Best way to reach orbit?

Kaito

Orbiquiz Coordinator
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
857
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Whenever I try to go into orbit, i always have to do it in two stages: Get above earths atmosphere, then cut the engines, then wait till i reach ApA, then fire the engines again to raise my PeA so i'm not going to crash into earth.

I've seen it done where they achieve orbit in one fireing of the engines. When i tried to do "Lunar Transfer", i waited for my Dte, and....i hit the earth >.>
 

MajorTom

Ker-splash!
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
354
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Puget Sound
Yes, it's definitely slick when you can achieve a circular orbit in one go, from launch to engine cutoff.

Your method is a good way to get into orbit in the first place. So next time you can establish a good circular orbit, write down your velocity and altitude. That horizontal velocity will be your target velocity for that altitude, next time you launch.

The basic idea is to arrive at your desired circular orbit velocity for the altitude you want (say, 200 km) at the same time as your vertical velocity falls to near zero. So you've got to get at least three things to "converge" at once: desired horizontal velocity, zero vertical velocity, and desired altitude.

Of course, it takes lots of practice. I suggest that you stick with the same launch vehicle for a while, so you can learn its characteristics. Is the first stage very powerful and second stage weak? In that case, you'll want a relatively high vertical velocity at the time of stage 1 cutoff, because your second stage might not be able to provide a vertical component of acceleration sufficient to keep it falling back into the atmosphere. But if you've got a very strong second stage (or third, as the case may be), then you can worry less about vertical velocity.

When I practice I strive to hit a series of milestones on my way up. At h=1 km, I want X horizontal velocity and Y vertical velocity. Then I want X and Y to grow at 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 km...all the way to 200. If my orbit doesn't work out, I adjust the numbers on my chart, then try again. Eventually you can achieve a very nice orbit from launch, and you'll have learned a bit about trajectories in the process.

One way to get a chart such as this is to study the autopilots set up for various add-ons that have "launch to circular orbit" scenarios. Just write down the X and Y velocities for a variety of altitudes, and if you can fly the same path manually, you will have a similar result.

Have fun,

MT (also originally from Wisconsin!!)
 

pilotpercy

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
blackburn
it depends on what vessel your using, in a DGIV or something like that its best to start of at around about 70 deg and slowly decrease this as you gain height and forward speed, just parctice with different rates of change to what sutes you best.
 

polaris149Tiberius

Tutorial Publisher
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
192
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Website
www.101stAirborneDivisionClan.com
Try my autopilot

Try my autopilot

If you want to know the physics behind how to get into orbit then the above messages are correct, and for a manual launch they are great!

However, if you want to do it the way the real Space Shuttle missions are done, you will have to consent that a manual launch is for the most part not an exact science nor is it usually efficient or realistic.

Manual launches just dont happen in real life. NASA has computers do the calculations for mass, energy, vectors etc. So if you want to launch into orbit, you will need an autopilot to control a nominal launch program.

You can get this with my new flightplans for STS-101 which is the included Space Shuttle.
Read this thread to get your orbits to be nominal:
The ONLY Launch AP for built in Atlantis STS-101

This is also a good way to controll different types of orbits you may want like different azimuths and altitudes.
For the Space Shuttle Atlantis, you must do two burns so your main tank will re-enter the atmosphere as it would in real life. Then after jettesoning the tank you will complete your orbit circularization.

Enjoy.
 

HiPotOk1978

ReFuel L.L.C CEO
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
373
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Tucson
Please tell me if I am wrong in this fact, but didn't the Apollo Missions have the computer onboard fly a preprogramed course to get those guys into a parking orbit?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,626
Reaction score
2,344
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Please tell me if I am wrong in this fact, but didn't the Apollo Missions have the computer onboard fly a preprogramed course to get those guys into a parking orbit?

Yes. But astronauts also trained for flying the Saturn V manually, if all other means fail (IU + GDC). Having an autopilot is no excuse for not learning the skills yourself. Actually, being good yourself, gives you more freedom.
 

YL3GDY

New member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
QRA-Locator KO26CX
Try using Surface MFD during launch! I prefer following launch technique: using Surface MFD. It will tell you vertical speed and acceleration. According to them, and to ApA and PeD from Orbit MFD, you can adjust your AoA so that your vertcal velocity will be close to 0 at MECO.

This method works best on traditional vertical launch vechicles(Saturn, Shuttle, Soyuz), but also good with DG. It is, IMO, more "scientific" and preferable, comparing to AoA/altitude charts.
 

RangerPL

Addon Consumer
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
345
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Soviet bunker on Pluto
I personally rarely use autopilots to fly the DGIV, DG, XR1 or XR5 into orbit. The only one I use is the attitude hold on the XR vessels to make my job easier.

I use autopilots only when I fly AMSO or the Shuttle, but I can fly those manually too. I have to try manual flight of the Energia into orbit.

Well, that's just what I do.
 

HiPotOk1978

ReFuel L.L.C CEO
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
373
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Tucson
Does the Vanguard have an orbital autopilot? If so I would like to compare my method vs the designers as far as AoA at various lvls and such see if I can save some fuel
 

EliNaut

New member
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
115
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Boston area
Does the Vanguard have an orbital autopilot? If so I would like to compare my method vs the designers as far as AoA at various lvls and such see if I can save some fuel

The XR5 Vangaurd? No.

