Kerbal Space Program + DayZ = ...Firefly?

Beside DayZ, I've recently started playing Kerbal Space Program. It's a game where you build rockets and send little green men off into space to land on their Mün and other planets in their little solar system. The physics engine lets it be moderately realistic in its behavior, enough for a game anyway. The build system is simple enough that a mere mortal can deal with it, or a rocket person who doesn't want to deal with lots of niggling details because nobody is paying them to do this.

I wrung the heck out of the demo version before I bought the full version. There are some significant differences between the two, aside from the obvious lack of features. For one thing, the simulation in the demo is more forgiving than the one in the full game. The full game does have the advantage that the simulation is more "fine grained" than the demo, though. This boils down to meaning that you have to pay more attention to how you build and fly your rockets in the full version, especially the large ones. The demo is more "gamey", in that you can slap together almost anything and get it into orbit. The full version requires a bit more thought and testing.

Recapitulating History

Since the demo's parts are similar to early NASA parts, I decided to get started by just putting together some simple tests to learn about building rockets in KSP.

My first was a capsule with parachute recovery (there's no other capsule or recovery system in the demo, so every flight is a "manned" flight.) I put this on top of a stack separator and a short tank with a large engine on the back and some fins for a bit of stability. I was worried that it would be too short to be dynamically stable along its length, that it would pitch or yaw wildly, but I decided to throw caution to the winds and launch it just to go through the process of getting something off the ground.

The real thing version of where I started in KSP

In spite of a lack of any control system, it flew just fine. It was about a 10 minute flight, surprisingly long for the amount of propellant, I thought. This basic configuration, sans fins, became the core of my next step--build a capsule and service module style combination that I could put on top of different boosters.

I added a dynamic control wheel system and some RCS jets to fill it out. Later, when I tried to use the RCS jets I learned that I needed to add RCS propellant tankage, too. It added a lot of weight, but at the end I had a solid core to build around for an orbital system.

This went on top of another stage separator, a taller tank, and another large engine for another suborbital test.

Mercury Redstone Suborbital Launch

That flight also went well. The fins of the first flight had been removed, and I decided to see how much stability I got with just the reaction wheel system and no fins on the booster. One thing that I missed immediately from the construction information was the lack of a display of the center of pressure on the craft. A basic measure of stability is where the CP sits with respect to the center of gravity (CG) of the craft. CP needs to be behind CG, and the greater the distance between them then generally the more stable the craft will be in the face of perturbations.

The other thing I missed was the lack of a sequencer to control the craft. It's a game, they assume that you want to "fly" the craft. I'm an instrumentation and controls engineer. I expect to build a solid program to get the craft to where I want it, then sit back and let it do its work. A sequencer is sort of a computer that looks at inputs from control instrumentation--acceleration, altitude, etc.--then does certain things at certain times--adjust valve settings, thrust vectoring positions, engine cutoff, etc.

That way you can let the sequencer manage engine throttling on the basis of altitude or velocity, engine shutdown on the basis of same, staging, and firing of the new stage (through that stage's control system.)

In KSP, there are a sequence of events set up linearly that are activated by the space bar. Engine activation (throttling happens elsewhere), stage separation, parachute activation (deployment is controlled by the parachute itself, which deploys as a drogue at high altitude then opens fully at about 500m.)

It more or less works, but having to "fly" each craft gets tedious for me. I'm of the school of aerospace engineer that feels the job is done when the vehicle gets off the ground. Then you just sit back and chew your nails till your bit completes its mission sequence.

Ascent to Orbit

The next step was adding some more power to the booster to get enough velocity for orbit. Given the sort of downrange distance I got with my suborbital vehicles (I flew 3 suborbital flights to different altitudes and downrange distances to get a feel for the craft and the controls), it wasn't hard to get a "seat of the pants" feel for what it would take to stretch the craft for orbital flight. Since the game doesn't give you much in the way of real numbers, that's about all you'll get. The "empirical method" rules here. But since it's just a game, it's not a surprise or much of a problem--I'm just used to having numbers for planning.

