KSP/RSS - Building a Comm Network with Math

[@Stratzenblitz75]

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!

[@sotcrco1016]

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 :)

[@Stratzenblitz75]

+sotcrco1016 Thanks! And please post pics of it once you finish it, I'd love to see how it goes!

[@petelinux8387]

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!

[@jenjonma474]

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.

[@petelinux8387]

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.

[@johnnyhoran9369]

"Math never fails; unless you do it wrong"

[@RAFMnBgaming]

Johnny Horan ah so that's my problem.

[@johnnyhoran9369]

Yup

[@TristanPopken]

Some calculators make minor mistakes like 8/2=4.0000000000001

[@ekrem_dincel]

@@TristanPopken it is about how float points are represented in binary.

[@spacexfan1281]

@@Buffalo_Soldier so rules doesn't exist.

[@lesthodson2802]

>"brand-new series" >literally the only one two years later

[@06racing]

Yep

[@caleblindahl190]

yup

[@SourceBrother]

lol

[@Floris_VI]

yep

[@Floris_VI]

also, make that 3

[@kirbs0001]

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.

[@Stratzenblitz75]

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.

[@hypercell1016]

OwO I can't believe I found one in a KSP video!

[@ComradePhoenix]

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.

[@AlexHudson0]

However the distance the signal is travelling through the atmosphere is not negligible.

[@ComradePhoenix]

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.

[@rouzbeakhlaghi3038]

Games like KSP + People like you = More kids into science = better future

[@minethebuilder3121]

No truer words have been spoken my friend

[@KRDecade2009]

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

[@__KursK__]

@@KRDecade2009 no Germany

[@sultanofswag8901]

@@KRDecade2009 the only time math is useful irl

[@soupguy9000]

I am a "kid" and I am into science. Future, here I come!

[@kittiworks]

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!

[@blipboop5594]

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.

[@phoneix0074]

I expexting a thicc german accent and got dissapointed :p

[@deadeyecowkillz7580]

phoneix 007 SAME!

[@Stratzenblitz75]

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)

[@martijn9568]

Stratzenblitz75 Wow, that was unexpected

[@keksentdecker]

i can recommend you kNews Space for the thiccest german accent and ksp content.

[@ASHDMDSGN]

I thought kNews is korean or smth like that, lol.

[@sh0ebill241]

Very excited for this series!

[@Stratzenblitz75]

Thanks! I am pretty excited too; there's a lot of cool ideas to share!

[@KarlssonF]

@@Stratzenblitz75 oof

[@ju1cyjon3s31]

@@KarlssonF more oof to this series

[@CardZed]

@@ju1cyjon3s31 oof

[@cmdrnervousenergy5133]

@@CardZed oooffff

[@James-qd3mw]

Nerd Wait I watched the whole thing

[@Stratzenblitz75]

Ha, Nerd

[@lizardguy4236]

anyone who plays the game is a nerd so that includes me

[@witchofengineering]

I am a nerd and I am proud of it!

[@DeltaPlays27]

It's not like it's rocket scie- *oh*

[@braddaily8688]

@@DeltaPlays27 It's not like it's brain surgery... *I'm waiting...*

[@faulxeve6590]

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.

[@kalkiveera2928]

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.

[@cf453]

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.

[@innsj6369]

I love orbital mechanics, it has a complicated sounding name but in the end it's all based on geometry and basic physics.

[@yaksher]

'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.

[@ComradePhoenix]

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.

[@yaksher]

@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.

[@ComradePhoenix]

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.

[@yaksher]

@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.

[@Zazazaba1900]

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 !

[@Stratzenblitz75]

Thanks! And now you remind me that I forgot to include my references in the desc. I'll go fix that

[@SomeoneNamedTygget]

VOICE REVEAL

[@shindinder]

Face Reveal?

[@8-bitato]

K

[@goingoutside6720]

Sounds like Bradley whistance

[@Manojbakoriya1]

He already narrated his previous vids

[@pigeonpigeon7404]

@@Manojbakoriya1 bud this comment was made 3 years ago, before he did narration

[@kewld00d93]

This makes me wish I'd have payed any attention in trigonometry class

[@evelynscharf7828]

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.

[@eekee6034]

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.

[@zuthalsoraniz6764]

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.

