01:47 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — @Diego_ look into KSPTOT, it looks complicated at start, but the tutorial for it is pretty straightforward though i still haven't yet tried creating actual maneuvers because i'm still in a moon era, but it seems to be able to plot polar maneuvers in case you're like me using baikonur

03:03 <discord-> P​roton-M blok DM-SL. — i have no clue how to use KSPTOT lol

03:47 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — is there a way to stop the probe from eventually loosing orientation in timewarp? I'm trying to simulate a moon mission and i can't just go to the space center

03:53 <discord-> i​tsRyan. — I'm not sure the specifics of your question, but spin stabilization works well for me. If you mean unloaded active stabilization, no, I don't think that's implemented by anything. It will keep the last orientation as far as Kerbalism is concerned until you come back.

03:56 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — anything else aside spin stabilization?

03:57 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — i kinda don't want to put extra 8 thrusters on my probe just to prevent hyperediting extra electricity

03:58 <discord-> l​pg. — spin stab and active stab are the only options, and spin stab the only one when timewarping

03:58 <discord-> l​pg. — (going to the space center should make no difference)

03:58 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — I'm in a sim

03:58 <discord-> l​pg. — I'm saying it wouldn't help if you weren't

04:00 <discord-> l​pg. — (why 8?)

04:01 <discord-> i​tsRyan. — Hack gravity will turn off principia and thus lock orientation in timewarp. Not sure if that breaks what you're doing though.

04:02 <discord-> i​tsRyan. — You'll lose all your principia maneuvers for example.

04:08 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — 8 because 4 for one way spin and 4 for the other, i probably can go with 4 instead, but it is still extra mass

04:14 <discord-> S​ilavite. — Me: I wonder when Dr. Eggman is going to release the latest version of Principia?

04:14 <discord-> S​ilavite. — *goes outside to look at the Moon*

04:14 <discord-> S​ilavite. —

04:14 <discord-> S​ilavite. — We are indeed all mad here.

04:16 <discord-> l​pg. — if your only problem is that your rcs won't be able to keep solar panels aligned under warp, then I agree adding roll control just for that would be silly, and hyperedit is the way to go

04:18 <discord-> l​pg. — another option if the solar panels are big enough is a tumble along he "wrong" axis, it get an average 50% exposure

04:18 <discord-> l​pg. — another option if the solar panels are big enough is a tumble along he "wrong" axis, to get an average 50% exposure (edited)

04:19 <discord-> l​pg. — (25%?)

12:17 <discord-> e​gg. — If you don’t have RCS to start with then you have a problem if you require attitude-keeping

12:17 <discord-> e​gg. — if you don’t want to slap extra mass onto your craft, spin-stabilization might be viable

12:41 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — I *have* RCS, it's just that it's impossible to keep orientation without spin stabilizing

13:06 <discord-> D​amien. — How often are you loading the craft that Kerbalism's on rails solar panel exposure isn't enough to cover you?

13:16 <discord-> l​pg. — > I'm in a sim

13:22 <discord-> D​amien. — Ah

13:23 <discord-> e​gg. — but then if you have RCS why would having RCS require extra mass

13:33 <discord-> D​amien. — Principia handling stationkeeping when

13:35 <discord-> D​amien. — Well, attitude control more than stationkeeping

13:36 <discord-> D​amien. — Momentum around an axis <x=0?

13:37 <discord-> D​amien. — Maybe only when SAS enabled on that craft

13:45 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — > but then if you have RCS why would having RCS require extra mass

13:45 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — because

13:45 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — > it's impossible to keep orientation without spin stabilizing

13:46 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — extra fuel losses too

13:50 <discord-> e​gg. — Ah you mean RCS requires extra mass compared to a spin-stabilized craft?

13:51 <discord-> e​gg. — then spin it up with small pyrothechnics, ditch the RCS?

13:52 <discord-> S​tandecco. — he's saying it's _practically_ impossible to keep orientation with RCS, I think

13:52 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — no, i mean that it is impossible to have a craft pointing in a specific direction due to imperfections in RCS thrust - it simply has a spin in one way or another even if you use like Smart SAS, and because principia doesn't make your craft freeze when the spin velocity is close to zero (like persistent rotation) there is no way to keep orientation without spin stabilization

13:52 <discord-> e​gg. — yes

13:53 <discord-> e​gg. — so spin-stabilize

13:53 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — extra mass and extra fuel required🤷‍♂️

13:53 <discord-> e​gg. — no, because you can ditch the RCS

13:53 <discord-> l​pg. — it's still extra mass to bring

13:53 <discord-> e​gg. — you no longer need attitude-keeping fuel once you are stabilized

13:54 <discord-> l​pg. — even more extra mass because now you need a decoupler

13:54 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — I do because it's a moon orbiter

13:54 <discord-> e​gg. — hm. You could try stabilizing it in the correct orientation for your insertion burn from the start

13:55 <discord-> D​amien. — #justpioneerthings

13:55 <discord-> T​ransparent_Elemental. — I need to align the burn and the panels perfectly then

13:55 <discord-> e​gg. — well, at least well enough that you have enough power

13:56 <discord-> e​gg. — (the whole thing orbits the Sun anyway, so mission duration will place an upper limit on the meaning of perfection)

13:57 <discord-> l​pg. — this is a lot of effort put into discussing an issue that only exists in a sim and can be worked around with hyperedit

