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.)

Why Electronics Took Over the World

How did we end up in a world where computers are everywhere?

Originally, we had vacuum tubes as electronic components. Each of these has to be hand-made. When you consider that even the most basic computer, about the power of a programmable calculator, requires about 4000 electronic switches in it (including some basic control, memory, and interface circuits), you can see that needing 4000 hand made parts is going to get expensive. And that's before you wire them together into a working computer. It's like having to hire a team of scribes every time you want to get a new book.

Each of those tubes is like a decorated capital drawn by a scribe.

Transistors were a big step forward. Transistors aren't made one at a time by hand. Packaging them involved some hand work back when they were new, but the guts of them were produced en masse. Making transistors was like printing a sheet covered in letter "B" so that you could cut them up to have a letter B to stick wherever you need one. Similarly, transistors are made in a large group, which is then cut up into individual transistors then packaged for use.

So why not print the equivalent of a small piece of often-used text, rather than cutting it up into individual letters? This is the basis of the integrated circuit. It was another step forward in reducing the cost of electronics manufacturing. The first circuits were like having commonly used words, in complexity. Over time, technology advanced to allow more and more sophisticated circuits.

Eventually the circuits got more and more complex, and more useful. Building a computer got to be about as complex as creating a book on a typewriter. That means it took patience, and skill, and it was still expensive, but not nearly as expensive as hiring a team of scribes.

Each integrated circuit has from a few to as many as a few hundred transistors on it at this point. Building a basic computer circuit could be accomplished with a couple of hundred ICs.

The next step was a big one. Integrating the entire guts of a computer onto a single die, then printing them not one at a time, but by the tens then the hundreds at a time.

In the mid 1970s enough transistors were printed together, in the right circuits, to make a basic computer. When added to some memory (which was another technology that had recently benefited from the improvements in integrated circuits), a few ICs for control and for interfacing to the outside world, a complete computer could be built out of a handful of integrated circuits. Like my MAG-85 computer project, which uses about 10 ICs to build a basic 70's style computer.

But that wasn't enough. It was enough for calculators and very simple computers that require someone with a high level of skills to get the most out of them. If we'd stopped there, only very technical or very driven people would have computers. We had to increase their complexity to make them more capable, and easier to use.

Since then, we've improved our "printing processes" to allow us to produce integrated circuits that contain not just a few thousand "switches", but billions. Your computer, cell phone, or tablet contains the equivalent of billions of vacuum tubes. And yet, those billions of sub-microscopic electronic switches all together require less electrical power to operate than one single vacuum tube. They also generate less heat.

If we put the entire world population to work building electron tubes as fast as they can, we couldn't produce enough tubes to reproduce the computing power of a single cell phone in a year. In part because we couldn't build tubes that can switch as quickly as the transistors in a cell phone.

Imagine building a few billion of these, by hand. Image courtesy RJB1.

But the computer in the heart of that cell phone is one chip that was printed alongside hundreds of others just like it in a mass production process that's very similar to printing. Many of today's computer chips literally cost less to make than a printed magazine or book. Far less, usually.

This triumph of manufacturing, reducing electronics to a simple, inexpensive, high volume printing process, is why we have computers everywhere from our cell phones to our irons and dishwashers. They're cheaper to build than the parts they replace.

Have a look at a current computer chip sometime. Inside it are several billion man-made structures. You could look at them with a microscope if the top were removed, but you would only see patterns, not individual elements. The individual elements are too small to see in visible light now.

There are several billion man-made things in this image.

Ted Nelson's Computer Lib 40th Anniversary to be Honored at Chapman University

I forgot to mention an additional item in my post on meeting Ted Nelson. Chapman University will be honoring the 40th anniversary of the publication of Computer Lib on April 24th-26th, 2014, presumably at Chapman's campus in Orange, California.

Here are images of the flyer (once again, apologies for the fold. I put it in my hip pocket since I wasn't toting anything else to carry things at the time.)

Lee Felsenstein at Homebrew Computer Club Reunion

Lee was the MC at the main part of the club meetings back in the day, and he reprised that role on the night of the HCC reunion. He was also the designer of the computer in that day that I most desired, the Sol 20 Computer. I loved that system--the look, the keyboard, its operation.

Image by cellanr

There were just two things you wanted to know about the Sol to make life happier: Build the fully expanded system right at the outset. Opening up the heart of the system to expand it later was a major PITA. The other? Use someone else's disk subsystem. Though with the information available today a Helios disk subsystem could probably be made to work.