[@lescargo4005]

I’m French and I can tell you that your video is very easy to understand :D. Thank you for this interesting video !

[@MajorTom084]

LESCARGO Un français aussi 😉 such an amazing video, everybody wants more!

[@gabrielghanem8253]

D'accord

[@alessiomiotto4861]

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

[@XavierBetoN]

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!!

[@XavierBetoN]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/houknJyOg698p8U the video

[@NitinMurthy]

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!

[@thothheartmaat2833]

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?

[@vanguard616]

Watched this for entertainment, ended up using this to study for a math exam

[@Alexandre2M]

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.

[@grossersalat578]

I came to mechanical engineering through KSP. So I love this content and would love to see you continuing this content.

[@Kidspinach505]

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

[@sam2920]

Phenomenal, your channel is probably one of the best on KZbin, and that's coming from a person who has watched over 200 channels at one point. Thank you!

[@wiggles7976]

5:45 I was wondering about the phasing of the satellite orbits, why did you not increase the apoapsis of the satellite carrier so that (for 4 satellites) it's period was 5/4 of the desired satellite orbit period? That way, every 5/4 of a comm satellite orbit, the satellite carrier intersects the comm satellite orbit. After 5/4 of a comm satellite orbit, it's phase is (2pi)5/4=(2pi)1/4, so it's a quarter of a way around its orbit by the time the satellite carrier is at phase angle 0. That way you can release a comm satellite every time the satellite carrier gets back to the intersection point and have the 4 comm satellites evenly spaced as desired.

[@rickiehara1365]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WAT HE TALKS!

[@BradleyWhistance]

Awesome idea. Can't wait for more.

[@RealGracefulGoose]

Ha ha...

[@jeremyglass4283]

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.

[@joshuasims5421]

Wait... Stratzenblitz is not only an editing genius, but also a mathematical genius? My favorite KSP channel just got even better!

[@synapsomorphy]

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.

[@komitadjie]

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.

[@animo9050]

Stratenblitz: uses math to find the best layout for the sats Me: randomly puts a comm stats in orbit until I like the shape

[@ldipenti]

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!

[@tpfaff]

I do enjoy this type of video as well. Pretty informative for even experienced players.

[@ethanoch]

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.

[@AJsMillions]

What I love about the elliptical orbit part is that the Earth has correctly been shaped as an oblate shperoid. Wizard approved!

[@iainwilson6220]

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 :)

[@sham9720]

This is like a physics problem in College. Now I'm glad I took the class Thank You Jedi Master

[@kestrel16c32]

Some Realism Overhaul on your channel? Great!

[@mischa8752]

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

[@jbritain]

Bring back the stratlab! This was really interesting to watch, not sure why I never watched it sooner.

[@yaksher]

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.

[@Danbearpig]

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!

[@drhputra1635]

Great video! PS: playing the vid at 1.25x speed will make it sounds like any game tutorial ever

[@dom_the3166]

Can't describe how good it feels to finally understand the maths in this video

[@SpaceNavy90]

This is absolutely fantastic. Exactly the kind of content I wanted when I subbed. Definitely make more like this please!!!

[@zethandrews3860]

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.

[@harm1726]

you my sir are unbelievable, i just watched 3 videos and every single one of them amazed me. thank you.

[@Goodbye_Megaton]

After verifying your calculations to know that I could do it right, I used my own numbers. I decided to go with a 10,200 KM final orbit for Earth in RSS, with 4 satellites (where you chose 9,009 KM). This gave me the extra 140 KM height for the atmosphere, plus like a 12% buffer I think I did. My transfer orbit calculations using the 7/8 rule instead like you did, gave me transfer orbit numbers of 10,200 KM for the Apogee of course and 8,462 KM for the Perigee. NOTE: After looking everything over, I thought something was off. These heights just seemed too high. I found out that in orbital mechanics, it is done this way. Where the distance to the center of the mass (Earth) is of concern. In KSP, it only tells you the distance to the surface of the mass. The Apoapsis and Periapsis distances you get on-screen in game, are distances to the surface of Earth (or Kerbin if playing Stock planets). So I'm thinking, that I just subtract the earth's radius of 6370 KM from my final numbers. Is it that simple? Now, I see for my transfer orbit I have a KSP-corrected Apogee of 3,830 KM, and a Perigee of 2,092.4 KM. My final circular orbit for each of the 4 satellites will be 3,830 KM. The only way I could know for sure, is if I go back and crunch the numbers using n=8 this time, and see if the end result is 850 KM, because that was your final orbit height in KSP at the end when you used 8 satellites. I'm not a physics guy, as I spent a few hours tonight with a scientific calculator trying to figure it out. I think I got close, but I have no way of confirming if my math is right. My calculated deltaV for the burn from the transfer orbit to final orbit, was 679 m/s. Also kind of high.

