mun shots much, much more intuitive.
And that means Maneuver Nodes will get a full update for themselves, which is very good from a dev's perspective, because it's a feature that needs all the attention it can get, and having more time on it means we can do a proper job of it. I'm itching to get started on that. It has the potential to be a game-changing addition, and will pretty much complete the whole set of orbit simulation features.
Well, assuming this here is working as intended now, the next step is to get started on actually rendering the trajectory, so we get the 'patched' bit of patched conics.
Cheers[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what's going on here.
[editline]a[/editline]
Also, this:
[QUOTE=HarvesteR][QUOTE]Hi HarvesteR, the new system is looking good, do you think this can handle detecting if an object enters an atmosphere and can apply drag to it?
It'd be useful not just for Kerbin but for the other atmosphere planets later on as well, I'm thinking we could drop probes with airbrakes and they'd be able to land unattended, a bit like the Venera Venus probes.[/QUOTE]
I've been thinking about that... it could actually be possible.
Some time ago we found a set of equations to approximate the effects of atmospheric drag on an aerobraking trajectory, that would give you an orbit-by-orbit rundown of the trajectory, after each pass through the atmosphere. Now that orbits are independent of the orbiting objects, it should be possible to have a precalculated list of future orbits, after each aerobrake pass.
Then, it should also be possible to 'lerp' between the current orbit and the next, as a function of the time spent inside the atmosphere threshold. Not perfectly accurate, but quite close enough.
Of course, this is all just speculation for now. If we actually get some time to work on that, though, I'd be pretty happy.
Cheers[/QUOTE]
I made an artificial gravity torus, but I miss circular space station parts :(
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2668640/screenshot421.jpg[/img]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nCGKD.png[/IMG]
Mapping the Mun!
[QUOTE=-Xemit-;35702940]You should get some more inclination, unless you want to map only a small stripe of the mun.[/QUOTE]
That's what that second set of lines are. I'm going to increase the inclination by 1 degree per few orbits.
The Excel file is at 70,000 lines :tinfoil:
[editline]24th April 2012[/editline]
Also I ordered a telescope.
In other news, there's supposed to be a goddamn storm all week
[QUOTE=Dacheet;35704262]In other news, there's supposed to be a goddamn storm all week[/QUOTE]
Northeastern us?
Shit's freezing in Florida.
Joisey. We're still getting the remnants of that Nor'easter you guys conjured up.
I hate to say it but I think this is Americas best & most logical & cost effective NASA option.
[video=youtube;xOnlAUpYWoc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOnlAUpYWoc&feature=g-vrec&context=G2abe21fRVAAAAAAAAAg[/video]
that looks very good indeed, especially since a lot of the technology is ready for use.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
I decided to take my moon lander out of the shelf and give it a try, since I'm in the queue for the community (stock parts) mun base on KSP forums. The rocket hadn't been used for a while and had to be fixed to work with the latest version, I added a return stage, twice as much legs and some engine changes
[t]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot170.png[/t]
[t]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot1.png[/t]
[t]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot3.png[/t]
Even with twice as much legs, one of them broke and exploded while landing below 1m/s :v:
[t]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot17.png[/t]
[t]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43645231/photos/KSP/screenshot18.png[/t]
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
I can probably return with the lander stage, it still has a total of 2 big fuel tanks worth of fuel, so that's 2,5 (0,5 becuase the smaller fuel tank in the middle) in total :v:
uh... btw what is nasas current plan? they have come up with so much stuff and cancelled so much as well.
so what exactly is the current plan? and what is the goal? still trying to go back to the moon?
There's not much of a plan except for the first two launches. According to wikipedia, the first will be an unmanned lunar flyby and the second will be a manned lunar flyby. There's a general plan/idea on page 19 of [url=http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/525162main_HEFT_Final_Brief_508_20110309.pdf]this NASA document here[/url] as well as a bunch of other information. From what I can tell, there's not really any plan at the moment.