I still have the sales brochures for the Sol 20. I pull them out every now and then to drool over them again. Part of it is nostalgia, but part of it is the great design itself. Actual Sol 20s sell for more than I can afford, but perhaps I'll build myself a look-alike system from sheet metal and walnut wood sometime, anyway, and print up a nice black name badge.

I still have an Osborne 1 computer. This one is one I got only relatively recently. It is pretty well maxed out on upgrades (disk upgrades, video upgrades, etc.) and is a pleasure to use. It's not as pretty as a Sol, but I enjoy showing it off in current day computer classes. The kids love it--especially the floppy disk drives and the tiny screen. But...they get hooked on Zork.

Lee Felsenstein Today

In our conversation last Monday, Lee showed me a project he's working on today as an educational tool. It's a programmable logic simulator, targeted at middle school students. What Lee showed me was a pair of printed circuit boards that have captive fasteners to clamp them together around a plastic matrix. The matrix holds surface mount diodes, which the students can place into the matrix to program it. In essence, it's a 16 by 8 programmable logic array that is programmed through physically locating the diodes.

OK, I know that sounds totally abstruse to many of you, so let me tell you what makes this a great idea, and why your middle schooler ought to know about this stuff even if you've gotten through life without having to so far (assuming you don't know already).

The core of computers are built out of logic circuits. The memories feed the logic circuits with data (in current designs--it doesn't have to be that way though it's presently the assumption), in essence, the programmable logic is the complement to the memory. This analogy of the logic and memories being complementary components of a computer holds on many levels. It's possible to build logic out of memories--I've done it--but it's not efficient.

Initial education in logic circuits can be accomplished with a simple breadboard and some logic chips. A few AND chips, OR chips, NAND chips, inverters, and so on. Add some resistors and LEDs and the kids are off and running. For a little while. Once they master this, and understand what's going on, they immediately start expanding their ideas.

Then a problem hits. More chips and more wiring between them mean more complexity, and more difficulty in realizing their ideas.

At this point, it's possible to introduce them to programmable logic devices. Teach them that the logic functions they had in the ICs live inside the PLDs, and that they can program the devices rather than run wires. The problem is that this is a big, big jump up in abstraction level, especially for a kid in the middle school age bracket (which is the perfect age to introduce this stuff, which I'll go into later.)

Whereas Lee's invention maintains a physical element. The programming is accomplished by manually placing diodes into a matrix, rather than typing characters on a screen then punching the 'program' button to dump it to a Flash PLD. This keeps it from getting too abstract, encourages experimentation, and maintains the hand-on element that's necessary for students in the 9-13 years age range.

Building Blocks of Electronics

Electronic logic is building blocks. Your kids play with building blocks, right? They start with simple structures to learn how to build more complex structures. Before long, they can use every single piece they've got building large, complex structures. Once the individual blocks and a few simple ways of interconnecting them are understood, they can take off and make great big projects that reach to the ceiling.

It's the same with electronic logic. It's a collection of simple building blocks. The problem is, the complexity of assembly is a little greater. Enough that once you get past a certain level (I'd say 20-30 ICs), it gets progressively more difficult to implement your ideas. The ideas out-race the ability to construct.

This shouldn't be an obstacle. The ideas should be allowed to continue to grow, without removing the physical aspects that make the activity interesting.

The Lee Felsenstein Magic

Lee has hit a sweet spot here. With all the excitement about the Raspberry Pi (which I will save my criticisms of as an educational tool for a future article), Lee's project should have that sort of excitement going for it. This is about students building their own processor. This knowledge is important. This is what the people who caused the microprocessor revolution used to cause the revolution in our lives. This is the knowledge that put a CPU in your telephone, your oven, and your iron. This is what tunes your radio.

Assembling a processor from random logic is a huge project. Yes, people still do that (I've even build a very, very simple one from racks of relays, myself, under cover of testing those relay racks and their support wiring after installation.) Building your own processor with a PLD is a lot easier, once you understand the building blocks.

Lee explains himself well on his project page. Have a look. I will be following the progress of the project.

And I'm really glad I got a chance to meet up with Lee again after all these years. He was one of my mentors and inspirations in my youth, just as he describes those who mentored him. It seems to be a common thread that those of us getting older want to assist the younger generation just as we were assisted when getting started in technical pursuits (as hobbies--the jobs came later.)

