Dan's Orbiter page
Orbiter English => Orbiter English => Topic started by: Qdog on 23 March 2003, 23:48:34
-
Ok guys I`ve aligned my orbit with moon`s to 0.001 degrees. Used transfer mfd-lined gray line
just ahead of yellow doetted line-fired trust prograde when solid green meets dotted green till I
match dotted oval with solid oval. Now here`s the problem-when I get this far the dotted yellow
(moon) moves way off. I don`t know if this is normalbut as I proceed the moon is way off to my
right. It doesn`t seem like I will intersect with it. Can anyone help me with this??
-
Hello,
The lines move on me also this seams to be irrelivent when I bring up my ENC MFD
I am very close to my target.
RSB
-
qdog: once you have done the burn the lines will wonder offcourse a bit. but you are *not* going to miss the moon!
As long as you ddi a good burn you'll still get there. Just timeaccelerate for a bit and bring up the orbit MFD. Select
the moon as the reference in the mfd (shft-R then type "moon") and over time you should see that your closest
approach slowly decreases. :)
Hope this helps,
Simon
-
Woohoo!
Thanks for the refresher Simon :)
I took the DGIII to the moon and landed right on the pad with plenty of fuel and air to spare (for once!)
Heh... I wonder if I still have that scenario from a few days ago saved when I got onto the pad with literally about 0.
3% fuel left in the tanks :) And yes, I drained the RCS tank almost totally dry, too.
It's times like these I remember why I became addicted to Orbiter in the first place! :gift:
-
That's what I thought my first few Moon trips so I corrected more towards the Moon and found myself being chased
by the sucker. Everything will work out just wait and let it happen. A decent burn should have you almost smacking
into the Moon.
-
That's my problem ususlly, I get so close, that I smack right into it "SLAM!!!!!!"
another problem that I have is I can't figure out how to land at any specific point, say brighton beach.
any help on how to do that would be appreciated
I have the baseSync MFD if that help
Thx
Johnc
-
Yes, the moon being off to your right can be a little confusing, it seems you're going the wrong way. Just remember
that the Moon is moving too, and even if it's not that fast, it covers a pretty big distance in the 3 or 4 days it takes to
get there.
-
John: I've been meaning to try BaseSynch MFD but I haven't got around to it yet. The moon has no atmosphere, and is
relatively small and has relatively low gravity compared to, say, Earth (or even mars) so traveling to you rlanding site
sub-orbitally usually doesn't burn TOO much fuel.
Normally I "seat-of-the-pants" it like this:
Orbit MFD on one side, ship projection, and map MFD on the other with the base you want targetted (Brighton Beach
unless you have some add-ons).
I align orbit using orbit normal and antinormal burns until my orbit takes me right over our target base. I burn retro
until my orbit is at an altitude of perhaps 50 kilometers. Now this part depends on your ship, and may take practice to
get right, but you wait 'till you're just about right over your target, then burn retrograde like a mofo. With the DGIII
and the high end engines set you can be literally right on top of the thing and slow down fairly quickly, but with a
lesser performing ship you may have to begin your burn earlier. I burn retrogradeuntil my retrograde marker points
straight up. If you burn a bit more it'll flip and point toward the moon meaning you're now "hovering" UP. At that point
I let the ship hit apogee and begin to fall toward the surface. Depending on your altitude (I like to be about 40k up at
this point) you'll have a few minutes to decide what to do next. Normally what I do is look at my compass bug up top
to see where the base is relative to it. I rotate my heading to aim for the bug, then pitch straight down to 90 degrees
using the surface MFD. What I want to do is make sure my velocity vector is either straight down or headed toward
the target base. If not it'll just eat more fuel when we get down. I use the RCS linear thrusters to adjust the velocity
vector so it's headed a bit off of straight down, toward the target base. Then I use the level horizon autopilot and
switch the orbit MFD to Surface MFD (of course the DGIII has some really useful HUD functions on that 5 way AUX hud
that can be even better than the Surface MFD. Using hover thrusters (carefully, it's easy to hit 'em so hard you stop
dropping altogether and start back up). I keep the vertical speed below about 200 m/s. Around 10 K altitude I get it
down to below 100 m/s. Hopefully by this time I'm able to spot the base. The compas bug and external view helps
here :) I use the hover thrusters to to get my Vspeed down to zero at about 4 k altitude, then turn on HoldAlt (if you
turn it on higher it pops you back up to that altitude, so bleh). Gotta make sure Hlevel is still on here, too, and lower
the gear. So now I'm in a stable hover and in view of the target base, it's just a matter of using main engines to thrust
over to the pad, retros or main to stop again (keep an eye on that prograde/velocity vector, it's a lifesaver here!!) and
hover down with RCS to a landing.
We don't need no steenking BaseSynch MFD :) (well, I'm sure it's a godsend when you're low on fuel) ;)
-
Forgive me if any of this sounds pedantic, or like I'm being a smartypants wiseass. I just like organizing my thoughts
via written word. It's therapeutic :)
That and I like being helpful if at all possible, particularly since I can't code or model or create any useful add-ons :bug:
-
Ah.. Actually, I have trouble going to the moon, on say, realistic fuel. I manage to get into orbit, but that drains me of
near everything. and trying to align the planes so I can get close to the base takes the rest, leaving me with a
handful of KG of fuel (literally) Then I don't have enough "oumph" to stop that puppy when it comes time to land. and
I wind up crashing on the surface pretty hard, killing everyone.... Still though. that'd be a challenge for anybody (I
hope.. ^_^)
if anything, just be happy you can get to the moon if you can. it's just a matter of having enough fuel for me, and
finding the most super efficient way to ge there is a high priority. but I can get there... Aphellion is right in that sub
orbital flight is pretty darn cheap on the moon compared to earth. (if I overshoot my base on earth by more than
750KM, then I'd forget about landing there and just go in the wild..) however. It's still just too much to waste even on
the moon, because If you're like me, you didn't overshoot by a little, so you want to get there faster (the closer to an
actual orbit you're in, the less fuel you need to keep altitude. and you get to wishing there was an atmosphere just
so you can stop without wasting precious fuel.. heck, mars is ideal because you can stop through the atmosphere,
yet the atmosphere is thin enough that you can go at higher speeds, and still stop fuel efficiently. Mars is hands down
the friendliest planet to fly sub-orbitally wise. (for me, anyway)
-
Never ever ever ever *ever* align planes on LEO, the fuel usage is tremendous.
I cannot remember the exact formula for the deltav required to perform a plane change but it is something like:
dv=2v*Sin(i/2)
Where dv is delta v, v is orbital velocity and i is orbital inclination change. As you can clearly see it is much less costly
to perform your plane change burn while at a lower velocity, be this during launch or in a HEO.
I would recommend having the align mfd onscreen during launch and keeping the delta inclination to a minimum. Then
after you have performed your TLI you can null out the rest of the inclination error once you are further from the
earth.
