can anyone help

[richard1967]

Hi ive got amso 1.17 imfd 5.1 i can get to the moon but cant get back. To be honost the tutorials are not that good eithr for diff versions of imfd or nassp im looking for a easy instruction in getting from the moons orbit to the earth there was a post on m6 forum but with them being down i cant access it or i wouldnt be asking but please please please help i know u can return using the base approach or the planet approach i just need the help please

richard

:huh:

 

[Urwumpe]

Hi,

I've got AMSO 1.17 and IMFD 5.1, I can get to the Moon, but I can't get back. To be honest, the tutorials are not that good either for different versions of IMFD or NASSP. I'm looking for an easy instruction in getting from lunar orbit to Earth. There was a post on the M6 forum, but with it being down, I can't access it or I wouldn't be asking.

But please, please help me, I know you can return using the base approach or the planet approach, I just need help, please.

I see... if you miss so many letters in your communication with IMFD like you do here, I am sure the TEI program can't work.

Give me a few seconds to make some simple drawings about the problem...

 

[jedidia]

*caught somewhere between laughter and pity*

...you are a bit cruel, you know...

 

[DaveS]

*caught somewhere between laughter and pity*

...you are a bit cruel, you know...

No, he's just being brutualy honest with him!

 

[richard1967]

yeh well asking for help isnt a crime and im sure between your laughter you could have applied some good will obviously xame to the wrong place thats being brutel

 

[richard1967]

thought you gave help or is it just bragging that u like i hate these forums nothing but kids that try to flame others will try elswhere

 

[DaveS]

yeh well asking for help isnt a crime and im sure between your laughter you could have applied some good will obviously xame to the wrong place thats being brutel

Seriously, for everyone's sake including yours: Go and learn some proper English spelling and grammer! Please!

Your posts are borderlining on being totally incomprehensible!

 

[richard1967]

ohh by the way wot was the point in replying waste of time if you dont have anything inteligent to say just done say it ok rude ppl

 

[Urwumpe]

ohh by the way wot was the point in replying waste of time if you dont have anything inteligent to say just done say it ok rude ppl

When you want help, learn asking in a polite way. When I go on the street asking for donations (for example for maintenance of war memorials), I can't curse like a seaman.

It's the same with chat language. It's inpolite and not really motivating helping you - in fact, the only thing which motivates me explaining this is the fact that we have only little tutorials for the way back, except the posts in the M6 forum.

Which is why I want to include this in OrbiterWiki....

 

[richard1967]

I wasn't being impolite i wanted help. All you could do is slaughter me if you didn't want to help you should not have replied. all the tutorials are crap they make no sence for the software I'm using im with another forum. I don't attack ppl for making mistakes. All i wanted was help not a confrontation or to be insulted.

 

[richard1967]

and p.s i did say please please please how more polite can you get

 

[Urwumpe]

and p.s i did say please please please how more polite can you get

"Please, please, please push up the daisies!" also contains 3x please. But it is not really polite in it's essence. :lol:

You don't get disturbed by the common comma, do you? Your SSM2007 post is almost impossible to understand.

PS: Your language does not get better, if you keep on defending it. Rather the opposite... Concentrate on the essential stuff.

 

[Tex]

Come on guys, surely there is a way he can be helped without criticizing his grammer. I realize he doesn't take the time to write his posts like some of us, but I was able to understand it for the most part. Let's try and keep this a friendly and open place for help and discussion, not a grammar correction forum.

Richard, these guys are just giving you a hard time, try not to take it personally mate, there are lot's of people here willing to help, you've just gotta be patient. Taking the time to write out your posts so they're a bit more legible wouldn't hurt as well. :speakcool:

 

[richard1967]

sure

Yeh sure didnt want to get into any arguments just wanted some help

 

[Urwumpe]

Tex: I think that criticism on intentionally not understandable posts is sometimes needed. It DID really improve the atmosphere in a chat I frequent, when the moderators started enforcing a clear language. Before we had lots of abbreviations and group-specific ןặņğųǻġē, which made it nearly impossible to chat with the people - which was sometimes intentional.

Richard1967:

Have a look at the attached screenshot (It's not done by me... i just discovered that the TEI scenario of Apollo 11 is already with IMFD 5.1 settings).

Basically it is just like that: Set up base approach for reentry, with the geocentric coordinates of the Entry interface and 120 km altitude. ReA (reentry angle) should be around 6°, vary the other values to achieve it.

