KSP/RSS - Building a Comm Network with Math
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- Ever wanted to build your own geometric comm network of any size/shape? Look no further!
-- MUSIC CREDITS --
● Music provided by Valve:
● Song Title: Kelley Bailey; Mike Morasky - Subject Name Here
● Music provided by Argofox:
● Song Title: Rewayde - Dreams
● UA-cam: • Rewayde - Dreams [Argo...
-- MODS USED --
Real Solar System
Realism Overhaul
CameraTools
RSSVE
Planetshine
Distant Object Enhancer
-- SPREADSHEET --
www.dropbox.com/s/brx416nd8hr... - Авто та транспорт
Hi everyone! I hope you all enjoy this diversion from my usual content. I had a lot of fun narrating and making all the animations for this video. Since this is my first time making a video like this, I'd love to hear your feedback. And if you catch any mistakes, please let me know too.
My goal is to make this a series on the channel where I explain how to apply math and engineering to KSP, explain some KSP tips and tricks, and maybe run some community challenges (with prizes!). What do you think?
Also, I now have a patreon page! Check it out here: www.patreon.com/Stratzenblitz75
Thanks!
I loved this video! This series is going to be great for both beginners and veterans, you just inspired me to redo my communications network properly. Keep up the good work :)
+sotcrco1016 Thanks! And please post pics of it once you finish it, I'd love to see how it goes!
I love this new video! It helped me a lot for my KSP comms system, and other videos explaining the mathematical aspects of KSP would be great. Of course, I also enjoyed the other content you created, so I hope this series doesn't end up to replace it. But keep up the good work!
I feel like the narration was a little too slow, but the rest of the video is great! :) I also felt like perhaps you could explain all the technical/mathematical concepts while the KSP stuff is going on in the back, the narration being relevant to the footage, of course.
ElektreeK That's a good idea, but the slow narration would help people who are new to the game/don't understand the maths understand it better.
"Math never fails; unless you do it wrong"
Johnny Horan ah so that's my problem.
Yup
Some calculators make minor mistakes like 8/2=4.0000000000001
@@TristanPopken it is about how float points are represented in binary.
@@Buffalo_Soldier so rules doesn't exist.
>"brand-new series"
>literally the only one two years later
Yep
yup
lol
yep
also, make that 3
Nerd
Wait
I watched the whole thing
Ha, Nerd
anyone who plays the game is a nerd so that includes me
I am a nerd and I am proud of it!
It's not like it's rocket scie- *oh*
@@DeltaPlays27 It's not like it's brain surgery...
*I'm waiting...*
Games like KSP + People like you = More kids into science = better future
No truer words have been spoken my friend
Huh I only took what I learned from KSP and videos like this to figure out how to figure out how many Titan 2 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles one would need to effectively wipe the French off of the face of the earth.
29 to be exact
48 if you want to take out Germany as well
And 58 with the previous and the Uk
@@KRDecade2009 no Germany
@@KRDecade2009 the only time math is useful irl
I am a "kid" and I am into science. Future, here I come!
I expexting a thicc german accent and got dissapointed :p
phoneix 007
SAME!
Sorry, I know my German influenced name + never talking on this channel before would give people the wrong impression. In reality, I'm from pretty much the center of the US (Colorado)
Stratzenblitz75 Wow, that was unexpected
i can recommend you kNews Space for the thiccest german accent and ksp content.
I thought kNews is korean or smth like that, lol.
Note: when deciding the orbital radius of your satellite network, you want to include the height of the atmosphere, not just the surface. Sending a signal through the atmosphere causes significant losses, meaning your satellites will require more power.
Good point. You should actually include a significant buffer not just for atmosphere losses, but to provide some margin for your satellites to drift apart.
OwO I can't believe I found one in a KSP video!
Actually, the increased radius due to the atmosphere is negligible compared to the radius of the Earth. Even typical LEO altitudes are negligible in comparison.
However the distance the signal is travelling through the atmosphere is not negligible.
Alex Hudson Sure. But if the atmosphere height is negligible compared to the radius of the Earth, then it stands to reason the additional SMA increase would also be negligible.
VOICE REVEAL
Face Reveal?
K
Sounds like Bradley whistance
He already narrated his previous vids
@@theboiiiiiis69420 bud this comment was made 3 years ago, before he did narration
Pulled off the 3Blue1Brown aesthetic very nicely! Now all you need are some real fluid animations and soothing string-piano background music. Keep up the good work!
3B1B open sourced the software package he created for his videos (it's called Manim). This is why a lot of maths content on YT has this look.
Looks like you need to double or triple up on the high gain repeaters. There's a moment every periapsis when you've got no comms 16:20 (for most of the year). I'm thinking kind of a 3 pointed molniya orbit.