-
Simon: That's interesting, I always assumed it was more efficient to make plane changes in a lower orbit (less total
distance traveled and all that). Come to think of it though, I think it was just a matter of efficiency with regard to TIME
(lower orbit = faster period = less waiting for AN/DN). But then we all already knew I was impatient
:stupid:
So I'm sure you're right :)
Also one thing I always try and remember - you can't align your plane to an individual base on the moon from the
earth, so why bother even trying to be precise? You can be a few degrees off and it's no problem - after all you're
aiming for the MOON, not a little spacecraft. You can always fine tune things once you enter lunar orbit.
Freespace: What fuel settings are you using? Are you using the DGIII? If so are you launching from the ground or
starting from orbit?
-
Altering inclination is more efficient in a LEO in terms of time usage, but nowhere close in terms of fuel usage. Plane
changes around the moon are fairly simple in terms of dv, however - so deltav is not nearly as important over there. :)
-
Simon: Makes sense. Once I went to the moon from a completely polar Earth orbit.
I was probably just lucky, but eh :)
Question: What is this Pegasus you keep referring to, and should we be concerned? :)
-
orbital flight is pretty darn cheap on the moon compared to earth. (if I overshoot my base on earth by more
than
750KM, then I'd forget about landing there and just go in the wild..) however. It's still just too much to waste even
on the moon, because If you're like me, you didn't overshoot by a little, so you want to get
Actually your straight-down technique works quite well on moon :) especially combined with the dg3's autoland
autopilot :) You just need to calculate how much time it will take you to brake to a halt, turn the dg around and burn
rubber. You will start losing altitude so you can engage the autoland feature when you feel the creeps :) by that time
you forward velocity should be down to manageable values :)
Simonpro is right. Plane changes are costly in low orbits. The least you can do is make the orbit highly elliptical and
perform the burns at apoapsis.
See Duncan Sharpe's tutorials for more indepth (but light) discussion on this.
http://www.orbitermars.co.uk/oldindex.htm the Standard orbit, Mr. Sulu!
Also check out the Mars tutorial. It might help you with the moon too. It's not up to date, but so what :)
-
Pegasus is something some people who use this forum know about, everyone esle doesnt and wont (for a few
years) :)
-
Is it that ship with the cargo pod and the tiny fuel tank? :)
Or is that a different Pegasus?
Now I'm really curious :hot:
-
Thats a launch vehicle by orbital sciences. We have temporarily nicked their name untli we think of a better one :)
-
DocHoliday wrote:
Actually your straight-down technique works quite well on moon :) especially combined with the dg3's autoland
autopilot :) You just need to calculate how much time it will take you to brake to a halt, turn the dg around and burn
rubber. You will start losing altitude so you can engage the autoland feature when you feel the creeps :) by that time
you forward velocity should be down to manageable values :)
Also check out the Mars tutorial. It might help you with the moon too. It's not up to date, but so what :)
Eh? I know how well it works, but I need to get to the base first before I can go straight down. that takes fuel to get
into the right postion, and whatnot... Fuel is too precious (in realistic settings) to make a far more elliptic orbit (to
make it worthwhile), change the plane, and then use more fuel to brake. at best, I can get over brighton beach, but
then I run out of my precious gas and crash half way to landing. of course, I still haven't tried changing my plane
while I'm still a ways away from the moon and on my transit to there... which is something I've been meaning to do,
but I'm lazy...
and I know very well about that tutorial. It's one of the few that I bother to visit every once in a while to make sure I
remember it all.
-
Simonpro: Think of more names for what? :)
Tell me or face the wrath of a million tiny pieces of debris!! And stuff!
-
Doc: What is this "autoland autopilot" you speak of?!?
And here I thought I knew everything there was to know about the DGIII :)
Freespace: Sorry to be nosey but I still wanted to know what fuel settings you were using for the DGIII (I assume this
is the ship you were using?)
I could swear I used a realistic fuel setting when I went to the moon, but then it may have been "realistic for Jupiter"
:fool:
-
No, you wont find out for a few years. It'll be worth the wait.
There shouldnt really be a "realistic" fuel setting to get the DG to mars, as we havnt invented engines that efficient
yet :p
-
Simon: Heh, good point. Maybe they're nuclear-powered ion engines? :drink:
Of course it's not exactly that realistic being able to store enough O2 to supply 5 people for two years, in that little
fuselage, either :)
I've actually been wondering how difficult an undertaking it'd be to make the DeltaGlider bigger? Two person cockpit,
seats 8, that sort of thing. And of course adequate internal volume, at least, for all that fuel :gift:
The TX is a great start in terms of realism... If I recall correctly, the original plan for the space shuttle was for it to be
flown into LEO (or nearly so) atop a larger "mothership" much like the TX and the deltaglider. This is certainly more
efficient in terms of fuel, at least. But I guess it was too great (and too expensive) an undertaking to design TWO
totally new spacecraft when the shuttle alone is maddeningly complex. They figured solid rocket boosters and a big
fuel tank would be simpler and therefore safer... Not sure if the crew of the Challenger would agree, God rest them :(
But then I may be talking out my ass - mother-daughtership launches have always been tricky business, and accidents
have happened there as well. Look up the A-12 (which I guess was the CIA's flavor of the SR-71) and the project
using it to launch a hypersonic ramjet spy-drone. I read that they lost at least one plane that way...
-
Way too much power for current ion engines, but anything is possible i suppose :doubt:
Havnt flown the TX, it looks like one of those SSTO designs and i have an inbuilt dislike of them as they never work :p
-
Simon: Well it's really not SSTO, it's TSTO (Two Stage To Orbit) :P
The TX just barely gets you up out of the atmosphere, it's not made to be an interplanetary dream machine.
Frankly it looks big and mean enough to do the job, at least by itself (I dunno about how much it could carry) :)
-
Eh, I used the realistic fuel setting. By that I mean the fastest fuel consuption for the DG3 you can set in the config
exe. It's possible that I just don't have an efficient way of going to the moon. I can get there, but I just have
problems landing at the base once I'm in lunar orbit. Perhaps I need to use weaker engines? I use the biggest
ones.. :) Thinking back, I think I also used the payload, and that's probably what drained me of fuel... if I did, then it's
possible to land without the payload, but I'm an extreme person... I can't help but push things to their limits. still, it's
worth looking into.. I'll probably load orbiter up and try again...
-
Are you sure, i am sure in the Tx manual it says that the Tx can make LEO...
-
Okay, let me capture all questions: :)
Eh? I know how well it works, but I need to get to the base first before I can go straight down. that takes fuel
to get
into the right postion, and whatnot... Fuel is too precious (in realistic settings) to make a far more elliptic orbit (to
make it worthwhile), change the plane, and then use more fuel to brake. at best, I can get over brighton beach, but
then I run out of my precious gas and crash half way to landing. of course, I still haven't tried changing my plane
while I'm still a ways away from the moon and on my transit to there... which is something I've been meaning to do,
but I'm lazy...
Okay, ASSUMING you came to the Moon and are in some kind of high orbit. You NEED to change your plane, so you go
over the landing site. Then you lower your orbit to some 100km or so and make it circular, keeping the same plane of
course. Since moon rotates on its axis like a pig, the plane stays where it is.. Then see what your orbital velocity is.