I added a second stage between my service module stack and my first stage stack, then added a couple of strap-on boosters to the first stage. Since I hadn't sorted out the sequencing of engines on the first launch, the strap-ons ended up being my first stage, rather than a "stage 0", with the core stage only firing after they burned out and were dropped.

I'd already noticed that the game's world behaves pretty much like our own world. It rotates the same direction, for example, so pitching over to the east would be the most efficient path to orbit. I fired up the booster--fortunately the strap-on boosters had enough thrust to get the whole stack of the ground--rode them up to a decent altitude, staged, then started tipping over to the east.

I took it slow on the tipping, since the whole rocket was so heavy that I wanted to make sure I got enough altitude. As it was, I rode the core stage up, staged, then continued the pitch-over to the east under power the full time. I know it's probably more proper to get the apogee high enough, shut down, then fire up again for a circularization burn at apogee, but I wasn't sweating that at this point.

Having only limited data on the main screen meant popping back and forth between the main screen and the map screen to check my trajectory. I wasn't sure if the game world had the same acceleration due to gravity as Earth, so I didn't know how much I could tell by my altitude and ground-relative velocity (and it bothered me that I didn't have a radar altimeter or some such to know my distance above ground, too. But that really bit me later, when I got to the Mün.)

I did manage to set up a decent orbit, and, yes, with a plenitude of propellant. I would be able to go home again. I played around with raising and lowering the orbit.

And here's where KSP gets really cool.

The immediate display of effects of acceleration on trajectory in the map window is really neat. It's easy to see what happens when you accelerate at different points of your orbit. It also gives players the chance to get stuck in orbit, revealing a bit of physics about energy use. And, even more significantly, changing orbital inclination.

One of the things that irks me is the common perception of "space" being like one big room, where everything that's "in space" is together. It's often presented this way in the simplified presentation of general media, and those people who don't have any direct contact with space work just don't know any better. They see the Hubble Space Telescope as hanging right off the front porch of the ISS, with all the spy satellites, weather satellites, commsats, etc, all right there in a row.

Now, every time I hear someone ask why the astronauts at the ISS can't just grab the Hubble and fix it, or why a Shuttle sent to repair a Hubble can't just ditch out to the ISS if something goes wrong, I'll wish that I could sit them down with a copy of KSP with objects in the respective orbits and let them find out through personal (non-lethal) experience why this doesn't work.

Back to my orbit. I didn't know what my parachute could deal with in the way of incoming velocity, so I decided not to come in from the higher orbit (about 400km), but returned to a lower orbit of about 90km before doing a re-entry burn.

The parachute held up fine. In fact, I learned that the system could deal with returning from orbits beyond 500km, but it was having trouble reducing velocity enough from around 750km. I didn't pancake any spacecraft, but I don't think I'd want to try a direct re-entry from 1000km. I don't know if the game engine does enough simulation to cause the heat shield on the capsule to fail, either. In general, I didn't push it.

I flew several more orbital flights, with minor tweaks to my vehicle design (like having the core booster fire at launch along with the strap-ons). I used different techniques for getting to orbit, in one case going straight up until I had an apogee of 500km, shutting down, then tipping to the east and firing to circularize at apogee. It worked just fine. I also did the routine of going a bit to the east, raising my apogee to about 90km, shutting down then firing a second burn at apogee to circularize. It may have been more fuel efficient than going straight up before circularizing, but it wasn't as easy to fly.

I picked 90km as my altitude just because that's the simulated altitude I've used on numerous test programs to test equipment in space-like conditions of atmospheric pressure (or lack thereof.) I've used other targets as well, like 75km, but I went with 90 because I wanted a little room. And, I was glad to see that KSP seems to pretty well mimic Earth so that I can use familiar numbers like these.

Final Thoughts

KSP should be played in schools, for credit. I would like to think that it can be used without taking away the fun, and that kids could be induced to set objectives for themselves similar to actual space program objectives (rather than just blowing up little green Kerbal people or ramming them into the ground at supersonic velocities.) The game has tremendous potential for teaching, in a "seat of the pants" way, information about ballistics and orbital mechanics. Then, when these subjects are encountered in math and physics classes, the concepts will already be familiar.

