Difference between revisions of "Talk:1356: Orbital Mechanics"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "I just put in a first attempt at the explanation. Could do with links to pages regarding KSP, etc, etc. (Or rewrite entirely how it ought to be done, of course.) Also, if a...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
I just put in a first attempt at the explanation.  Could do with links to pages regarding KSP, etc, etc.  (Or rewrite entirely how it ought to be done, of course.)  Also, if anyone knows ''for sure'' that "aim nose at destination, fire retros", as seen in the film Gravity, would or would not give the desired effect, that'd be useful to clarify or dismiss.  From my own experience with the Kerbals, it wouldn't (never mind all the other broad assumptions made in that otherwise spectacular film <!-- and I think she didn't survive the initial events of the film, but that's an irrelevent point --> ), but KSP ''also'' rather fudges away the N-body problem, artificially. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.209|141.101.88.209]] 05:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 
I just put in a first attempt at the explanation.  Could do with links to pages regarding KSP, etc, etc.  (Or rewrite entirely how it ought to be done, of course.)  Also, if anyone knows ''for sure'' that "aim nose at destination, fire retros", as seen in the film Gravity, would or would not give the desired effect, that'd be useful to clarify or dismiss.  From my own experience with the Kerbals, it wouldn't (never mind all the other broad assumptions made in that otherwise spectacular film <!-- and I think she didn't survive the initial events of the film, but that's an irrelevent point --> ), but KSP ''also'' rather fudges away the N-body problem, artificially. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.209|141.101.88.209]] 05:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 +
 +
:You are correct that "aim nose, fire retros" doesn't work in reality. KSP fudges the n-body problem by putting the planets and moons on tracks, and then changing you into a different 2-body problem when you cross into a smaller {{w|hill sphere}} than the one you were in. The maneuver node system does a little bit of n-body work when you get a maneuver close to another body, but you'll notice that when the ship actually crosses into the other hill sphere the trajectory for the maneuver goes weird. It's a rather clever optimization for a simulator like KSP. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 06:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:21, 16 April 2014

I just put in a first attempt at the explanation. Could do with links to pages regarding KSP, etc, etc. (Or rewrite entirely how it ought to be done, of course.) Also, if anyone knows for sure that "aim nose at destination, fire retros", as seen in the film Gravity, would or would not give the desired effect, that'd be useful to clarify or dismiss. From my own experience with the Kerbals, it wouldn't (never mind all the other broad assumptions made in that otherwise spectacular film ), but KSP also rather fudges away the N-body problem, artificially. 141.101.88.209 05:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that "aim nose, fire retros" doesn't work in reality. KSP fudges the n-body problem by putting the planets and moons on tracks, and then changing you into a different 2-body problem when you cross into a smaller hill sphere than the one you were in. The maneuver node system does a little bit of n-body work when you get a maneuver close to another body, but you'll notice that when the ship actually crosses into the other hill sphere the trajectory for the maneuver goes weird. It's a rather clever optimization for a simulator like KSP. lcarsos_a (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)