Divide that by your thruster acceleration (pres NUM + for a second and read it off the control panel). This gives you
the time in seconds you will need to reverse to 0. Then calculate (or measure) the distance you travel in this time. So
all you need to do then, is start braking at the right distance from the landing site and you should fall balistically right
smack onto it. Use the Autoland as you start to seriously drop to the surface so you don't bother with the vertical
speed. The DG will use it's hover engines as needed while you use the main engine to brake horizontally.. Did I
mention you need to go backwards? :) It's for lazy people like us, ya know :)
Doc: What is this "autoland autopilot" you speak of?!?
And here I thought I knew everything there was to know about the DGIII
It's new with the DGIII. Umm. I think it's PRO200SPEC7 for AutoHover and PRO200SPEC8 for AutoLand. It manages
vertical speed while going down. Very nicely done. For Earth it works well, but on the Moon it tends to bounce up and
down, because of low gravity :) The AutoHover is beatiful to fly around the base on Earth. Try it :)
Are you sure, i am sure in the Tx manual it says that the Tx can make LEO...
Perhaps, but it's VERY difficult. The thing is basically meant to launch it's payload into a LEO and then go back down
to land. It is possible, but you need to manage your fuel carefully... I managed to get it to LEO a few times, but not
the ISS yet but I've seen at least one screenshot where it was docked to ISS. Assuming it wasn't a cheat. You have
to be patient (with the sync that is) and careful with all the burns.. Why would it have a docking port otherwise :) Will
try again.
-
Well, First off, I tried again. I still used the realistic settings, my favorite most powerful engine, I also used the
payload, so next time, I'll try without it. I tried aligning my plane with brighton beach as I was a good 16000
kilometers away from the moon. It literally blew me away how easy it was, (I was expecting easy, but it took no effort
at all!) but even with that easiness. I had to use fuel to ajeust my orbit so that I wouldn't crash into the moon
because I chose a bad time to burn. I had enough fuel left to get into a circular orbit at about 200 KM. after that, I
had maybe 200-300 KG of fuel left. when you use it at 11.7 KG a sec, you don't have enough to come to a complete
stop, much less counter-react gravity with any upward thrust. in otherwards. you crash on the surface. Hard.
-
I gotta agree with what you said earlier Free, Mars is the space pilot's planet :)
I hate to suggest this, Freespace, but perhaps it's just not physically possible to get to the moon with the LEO/ISS fuel
load :( Now what you might want to do is use the FuelOrb module from the StationBuilder addon (I don't know if it
comes with Orbiter or not, but it's cool) make a scenario with one in LEO and one in lunar orbit, dock with it in Earth
orbit, take it with ya to the moon, then when it's empty top off with the other one, then land :)
Actually I think it holds 6000 kgs of fuel. You may only need one.
-
eh, I'll make it to the moon with the realistic settings, even if it kills me! (which it did, sim-wise, several times!) I'll look
into that fuel orb thingy, but I'll try a few other things first. If I do it make it as I want to, It'll be a great
accomplishment for me.. :)
-
I hate to suggest this, Freespace, but perhaps it's just not physically possible to get to the moon with the
LEO/ISS fuel load
I do disagree. I'm using default settings on dg3, which is medium engine, ISS&Moon fuel and it's perfectly sufficient.
You guys need to learn the proper procedure to go to Moon. By the numbers.. Hohmann and all that. Not the most
time efficient (a few days sim time), but certainly fuel efficient. When you get close to the Moon (like when Moon
gravity is about 60%), do a few sideways burns (possibly pro and retrograde too) to adjust the approach, just watch
the OrbitMFD. When you get a nice parabola around the moon, just wait for periapsis and burn retro. Sorry for talking
off the top of my head...
And yes, TransferMFD or even TransX may become necessary for that :)
Hmm.. not to get ahead of myself. How DO you guys go to the Moon. Describe it a little?
Cheers,
-
Doc: So the lowest fuel setting is intended to be enough to get to the moon, then? From the surface or from orbit?
It's true that the deltaV required for a Hohmann transfer to the moon from orbit is pretty small - seems the biggest
fuel drain comes in the actual landing.
I hafta go make dinner but when I come back I'll give it a shot.
Quick question - the DGIII engine power differential is just a matter of how fast the fuel is burned, right? The higher
thrust engine burns fuel faster, but no more or less efficiently than the others - so you get the same units of thrust
from the same amount of fuel consumed?
Sounds like it doesn't really matter which engine you use, in that case - your burns just need to be a bit longer with
the lower power engines?
-
Speaking of flying to the moon, Apollo 13 is on right now on the sci-fi channel (on the west coast of the US, anyway).
They often play the same movie for a couple days, now and then, though :)
Anyone get the Sci-Fi channel outside the USA? I'd hope so, it's more fun than a barrel of TV monkeys (sometimes...
Sometimes the movies are so bad they're funny).
-
Doc, you think I don't know of the awesome power of Hohmann transfers?
Bah, it's launching from earth that sucks up most of my fuel! by the time I get into leo, I have about 32% fuel
remaining. By the time I got into a low lunar orbit that crossed brighton beach, I had about 300-400 KG of fuel left.
just not enough..
(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8484/transfer.jpg)
All you need to do is align planes, set up the transfer mfd like shown, and burn when it needs to shows you to, until
your actual orbit matches the hypothetical one. (which the MFD also shows in this case) pretty dang simple. Anything
else I might need to do is far later on. You might argue that I might hit the moon dead on from this info (I don't know,
I can't read it that well) or that I might encounter it at somewhat high speeds. I can see that..) But I go with what my
actual orbit says after a burn, and not the hypothetical one before. here's what I get just after my burn.
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/913/transfer2.jpg)
I think you really can't get better than that. proove me wrong though, I'd be glad to improve. There's also that bit of
aligning planes while in lunar orbit, but from now on, I will change them en route to the moon, and not when I'm
there. it's just that amazing that it takes almost no fuel... and beyond that, the other tidbit is (for me at least)
adjusting my orbit so that I don't crash into the moon, which happens sometimes if I don't watch it. in this latest
attempt, I got lucky and got a perfect try by my standards. not only will I not crash, but I'm gonna get a periapsis of
350 KM. not bad... after that is sorted out and I correct course to avoid a headon collision with that floating chunk of
rock if necessary, I just coast until I hit my periapsis, in which case I burn retrograde to capture myself in orbit. at this
point I'm all but outta gas, and in an orbit around the moon at an altitiude of around 300 KM, at a speed of 1600 M/S.
Just not enough gas left to stop completely, much less use hover engines to control my decent.
I might restate that I also bring along 3.5 tons of payload, of which are cheetoes and soda. but that's beside the
point.... I'm certain I can get to the moon surface without the payload now, but I wanna getthere with it to
accomplish something,,,
-
Hm. Looks about right.. Maybe it really has to do something with the high thrust rating. Maybe the engines actually
burn MORE fuel. Dan will know that.
I will fly to the moon in the afternoon. I'm really curious now. It's been a while, since I've done it, so I have to retry.