As for the maths, you did great. If it were me, I would have included the atmospheric layer as part of the "minimum radius". At 11:50, I would have included n for both planets, (just to help remind the audience... and so anyone checking your work wouldn't have to go back through the video to find numbers). Finally, at 3:00 you've used a single specific case (4 sided shape) to demonstrate general properties. I would have taken a moment to demonstrate that angle A would be 90 degrees regardless of the number of sides.
In any case, I thought your presentation was good. Nice use of colors and highlighting. I also like how you walked us right into a mistake also 8:07 before explaining what went wrong, since that's how a newcomer would probably encounter it.
Faulx Eve and Stratzenblitz75 Hi, thanks for the clear explanation ❤️
Quick question: Which is more efficient in terms of deltaV, fuel requirements, cost of the project to reach from a planet to the orbit proper and transition orbit and other factors - using less or more ‘n’?
As I understand, if making less satellites is cheaper, but then more fuel will be needed for deltaV required to reach a farther optimum orbit, and vice versa, in case of making more satellites. Please explain.
There are too many factors involved for there to be a simple answer. You'd have to design each option and analyze them. If I had to make an educated guess, I'd say that you're probably better off with fewer satellites. The scale of stock KSP being 1/10 real-world means that the deltaV requirements are very small. In RSS you might get a very different answer.
I love orbital mechanics, it has a complicated sounding name but in the end it's all based on geometry and basic physics.
'Basic physics.' If you look for where those equations come from, you'll need to invent calculus first. Solutions to second degree non-linear differential equations and s*** are needed, iirc.
yaksher Actually, all we've needed in my orbital mechanics class so far is calculus. But only barely (some derivatives, and an integral for the rocket equation, and cross and dot products, which is 3D calc, but still incredibly easy once you know what they are). Besides, if you're doing basic physics, you need a foundation in calc. At least if you want to do it right.
@Sam Ferguson Cross and dot products are linear algebra, not '3D calc' (calculus applies just fine to F:R/C^n->R/C^m, by the way). And there is plenty of basic physics that doesn't rely on calculus.
And finally, I'm not sure how else you're going to derive Kepler's Laws without differential equations, though I guess I haven't really thought about it and there's probably a simpler way. Actually, there almost certainly is, because the differential equation I'm thinking about might be impossible to solve analytically.
yaksher All I'm saying is that I learned cross and dot in Calc 3, and I haven't had linear yet, so I have no clue how I learned them if not from Calc 3.
@Sam Ferguson Cross and dot are linear algebra concepts, but Calc 3 could still teach them. Linear Algebra has Vector Spaces, which are basically groups and delve into regular Algebra.
Very excited for this series!
Thanks! I am pretty excited too; there's a lot of cool ideas to share!
@@Stratzenblitz75 oof
@@KarlssonF more oof to this series
@@ju1cyjon3s31 oof
@@CardZed oooffff
This makes me wish I'd have payed any attention in trigonometry class
What a nice idea ! This is a supercool addition to your usual content, and it's quite clear and well explained. I'm excited for the next videos in this series !
Maybe reference the wikipedia pages of the equations you use or something similar so that us nerds can go deeper if needed ?
Anyway, good job as always !
Thanks! And now you remind me that I forgot to include my references in the desc. I'll go fix that
Oh hey, this tutorial has math I can follow! Math which I can follow and is useful to me is a rare combination in a KSP video! :D
I've avoided this sort of satelite network because I always thought, "You can't get the orbits perfect. How long until they get out of alignment?" Then I realised that when they get too far out of alignment, you can just stop tracking those satellites and put another lot up.
Watched this for entertainment, ended up using this to study for a math exam
At one point I thought I was halfway decent at KSP because I had landed on everything (except the sun and Jool). Then I found Stratzenblitz. Now I realize my 2000+ hours in KSP are no good, and I suck not only in KSP but also at life. That said, I'm going to have to become a patreon thing. Just need to find a credit card. My debit card might work, once I find it...
I could live three more times and not be able to understand this amount of maths... It's great to watch a methodical approach, it's just not something I can do. Even with planning lol
At least your worth is good as a source of money for this guy
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WAT
HE TALKS!
You math a *lot* harder than I do. I just use the Kerbal method, and add more boosters. Don't make it? More dV!
Awesome video, man, actually seeing the math is really cool.
That was, as always, a really enjoyable video. I liked that you also made the effort to show us the math behind your missions. Keep it up and make a series of this, it is entertaining and educating at the same time. I enjoyed it
Phenomenal, your channel is probably one of the best on UA-cam, and that's coming from a person who has watched over 200 channels at one point. Thank you!
Please continue this series! A few out there can make this type of content so simple to understand, and you just nailed it!
Also, as an aerospace engineer student I find this SO satisfying! THANKS
This is absolutely fantastic. Exactly the kind of content I wanted when I subbed. Definitely make more like this please!!!
Fantastic video man --- I loved the mathematics and narration/visualization. Be sure to account for that pesky atmospheric attenuation! Your cinematic bit at the end was top-notch.
Hi, new subscriber here. I really like this format over your usual videos, it's interesting to learn about the "how" and "why" you did the things showed on the video, look forward to see more like this. Thanks!
PLEASE do not stop doing these videos if people don't like the math behind all of this! This is so informative and I personally LOVE understanding the mathematics behind stuff like this. I'm eagerly waiting for the next episode already :D
This has to be the highest quality "KSP" video I've ever watched. I'm not sure if you're a professor, aerospace engineer, or something else but you'd be well equipped for either. Thanks for teaching me something and I hope to see many more of this type of video in the future.
Wait... Stratzenblitz is not only an editing genius, but also a mathematical genius? My favorite KSP channel just got even better!
this is one of the highest quality videos I'v ever watched on youtube, keep doing yo thing man.
I love this format!
The explanation is well an clear and the topic of course very interesting.
Looking forward to more Stratlab content!
This was just awesome! Keep on! The animations and voice are just perfect!
What nice narration you do, quite the leap from “doon te-coo-coo” but definitely worth it. Excellent graphics that were lovely and clear to understand Another great video from the man that can make a flying skyscraper look tame in comparison to his other achievements, I look forward to seeing many more :)
Great video and so helpful for any KSP operations or projects requiring interstitial orbits or even just planning for a KSP space station around _any_ of the planetary bodies or natural satellites in KSP. This is why I love mathematics so much.
I came to mechanical engineering through KSP. So I love this content and would love to see you continuing this content.
For a practically usable network however, you will want to go quite a bit higher than the absolute minimum, to get a band of locations on the surface that can see at least one satellite. For the minimal configuration, that area is a set of just barely touching circles. For a practical network, I think you'd want the equatorial band of satellites to cover everything up to +/-45 degrees latitude at least, so that a polar band of the same configuration can cover the blind spots.
I’m French and I can tell you that your video is very easy to understand :D. Thank you for this interesting video !
LESCARGO Un français aussi 😉 such an amazing video, everybody wants more!
D'accord
you my sir are unbelievable, i just watched 3 videos and every single one of them amazed me. thank you.
Incredible idea for a video series. I am greatly looking forward to upcoming videos and I hope gravity assists are already on the table as a Stratlab topic.
As a sidenote, the animations are really wonderful and they remind me a lot of 3blue1brown's work which is a great compliment in my mind!
Oh my god, I was looking for a tutorial on this topic for so long. I don’t play KSP but Spaceflight Simulator and I’m sure I’ll be able to apply it to this game.
Very well don and explained, thank you so much. Love from France.
😳 mind blown. Fantastic amount of info and quality to the explanation. Thank you!
i generally just use high polar orbits and low equatorial orbits for comms. over complicated but works
Have to say, if I'd watched this in school, I'd have topped some physics courses. Was obsessed with orbital mechanics but never understood the math fully. Great job with your videos!
no one cares about triangles.. but now a triangle means launching a satellite to orbit? why didnt they just tell us they were teaching us space science?
Absolutely love this series idea! I can't wait to see more in the future! :D
I do enjoy this type of video as well. Pretty informative for even experienced players.
What I love about the elliptical orbit part is that the Earth has correctly been shaped as an oblate shperoid. Wizard approved!
Awesome video. I really look forward to more of this style of content. Well done!
Well, this is something I didn't expect. A fun video, even if it wasn't particularly educational to me (as in, I either already knew or could easily have figured out most of the contents). It's nice to see a more mathematical approach to KSP than the usual 'eyeball everything' approach. Must be how your craft are so stupidly impressive.
Very nicely visually done. Cool and easy to ubderstand.
Also, using Realism Overhaul made it infinitely more interesting.
Man I love this new content! Keep up the good work, I was fascinated during the whole thing =) Btw, what version of KSP do you use?
Your channel is amazing, you deserve so much more sub !
ooooh this is really cool!!! def wanna see more of this from you!
Keep em coming, very nice! I watched it despite having done the math myself before
Dude keep it up. Your contents are good. Like, really GOOD. All of them.
great educational video that demonstrates some of the key concepts behind orbital mechanics, obviously a little less entertaining to a lay person who plays KSP casually, but for someone with great interest in the subject matter, or a physics student studying this topic, this video is truly an exceptional resource.
