Question Orion probe

[richfororbit]

So I tried the Orion addon, it goes very fast, I attempted a July 16th burn a few times after 9PM, set during mission 11's to the moon date, I was closer to the moon but never got there.

The moon was closer than would of been during a normal flight. This addon is quite nice to demonstrate the speed capability, even though this was a different variation of Orion.

I tried following a another trans x clip, with the inclination down to 5.08 or a bit less even if the Moon is at that number, I should be able to get there randomly? What about mid course corrections?

Thanks.

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 AM ----------

I tried the orion in the oldest folder I have of the simulator, and the Lunarmfd doesn't work with it. TIG error? Set auto or manually.

Travelling at 15K to the moon is much quicker than the typical 8,000k something. I should redenzvous with the moon in hours, not days.

Anyone used this? I guess not, or has been a number of years. The daedalus probe doesn't even work, for pro grade, or align plane with the moon.

 

[Urwumpe]

Travelling at 15K to the moon is much quicker than the typical 8,000k something. I should redenzvous with the moon in hours, not days.

If I remember correctly 24 hours required some more DV... (6.9 km/s to additionally to LEO, instead of the usual 3.1 km/s)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020022207.pdf

http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LANTR.html

Sadly the orbiter add-on for this is broken, it was one of the best add-ons for Orbiter.

 

[gattispilot]

Which add-on is broken?

 

[Urwumpe]

Which add-on is broken?

TTM24: add-on #342 on O-H.

[ame="http://orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=342"]To the Moon in 24 Hours (with panel)[/ame]

 

[richfororbit]

Oh, but powering up that proposed space probe orion is the whole point in trying to get there within a few hours. Of course once I sped up time, the velocity drops.

But eitherway I couldn't get there, with random luck chance, or trying the MFD, to do some blasting burns.

 

[Urwumpe]

Oh, but powering up that proposed space probe orion is the whole point in trying to get there within a few hours. Of course once I sped up time, the velocity drops.

But eitherway I couldn't get there, with random luck chance, or trying the MFD, to do some blasting burns.

Yes, that is normal. That is the gravity of Earth. Guess what keeps the moon in place. In case you want to calculate, how much speed you will have left, after leaving the gravity well of Earth (or any planet):

[math]V_{ex} = \sqrt{V^2 - 2 V_o^2} [/math]
Vex is the excess velocity, Vo your circular orbit velocity before leaving the planet and V is the velocity after the ejection burn. [math]\sqrt{2} V_o[/math] is the escape velocity at the distance of your orbit.

 

[richfororbit]

Regardless of that, not that I even knew that.

Once I get out of the planet gravity, and orbit out of there, I miss the moon. So for me to get to the moon's orbit, how should I do the blasting burns, hehe, its just hilarious, bang bang bang, flashing sun light. Oh man what a reality, and an idea. That is no warp drive, but close enough.

Perhaps an experimental trek could be syndicated on television using actual hypothetical crafts to travel to another star system, I doubt that would get many ratings. Tasers for energy weapons.

More like blast to the moon than a burn. So the probe blast so very many times, at which yaw, 70, as the orbit of going to the moon is curve one, so the probe or any orbital craft will leave right side or left side for a left side injection. Yeah, that is right.

 

[Urwumpe]

More like blast to the moon than a burn. So the probe blast so very many times, at which yaw, 70, as the orbit of going to the moon is curve one, so the probe or any orbital craft will leave right side or left side for a left side injection. Yeah, that is right.

Timing is everything. And IMFD or Transx for anything that takes more than 100 km change in radius. :lol:

The theory is all easy, getting to the moon takes just the first 10 pages of lecture notes for the basic introduction into spaceflight. Actually doing it is much harder because you never precisely know where you are or where you are going - you always are off a bit from the theory and the solar system has many planets and a sun messing with your simple theories.

That is also what science fiction in TV will rarely prepare you for. In TV you are fighting gravity, if at all. In reality, you exploit gravity for your advantage. Even if you are flying to the moon and it slowing you down on one half of your way. On the other half it will accelerate you more than you would like.