-
I looked into the proportions of fuel consuption compared to aceleration, and I got the same proportions. all are as
efficient as the next one. with the only diference being their max output. mark 5 changes fuel into energy at a higher
rate, but it doesn't waste more.
-
Hey freespace, when are we gonna get to use those smileys on the forum? :)
-
When dan think's that they're cool. until then, they're exclusively mine.
-
Riiiiight :) Exclusive my socks! :)
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/4098/rofl2.gif)
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6269/gunsmile.gif)
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8930/color.gif)
-
prick. I'm quite tempted to get them hosted somewhere else now.
-
Oh, doc, you're a living legend now, too!
-
:) that won't help
-
Oh, well, I still have more smileys than that. HAHA!!
(http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/2579/smilehat.gif)
hehehehehehehehehe!!!
Post Edited ( 06-14-04 04:13 )
-
2 living legend on the forum.... 8o
congrat boy !!! :friend:
Dan
-
Yes, but I was first. :)
-
Heh, now I have to change me sigi again :) it will have to wait till I come back from work :)
Cheers,
-
Let's get talking about the MOON again, people!
-
Freespace What does the R ;) FL smiley represent?
What is the category above living legend? (immortal legend?)
-
Heh, seems Freespace finally went sleeping.
ROFL = Rolling on the floor laughing :) although you may hear alternative versions.
What's above living legend is up to dan. :) Only Admin is higher at the moment.
Cheers,
-
I'm not sleeping! I'm studying, dammit! maybe I'll hunt down a scanner and show you how scary this stuff is! I have
finals in 2 and a half hours and my notes are scattered and scarse. I'm DOOMED! *freespace jumps out a window*
Oh, and moderator is also higher than living legend.
-
Oops, didn't realize that. Good luck, you'll obviously need it :)
-
Thanks... I guess that sounded meaner than I intended, but I'm a little tense right now..
-
*goodintentionally* maybe you should get offline and do what you can in the period left?
-
Nah, I can't go any further that I have. I just have to leave for school earlier than I normally do and ask the local
smart guy in our class before class actually starts. the rest is up to that... some stuff just doesn't make sense to me..
like how can a circuit (which is "supposed" to be in resonance (where XC=XL)) not follow this stupid formula for
finding the resonance frequancy. if I plug that same frequency in another two formulas, I'm supposed to get the
same answer, but I don't.... I can't figure that out... so... it's up to the amount of time I have before class to ask
questions to this smart guy (who makes everyone else look really bad on the tests....) I'm stuck at this point. I just
hope I have enough time at school before class. that's where the last of my struggling is. It's funny though. it's not
that hard as you learn it in school, but when it comes time to use it in a test, it dissapears like that.... *snaps*
anyway, I'm super lucky because It's even an open-book test. we're not expected to memorize the formulas 'cuz
there's so damn many of them, but they figure that If you don't know how to do the stuff, having the book won't help
you anyway... I'm at the point where that's not entirely true... but I have about an hours' ride on the bus to review
before I actually get there, so no rush...
-
~Sending Freespace some positive universal knowledge vibes~
-
DocHoliday wrote:
What's above living legend is up to dan. :) Only Admin is higher at the moment.
I can add some ranks if you want, but I don't know really what can fit here
"immortal legend" ?
"???"
"god" (sound a bit pompous a***)
Dan
-
Mr Spock should obviously be the highest level :turning:
-
Hehe, how about Buck Rogers -> Flash Gordon -> Mr. Spock -> Luke Skywalker -> ROOT :) -> All your base are belong
to us :wor:
-
Darth vader is obviously betrter than luke :p
-
I hope Freespace did OK :top:
- I always found that anything I tried to revise <24 hours before the exam wasn't absorbed well enough to be of
much use. It was much better to be well rested and calm(ish). Mind you, I can't talk, I did dreadfully on the first
paper of my finals because I was so nervous. (We had to take all our papers on 3 years work over 1 week you
couldn't get credits as you went along).
-
Atom should be the top rank, seeing as it is obvious that I beat Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Buck Rogers and all
those other amaturs. Hehe.
-
But there is always:
FLASHHHH! aaaaaaah! FLASHHHH! aaaaaaa! :wor:
*for those of you freaks who saw the movie - me included * :)
-
Ah.. thanks, shmi! however. I get the feeling that I either did really good, or REALLY stinkin' bad. I wno't know until
my grade comes in. either way, come this thursday, I get a three week vacation before summer term starts, and even
then I'm gonna take it easy with maybe 5-6 credit hours compared to the 15 I took this term and the 19 I took last. I
don't wanna burn out, don't ya know! :) about the particular equation I mentioned, my smart friend showed me what
the problem was, and it turned out that the equation I was using was correct, but my stupid calculator didn't group
the equation right.. to put it simply I put in 1+2x3, yet it seemed to spit out 1x3+2. very bad. a helpful parenthesis
corrected that. so I'm sure I got that particular question right. but... we'll see. That particular teacher didn't like giving
homework, which was nice, but I'm thinking that if he did give out some, my final grade wouldn't be effected so much
by this last exam. oooh, and I've got another equally hard one coming up tomorrow... this time, it's on digital logic
chips and their functions, not electric circuits. I'm too young for this! why did I sign up for it? ah.. well.. the only
way to get smarter is to do this stuff. I already knew more about computers than the average person. but now I
know computers count. the very rules that computers abide by. The only reeason why a computer is complex is
because there are billions of chips doing things, but they are billions of not so many different parts... doing identical
things, but since they do it together with the speed of electricity, they can seem to do anything. :)
Very fascinating stuff..
in any case, I hunted down a sample page.. one that covers a small partion of what I've been learning thus far. Isn't
it mumbo-jumbo? (unless you really look at it, but my brain kinda turns off after seeing all those numbers... That's not
to say that I don't know kirchoff's law now.. this is pretty basic compared to measuring voltage charging from a
capacitor over certain time references. As well as measuring impedance through capacitors and the like...:) That's not
fun at all..)
http://www.hokaar.org/Physics_Examples/Kirchh/kirchh.htm
Oh wait! We wanna talk about going to the MOON! not electronics!
-
freespace wrote:
in any case, I hunted down a sample page.. one that covers a small partion of what I've been learning thus far
http://www.hokaar.org/Physics_Examples/Kirchh/kirchh.htm
It made my brain hurt just to skim-read it. :???: I'm afraid my brain has lost too many brain cells since I had to deal
with that many equations. Good luck with the next exam! ;)
-
I hated kirchoffs laws when i did them last year, they bored the pants off me.
-
DocHoliday wrote:
But there is always:
FLASHHHH! aaaaaaah! FLASHHHH! aaaaaaa! :wor:
At first I tought that you took to much cookies from the Asteroid Belt LOL :)
but now I remember this song from the movies... if I recall well it was a song
from Queen (and for the younger people here NO I don't speak about the
mother Queen)
(http://www.dansteph.com/publie/signatures/asteroid0.jpg)
(http://www.dansteph.com/publie/signatures/asteroid.jpg)
Post Edited ( 06-14-04 20:30 )
-
Help :help:!
My mum's started singing Flash Gordon!!!!!!!!