[@Stratzenblitz75]

Yea, KSP gives you periapsis and apoapsis numbers relative to the surface, not the center of the planet. If you subtract the Earth's radius, then it should be fine. And yea, the delta V you got does seem high. I ran some quick math for a hohmann transfer from a 2000km to 4000km altitude orbit and the insertion delta V I found was ~350 m/s so yours should be similar.

[@Goodbye_Megaton]

@@Stratzenblitz75 Thanks, appreciate you checking some numbers. I'll go back and do the delta V math over until I get something closer to ~350 m/s. When I initially did my Vf and Vi calculations for delta V, I used non-KSP corrected Orbit heights like you did. (For Vf, a=10,200, and r=10,200. For Vi, a=8462.4, and r=10,200). I'll redo those, and also do KSP-corrected orbit heights by subtracting Earths radius from them beforehand and see what I get for delta V. EDIT: Yeah if I use KSP-corrected values for delta V, I get insanely high delta V requirements to go from a KSP 2,092 KM (periapsis) - 3,830 KM (apoapsis) transfer orbit, to a 3,830 KM circular orbit. Something like 6,000 m/s. Using the values I did before for this calculation, where I use a 8,462.4 KM - 10,200 KM transfer orbit, to a 10,200 KM circular orbit, I still get the 679 m/s required. I verified your work and got the answers you got, so I'm doing the math right I think. Maybe I need to look at this from another angle. I'm going to look into hohmann transfers and see if there is some critical piece of the puzzle I'm missing. If I can't get to the bottom of why 679 m/s is required, I'll just slap on 750 m/s worth and call it a day. I could use the alt+F12 cheat, put my satellite into the transfer orbit, and then burn to my circular orbit and see what it takes.....but I want to learn the numbers and experience them working as predicted by our math here, so that I'll always be able to do it properly no matter what the orbits are or what "n" is equal to.

[@Goodbye_Megaton]

@@Stratzenblitz75 I figured it out. After learning a little bit more, I went back and looked at your video yet again at one key part. The delta V calculation. I was screwing it up by using the Perigee value of my transfer orbit in my initial Velocity calculation (Vi). I needed to use the semi-major axis value (Ai) there for the transfer orbit I would use. (The value I'm talking about is where he is using 8,236 KM at 10:37). My final delta V value is now 298 m/s. Right in the ballpark of where you said it would be around 350 m/s. This was fun. Thanks man.

[@MichaelFoskett2]

@@Stratzenblitz75 sorry for jumping on a random comment, but did you ever make any more stratlab videos? as I’d love to watch them!

[@radeemer1]

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.

[@StarbusterShow]

my brain overheated at 6:00 and then I was just, like, recalling random things from my childhood...

[@brianjohns49]

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.

[@JamesGaither11]

so happy to see this. I think too many KZbinrs skip over the math for KSP too often.

[@birawaich]

I love this format! The explanation is well an clear and the topic of course very interesting. Looking forward to more Stratlab content!

[@Variety_Pack]

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.

[@index7787]

this is one of the highest quality videos I'v ever watched on youtube, keep doing yo thing man.

[@Remaggib]

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...

[@Remaggib]

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

[@aakksshhaayy]

At least your worth is good as a source of money for this guy

[@eezJustSomeGuy]

I would definitely like to see more of these videos in the future

[@dabuilda]

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.

[@deiver.c.m]

But, it's works in a rectangle triangle. Other no.

[@chrisxcross7297]

Great video! Im confused about what you said around 10:22 about mass cancelling out. If you had a massive satillite moving at the same speed of a smaller one, would the bigger one have a slightly lower perigee due to the increase in gravitational force that is acted on it?