On the bottom of this page, you can find how this was done in reality as nice trajectory plot - note that the the spacecraft left Earth on the opposite side of where it was planning to intercept the moon - and that the moon was about 37° away from that place (3/29th of a lunar orbit)

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missions/Apollo_8_mission/hl_apollo8.html

 

[richfororbit]

Well, yes scifi deludes, just as I personally think the odd mission to the moon is the only way to do exploration, there are the academics and the specialists who know their stuff to get a mission to the moon or somewhere, but the complexity is mind boggleing to most people without a strong academic background.

If Apollo 8 was tough nuts, then whole solar system is another ball game, and the galaxy, and just a few light years now, like centauri. I guess nobody wants to guess that orbit for an addon beyond the last planet.:hmm:

Ah, I have also just realised that I left at 15:05pm July 16th, usually a auto burn in the historic missions was just after 9PM. And then a mid course correction a day later.

Does that also count for this probe? I would guess so.

 

[Urwumpe]

Ah, I have also just realised that I left at 15:05pm July 16th, usually a auto burn in the historic missions was just after 9PM. And then a mid course correction a day later.

Does that also count for this probe? I would guess so.

Sure. The most mid-course corrections can be done any time, but usually they are planned at suitable intervals in reality to measure the trajectory of the spacecraft by ground stations and compute correction maneuver data.

In case of Orbiter, you simply need to plan like that: The MFDs are more or less inaccurate, so you need to observe your orbit long enough to really be sure that you are on the wrong track. And then compute the burn and execute it (done in about 15 minutes sim time)

Only in few situations, you have fixed appointments for course corrections. For example, when you cross the intersection between two orbit planes. Or have entered the sphere of influence of a planet or a moon.

 

[richfororbit]

Well this is my last saved result, a few blasts to keep the speed at 19KM/s.

It looks better than the last several.

The blasting took place on the night side into the day on the other side, and not day time pointing at the moon.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well this is my last saved result, a few blasts to keep the speed at 19KM/s.

It looks better than the last several.

The blasting took place on the night side into the day on the other side, and not day time pointing at the moon.

Better use transx or IMFD for planning the coast, otherwise you will only hit the moon by bad luck (like it happened to me once)

 

[richfororbit]

I tried all that, I'm not able to get my head around it for the moment.

The objective is to get very close to the moon so far that is the closest, to give an idea of how fast that proposed technology is, I mean its just been hours, not even days. You can't return to Earth with that nightmare.:uhh:

 

[Urwumpe]

I tried all that, I'm not able to get my head around it for the moment.

The objective is to get very close to the moon so far that is the closest, to give an idea of how fast that proposed technology is, I mean its just been hours, not even days. You can't return to Earth with that nightmare.:uhh:

You can... but you should better not do that. :lol: An aerobrake maneuver after trans-earth cruise should be possible with a shield that survives nuclear explosions. :lol:

 

[richfororbit]

With the constellation module, it was just an auto burn to create the orbit around the moon, but even then, it being only a probe, doesn't look like a personnel craft, it doesn't need to return really.

In theory a personnel one of those could take a few to Mars or the Moon, as Dyson had dreamt about, but the genius is great, but the consequence of such an idea is just madness.

This technology alone within the galaxy shows the madness of travelling to another star system to render the whole "I've been abducted" as quite unlikely for those who claim to of been or seen ET's.

 

[Urwumpe]

As small update to the TTM24 ...

There is a much better quality version of the report available on NASA, even in color:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030067859.pdf

And moar pictures in this presentation:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040086714.pdf

 

[richfororbit]

I did get very close, but I wasn't in the exact path for the Moon to catch the probe. Perhaps the lack of a mid course correction, but the fact is, I fired more bombs to get that probe on a mid course, but without a lunar mfd program, manually is a slim chance at an angle.

Anybody want to create some kind of program for the probe to get there, demonstrate nuclear tech getting to our moon?

No point sending back to Earth orbit

Have a nuclear fallout shelter ready.

I actually gave a watch on Paul Gilster, a clip from last year he more or less expressed what he did in the old book about researching the subject, and feasible prototype ideas to travel to the oort cloud and all that.

I had given a read through a few chapters of his book 'Centauri dreams' on the weekend. 36,000KM/s that probe would of travelled after the first stage.

If Centauri had actually existed in Orbiter beyond the Solar system, well that is fifty years of travel time.