While on Facebook, there was a little game someone started of asking what you'd get if you combined the two computer games you were playing presently. In my case it was DayZ and KSP. I figure mixing zombie apocalypse with rickety build it yourself interplanetary space flight gives something like a Firefly game (Reavers=zombies in this case, in case that's not obvious.)

Commercial Spaceflight Isn't About Sending Fatcats to Space

I've seen a fair bit of "hate the rich" sentiment toward various "space tourism" ventures out there, such as Virgin Galactic's White Knight 2, XCOR's Lynx, and other development efforts toward reusable suborbital spaceflight. I feel this is driven by the usual specious reports by the media about space tourism and seat costs in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars to drive the class warfare point home. Naturally, the first image that will come to someone's mind when seeing these reports is some overstuffed fat cat buying themselves a $200,000 joy ride at the expense of others.

The fact is, a point has been missed here. Space tourism is the economic model that's being used to draw investment for this work, but it's not the reality of where this work is going. In order to get money to do something new, without a proven business model, you have to build a business model from scratch. This means finding something that will presumably pay the bills and earn enough to pay investors a return at least as good as an investment in another proven economic activity, such as investing in a restaurant or manufacturing. In fact, the return needs to be better, at least on paper, to induce investors to take the risk of not putting their money into something proven.

For reusable suborbital launches, the case was made using space tourism. That's because none of the other potential uses is really well known, but a unique luxury offering could be pretty well characterized, and counted on to deliver a return.

But the real value in these quick trips to space lies elsewhere than in joy rides for someone with $200,000 burning a hole in their pocket.

It's Like a Reusable Mercury-Redstone for Suborbital Research

The Next Generation Suborbital Researchers' Conference is one group that's excited about the prospect of cheap suborbital flights. Currently, the overall cost of a sub-orbital flight on a sounding rocket is about $3.5M. The costs to the users are less, because much of that costs is subsidized by NASA, and by sharing of launches between institutions. It costs each institution about $50,000 to $500,000 per launch with somewhere from half a dozen to a dozen institutions sharing the costs between themselves. This gives them the chance to launch about a half a cubic foot to a cubic foot of payload on a short flight on a rocket. It will experience at least 25Gs of acceleration, with shocks of double that or more. Nobody can ride along, so the success of the flight will depend on the researchers' ability to automate their payload (adding considerably to the costs of building and testing the payload before flight.)

Flight on one of the new commercial launchers will cost the institutions about $50,000 to $400,000 per launch. They get to send a person to operate the experiment, and likewise to experience the ride, if they choose. They may also buy a package where they send their equipment, which will then be operated by a space tourist paying their own way who has been trained to operate the experiment, or the package may be activated by the spacecraft's crew.

The commercial space operators are already putting together special deals for the space researchers. They can buy into multiple flights at discounted rates.

Plus, their payloads can experience flight at human comfort levels, 3Gs or less, with controlled temperature, air, etc. This results in far less cost. The same instrument package used on the desktop at the university's lab can be the same one sent on the flight. It doesn't have to go through vacuum testing, extensive testing of the automation under different conditions, hardened against high shock loads, etc. Standard safety design and testing for not bursting into flames and filling the cabin with smoke will still be necessary, but that's a big step down in cost and effort from what's required for a sounding rocket flight. That drops research costs even more.

Another important point is that these flights will be far more available than sounding rocket flights. NASA launches somewhere around a dozen sounding rocket flights each year. The commercial flights will be more frequent, and easier for an institution to get a payload on board, deal with schedule changes, and so on.

Teachers in Space
Another purpose of the new commercial "tourism" flights is to send the sort of tourists I think most of us would want to send. Teachers in Space is a program that can't wait to use commercial spaceflight to send teachers into space with student research at all levels of education. Speaking as a part-time teacher myself, I can say that it helps the students a lot to hear about science and spaceflight from someone who's actually been involved in it. If we have a growing cadre of science teachers who can start a statement to students with, "When I flew in space...", work alongside them on projects they're building that will actually go into space, it will bring a sense of reality and engagement to their education that's so hard to get otherwise.