And if you're raising a kid--don't just foist off software on them as something to play and "learn" with. Software isn't reality. I've designed any number of computers on paper and in software, and then go on to build far fewer of them. Because software and paper aren't the real thing. The real thing has all sorts of little niggles and oddities that you'll never learn about in any way other than doing the real thing. Teach your kids to solder, use solderless breadboards, and use real components at all levels of complexity. Don't try to do too much at once, start with kits then move your way toward recreating circuits on breadboards then to soldering them on prototyping boards.

But do the real thing. Right alongside your other crafts projects. Because electronics is just as much a craft with some useful products as is crochet or embroidery (both of which I do) or quilt-making or sewing (which some of those close to me do). And most of all, have fun!

Rolltop Desk Restoration for Amateur Radio

I needed a place to put my amateur radio stuff. Power supplies, radios, microphones, QSL cards, and so on. Through great effort, I was able to clear a four foot space in our "computer room", a spare room given over to computers and my electronics desk. But I needed a new desk to fill that space. The two I have available in the garage are both too large.

This Saturday was our amateur radio club's monthly breakfast. Afterward would be a perfect time to see what the local thrift stores have to offer. The closest thrift store to the restaurant where we hold the breakfast is also our family's favorite. But when my daughter and I stopped by, they weren't open yet. So we crossed town to fill the car's tank with gas, then swung by another thrift store. The door was open.

The New Desk's Base and Cubbyholes, So Far:

Use "View Image" to see full size original.

We walked in and had a look around. Then one of the workers told us they weren't open yet. We made our way to the door, then he told us it'd be OK. We were about 20 minutes early. There was a beautiful, if a bit well-used, rolltop desk there. I borrowed a tape measure, and sure enough, it's four feet long. The question was whether I could get it home. After a bit I discovered that the whole desktop would lift off. A few measurements, and it looked like it would fit in the car. So we bought it.

It was a tight fit in the car. The fellow at the Salvation Army Thrift Store was a great help. We got it in, and home.

My daughter helped me clean it up. I had her take some oil to it. The beauty of the wood started to show. After a bit, I realized that this desk would really look good with a bit of work. As much as I wanted to just get it in place and start loading it up with amateur radio stuff (and get the walkways in the computer room clear enough to get through), I decided to do some refinishing on the desk.

And what results! The desk is made of real hardwood. The color is natural. All it takes is some linseed oil to bring it out. I used a mild stain as well, but it only enhances the wood's natural color, it doesn't change it.

The Top, So Far:

Use "View Image" to see full size original.

I also put some new fabric on the rolltop. The old fabric was pretty awful looking. It's been hidden behind the cubbyhole insert, but I'm pulling that out and putting it on top of the desk to make room for the radios on the desktop. I picked out a fabric with a look to match the period appearance of the desk itself. It was a struggle to install the new cloth, but I managed, and the rolltop goes up and down well, still, though I'm planning on a little more tuning before all is done, there.

Now I'm looking at my power supplies and thinking I need to put some sort of veneer face panel on to keep them from looking too ugly for the desk. Next thing you know, I'm going to have to get another desk for my ordinary ham radio gear, and fill this one with beautiful vintage equipment!

It's going to be a couple more days, I'm guessing, before I can actually put this desk into service. But the work is well along, and having such a beautiful new desk is going to be reward enough for the sacrifice of walking around boxes for a few extra days.

A Documentary on Comics: Stripped, by Dave Kellett

Dave Kellett has been working his tookus off on a documentary on comics and their artists. It's called Stripped, and he's just about finished it. He's doing a "Final Push" fundraiser on Kickstarter.

I've backed it, and am looking forward to getting a DVD of this film. I recommend you do so, too!

The Three Musketeers by A. Dumas

I pulled a copy of The Three Musketeers off Gutenberg and tossed it on my e-reader. I read it once when I was nine or ten years old. Unlike many kids, I enjoyed reading "classics" when I was young (though I later learned that reading them as class assignments often sucked the fun out of them!)

Well, I'm enjoying it all over again. It's fun, lively, and a joy to read. In fact, it got me to thinking...about possibly giving it a try in French.