... if I recall well it was a song
from Queen (and for the younger people here NO I don't speak about the
mother Queen
Queen Rock!!!! :wor:
-
hehehhehe.. Yup, that was the one. Forgot it was Queen...
Queen Rock! Freddy Mercury was a genious despite all his vices :)
Cheers,
-
Queen, as in "We are the champions" queen?
That song is cool.
-
The same Queen :) Anyway Freespace sez:
Let's get talking about the MOON again, people!
So here is another promise kept:
For the record: You can get to the Moon with 33,7 %difference of fuel!!! That's 54,3% at start MINUS 20,6% at Pad 2,
Brighton Beach! Eat your hearts out!!! (again) :)
Now to back up my claims, here is how I did it, plus the photographic material to prove it :)
Take a standard DG3, 1 months O2&N2 reserve, Default (ISS&Moon) fuel reserve and Mark IV (260'000N) Engines,
Phoenix Industries skin (of course) :)
Load the ToTheMoon scenario that comes with IMFD. I am posting it here, so you don't have to bother ( left out the
MFD part in case you don't have IMFD, put in whatever you like). Leave the SH-01 in the scenario, it will be helpful:
------------
BEGIN_DESC
DeltaGlider ready for trans lunar injection.
END_DESC
BEGIN_ENVIRONMENT
System Sol
Date MJD 51982.9703756366
END_ENVIRONMENT
BEGIN_FOCUS
Ship GL-01
END_FOCUS
BEGIN_CAMERA
TARGET GL-01
MODE Cockpit
FOV 50.00
END_CAMERA
BEGIN_SHIPS
ISS
STATUS Orbiting Earth
RPOS -5710655.54 3590118.47 93270.28
RVEL 3848.900 6169.551 -2487.072
AROT 30.00 0.00 50.00
IDS 0:588 10 1:578 10 2:568 10
XPDR 466
END
Mir
STATUS Orbiting Earth
RPOS -5066788.89 265788.15 4345713.93
RVEL -5033.717 -357.649 -5847.488
AROT 0.00 -45.00 90.00
IDS 0:540 10 1:542 10 2:544 10
XPDR 482
END
Luna-OB1:Wheel
STATUS Orbiting Moon
RPOS 948076.85 2028314.04 728.81
RVEL -1340.387 626.551 0.333
AROT 0.00 0.00 -152.60
IDS 0:560 10 1:564 10
XPDR 494
END
GL-01:DeltaGliderIII
STATUS Orbiting Earth
RPOS 2895576.91 -124396.12 -6490459.16
RVEL 6822.118 -647.359 3051.514
AROT -12.22 -65.95 12.14
VROT -0.00 0.06 0.00
RCSMODE 2
PRPLEVEL 0:0.543 1:0.987
NAVFREQ 0 0 0 0
XPDR 0
NOSECONE 0 0.0000
GEAR 0 0.0000
AIRLOCK 0 0.0000
END
SH-01:ShuttleA
STATUS Landed Moon
BASE Brighton Beach:1
POS -33.4375000 41.1184067
HEADING 0.00
PRPLEVEL 0:1.000 1:1.000
NAVFREQ 0 0
XPDR 0
PODANGLE 0.0000 0.0000
DOCKSTATE 0 0.0000
AIRLOCK 0 0.0000
END
END_SHIPS
------------
Okay, so you can either follow the tutorials that come with IMFD (Lesson 1 and Lesson 3) or use your favourite
navigation tool to set up your flight to the moon.
Pick your time and burn for moon, standard Hohmann transfer more or less. Aftre the burn and various adjustments I
had 37% fuel left.
(http://orbiter.vidmar.org/images/Moonbound-preRETRO.jpg)
After about 3-4 days, you should be close to the Moon and ready for your retro burn. Now if you use the IMFD, you
can follow the Lesson 3 tutorial and try to get your orbit to pass over Brighton Beach. You can probably do it manually
to but I didn't try that.
Perform your retro and circularize your orbit at about 380km. With IMFD that's easy, otherwise you'll have to fiddle
with forward/backward and outward/inward burn at some distance from the moon (30000km), to set your perigee to
about the right altitude. Now in my case, I was following the tutorial which guided me to a reverse orbit (clockwise) it
is not necessary, but the tutorial had a different plan for Moon landing, which I then didn't follow anyway. You can
adjust whether your orbit will be clock or counterclock-wise, by applying pro/retro burn at a fair distance from the
moon. Just watch the orbit display and see how to hyperbola changes.
Assuming you're in a circular orbit, now comes the tricky part. You have to to a "Direct Landing" (TM) :wor: also
known as Powered Descent Initiation (as they called it on Apollo Missions) :) which you do by lowering your periapsis
to 10km (Apollo did 20km I think), and position the periapsis point a few degrees ahead of the Brighton Beach base.
This means, that you will reach your minimum 10km a few hundred km before the base and this gives you a nice
buffer area, where you can reduce your horizontal velocity to zero and keep your vertical velocity around 0, without
burning too much fuel on Hover engines.
Now, you move your periapsis by appying prograde and retrograde RCS burns, anywhere on your orbit, but it's best
when you are 90degrees away from periapsis/apoapsis. Set the OrbitMFD target to SH-01. This will give you a visual
clue of where Brighton Beach is with relation to your orbit. You will notice as you burn pro/retrograde that the
Argument of Perigee (AgP) changes. Now, move the periapsis to something like this (just the position, the value of
AgP will vary) on the picture and burn retrograde at apoapsis to lower the periapsis to 10.000m (display 2 - DG3
panel). It only takes a few seconds.
(http://orbiter.vidmar.org/images/Moonbound-PDI.jpg)
Now hit PAUSE, keeping the DG3 retrograde and take out your calculator. We need to calculate when to start
braking, so that we reach the Brighton Beach, having low or no horizontal velocity left. We will burn retro, as the Main
engines are stronger. At this point they provide about 15-16m/s^2 acceleration. We need to determine what our
velocity near the perigee will be. The formula for orbital velocity in a CIRCULAR orbit is as follows (BEAR WITH ME, it's
easy):
Velocity= SquareRoot(Grav.Constant*MassOfMoon/((RadiusOfMoon+Altitude)*1000)). The data I used are:
Grav.C = 6.6E-11
MassOfMoon = 7,34766E+22
RadiusOfMoon = 1738 km
Altitude = 390 km
Now this gives you about 1517 m/s. As we are NOT in a circular orbit, you need to measure your velocity at apoasis,
just after the retro burn is complete. I measure about 1441 m/s. The speed at periapsis will be greater than 1517
m/s, but I was lazy and I just used a dumb logic off adding the difference I measure at apoapsis (hehe). 1517-
1441=76m/s. I calculated what speed I would have in a circular 10km orbit and got 1674 m/s. I added this difference
to the calculated 1674+76=1755 m/s. Now this dumb adding probably has some math roots somewhere, but I just
figured, that if you go slower at apoapsis, you need to as much faster at periapsis to make up the difference and
keep the orbital energy the same. Turns out the actual speed at periapsis was just about 1755 add or take a few
m/s. :)
Anyway, we now know how fast we'll go. We also know how fast the DG3 can decelerate. about 15 m/s every
second. So you calculate at what distance you will come to a halt = 1755/15=117 km. So you need to start braking
117km from Brigton to come to a halt over it. Now being a living legend, I applied my experience and figured that the
Dg3 engines will actually increase thrust as fuel is burned and Dg3 gets lighter, so you can actually start even later
than that, say 115. So I start the burn, then after a little while, I turn the DG3 level and engage the PRO200SPEC7
autohover mode so the DG3 will keep it's drop rate at a manageable level. Set it to -10m/s or so and wait for the
Main engines to get the burn finished. Set your radio frequency to that of the SH-01 (108.00) and you can actually
use the DOCKING HUG to help you get the relative speed down to zero in the right time, plus help you yaw the ship,
so you don't fly passed the base. Also use the base VOR frequency to guide yourself in.