Then open a second IMFD window, Orbit eject and use base approach as input. Again tweak the numbers for optimal TEI.

 

[simonpro]

Richard, rather than reading tutorials and just following a list of steps why don't you try reading the manual, and then learnign a little about orbital mechanics (the main orbiter website provides many useful links for orbital mechanics learning). This will let you get to the moon and back, but will also let you go anywhere else int he solar system - you won't need the tutorials any more as you will be able to do it yourself!
It will take a lot more effort on your part, but I guarantee that in the long run it will prove to be much more satisfying than just reading a list of instructions.

thought you gave help or is it just bragging that u like i hate these forums nothing but kids that try to flame others will try elswhere

This makes no sense.

 

[n0mad23]

Because we all use it in one form or another, language is something we mostly take for granted.

But it does make a difference. Especially in written forms - witches cast spells, and we beat it into children's heads that they need to spell things right.

If time is taken to get the language right, the rhetorical effect is that you're both serious and sincere. If instead, the writing is really sloppy, it's hard to take seriously. If the writer wasn't serious in the post, why should the audience be?

And look what happens - feelings get hurt, people get annoyed, and communication suffers in the process.

But in the end, Master Urwumpe comes through (and this is from a English as a Second Language chap - or is it your third?) so it works out.

Live and learn gang.

 

[computerex]

Richard1967 - Buddy, take the time to make your posts grammatically correct. You will come to find that this is very important if you want to be taken seriously.

As for the tutorials not being adequate, I don't think this is the case. Orbital mechanics is a pretty complex subject, and most of the tutorials you read assume that you know the basics, such as getting in orbits. So I would do as Simonpro suggested, grab the links from Orbiter's main site.

 

[NukeET]

richard1967:

Please post the scenario that is giving you problems. I'll see if I can make it work and detail the steps and numbers you need.

Please follow the advise of Urwumpe and Simonpro - please re-read the manuals and tutorials in the meantime.

Tex and n0mad23:

Excellent job defusing this situation!

Urwumpe:

Good screen shot! The Orbit-Eject indicates a "bad plane", so that scenario would take extra steps to make it work. Hopefully, there is still enough dV left to do the plane change and the TEI and any necessary MCCs on the return trip.

Now for a little self-promotion:

richard1967, consider going here:

[ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3116"]Apollo 15 Scenario Pack for AMSO v.2.0[/ame]

It is my scenario pack for Apollo 15. Perhaps this will help too.

 

[Matte]

Tex: I think that criticism on intentionally not understandable posts is sometimes needed. It DID really improve the atmosphere in a chat I frequent, when the moderators started enforcing a clear language. Before we had lots of abbreviations and group-specific ןặņğųǻġē, which made it nearly impossible to chat with the people - which was sometimes intentional.

Richard1967:

Have a look at the attached screenshot (It's not done by me... i just discovered that the TEI scenario of Apollo 11 is already with IMFD 5.1 settings).

Basically it is just like that: Set up base approach for reentry, with the geocentric coordinates of the Entry interface and 120 km altitude. ReA (reentry angle) should be around 6°, vary the other values to achieve it.

Then open a second IMFD window, Orbit eject and use base approach as input. Again tweak the numbers for optimal TEI.

it will not be enough to set a scenario as it is done in this screenshot.
Base Approach Mode is very imprecise. be sure that, if you set up a TEI burn in that way, after that burn you'll end with a PeA of -2500 km, and you'll need several MCCs (i mean really 3 or 4 ) to obtain an acceptable result, in terms of reentry angle, acceptable Gs and DNP.
It is usually unaffordable, due to problem with fuel.
solutions are to check te Plan PeA on the Map Mode, to see which value is given, and put something similar in the Alt voice of Base App mode.
or even better in terms of fuel consumption, is to use a Planet App Mode (obviously synch with a Orbit Eject for the AB), that gives you the possibility to fine tune the EquI and Alt in a better way.
I think it is important to understand for each situation what is better for the mission; and for you.
if you want to perform the mission "as it was done" you have to find a compromise, maybe performing correction at correct time and in correct number, but lacking a bit of precision for the splash down (that is the only thing a bit hard to catch).
but if you prefer to be precise on the place, but not on the number of MCCs, you'll land less than 1 degree from the hystorical point.
but, for the times is important to get'em back.
than you can strt thinking about precision and history, and work on it.
bye