13:57 <discord-> e​gg. — well, spin-stabilized designs are fun :-p

13:57 <discord-> l​pg. — (as pointed out earlier, outside sim, can go back to space center to exploit kerbalism's orientation-preservation-pretense)

13:58 <discord-> e​gg. — (one could argue that that is a kludge of its own though)

13:58 <discord-> l​pg. — certainly. so is timewarp, in a way; compating one kludge with another

13:58 <discord-> l​pg. — certainly. so is timewarp, in a way; combating one kludge with another (edited)

13:59 <discord-> e​gg. — well, timewarp as a concept is fine, its implementation is silly in various ways

14:01 <discord-> e​gg. — Attitude keeping seems conceptually easier than stationkeeping (it is much easier to specify what you want), but as usual the question of "how much does it consume and how" is tricky

14:03 <discord-> e​gg. — if we dealt only with attitude keeping by reaction wheels we could count accumulated torque, and force momentum dumps out of timewarp

14:04 <discord-> e​gg. — but aiui attitude keeping by thrusters is popular too, and there properly consuming the fuel seems hard

14:06 <discord-> l​pg. — Personally I'd call "it consumes nothing" an adequate first approximation. (and yeah the existence of reaction wheels is barely acknowledged in RO)

14:17 <discord-> e​gg. — the fact that it is barely acknowledged sounds like an issue (though tbh I think it is more of a consequence of the current focus on early spacecraft)

14:17 <discord-> e​gg. — but more to the point, lots of spacecraft are attitude-controlled by thrusters

14:39 <discord-> D​amien. — I agree @lpg, I think attitude control possible when craft has a reaction wheel/RCS with fuel but depletes none is a perfectly acceptable first pass for it

14:40 <discord-> D​amien. — even if it's something as simple as a tickbox on principia that only works when momentum=<x so you have to get it pretty much still first

14:45 <discord-> e​gg. — @Damien what is this first pass nonsense

14:45 <discord-> e​gg. — :-p

14:46 <discord-> D​amien. — oops I forgot about perfeggtion

14:46 <discord-> D​amien. — ok fine spend 3 years making a fuel usage model 😛

14:46 <discord-> e​gg. — nah that is boring

14:47 <discord-> e​gg. — I suppose we could calculate, effectively, the accumulated angular momentum "debt" from attitude keeping, and dump it onto the craft when it loads back

14:47 <discord-> D​amien. — sounds reasonable

14:47 <discord-> e​gg. — (ideally gradually so that it doesn't get spun up out of warp)

14:48 <discord-> D​amien. — lmao I want to see videos of the early tests for that

14:48 <discord-> D​amien. — refocus - 10,000,000rpm spins

14:48 <discord-> l​pg. — that sounds weird for the simple timewarp case (no vessel loading involved)

14:48 <discord-> D​amien. — ^ true

14:49 <discord-> e​gg. — what do you mean

14:49 <discord-> l​pg. — timewarp, vessel stops spinning; come out of warp, ???

14:50 <discord-> e​gg. — the angular momentum debt should not be that high anyway; attitude keeping would be tied to a reference frame and conditioned on sufficiently low initial angular momentum, so it would be the angular velocity of the frame or thereabouts I think

14:50 <discord-> e​gg. — no, "timewarp, vessel stops spinning" is definitely not something to which we want to go back

14:50 <discord-> e​gg. — "timewarp with a vessel that doesn't spin and has SAS on, vessel doesn't spin" is more like it

14:51 <discord-> l​pg. — yes, sorry. "stops the infinitesimal amound of resudial angular momentum SAS hasn't managed to kill"

14:51 <discord-> l​pg. — yes, sorry. "stops the infinitesimal amound of residual angular momentum SAS hasn't managed to kill" (edited)

14:51 <discord-> l​pg. — "resudial" is a nice typo

14:53 <discord-> S​tandecco. — don't you need to "only" calculate the moments of the thrusters to be able to know how much fuel would have been consumed?

14:53 <discord-> e​gg. — yes but those have thrust curves, right?

14:53 <discord-> S​tandecco. — oh no, not RCS thrusters

14:54 <discord-> S​tandecco. — unless you're in atmosphere, but I guess then you have bigger problems

16:45 <discord-> e​gg. — > to be able to know how much fuel would have been consumed

16:45 <discord-> e​gg. — Yes but then you have to consume it, and you need to figure out when it is exhausted

20:12 <discord-> S​tandecco. — I mean, you do things that are 2 billion times harder than this; this is doable, but different than what principia has done so far

20:37 <discord-> D​amien. — But is it *developmentally interesting*?

21:29 <discord-> S​tandecco. — at this moment, anything not involving matrices would be incredibly interesting to me

21:30 <discord-> S​tandecco. — but this is just a rant against matrices

21:30 <discord-> S​tandecco. — I hate you and your 15 billion possible decompositions

21:31 <discord-> S​tandecco. — seems like there's a name for any vaguely regular or interesting shape of a matrix

21:33 <discord-> e​gg. — _Cholesky decomposes @Standecco_ (edited)

21:33 <discord-> S​tandecco. — diagonal, triangular, symmetric, skew-symmetric, positive-definite (semi-positive, negative, semi-negative), indefinite, orthogonal, hessenberg, tridiagonal, hilbert, vandermonde

21:34 <discord-> e​gg. — unitary

21:34 <discord-> e​gg. — and self-adjoint, etc.

21:34 <discord-> e​gg. — don’t forget the complex numbers

21:34 <discord-> S​tandecco. — forgot about Gershgorin circles