Other Desirable Space Tourists

There are plenty of other people we, as a society, would like to see get a chance to experience space travel. Make A Wish Foundation flights? Rewards for science fairs? Small companies doing their own research to compete against larger ones? There are many, many uses for these vehicles that have nothing to do with the ultra-rich burning off spare dollars.

Opening Up Space

That just happens to be the easiest way to show that there's a potential profit at the end of the long development process for those who invest in the companies making this happen. So don't be fooled by reports making the commercial space industry out to be nothing more than a new form of luxury for plutocrats. This is about giving little people the access to space that's so far been limited to governments and richer institutions. This is the same sort of revolution that we got with the microprocessor, which brought computers into our homes then into our pockets. Once upon a time, the computer was known to the average person as a tool of oppression. When your bank or government told you that their computer said you owed them so much money, you were stuck fighting a battle against the authority of a tool you didn't have. When we got our own computers, we got the power to tell them back, "Well, my computer says..."

Now, we're on the verge of having space access be democratized in the same fashion. Virgin Galactic, XCOR, and Blue Origin are not the end of this particular road, any more than the first heavy, balky, difficult to build and use microcomputers from before 1977 were the end of the process of democratizing the computer. But if early public sentiment had risen to kill off the early small computers as nothing more than toys for the rich, where would your tablet and cell phone come from today?

Be glad the rich are there, willing to buy tickets for a space adventure. Because they're there, the way is being opened for your kids and their teachers, their work and research.

In the words of Alan Stern, "The access revolution is about to happen. When these guys are flying all the time, and you can fly an experiment over and over and over and get different data sets all the time, close the loop and fly an experiment the next week and the week after, I think we're going to see the best applications be things we haven't thought of yet, because we're kind of looking at it through old eyes." (Aviation Week, June 17, 2013, "Suborbital, But Reusable" reporting on the 2013 NGSRC.)

Hidden Ogres Spotted?

I was a backer in the Ogre Designer's Edition Kickstarter. Now that they're shipping out the rewards, I've been watching the updates closely. Today, they posted images that they claim had "stealth ogres" in them. At first I was skeptical.

Then I pulled out an old, experimental pair of multi-spectral image enhancement goggles that we were playing around with in the lab back in the late cold war boom of the 80s. You know, when we actually invented everything that Popular Science raves about being the "latest thing" now (except for the stuff that was invented in the 50s and 60s, of course).

There they were! At least two Ogres, possibly more. They have very sophisticated stealth capabilities. Have a look:

An Update to the First Heavier Than Air Flying Machine

In July 1869, when Wilbur Wright was two years old, and Orville was as yet unborn, a heavier than air flying machine successfully flew two half-mile circles in a tethered flight test. The craft was known as the Avitor.

Lost in Time

The Avitor has been largely forgotten. It was what we'd call a hybrid vehicle today, very unlike the craft later flown by the Wright Brothers. The Avitor flew well and successfully, but an accident with a prototype resulted in its development being halted prematurely. If development had continued, it's very likely that modern aircraft would be very different from what they are today.

Many of the design concepts of the Avitor are being rediscovered and applied to new aircraft development. Among these are aerodynamic lift from the aircraft body (Blended Wing-Body aircraft, today) and hybrid lift (lift from a combination of buoyancy, power, and aerodynamics.)

The Past is the Future

The closest thing to a modern day Avitor is currently in development by Northrop Grumman. It's a vehicle they call the Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle, or LERV. The name describes its use, something that can hang in the sky for long periods of time keeping an eye on things. The present program's goal is to develop a surveillance platform for use in Afghanistan. It is supposed to go there for operation testing within a year. First flight is to come this summer.

After a Brief 150 year Hiatus, the Return of Avitor?

There are other potential applications for this craft that Northrop intends to work toward. Perhaps by the Sesquicentennial of the Avitor's demonstration flight, we'll have our own 21st century Avitors roaming the skies.

Related Links:

• Flying Machines--Frederick Marriot


• Hiller Aviation Museum--The Avitor


• Mark Twain: Frederick Marriot and the Avitor


• Northrop Grumman: Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle