Talk:1244: Six Words - Revision history

82.132.238.56 at 10:32, 23 April 2026

2026-04-23T10:32:57Z

110.145.224.178 at 06:00, 23 April 2026

2026-04-23T06:00:31Z

42.book.addict at 02:53, 27 January 2025

2025-01-27T02:53:12Z

Thehydraclone at 22:41, 26 January 2025

2025-01-26T22:41:10Z

Jacky720 at 03:00, 21 February 2017

2017-02-21T03:00:26Z

Benjaminikuta: SpaceX

2015-12-25T22:57:11Z

SpaceX

108.162.216.15 at 22:01, 29 October 2015

2015-10-29T22:01:12Z

International Space Station at 02:09, 9 October 2015

2015-10-09T02:09:30Z

108.162.254.67 at 10:30, 16 April 2014

2014-04-16T10:30:32Z

Dgbrt at 16:22, 12 August 2013

2013-08-12T16:22:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:32, 23 April 2026
Line 46:		Line 46:
	It seems that Randall has done a lot of KSP comics in the 1000s [[User:Thehydraclone\|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone\|talk]]) 22:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)		It seems that Randall has done a lot of KSP comics in the 1000s [[User:Thehydraclone\|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone\|talk]]) 22:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

−	For those that don't play KSP, mods such as Principia, Kerbalism, FAR and RP-1 can be installed to Dramatically increase the simulation fidelity	+	For those that don't play KSP, mods such as Principia, Kerbalism, FAR and RP-1 can be installed to Dramatically increase the simulation fidelity {{unsigned ip\|110.145.224.178\|06:00, 23 April 2026}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:00, 23 April 2026
Line 45:		Line 45:

	It seems that Randall has done a lot of KSP comics in the 1000s [[User:Thehydraclone\|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone\|talk]]) 22:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)		It seems that Randall has done a lot of KSP comics in the 1000s [[User:Thehydraclone\|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone\|talk]]) 22:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	For those that don't play KSP, mods such as Principia, Kerbalism, FAR and RP-1 can be installed to Dramatically increase the simulation fidelity

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 . The size and positioning of the circles strongly indicates that they represent Venus, Earth, and Jupiter (or Eve, Kerbin, and Jool).
 . Reaching the Kuiper belt (which begins at Neptune) requires a great deal of delta-v. Even if you were to slingshot around gas giants (which, in the current explanation, is not shown in the diagram), the trip would consume the majority of a spacecraft's propellant, making the extreme exploitation of the Oberth effect largely ineffective.
-. Kuiper belt objects are very small and therefore would not effectively serve to redirect or slingshot the spacecraft.
+. Kuiper belt objects are very small and therefore would not effectively serve to redirect or slingshot the spacecraft. [[Special:Contributions/66.159.155.170|66.159.155.170]] 10:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 :''"This makes no sense, as it it is vastly more expensive in terms of fuel to get to a Kuiper belt object (which is at least 10 billion km from earth) than it is to get to the sun."''
@@ Line 36: / Line 34: @@
 ;Transcript
 Randall adds the transcripts sometimes later. We now know the planets are Earth and Jupiter and at the center is, of course, the sun.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 Slightly off-topic, but I just wanted to add this. You know how the ESA hosts their little Moon Mission competition and stuff? A theoretical mission to the moon whereby one researches and proposes a Moon Mission and writes out the mission details, although it won't actually happen, as far as I know. My college (well really, only me and one other girl) is collaborating with some other colleges in the US and some others from other countries (in total, 11 of us on one team) is participating in it. Part of the mission requirement is that we must be able to simulate the mission. Of course I read the details... and I absolutely died laughing when I read that Kerbal Space Program is officially a viable simulator for the "mission." I immediately thought of this comic, haha! I suppose you don't say it at NASA, but it's OK at ESA, I suppose! [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 02:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 ;Kerbal Space Program
 Made some adjustments to the section about KSP. Mostly just describing which limitations of the game would make it inappropriate for use at NASA, simulating a complex orbital trajectory. As a side note: in the full release they dramatically overhauled the drag modeling and re-entry dynamics, making it somewhat more realistic. There's also a fairly significant modding community that has offered improved realism via alternate atmospheric drag modeling, life support systems, drilling for fuel (now in the game-proper), and more realistic planet size/density/separation (the default settings have bodies ~1/10th the size of similar bodies in our own solar system, with very high densities, and relatively close together, resulting in comparable surface gravity but making it much easier to reach orbit and beyond in the KSP system). As far as I know nobody has looked at N-body simulation in KSP (while there is no general solution partial ones can be determined, and complete solutions exist for 2-body and a limited 3-body system). I think Orbiter had it to some degree, as you could make use of more complex orbits and Lagrangian points. I'd love to put a refueling station at the Kerbin-Mun L1 point. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.15|108.162.216.15]] 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 My friend's dad took a tour of SpaceX recently and said the designers there use Kerbal Space Program extensively. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 22:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:41, 26 January 2025
Line 48:		Line 48:

	Has anyone tried this? I am trying, for one. [[User:Jacky720\|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720\|contribs]]) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)		Has anyone tried this? I am trying, for one. [[User:Jacky720\|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720\|contribs]]) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	It seems that Randall has done a lot of KSP comics in the 1000s [[User:Thehydraclone\|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone\|talk]]) 22:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:00, 21 February 2017
Line 46:		Line 46:

	My friend's dad took a tour of SpaceX recently and said the designers there use Kerbal Space Program extensively. [[User:Benjaminikuta\|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta\|talk]]) 22:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)		My friend's dad took a tour of SpaceX recently and said the designers there use Kerbal Space Program extensively. [[User:Benjaminikuta\|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta\|talk]]) 22:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	Has anyone tried this? I am trying, for one. [[User:Jacky720\|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720\|contribs]]) 03:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 25 December 2015
Line 43:		Line 43:
	;Kerbal Space Program		;Kerbal Space Program
	Made some adjustments to the section about KSP. Mostly just describing which limitations of the game would make it inappropriate for use at NASA, simulating a complex orbital trajectory. As a side note: in the full release they dramatically overhauled the drag modeling and re-entry dynamics, making it somewhat more realistic. There's also a fairly significant modding community that has offered improved realism via alternate atmospheric drag modeling, life support systems, drilling for fuel (now in the game-proper), and more realistic planet size/density/separation (the default settings have bodies ~1/10th the size of similar bodies in our own solar system, with very high densities, and relatively close together, resulting in comparable surface gravity but making it much easier to reach orbit and beyond in the KSP system). As far as I know nobody has looked at N-body simulation in KSP (while there is no general solution partial ones can be determined, and complete solutions exist for 2-body and a limited 3-body system). I think Orbiter had it to some degree, as you could make use of more complex orbits and Lagrangian points. I'd love to put a refueling station at the Kerbin-Mun L1 point. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.15\|108.162.216.15]] 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)		Made some adjustments to the section about KSP. Mostly just describing which limitations of the game would make it inappropriate for use at NASA, simulating a complex orbital trajectory. As a side note: in the full release they dramatically overhauled the drag modeling and re-entry dynamics, making it somewhat more realistic. There's also a fairly significant modding community that has offered improved realism via alternate atmospheric drag modeling, life support systems, drilling for fuel (now in the game-proper), and more realistic planet size/density/separation (the default settings have bodies ~1/10th the size of similar bodies in our own solar system, with very high densities, and relatively close together, resulting in comparable surface gravity but making it much easier to reach orbit and beyond in the KSP system). As far as I know nobody has looked at N-body simulation in KSP (while there is no general solution partial ones can be determined, and complete solutions exist for 2-body and a limited 3-body system). I think Orbiter had it to some degree, as you could make use of more complex orbits and Lagrangian points. I'd love to put a refueling station at the Kerbin-Mun L1 point. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.15\|108.162.216.15]] 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	My friend's dad took a tour of SpaceX recently and said the designers there use Kerbal Space Program extensively. [[User:Benjaminikuta\|Benjaminikuta]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta\|talk]]) 22:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 29 October 2015
Line 39:		Line 39:

	Slightly off-topic, but I just wanted to add this. You know how the ESA hosts their little Moon Mission competition and stuff? A theoretical mission to the moon whereby one researches and proposes a Moon Mission and writes out the mission details, although it won't actually happen, as far as I know. My college (well really, only me and one other girl) is collaborating with some other colleges in the US and some others from other countries (in total, 11 of us on one team) is participating in it. Part of the mission requirement is that we must be able to simulate the mission. Of course I read the details... and I absolutely died laughing when I read that Kerbal Space Program is officially a viable simulator for the "mission." I immediately thought of this comic, haha! I suppose you don't say it at NASA, but it's OK at ESA, I suppose! [[User:International Space Station\|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)		Slightly off-topic, but I just wanted to add this. You know how the ESA hosts their little Moon Mission competition and stuff? A theoretical mission to the moon whereby one researches and proposes a Moon Mission and writes out the mission details, although it won't actually happen, as far as I know. My college (well really, only me and one other girl) is collaborating with some other colleges in the US and some others from other countries (in total, 11 of us on one team) is participating in it. Part of the mission requirement is that we must be able to simulate the mission. Of course I read the details... and I absolutely died laughing when I read that Kerbal Space Program is officially a viable simulator for the "mission." I immediately thought of this comic, haha! I suppose you don't say it at NASA, but it's OK at ESA, I suppose! [[User:International Space Station\|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	;Kerbal Space Program
		+	Made some adjustments to the section about KSP. Mostly just describing which limitations of the game would make it inappropriate for use at NASA, simulating a complex orbital trajectory. As a side note: in the full release they dramatically overhauled the drag modeling and re-entry dynamics, making it somewhat more realistic. There's also a fairly significant modding community that has offered improved realism via alternate atmospheric drag modeling, life support systems, drilling for fuel (now in the game-proper), and more realistic planet size/density/separation (the default settings have bodies ~1/10th the size of similar bodies in our own solar system, with very high densities, and relatively close together, resulting in comparable surface gravity but making it much easier to reach orbit and beyond in the KSP system). As far as I know nobody has looked at N-body simulation in KSP (while there is no general solution partial ones can be determined, and complete solutions exist for 2-body and a limited 3-body system). I think Orbiter had it to some degree, as you could make use of more complex orbits and Lagrangian points. I'd love to put a refueling station at the Kerbin-Mun L1 point. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.15\|108.162.216.15]] 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:09, 9 October 2015
Line 36:		Line 36:
	;Transcript		;Transcript
	Randall adds the transcripts sometimes later. We now know the planets are Earth and Jupiter and at the center is, of course, the sun.--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 16:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)		Randall adds the transcripts sometimes later. We now know the planets are Earth and Jupiter and at the center is, of course, the sun.--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 16:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	Slightly off-topic, but I just wanted to add this. You know how the ESA hosts their little Moon Mission competition and stuff? A theoretical mission to the moon whereby one researches and proposes a Moon Mission and writes out the mission details, although it won't actually happen, as far as I know. My college (well really, only me and one other girl) is collaborating with some other colleges in the US and some others from other countries (in total, 11 of us on one team) is participating in it. Part of the mission requirement is that we must be able to simulate the mission. Of course I read the details... and I absolutely died laughing when I read that Kerbal Space Program is officially a viable simulator for the "mission." I immediately thought of this comic, haha! I suppose you don't say it at NASA, but it's OK at ESA, I suppose! [[User:International Space Station\|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station\|talk]]) 02:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 :::::::::::I see where you get the Pluto thing, and I can see where the developers were going with that.  The idea is that Pluto hasn't cleared its own orbit.  But Pluto crosses Neptune, whereas Eeloo crosses Jool.  That's a big difference in terms of distance from the sun.  The NASA study's diagrams did use Jupiter in the diagrams, but you're right in that they didn't dismiss the use of other objects. [[User:AlanSE|AlanSE]] ([[User talk:AlanSE|talk]]) 23:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::I find the Jupiter explanation more plausible. Not only it is more consistent with the diagram (as far as body sizes and configuration, but also orbit shape, which would be a much narrower ellipse with periapsis near Venus and apoapsis in the Kuiper Belt), but also flyby around a Kuiper Belt body would be quite pointless: its low mass would make it a particularly lousy target for both gravity assist and Oberth maneuver - and yes, you only need a small velocity change at such distances to head for the Sun, but you could just as well do a deep space maneuver in empty space without any Kuiper Belt object nearby; its presence or non-presence would make little difference. - More importantly though, the whole travel so far outwards would be completely unnecessary, because Jupiter's gravity is already sufficient to send a spacecraft on a close Sun flyby trajectory (or even straight into the Sun, if desired) with a ''single unpowered flyby'', no engine burn needed at all. Saving lots of time and/or fuel (as the unnecessary detour via Kuiper Belt would take more fuel/flybys than a simple trip to Jupiter, not even mentioning the roundtrip duration). The reference to Kuiper Belt is explained just as easily with that being the intended mission target (also following from the word order, Oberth-Kuiper, more logical for Kuiper Belt visit after the Oberth maneuver, rather than before). --[[Special:Contributions/78.102.107.37|78.102.107.37]] 12:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 ;strictly an orbiter shop
 According to this [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57495117-93/mars-curiosity-rover-team-prefers-macs-to-pcs/] that is not true. [[Special:Contributions/212.90.151.90|212.90.151.90]] 11:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 12 August 2013
Line 33:		Line 33:
	a.k.a. Dr. Whom: Consulting Linguist, Grammarian, Orthoëpist, and Philological Busybody		a.k.a. Dr. Whom: Consulting Linguist, Grammarian, Orthoëpist, and Philological Busybody

		+	;Transcript
	Randall adds the transcripts sometimes later. We now know the planets are Earth and Jupiter and at the center is, of course, the sun.--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 16:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)		Randall adds the transcripts sometimes later. We now know the planets are Earth and Jupiter and at the center is, of course, the sun.--[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 16:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)