Absolutely stunning, would love to see more if you got even bigger ideas!
Very well made and interresting video! Learned a lot from it!
You could also find Ro by plugging Re into Re^2+Re^2 to get the Ro^2. This is just the Pythagorean theorem which finds any side of a right triangle. Its probably easier than using trig.
But, it's works in a rectangle triangle. Other no.
Yes. Yes yes yes. Moar pls. I am love so good, science. This is super cool, a more in-depth, sciencing-focused approach then other YTers. So glad I'm subbed to see this. Fully legit. Pls more pls.
Greetings from Missouri.
Awesome idea. Can't wait for more.
Ha ha...
Very cool, high quality content and executed very well!
This is fantastic. I managed to do exactly this in my most recent playthrough, though I just went from keosynchronous orbit to do it and managed to put all four satellites in perfect orbits within .01 seconds of the proper orbital period. I was having trouble communicating to my less nerdy friends how awesome this was, though, or to my KSP-playing friends exactly how it's done, and this is a perfect presentation on how to do this. Thanks!
Some Realism Overhaul on your channel? Great!
Nice tutorial! It is also worth mentioning that you can setup your transfer and target orbits such that you deploy the satellites at perigee rather than apogee, allowing for a much more efficient circularization into your desired satellite orbit.
Stratenblitz: uses math to find the best layout for the sats
Me: randomly puts a comm stats in orbit until I like the shape
Incredibly cool concept. Well done!!
Awesome Video man! Can't wait to watch more. :)
For anyone who didn't understand why he switched the transfer orbit period from 3/4 to 7/8 of the satellite orbit (I got really confused as of why for a moment), it's because if you multiply 7/8 by 2, you get 14/8. No duh. But if you subtract the period of the orbit needed, 1, or to convert to the same denominator: 8/8, we get 14/8 - 8/8 = 6/8 which is equal to 3/4. The same period we were searching for earlier.
I would definitely like to see more of these videos in the future
Hey that's the clearest explaination I found in internet ! Could you make another episode please ?! That was super cool, thx ! Really like your videos btw !
OMG!! Its so beautiful! Planning out the entire mission to this extent before launch, instead of just throwing out a few satellites and then throwing out more when you realize there are dead zones in your network.
I'm coming from Scott Manley channel and now gonna replace my Lunar Polar Sat with the geostationary ones in my RSS.
Thank you both!!
ua-cam.com/video/PZAkiXNJIqc/v-deo.html the video
Can't describe how good it feels to finally understand the maths in this video
I could have used your help in high school lol
I took these maths in high school and they sucked then, I'm not really any closer to understanding them now but the way you explained it and showed it made far more sense than it did back then so I might have gotten a better grade in those classes lol.
You should be a tutor.
so happy to see this. I think too many UA-camrs skip over the math for KSP too often.
nice way to review some learnt math. Good Video!
This is like a physics problem in College. Now I'm glad I took the class
Thank You Jedi Master
Thanks for teaching me all the stuff i need for my physics course my teacher is terrible and you explained everything so well and i now understand how to apply the equations to physics questions
What a beautiful animation of the pendulum example!
Wish I could hit the like button more than once...
I LOVE IT!!
delivering greatness as usual!
I loved this! Well done! Nice to hear your voice finally too, lol.
can't wait for the next episode of this
Or you could make 100 very small satellites with the biggest relays, tape them all to a single craft, spin really fast, and release them, you'll always have a connection that way.
Dude this is fucking awesome Please Please I beg you to keep making these.
I'm the whole time thinkign, woah how u gonna fix that, and then you come up with the fix and I'm like jeez how did I not see that, the thing is that more than usually the answer is quite relatively simple lol.
This video taught me more than my teacher at school ever could.
god this channel is just too damn good!
Best thing about ksp videos; they come with extra science!
so are you a legit rocket scientist or nahhhh
jokes aside, this is honestly the coolest thing I've ever seen. I. Need. More.
stratz,,, i have no idea if youd see this but highkey this shits rly good you should make more of thsesee
Amazing video very informative easy to understand and i like your voice
Very nicely made
Man that was amazing! I'll subscribe to your channel only by this series. Just one thing: that antennas are not relay jaja
Woah. That beautiful voice. Can't wait a new episode.
Looking forward to the next part!
Cool video, well done.
Great video!
PS: playing the vid at 1.25x speed will make it sounds like any game tutorial ever
Bring back the stratlab! This was really interesting to watch, not sure why I never watched it sooner.
I learnt more in this video than I did in a whole year of school
I am a math idiot. I don't have a fricken clue what half of all that stuff you were referencing even means, but it's pretty fascinating, all the same. (The illustrations helped.) This will be an interesting series to watch.
great video!! subscribed