None of the XR series do - its acent profile is bent on a strategic use of SCRAM engines during atmospheric acent to slide into orbit after another burn at your apogee.

However it does have other great multipourpose AP's. Such as, as mentioned above, the attitude hold, which is a very handy tool when doing reentries. Others are a decent (hover) AP, airspeed hold, and altitude hold. Not to mention your basic orbital directions.
 

agentgonzo

Grounded since '09
Addon Developer
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Location
Hampshire, UK
Website
orbiter.quorg.org
If you're using a SSTO vessel, then LaunchMFD [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=2802"]will [/ame]give you single-burn trajectory (direct ascent) to get you into a target orbit.
 

Zatnikitelman

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA, North America
Aside from logistical issues (fuel tank, stages etc. burning up-hitting ocean) is there any advantage or disadvantage for a direct-ascent versus a two-burn insertion? When I do fly manually or build launch autopilots (PrometheusLV, but Multistage's guidance has a weird bug so I couldn't include it) I typically do a direct insertion aiming to achieve MECO so it places me in a complete orbit instead of having to cutoff, then restart 45 minutes later.
 

agentgonzo

Grounded since '09
Addon Developer
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Location
Hampshire, UK
Website
orbiter.quorg.org
Aside from logistical issues (fuel tank, stages etc. burning up-hitting ocean) is there any advantage or disadvantage for a direct-ascent versus a two-burn insertion? When I do fly manually or build launch autopilots (PrometheusLV, but Multistage's guidance has a weird bug so I couldn't include it) I typically do a direct insertion aiming to achieve MECO so it places me in a complete orbit instead of having to cutoff, then restart 45 minutes later.

There are various things. Some engines can be run only once, some are only able to be started on the launch pad, some of them can't be turned off (SRBs etc). Generally, there's less that can go wrong the 'simpler' the flight plan.
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
492
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
Aside from logistical issues (fuel tank, stages etc. burning up-hitting ocean) is there any advantage or disadvantage for a direct-ascent versus a two-burn insertion? When I do fly manually or build launch autopilots (PrometheusLV, but Multistage's guidance has a weird bug so I couldn't include it) I typically do a direct insertion aiming to achieve MECO so it places me in a complete orbit instead of having to cutoff, then restart 45 minutes later.


You also burn significantly less fuel.

The more time you spend thrusting to increase your vertical velocity, the more energy goes into nothing:

If you're hovering, you're producing one g, but not going anywhere. Your efficiency is 0/1.
If you go up at 1 g, you're producing 2 g's. Your efficiency is 1/2 and so on.

The other reason is that if you thrust up to get to a certain altitude and then thrust horizontally to get horizontal velocity and hold vertical speed, your engines are running for a longer time. Longer time at same fuel consumption... you do the math.

Third, if you have a winger aircraft, you should spend as much time flying horizontally in the upper atmosphere with vertical velocity provided by the wings. Why? You do lose some energy to drag... but you'd lose it even if you flew straight up. But the force produced from the drag can be put to good use. You can put 100% thrust into horizontal velocity and raise your orbit that way. Once in orbit, you're not *losing* any energy. If you burn to increase speed, you'll go higher, but you'll come down too and accelerate to the same velocity. You haven't lost anything.
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
492
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
That contradicts what has already been said in this thread - that the 2-burn method uses less fuel than the direct-ascent method


Maybe the post got edited or something, but I can't find anyone saying that.


I'll just put it this way... if a "double burn" method was more effective, don't you think we'd see real rockets using such a profile?
If you saved that much fuel, I bet it would be worth developing a restartable engine.
 

agentgonzo

Grounded since '09
Addon Developer
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Location
Hampshire, UK
Website
orbiter.quorg.org
Maybe the post got edited or something, but I can't find anyone saying that.
Sorry, getting confused. Was following a link from another thread. My mistake

I'll just put it this way... if a "double burn" method was more effective, don't you think we'd see real rockets using such a profile?
If you saved that much fuel, I bet it would be worth developing a restartable engine.
They do use such a profile. The shuttle uses the two-burn method (OMS-1 inserts it into an elliptical orbit with low perigee and the OMS-2 burn circularises the orbit at apogee).
http://www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/Orbit_insertion
That states (and it was my understanding too) that you get lower gravity-drag with the two-burn method over a direct-ascent method and the reason that rockets do a direct ascent is because of the added cost associated with greater risks of two burns and restarting engines in space. Not sure what the fuel-saving is, but that's why they do the OMS-2 burn for the shuttle.
 

-Pv-

New member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I agree with another poster that if you want to LEARN by practice how to launch into circular obit manually, LAUNCHMFD is great for this. You just keep the X on the X. Seeing how it's done is one of the fastest ways to learn.
-Pv-
 

Zatnikitelman

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA, North America
I just realized one potential advantage of a two-burn. Think about syncing to a space station. Lower orbiter = faster relative to higher target. By remaining lower for longer, you'll be moving faster relative to the target and might can catch up faster than inserting directly into a "catch-up" orbit. At least, it makes sense to me.
 
Top