Now, I don't really have any skill with French. I never took any classes, and haven't had occasion to speak the language. I have read one book in French, however, Au Fond des Mers en Bathyscaphe, by Auguste Piccard. I had the advantage there of being very familiar with the subject, and the fact that most writing, if sufficiently technical, becomes a sort of Engineer's Esperanto. Even Russian if you can sound out the Cyrillic text.

So I'm considering taking a crack at reading a second book in French this summer. Since there is so much in the way of interpersonal relationships and emotion, I'll probably get lost in the grammar. When Piccard writes, even when describing the feelings he experienced on a voyage kilometers deep in the ocean, his writing style is direct enough that his meaning is clear. Even to a non-French speaker like me.

I think I'm going to put a reminder in on my calendar for myself and give Les Trois Mousquetaires en Français a try later this year. It'll be an adventure.

Ace of Aces Game Reprint on Kickstarter

My Ace of Aces Book Sets from Back in the Day...
Today Could Be "The Day" All Over Again!

Ace of Aces Rotary Edition Kickstarter

One of my favorite games of all time has been out of print for over 25 years. Ace of Aces is a game that uses pairs of books to show different locations of two dogfighting WWI aircraft. You look at where your opponent is, try to anticipate their maneuver, then pick your own maneuver. Once once you decide what you're going to do, you call off the page number under your maneuver to your opponent. They call off a number to you. You then go to the page number they called, and look up your own maneuver. They do the same. You both get a final page number, and turn to that page (they'll both be the same, so you can cross-check to avoid errors.)

There you have your new position relative to each other.



On the pages above, you can see two different positions. The page on the left has your opponent out past your left wingtip, approaching at an angle. Aha! Time to simple pitch into a stall maneuver and let him come right in line with your guns! (Unless you think they're going to stall and wing-over to put you in line with theirs.)

On the right hand page, we're being fired on! Dangit! Score one for the other guy.

Fortunately, all those little squares you see below the big pictures are your choices of manuever. There are a lot of them, so if you find yourself in the position of the page on the right you have a lot of crafty things you can do to get out of the line of fire and save the day.

This game is quick and easy to learn, and can be expanded as much as you care to expand it. It has optional rules for different models of aircraft, hit locations, etc. Plus, I and some friends turned it into a campaign-level RPG in high school. We added rules for pilot recruitment and skill levels, organizing squadrons, procuring and repairing aircraft, and so on.

But I have to say I've played it as a casual pick-up five minute game with a lot more people. It takes less than 5 minutes to learn the basic game, and you can play the games up to number of hits, first blood, or whatever you wish to make it quick and light.

Ace of Aces Kickstarter
Now there's a Kickstarter Project to reprint the first set of books from the game. It's very nearly funded as I write this (about $500 away), and you want to get in on it!

This project is for the "Handy Rotary" books, which recreate the aircraft with rotary engines and high torque and maneuverability. These were the first original books, and they're a lot of fun. I have this set and the Powerhouse set. If this Kickstarter goes well, we'll be seeing the other book sets coming in future Kickstarters.

There are also some really neat Ace of Aces T-Shirts as swag. Read the updates, you'll see.

Enjoy.

Home-Made Miniature: TCG Yavuz

TCG Yavuz in 1:1800

Among the various games I enjoy are naval miniatures games. When Axis and Allies: War at Sea came out a few years ago, I liked the fact that there was an easy source of new naval miniatures (and a decent set of rules). But the minis were in yet another new scale. Traditional miniatures already came in a bunch of different scales depending on rule set and manufacturer. Though things had pretty well settled down to being in either 1:1200 scale or 1:1250 scale for mid-sized minis.

Then came War at Sea with 1:1800 scale. The minis are nice for the size, and given the fact that they're molded in a fairly soft plastic, they've got pretty good detail. Even if it's a bit blocky.

Homebrew Ships
I thought I'd try my hand at making a mini in the same scale. I built this mini in 2007, shortly after War at Sea first appeared, before any expansion sets were released. It's been sitting in a desk drawer waiting for a paint job since then, I just finished painting it.

When I decided to make my own mini, I wanted to make something that I could be pretty sure wouldn't be coming out in an expansion. It'd be pretty silly to make a ship that would be available for a few bucks from the manufacturer a month after I finished it. Also, the ship had to be interesting enough to model and play with. Not to mention that it should be large enough for me to model by hand, without sculpting and casting.

So, a capital ship. But where would I find a period capital ship that's not likely to appear in the War at Sea expansions?



As it happens I like unusual ships with interesting stories behind them (well, who doesn't?) The TCG Yavuz fits that description exactly. A German Battlecruiser built before WWI, it became the Turkish navy's flagship when it fled the British in the eastern Mediterranean, docked in neutral Turkey, then was sold to Turkey by Imperial Germany as an inducement to Turkey to enter the war on their side.

So an interesting German capital ship escaped the scuttling at Scapa Flow at the end of WWI. It served in the Turkish navy until the 1950's.

When modelling something in a small scale, you have to make a number of choices about what you're going to model and what you're going to skip. You want the ship to represent its prototype, but you'll go mad if you try to capture all its details. In my case, I decided to mainly get guns, turrets, and major masses of superstructure on the model, as well as hull details like the belt and the casemates.

What I ended up with is less than perfect. The fore stack is too short. The hull's entry is too narrow. The mass I use to represent the searchlight tower and other structure around the aft mast is too large. But overall I'm pretty happy with how it turned out.

And to date, it's the only TCG Yavuz I know of that's around for War at Sea.

Retrocomputing for the Holidays

What could be better than an old computer under the Christmas tree? It's a fun, inexpensive gift. There's always something old under out Christmas tree. Among the larger items have been the Commodore 64 that I gave my daughters as their first computer ten years ago. It included a monitor and floppy drive, of course, and copies of the user's manual and programmer's guide.

They'd both already started programming in BASIC on my Apple IIe during the prior year. So they were ready for the C-64! I got myself a Softcard for my Apple IIe that same year.

Two years later, I added a Plus/4, since they were frustrated with the lack of direct graphics commands on the C-64. Peek and poke wasn't good enough. ;) That same year some friends gave me their Laser 128 (Apple IIc clone.)

Christmas Cheer with PA-RISC

Another two years pass, and they both got an HP9000/700 series Unix workstation. They spent Christmas break learning Bourne shell and playing with Neko under X-Windows. Yeah, these weren't 8-bitters, but they were fun old systems that ran plenty of network apps. I had a MUD on my Unix workstation, and they learned how to telnet in and play pretty quickly. Their typing improved dramatically.

I picked up an Amiga 500 and that became the family's Christmas present the next year. We hooked it up to our 36" TV and played music, games, and a bunch of demos.

The year after that, a friend gave me a Bigboard I system. CP/M, 64K, and two big 8" floppy drives. Wordstar and BASIC-80 heaven. Everyone gathered around to roast chestnuts over the power supply and listen to the disk drives churn. ;)


Sure, it's got iTunes. Does it do X-Windows?
That same year, my daughters got upgraded to Macs, G3 B&Ws. They were excited about getting a computer that would run iTunes, but first they made sure that all their Unix stuff would run as well. Once they were sure they weren't giving up the Unix command line and could port their applications, THEN they were OK with the upgrade.

Three years ago, I did some repairs to a Kaypro 4 to get it working again. Unfortunately I haven't figured out how to read and write standard diskettes with it yet. It's a souped-up unit, with an aftermarket ROM, hard disk, and floppy drives that include both double and high density units. It got set on the back burner in favor of some other projects, once they're finished I'll get back to determining if I've got all the right software to go with the ROM that's in the system.

Visiting Old Friends

Two years ago, I actually avoided adding any new hardware for the year. Instead, I spent time during the holidays pulling out several of the systems I have that have been a bit neglected and giving them some TLC then playing with them. The Apple IIe, my own C-64, another Plus/4, and the Big Board.

Last year was the year of hardware projects. I had a new 8085 computer on a breadboard (see the story at http://saundby.com/), and was preparing to move it to soldered circuit cards. I was also migrating my Ampro Little Board (a Z-80 system) from loose components on the table top to living in a box like a proper computer.

Bringing Up the Ampro Little Board

Catching Up for Christmas

This year I'm working to finish the non-breadboarded version of my 8085 and building up a Membership Card (1802-based computer, similar to a COSMAC Elf from 1976 but a lot smaller) in a decorative little Victorian-style case. I'll be posting that on my web page at saundby.com soon, I expect.

I'm keeping my eyes peeled for a Commodore 128 at the thrift stores, too. That'd really round out this Christmas year.

What's on Your List?
What retrocomputer experiences have you had for Christmases past, and what are you hoping for under the tree this year that's hopelessly "out of date"? :)

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