Search results

So, it's July 2020 and this has recently launched. I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere on OF. Here is some commentary:

Just poke around this website: https://celestrak.com/ It should be a lot of help.

Ok, so the Horizons solution comes out to MPC Database Asteroid Viewer solution (within about 1400 km), only when the Epoch correction is applied as I suggest above. So heads up that there is an error that needs to be corrected. I'm okay with the 1400 km error, given that this program is only...

So, I was using this program to try to simulate tomorrow's "close" pass of NEA 2002 NN4 in Orbiter 2010 and Celestia. In Celestia everything seemed to come out okay, but in Orbiter the asteroid was nowhere near where it was supposed to be. So, I think that I traced the problem as follows: I'm...

This might have something to do with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_All_Mankind_(TV_series) Alternative Apollo a bit in the mainstream zeitgeist, perhaps?

Sounds like you want to be in the ecliptic plane, more or less.

00:39, looks like my O/400 landing attempts in Rise-of-Flight

Hello. 2010, not 2016? I recommend both.

Wow, you mean from 1994? Is that thing still around? Or do you mean the recent tablet port? Sorry for hijack, but had to ask.

If anyone still plays this and is keeping track, 'official' patch 4.14.1 just dropped. So, regular 4.14 was a bit of a scandal last month, because it disabled/deleted 3rd party .exe files from the game's main directory (of which there are many legitimate ones that are not even true "mods".) I...

So this is making the rounds on social media: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/oco_glory_public_summary_update_-_for_the_web_-_04302019.pdf TL;DR the mission failed because of fraud on part of a contractor.

It's been a month, but I finally got around to this: A true hypervelocity collision, and not just a poser like those DMSP battery explosions. Look how high those apogees go! :facepalm: Whoever said that a test conducted a 300 km means that the debris will reenter quickly clearly does not...

No, not neccesarily.

Right, so this would mean that what you are observing is realistic, as tidal forces, etc. would mean that you couldn't truly land in a permanent sense. I would say the "issue" is your expectation, not the simulation.

Why no O-H thread?

No, that is not what the article says. It says that it's the first private moon lander. As in, on the PAYLOAD side. Even that claim is a bit dubious given IAI involvement, which is owned by the government of Isreal. After all, you can't claim to be BOTH the first private moon lander and the...

---------- Post added at 09:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 AM ---------- You know that it is not an either-or, right? You can have both versions.

Not surprising given how much investment AMSO has with the Orbiter 2010 "engine"...imagine how much work it would be to change the touchdown points of ALL of the objects that touch the surface. Plus, what would you do with the custom local terrain now that there is global (lunar) terrain...

Bent shafts?

I believe so. Look at the configuration files (Config folder). Main solar system bodies might reference a module that computes realistic trajectories that take into account perturbations. There should be a way to specify Keplerian elements instead. Sorry, but I don't remember all of the details.