[@Stratzenblitz75]

Thanks! No, as long as we are dealing with satellites whose masses is negligible compared to the Earth, a larger satellite will not have a lower perigee than a lighter satellite. This happens for the same reason a heavier object will not fall faster than a lighter one (if ignoring air resistance); the acceleration of both satellites will be the same. That said, I do not know how a significantly larger satellite will behave (lets say, one with a mass of 0.5 times the earth).

[@jpdominator]

😳 mind blown. Fantastic amount of info and quality to the explanation. Thank you!

[@theunknown4834]

can't wait for the next episode of this

[@EthanThomson]

i generally just use high polar orbits and low equatorial orbits for comms. over complicated but works

[@aworksentertainment820]

This was just awesome! Keep on! The animations and voice are just perfect!

[@horacefairview5349]

Best thing about ksp videos; they come with extra science!

[@OriginalToma]

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!

[@sur4y]

This video taught me more than my teacher at school ever could.

[@CapitaoAmerica737]

I know I'm a little late for a feedback, but I gotta say: I loved it. You know, I'm tired of being terribly bad with calculus at university, at least I can enjoy some easily applicable math here.

[@lorenzozanelli3437]

Dude keep it up. Your contents are good. Like, really GOOD. All of them.

[@stefanklass6763]

Keep em coming, very nice! I watched it despite having done the math myself before

[@davidpasternak281]

Awesome video. I really look forward to more of this style of content. Well done!

[@Jamie-st6of]

ooooh this is really cool!!! def wanna see more of this from you!

[@JobMoret]

What a beautiful animation of the pendulum example!

[@charleyatkins9094]

I learnt more in this video than I did in a whole year of school

[@praisetheffun8802]

Absolutely love this series idea! I can't wait to see more in the future! :D

[@eliottmarquet1916]

Your channel is amazing, you deserve so much more sub !

[@Vanillzz]

Absolutely stunning, would love to see more if you got even bigger ideas!

[@hubbletrubble7875]

HE HAS A VOICE!? I LOVE VOICEOVERS! I THOUGHT I COULDN'T LIKE THIS CHANNEL MORE!

[@archie6769]

Woah. That beautiful voice. Can't wait a new episode.

[@peksn]

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.

[@matthewmccurrie4415]

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

[@mostlygrumpy325]

The orbit of the satellite carrier can be wider than the final one, if you risk hitting the planet, and be 1/n of orbit behind rather than ahead

[@MechanizedFantasy]

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.

[@csrss4361]

WOO TRIG!

[@40watt53]

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.

[@innerphase5]

This is some good stuff, just as good as your -hidden evil messages- totally regular content.

[@catinthebox9400]

the first brother found

[@zee_rowe]

so are you a legit rocket scientist or nahhhh jokes aside, this is honestly the coolest thing I've ever seen. I. Need. More.

[@k2trix]

HI everyone ! i got something to ask you about those resonant orbit strategy. When the inner trajectories encounter the body or its atmosphere, you choose to change the resonance frequency and wait 2 orbits before circularizing. In my opinion it is way easier to revert the calculation and make an outside resonant orbit, then you circularize at Pe and not Ap. So you can make sure to avoid Atm or radius issues for the cost of a little more dV and time spent. Apologizes for my english skills, i tried my best to be understandable ;) Thanks for all the content you share !!

[@marcellofabrizio421]

I learned more math here than my teachers could taught me in High School

[@Remidemmi96]

Very cool, high quality content and executed very well!

[@emqueue1h]

stratz,,, i have no idea if youd see this but highkey this shits rly good you should make more of thsesee

[@pierrotdorupadoru]

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 !

[@FruityPa2tie]

I loved this! Well done! Nice to hear your voice finally too, lol.

[@someonereally1430]

This was amazing! Please make more Stratlab!!

[@Stratzenblitz75]

Thanks! I don't plan on stopping: I've got a bunch of cool ideas for this series I want to show off!

[@keshanranasinghe]

More stratlab episodes please!

[@RodrigoM3llo]

I said to my friends that I eventually play KSP to apply some math and computer science concepts in practice and they laughed. Now I know what to show them when they doubt me again.

[@embry91]

Awesome Video man! Can't wait to watch more. :)

[@paulkerman8906]

Wish I could hit the like button more than once... I LOVE IT!!