At the end you should look like this. I actually got the speed down too fast (main engine's thrust increased way over
16m/s), hence the engines are off:
(http://orbiter.vidmar.org/images/Moonbound-braking.jpg)
and like this :)
(http://orbiter.vidmar.org/images/Moonbound-landing.jpg)
And my final stats:
(http://orbiter.vidmar.org/images/Moonbound-landed.jpg)
Quesitons, class?
-
AHH!! You have WinXP! EVIL lies within your machine doc, you need to purge it at once! I too had a copy of XP, and it
bit me in spirit, very badly. It will regret the day it locked me out of my own computer because I reversed my cd drive
cables to experiment with something.
Anyways, Yeah, I can get to the moon with about that much fuel too, but I had to do it without the payload.
that's all the difference right there. Of course. I have always sucked at landings, and as such, I use up too much
fuel there no matter what technique I use. rest assured the very first multiplayer orbiter scenario I want to play will
be racing (and beating) you to the moon. but alas, you show me that I need to hone my skills more before I attempt
that to ensure victory.
Although I will mention one thing. you use more math than I do. I myself play orbiter because I think it's a good way
to pass the time. learning new concepts along the way sometimes. But if I have to break out a calculator for anything
other than interplanetary travel, I'm gonna be mad. calculators are reserved for WORK! not for play! that's why
orbiter is more fun than homework for me! anyway. I'm definately more of a "seat of your pants" kinda guy. no
planning, just reacting to numbers. for instance. in order to get back to earth from the moon, I just align my plane
with earth once in a circular lunar orbit, and the instant I can see earth come over the horizon, I turn on the thrusters
until eccentricity is about 1.5.
you can't get less mathematical than that. And I really wouldn't prefer it any other way. :)
-
Heh, I hear you. But I have been playing with Orbiter longer than you, and I don't resent calculators like that. I think
of them as extension of my limited brain, not the slavemasters :)
hehe anyway, XP used to suck, but it's okay now. Beats Win98 in most things, especially crashes, not to mention
Win2000. THAT WAS SLOOOOW....
Anyway, wish you told me you can do the moon trip well enough, I wouldn't go to the trouble, but hey, someone else
may find it useful.. I will try it with the payload too. A question though. WHERE is it in the DG? Dan said in the manual
that you can see it in the cockpit, but all I see is the 4 dumb faces of the pax.. i'd expect to see the cargo instead of
them...
Turns out that IMFD is a lot easier to use than TransX.. .:) As for the race to the Moon. My method may be more
efficient, but I bet you'd get there faster. Seat of the pants pilots are ALWAYS faster, but may not get there at all. Or
make a crater the size of Phobos along the way :) You know, the rabbit, turtle story.. kind of :)
Hehe, your way of going back to Earth sounds just about right. I do think that Apollo actually used a similar move :) I
suck at retro interplanetary orbit burns though.. be it getting from the moon back, or from Earth to Venus. I just don't
dig the logic :) How can you reduce the speed, without falling to Earth as you do and instead fly off to venus.. :) just
doesn't feel right. I tried it a few time, it works, but goes against my principles :) go figure..
-
v^2=mu(2/r-1/a)
-
Ah, that's the direct formula. Heh, wish I studied physics too :)
-
Doc: I agree, IMFD kicks the pants off TransX, if only in the graphics and interface departments. The planetary map
alone makes it worthwhile (great way to get a more accurate view of your position than the orbit MFD. I'm still learning
to use it, but I'm actually making steady progress, as opposed to transx, on which I made... Well, I didn't make any
progress at all :)
As for your scenario - I don't mean to sound like I'm bragging, but I've made the same trip with nearly the same fuel
consumption without your fancy "NASA" "procedures" or, you know, "planning" or "skill" :)
I do want to know how you got from the surface to earth orbit with so little fuel burned. That's always my problem, I
can't seem to get the ascent curve right...
-
AphelionHellion wrote:
As for your scenario - I don't mean to sound like I'm bragging, but I've made the same trip with nearly the same fuel
consumption without your fancy "NASA" "procedures" or, you know, "planning" or
"skill" :)
We Must be long lost brothers or something. :)
look up the picture I used a picture I took of the transfer MFD a while ago in this thread. that's about as technical as I
get in going to the moon. no formulas or anything. just BURN, baby, burn! ;)
To Doc, you may have been playing orbiter longer than me, but I've been playing with only the DG3, really, so I must
know more of it than you, because you find the payload in orbiter\Sound\deltagliderIII\DG3config.exe
Where it asks you how many passengers you want, just select the 3.5 TON payload.
now, when you've got that taken care of, load any scenario, and open the nosecone and outer airlock. and on the
bottom panel, press the load config button. You'll be good to go. I guarantee you'll have a harder time getting to the
moon. chances are you're not gonna have enough fuel to land.
-
Yeah, I think TransX used to have a map module, but it was removed. TransX is more heavy duty, but I constatly get
lost between states, plans and maneuvers :) IMFD is lot more straight forward. But I don't dig the TEI-Approach
mode. The display is just werid :)
As for your scenario - I don't mean to sound like I'm bragging, but I've made the same trip with nearly the
same fuel consumption without your fancy "NASA" "procedures" or, you know, "planning" or "skill"
Oh come one, that's so basic, NASA people wouldn't even call it any of what you said. Even some other people on this
forum, like Simonpro can do a lot more without putting much effort into it :) My forte is just logic, that I aid with some
basic calculus. My trigonometry and angular calculus is at high-school level and even that wasn't an A, not to
mentioned it was more than 10 years ago I last used it. And I totally suck at integration, which would come in VERY
handy for ascents... If I didn't have orbiter, I wouldn't stretch my mind even as much as I do. I consider it an
investment in flexibility of my brain, that's why I bother to calculate even as little as I do :) I mean, I work in SALES for
chrissakes, all I need daily is adding and multiplying... :) Also it's a lot EASIER to repeat a flight, if you did some
calculations, otherwise it's like cooking without a recipe. You never get it the same, until you've done it a million
times :) get me?
I do want to know how you got from the surface to earth orbit with so little fuel burned. That's always my
problem, I can't seem to get the ascent curve right...
