Looks like everything I've ever done in Kerbal
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
428 points (96.5% liked)
Space
8724 readers
2 users here now
Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
π Science
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
- !space@lemmy.world
π Engineering
π Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You actually make it to space? I usually just end up creating shitty versions of the V1 with passengers.
The Kerbal solution is more rockets.
The actual solution is probably some control surfaces for the atmosphere, reaction wheels for space (both for steering) and upscaling to the biggest rocket available with no more than 2 largest size fuel tanks for each rocket. SRBs are your friend until they aren't. Stabilizers save more fuel than imagined.
I think it's the thumper booster that I determined to be the cheapest one. So I got over 20 of those, run like six of them at first, when they run out of fuel, dump them and activate four of the others, dump them when they run out, etc. It's 100% cheap boosters until I get into space.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh yeah, I've got a probe around every planet and a kerbstronaut that left the solar system. But no one comes home
load more comments
(1 replies)
Thanks to this stabilization I've come to the expert conclusion that that shit spun yo
Wow. You must be some kind of rocket scientist!
No, heβs a rocket surgeon!
I only re posted a repost from TikTok
Thanks for posting, interesting stuff.
Lemmy has declared you a sinner for this.
I hesitated a lot. But in the end I havenβt seen this anywhere else and it really showed what was happening. In the end I decided to post it.
It is a cool video but you used the words "repost" and "tik tok" and that triggered automated downvotes lol
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Missed opportunity to put it to the docking song from Interstellar
No, it's necessary!
The song is called No Time For Caution by Hans Zimmer. Because when Hans isn't falling asleep on his organ, he actually makes so damn good music.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This made my dizzy and that doesn't help with the fact that I discovered you can get nausea and headaches from drinking matcha on an empty stomach an hour ago
I discovered you can get nausea and headaches from drinking matcja on an empty stomach an hour ago
Matcja can catcha.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ticktock watermark ππ but this is a really cool video
Yeah. I hesitated posting because of TikTok. But I felt the video explained things in a way I had not seen anywhere else and it was worth it.
You could see how uncontrollable it was even on the stream itself. They have graphics showing the positioning of the ship. Seems like RCS packed it up and decided to go home (burned to crisp)
I knew it was spinning, but not that much. Can't wait to hear the final report on what happened there.
Reaction control thrusters didn't work. Blame it all on the Everyday Astronaut.
Yeah to me it looked like they didn't really have any sort of attitude control system (eg RCS thrusters) for while they were in space. As soon as the rocket stopped firing it was spinning, albeit very gently at first.
I'm more interested in knowing what happened with the booster after it's boost back burn, where some of the engines seemed to shut off on their own before the rest were cut. This issue is likely also responsible for the failed suicide burn. Also, why they didn't try the orbital relight of the Starship engines. If the orbital relight was skipped because of orientation issues, then shame on them for not remembering that you can stablise your craft in KSP with just a little bit of vectored rocket burn.
These are apparently still just flying grain silos, a long way away from the full finished product. However it does seem like they're at the cusp of having a viable satellite launch vehicle, even if the re-entry stuff is still bugged.
So apparently they can't use it to launch satellites into orbit until the reentry buggy stuff is solved.
If they can't bring it back into the atmosphere in a controlled manner, it's to big, and designed not to break up, to allow it to reenter anywhere from a failure.
No one wants raining starship parts over a populated area.
It won't matter if it's expendable, but they gotta be in control of reentry.
Yeah I still think that's within their grasp with only minor modifications. Obviously, not testing the engine relight is a big hurdle, but beyond that it's just about a little bit of attitude control and then they can de-orbit into the ocean as before.
Actually getting the craft to survive re-entry, and even land and be re-used is a much bigger task, but it wouldn't take too much to get Starship in the position where it can launch Starlink V2's.
load more comments
(1 replies)
KSP doesn't simulate the fuel floating into a big blob in zero g. irl you need working RCS to create a little g force to push the fuel down to where the engine intakes are before you can try starting them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Good thing they also sped it up by about 4x or we never would have noticed. π
The whole point of this video is to emphasize the rotation of the vehicle. Speeding it up does help with that. You can watch the official feed of you want to watch in real time.
It's an excellent video. The realtime feed made it look like everything was great, fully under control. This shows that it really wasn't near the end, and it's loss wasn't truly "unexpected"
load more comments
(1 replies)
Much better perspective.
The Starship video in general is so cool. And I love the stabilizing effect in this one, it really does help.
I wonder how they stabilised the video.
Rotate the video at a constant rate about a point until the rocket hits turbulence/has a change of direction and then repeat?
It's a standard feature in nearly all common video editors (i.e. DaVinci Resolve or Adobe Premiere).
Usually, stabilization goes over all video frames and tries to find image transformations (rotation + translation + zoom) that make a frame match as closely as possible with the previous frame. That's an oversimplified explanation, but from a user point-of-view, these tools are mature enough to be applied with just a few clicks.
This video is definitely the result of that, as, whoever did it, didn't even bother to insert a cut when the feed switches between left side and right side camera, thus making the stabilization spazz out momentarily.
Where do you see the camera switch side? The fin on which the camera is mounted moves every now and then, but I think we only ever see the perspective of one camera.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There used to be a great subreddit for image stabilisations, always enjoyed seeing stuff from there and people would sometimes go into detail about the tools and techniques they used .
There probably still is, but there used to be too.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Most advanced video compositors/editors have stabilization features. What you do is you give the program a couple of reference points that you know aren't moving, and the program will automatically track those points over time
view more: next βΊ