Because G forces are calculated from center of gravity, I didn't get a reading from my gravity torus, so I attached a ship to the side of it:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL7S06ZvdSA[/media]
Looks funny because of how the camera is centered on the little craft and there aren't any references to see what's actually spinning :v:
[QUOTE=LarparNar;35719427]Because G forces are calculated from center of gravity, I didn't get a reading from my gravity torus, so I attached a ship to the side of it:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL7S06ZvdSA[/media]
Looks funny because of how the camera is centered on the little craft and there aren't any references to see what's actually spinning :v:[/QUOTE]
Did you attach that while it was spinning, or did you de-spin the space station, attach, then re-spin?
Because, if it's the former, you are a god among men.
[QUOTE=Tommyx50;35719762]Did you attach that while it was spinning, or did you de-spin the space station, attach, then re-spin?
Because, if it's the former, you are a god among men.[/QUOTE]
De-spin, attach, spin up again :v:
[QUOTE=Pelf;35714043]There's not much of a plan except for the first two launches. According to wikipedia, the first will be an unmanned lunar flyby and the second will be a manned lunar flyby. There's a general plan/idea on page 19 of [url=http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/525162main_HEFT_Final_Brief_508_20110309.pdf]this NASA document here[/url] as well as a bunch of other information. From what I can tell, there's not really any plan at the moment.[/QUOTE]
but what is to get it up there? like what does the SLS look like now days? there have been so many forms lol.
[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;35719918]but what is to get it up there? like what does the SLS look like now days? there have been so many forms lol.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Art_of_SLS_launch.jpg/576px-Art_of_SLS_launch.jpg[/img]
The main lift stage has a tank based on the Space Shuttle tank, but modified to fit engines at one end and an interstage on top.
The boosters will at least for the first few designs be based on the Space Shuttle boosters, either 4 or 5 segment.
Main stage designs are like this:
Block 0 - Unstretched core stage with 3 RS-25D engines. (SSME)
Block I - Stretched core stage with 4 RS-25D engines.
Block IA & II - Stretched core stage with 5 RS-25E engines.
Upper stage will vary.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;35720444]
The main lift stage has a tank based on the Space Shuttle tank, but modified to fit engines at one end and an interstage on top.
The boosters will at least for the first few designs be based on the Space Shuttle boosters, either 4 or 5 segment.
Main stage designs are like this:
Block 0 - Unstretched core stage with 3 RS-25D engines. (SSME)
Block I - Stretched core stage with 4 RS-25D engines.
Block IA & II - Stretched core stage with 5 RS-25E engines.
Upper stage will vary.[/QUOTE]
ah. so they have cancelled the ares part and will just launch the crew with it now eh?
[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;35722444]ah. so they have cancelled the ares part and will just launch the crew with it now eh?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Apparently the Earth Departure Stage (same upper stages as was planned for the Ares) is planned for the Block II design.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Departure_Stage[/url]
The one for the SLS will be equipped with three J-2X engines.
(Upgraded version of the engine used on the S-II and S-IVB stages of the Saturn V)
Looks like they just slapped some SRBs on the Saturn V.
[editline]26th April 2012[/editline]
How much more thrust will this baby put out compared to the Saturn V?
[QUOTE=OvB;35722914]Looks like they just slapped some SRBs on the Saturn V.
[editline]26th April 2012[/editline]
How much more thrust will this baby put out compared to the Saturn V?[/QUOTE]
Well the main stage doesn't even come close, with five SSME's (Space Shuttle Main Engine), they will end up with around 9MN
Though that's without the SRBs because I don't know how much thrust they will put out, but if we assume they have the same thrust as the Space Shuttle SRBs, you'll end up with ~33.3 MN
That's about the same as the Saturn V first stage, it had about 34MN.
I'm pretty sure the SLS runs for longer though, so it's probably more efficient, but I don't really know.
The main difference lies in the engines that give thrust to the main engine, the SSME have much less thrust than the F1 engines used on the first stage of the Saturn V.