Are you referring to the scenario at hand or the Direct Ascent method? Because the scenario was already set up that
way. I didn't actually bother to takeoff and dock to ISS, because as I can recall of the top of my head 50-60% fuel
loss is sort of realistic to get there. The trick with the ascent though generally is to keep your pitch as close as
possible to the actualy trajectory of your craft (the crossed circle in the Surface hud). Otherwise you waste fuel trying
to correct your flight vector. So it's VERY important to initially pitch up the right amount, because this intial pitch and
the length of it will determine how fast the marker will start dropping if you follow it with the nose of the craft. You
get the starting pitchup right, you may get to any orbit optimally. That's the advantage of the shuttle, because it's
starts 90deg upwards.. the major drawback are the poor engines compared to DG :) but hey, that's reality.
-
Angular what, now?? :)
I'm becoming more convinced than ever that our public schools are steadily getting increasingly useless. I sure as hell
never saw any classes in angular calculus or trig at my old high school. Not that I would've taken them even if they
were there...
That's what happens when you read too much as a kid: you dive into language, philosophy, useless crap like that and
eschew mathematics :)
This is an entirely different subject, but two of the many things Orbiter has taught me is that (1) Math is indeed a very
useful thing, and (2) I'm very, very, very bad at it.
-
Even some other people on this forum, like Simonpro can do a lot more without putting much effort into it
Aaaah, your respect for the forum is great :turning:
I prefer eyeballing it than doing the maths anyway, usually you are almost as accurate (as long as you have a good
eye for it :p). But sometimes it can be fun to actually plan the things in advance.
Anyone in here tried a free return by the way?
When you manage that you know you are one of the orbiter gods :p
Post Edited ( 06-17-04 10:30 )
-
I don't know any trig, nor calculus. at least not anything that lasted with me past high school years. (which in itself I
didn't have to even take, since I am the master of shniggling.) I hung on to my algebra though. :)
-
shniggling?:???:
-
I prefer eyeballing it than doing the maths anyway, usually you are almost as accurate (as long as you have a
good eye for it :p). But sometimes it can be fun to actually plan the things in advance.
Well, I do too. No fun, hitting pause every few seconds. BUT, you will I agree, you can only eyeball this sorta of game
if you have more than little knowledge of the concepts and what goes on behind. I mean, I have a friend I tried to
get to play Orbiter. BUT he was a FS fan. And concepts like reduce speed, to catch up with a space station were
totally illogical to him. Or the fact, that you can't just go and fly directly for juputer (unless you have the Enterprise),
but instead you need to have a launch window and then a HTO... BUT, on the other hand. I can never land a shuttle
on the runway, but he had NO problem with that, even though it flies like a brick :) and I don't even have a joystick :)
Even in FS I ALWAYS fly by autopilots and IFR :) my way of lazy. Comes from the days when my computer was so
crappy there was no point having a joystick because the FPS was so low ;)
Anyone in here tried a free return by the way?
From Moon to Earth? Yeah a couple of times. But I always had that feeling after the burn, you know: "how deep is
the water and when am I gonna drop sort of" - miss earth that is.
-
Oh, sorry, that's freespacian for "balancing things to not have to do things that you don't want to do."
Rather than repeat that over and over again, I just came up with "shniggle"
-
freespace2dotcom wrote:
Oh, sorry, that's freespacian for "balancing things to not have to do things that you don't want to do."
Rather than repeat that over and over again, I just came up with "shniggle"
useful word :)
I shniggle too.
I approve of Quentin Crisp's philosophy "after 5 years the dust doesn't get any thicker"
-
"And after cleaning it's there again in an hour. So why bother!?"
-
And that thing growing in the fridge. It's getting rid of the pests, so why call the exterminator?
-
Right, I mean the socks on my bedroom window are doing nicely too. They moved a few cm last night. And the last I
checked, there is not a culture there anymore, it's practically a CIVILIZATION by now. Soon they'll be experiementing
with rockets.. Trying to determine what's "out there" :) Boy are they in for a surprise ;)
-
From Moon to Earth? Yeah a couple of times. But I always had that feeling after the burn, you know: "how deep
is the water and when am I gonna drop sort of" - miss earth that is.
From Earth>Moon>Earth
Moon to Earth isnt a free return, but im just winding you up :p
-
Wait wait, you lost me. What IS a free return? I thought it meant eyeballing it back from the Moon..?
-
Lol, i do that every time, transfer mfd doesnt get ou very far that way, and transx isnt designed for lunar transfers:p
A free return is where you perform your TLI (in LEO) and have it set up so that you pass the moon at a fairly close
altitude (i aim for ~200km) and return to earth. at no point do you enter lunar orbit, and you shouldnt need to
perform many (any?) course correction burns.
To do this you have to pass the moon retrograde, just like the apollo missions did :)
-
I figured that was what a free return was.. but no I haven't, but for sure I'll try now. Um... now.. How do you
determine which way is retrograde on the moon again? :)
-
Easiest way is to look at the map mfd, if you are going right to left then you are usually retrograde, but it depends on
which planet/moon you are orbiting.
-
yes yes, I know that, but blast it, I know that if you want specifically either prograde or retrograde, you're either
going to to want to burn earlier or later. in the middle will make you smack into the moon. Which will get me into a
retrograde orbit around the moon? assuming of course that I launch into a prograde leo. at the start. :) it's too late if
I check the map when I'm under the lunar influence to see I'm going prograde...
-
Indeed it is! :beer:
You need to find the moon slightly behind it, hence the "figure of eight" talked about in the sixties.
-
Umm. I guess what you're saying is, you would have to launch later, so you would get there behind the moon let it
pull you and go around it retrograde and back again..
Sheesh, that sounds hard. I'm gonna try it to. What are you allowed to use in the way of MFD?
-
oh.. I think I just learned a new thing. :) who says video games don't teach anything? ;)
-
Doc: no need to launch later: simply leave LEO a couple of seconds early :)
The moon wil lgive you a small boost and, of course, change your direction. It should put you on a course smack-bang
centered on earth, but that is incredibly hard to do without a lot of practice ;)
And use any MFD's you want, although Transfer MFD is good enough for the whole thing, with orbit MFD up to show
you current orbiter, etc - useful in near lunar space.
Freespace: Isnt orbiter great ;)
-
Doc: no need to launch later: simply leave LEO a couple of seconds early
Uh, but that's what I mean. Launch=burn for me sometimes :)
Hm... *brain zipping about* yup, definitelly will try this scenario out :)
-
Hehe, i am giving it a go at the moment, it is a fun diversion from a morning of work ;)
-
What time zone do you live in, simon. I'm in central time, and it's 6 Am here right now. :) in fact. if it wasn't for my
finals being over and my summer vacation starting today, I'd be at school right now :)
Freespace, who's listening to "we are the champions" ;)
-
Heh, im in Leicester, UK. Its midday over here and i would also be at university, but my exams are finished ;)
-
:beer:
Next term, I'll have to take a physics course.
Maybe for extra credit I can lug my computer to class and show how to go to the moon. ;)
Thanks to orbiter, I'm actually looking forward to it. it's really funny. especially since I know that the class isn't going
to be focused on space at all. :)
-
Yey! Physics, great subject - although one of the hardest around, with the (possible) exception of Mathematics ;)
-
And just like that, you soaked my enthusiasm to nothingness with a mere 16 words.
-
Aaah, but the satisfaction is good when you get a good mark in physics ;)
-
That be "IF" I get good grades, mr. smartee-pants. :)
-
Nah, i was showing confidence in your abilities. You will get good grades!
If not then Dan will take your DGIII flying liscence away:rant:
-
I'd fly without one then. I'm a rebel. did you not see the picture of the DG3 skin I made? :)
-
Heh, no i dont fly the DG ;)
-
What do you use then? Not Shuttle to the Moon?
(SAY THE RIGHT THING OR THOU SHALT BE BANISHED FROM THE DG3 WORSHIPPING FORUM) :)
Post Edited ( 06-17-04 14:17 )
-
Freespace agrees with doc.
*passes the torches and pitchforks around* :)
Post Edited ( 06-17-04 14:25 )
-
Usually the standard DG or a soyuz/fregat combo. ;)
-
*Doc refuses the torch..* I have my own means...........
(http://orbiter.vidmar.org/smiley/DUEL3.gif)
-
Of course.. I myself would prefer an old fashioned metal sword, [cough]katana[/cough]
-
*doc slowly lowers his lightsaber*
Ok, close enough. stock DG is better than no DG :)
-
Heh, im a fencer so watch out. Katanas are waaay too slow :p
-
*doc is just pleased not to be forced to use the lightsaber* People have been know to lose hands and I can't even
hold it up straight :)
Fencer too?? What are you NOT?
-
Peh. fencing is a sport. you have to keep form, look pretty and score points. In any other sword fighting, you don't
look pretty, but the techniques are far more deadly. And remember, katanas are more for slicing than stabbing. :) I
really need to learn how to use one before I can make any claims though...
-
Heh, fencing is based upon the art of duelling, which was very lethal indeed.
-
I'm not saying that fencing isn't based on lethal stuff. :) but I don't think that it follows... the essence.. (?) of a real
battle.. but then, I've never held a real sword in my life before so what do I know? :)
-
Indeed. Fencing is not to be taken lightly. It was just transformed to sport now. You can wield a sword or katana
once, a fencer will slice you like three times while you do it.
-
Indeed you do not know. Most of the moves in fencing are based on the moves used in duelling. The only thing thats
changed is the fact that the weapons are not sharp in fencing. Give a fencer a light, sharp weapon and you are in
serious trouble.
-
It just seems to me as though fencing is too formal, in which the rules and whatnot seem... well.. not.. as usable..
(I'm lacking the real word I'm looking for :) ) as you would see in every day applications. but then I'm just stubborn
and think that katanas are cool. so leave me be. I'm not changing my mind! :)
Post Edited ( 06-17-04 15:06 )
-
Practical?
Katana is impressive but heavy. Once they get going, they are not eager to stop. Almost cut my calf in two while
fooling around with one once :)
Yup, fencing has been formalized from the days of pirate battles, eh ?:)
-
Ah, doc.. I could argue you're supposed to keep that momentum up, you want to slice. it's not a stabbing weapon.
you don't slice by going back and forth. but hehe. It's not worth argueing. we're WAY off topic here.. anyway, in a real
life or death battle, anything goes. that includes rock throwing and spitting in the other's eyes if it gets down to it. :) I
would not be hestant to aim "below the belt" if you get my drift.. :) but let's end this.. I wanna get back to the moon...
-
<ontopic>
Heh, my earlier attempt at a free return got messed up, accidentally hit a translational thruster at 10000x timeacc
and ended up smacking into the moon after i ran out of RCS fuel :p
-
That's why the DG3 is handy! you can turn off the power to the engines, so no "accidents" happen! :)
-
Yeah, but it takes about 5 hours to start up, and it only takes about 2 minutes to get to the moon on timeacc :p
-
No, you just cut off the engine bus, (or just the power to individual thrusters) it takes like 2 seconds to turn them on
again.
-
No, it takes age to start up in the first place ;)
-
? an age to start up? maybe a minute or two, most of the time is waiting for the apu. but I'd guess it's more realistic
that way... and even then, all the scenarios come with the ship already on and ready to roll. but.. *shrug* eh,
whatever suits ya. :)
-
Most (all?) scenary come with DGIII already powered up.
Else the whole startup take me about 20 secondes. (I'm lazy)
Anyway some don't like clicking buttons, some can't live without buttons :)
Dan
Post Edited ( 06-17-04 17:46 )
-
I'm the type that can't live without the buttons. :)
-
freespace2dotcom wrote:
Ah, doc.. I could argue you're supposed to keep that momentum up, you want to slice. it's not a stabbing weapon.
you don't slice by going back and forth. but hehe. It's not worth argueing. we're WAY off topic here.. anyway, in a real
Just a quick reply. I know its supposed to slice, but at that particular time, I sort of did not appreciate that quality of
katana, my leg is quite more pleasant to me in one piece :)
Ok, offtopicness closed :)
-
(sorta regarding what Freespace said earlier:) As far as math, physics and similar courses are concerned, I've found
that it's infinitely easier to pay attention and actually learn the subject matter if it's in reference to something you're
interested in. As someone with aspirations of being a professional pilot, for instance, I personally find geometry and
algebra a million times more interesting when they're put into practice planning a flight. And can you imagine wading
through the FARs if it didn't involve a subject you find fascinating??
What I need to do is find is someone teaching a calculus or physics class using Orbiter as his/her primary
demonstration tool :)
-
DocHoliday wrote:
Just a quick reply. I know its supposed to slice, but at that particular time, I sort of did not appreciate that quality of
katana, my leg is quite more pleasant to me in one piece :)
Doc, you re-opened the can of worms! I would ask you what you were doing "fooling around" with a clearly sharp
object. A person shouldn't play with knives. Because they're SHARP! I've cut myself using a kitchen knife before. does that mean that they shouldn't be used anymore?
Sigh. Ok, We're re-closing the off-topicness... Again.
Post Edited ( 06-18-04 10:39 )
-
Unfortunately orbiter doesnt really use calculus that much (at least in ways the end user can see). You can still use it,
though, i just dont think it'd get you very far :)
-
Simon: Ok, whatever an Orbinaut can use. Whatever maths you'd use to double-check your flight plan :)
-
:turning:
Basic calculus is used for some aspects of flyin' about in your spacecraft, but the more advanced ones (luckily :p) are
not used nearly as widely through orbital mechanics.
However, basic calculus could be taught (at a push) using orbiter. Perhaps in the area where the rocket leaves the
ground, most of the equations there are calculus...
And freespace: never use kitchen knives, much safe to use a wooden spoon to try and beat the thigns to pieces :fool:
-
Simon, it's kinda hard to cut tomatoes with a wooden spoon. everything has it's place. ;)
Post Edited ( 06-18-04 11:24 )
-
You dont cut em, you squash em :p
-
Eh, maybe you do, but I prefer not having tomato juice everywhere. ;)