[editline]26th April 2012[/editline]
Oh wait, according to the Wikipedia page for the SLS it's different.
Each of the boosters will put out more thrust than the Space Shuttle boosters, so the boosters alone will give you 32MN
The five SSME gives you 9MN, so that's 41MN total.
wiki says it will put a lot more into LEO than the SV. 70,000 kg (150,000 lb)–129,000 kg (280,000 lb) I always found the j-2x being used to be funny. It is such an ancient design but apparently still the best :D
about the SRB. "[FONT=sans-serif][COLOR=#000000]These boosters will not be recovered and will sink into the Atlantic Ocean downrange" i guess they said fuck re-usability. [/COLOR][/FONT]
i was watching enterprise take off and some Nasa person said it was time to move on from shuttle technology which is 30 years old.
And yet SLS uses j-2x which is basically from the 60's. Shuttle tank and boosters from the 70's, Capsules, which has been used since forever.
In other news. Dragon set to launch on may 7th. :D
also they made mock up of Dragon Rider stuff. where as Orion still only set to fly in 2014 (which means 2016)
[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;35729393]wiki says it will put a lot more into LEO than the SV. 70,000 kg (150,000 lb)–129,000 kg (280,000 lb) I always found the j-2x being used to be funny. It is such an ancient design but apparently still the best :D
about the SRB. "[FONT=sans-serif][COLOR=#000000]These boosters will not be recovered and will sink into the Atlantic Ocean downrange" i guess they said fuck re-usability. [/COLOR][/FONT]
i was watching enterprise take off and some Nasa person said it was time to move on from shuttle technology which is 30 years old.
And yet SLS uses j-2x which is basically from the 60's. Shuttle tank and boosters from the 70's, Capsules, which has been used since forever.
In other news. Dragon set to launch on may 7th. :D
also they made mock up of Dragon Rider stuff.[/QUOTE]
The J-2X is not really old, but it's based off the old J-2 engine.
But yeah, there is quite a lot of old stuff, it seems to be that they made the best stuff back in the day :v:
[QUOTE=LarparNar;35729447]The J-2X is not really old, but it's based off the old J-2 engine.
But yeah, there is quite a lot of old stuff, it seems to be that they made the best stuff back in the day :v:[/QUOTE]
It looks almost exactly like the original J-2. The chamber is a bit different shape and is made from some upgraded methods and metals and such. But it is still a J-2 in almost every way. It isn't like they changed it's shape or way it works. it you compare the two it looks almost exactly the same with some shinier parts.
[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;35730440]It looks almost exactly like the original J-2. The chamber is a bit different shape and is made from some upgraded methods and metals and such. But it is still a J-2 in almost every way. It isn't like they changed it's shape or way it works. it you compare the two it looks almost exactly the same with some shinier parts.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, as I said, it's based on the old one, but upgraded.
It's heavier though, and doesn't have as much thrust-to-weight-ratio, but I'd assume it's more efficient / more overall thrust.
The J-2 has always been a very reliable and safe design, only major issue with it was on Apollo 13 when the center engine was automatically cut off prematurely on the S-II, due to issues with pogo oscillation.
So it's obviously a nice design to base the new one on.
:( need upgraded F-1 would be more epic. haha. but yeah. spaceX is the only thing keeping america cool :D
Oh. BTW apparently there is an Atlas-V going up on May 3rd.
Oh my god, the whole imgur thing has fucked up the op.
Do we know why they decided to block FP or are they being retards?
[QUOTE=Chubbs;35744539]Do we know why they decided to block FP or are they being retards?[/QUOTE]
It says right in the announcement "They won't tell us why"
[editline]28th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=CardBoardBox;35733772]:( need upgraded F-1 would be more epic. haha. but yeah. spaceX is the only thing keeping america cool :D[/QUOTE]
Yeah an upgraded F-1 would be great, but the F-1 is not an upper stage engine designed for vacuum operation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
