Talk:1356: Orbital Mechanics - Revision history

141.101.99.143 at 18:44, 11 March 2018

2018-03-11T18:44:34Z

188.114.99.189 at 01:17, 6 November 2015

2015-11-06T01:17:55Z

188.114.99.189 at 01:15, 6 November 2015

2015-11-06T01:15:40Z

Orazor at 10:46, 7 October 2014

2014-10-07T10:46:34Z

108.162.212.48 at 00:40, 7 June 2014

2014-06-07T00:40:25Z

Jetman123: Did I really just link the wrong comic? Argh.

2014-04-26T07:54:29Z

Did I really just link the wrong comic? Argh.

Jetman123 at 07:53, 26 April 2014

2014-04-26T07:53:39Z

Jetman123 at 07:53, 26 April 2014

2014-04-26T07:53:14Z

Dgbrt at 21:09, 25 April 2014

2014-04-25T21:09:20Z

108.162.254.185 at 10:32, 25 April 2014

2014-04-25T10:32:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 11 March 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Ksp actually doesn't model n body problems as referenced in the explanation. Ksp orbits are always perfectly stable unless the craft enters an atmosphere or changes sphere of influence. There are mods that change this but in the core game you only have to deal with the gravity of the main body you are orbiting.
		+
	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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:17, 6 November 2015
Line 30:		Line 30:
	:Not to put too fine a point on it, and I am in no way anything even close to resembling a physicist, engineer, etc., but I expect that most people are probably "born" (i.e. gain from birth to HS physics) with a similar level of understanding. I am happy to be corrected on this point, but I would imagine that the 20-25% level cited probably involves a basic conceptual understanding of Newtonian physics that we all gain from our life experience from birth to 17/18 years. From what I recall, HS physics clarified some of these principles and revealed the mathematical structures behind them. With that in mind, I'm pretty comfortable saying that my knowledge of physics pre-HS was about 1/4 of the final. And now that it's been about 15 years, I'm probably back down to the same level. [[User:Orazor\|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor\|talk]]) 10:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)		:Not to put too fine a point on it, and I am in no way anything even close to resembling a physicist, engineer, etc., but I expect that most people are probably "born" (i.e. gain from birth to HS physics) with a similar level of understanding. I am happy to be corrected on this point, but I would imagine that the 20-25% level cited probably involves a basic conceptual understanding of Newtonian physics that we all gain from our life experience from birth to 17/18 years. From what I recall, HS physics clarified some of these principles and revealed the mathematical structures behind them. With that in mind, I'm pretty comfortable saying that my knowledge of physics pre-HS was about 1/4 of the final. And now that it's been about 15 years, I'm probably back down to the same level. [[User:Orazor\|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor\|talk]]) 10:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

−	::That, or the ~~graph doesn~~'t ~~start~~ at ~~birth~~ (my Economics Engineering teacher would death glare at me now...). [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189\|188.114.99.189]] 01:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)	+	::That, or the x axis isn't at y = 0, to make it more readable (my Economics Engineering teacher would death glare at me now...). [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189\|188.114.99.189]] 01:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 :There will be a huge upwards curve on "how much I think i know about orbital mechanics" - See {{w|Dunning-Krueger effect}} for more info. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.77|108.162.229.77]] 14:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 ;Future mission failure due to discrepancies in Kerbal Space Program
@@ Line 27: / Line 29: @@
 :Not to put too fine a point on it, and I am in no way anything even close to resembling a physicist, engineer, etc., but I expect that most people are probably "born" (i.e. gain from birth to HS physics) with a similar level of understanding. I am happy to be corrected on this point, but I would imagine that the 20-25% level cited probably involves a basic conceptual understanding of Newtonian physics that we all gain from our life experience from birth to 17/18 years. From what I recall, HS physics clarified some of these principles and revealed the mathematical structures behind them. With that in mind, I'm pretty comfortable saying that my knowledge of physics pre-HS was about 1/4 of the final. And now that it's been about 15 years, I'm probably back down to the same level. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 10:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:46, 7 October 2014
Line 25:		Line 25:

	He was born with innate knowledge of orbital mechanics equivalent to roughly freaking 20-25% of high school physics! THAT is Randall Munroe, ladies and gentlemen! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.48\|108.162.212.48]] 00:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)		He was born with innate knowledge of orbital mechanics equivalent to roughly freaking 20-25% of high school physics! THAT is Randall Munroe, ladies and gentlemen! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.48\|108.162.212.48]] 00:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Not to put too fine a point on it, and I am in no way anything even close to resembling a physicist, engineer, etc., but I expect that most people are probably "born" (i.e. gain from birth to HS physics) with a similar level of understanding. I am happy to be corrected on this point, but I would imagine that the 20-25% level cited probably involves a basic conceptual understanding of Newtonian physics that we all gain from our life experience from birth to 17/18 years. From what I recall, HS physics clarified some of these principles and revealed the mathematical structures behind them. With that in mind, I'm pretty comfortable saying that my knowledge of physics pre-HS was about 1/4 of the final. And now that it's been about 15 years, I'm probably back down to the same level. [[User:Orazor\|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor\|talk]]) 10:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, 7 June 2014
Line 23:		Line 23:

	:According to the {{w\|Kepler's equation\|Kepler's Equation}} a lower orbit means faster speeds. The Kerbal program is much more sophisticated and I even still did not figure out how to use my German keyboard on that Demo. Nevertheless, orbital mechanics are simple in general and then look at {{w\|Neil Armstrong}} at {{w\|Gemini 8}} — moving around in weightlessness is not easy. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 21:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)		:According to the {{w\|Kepler's equation\|Kepler's Equation}} a lower orbit means faster speeds. The Kerbal program is much more sophisticated and I even still did not figure out how to use my German keyboard on that Demo. Nevertheless, orbital mechanics are simple in general and then look at {{w\|Neil Armstrong}} at {{w\|Gemini 8}} — moving around in weightlessness is not easy. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 21:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	He was born with innate knowledge of orbital mechanics equivalent to roughly freaking 20-25% of high school physics! THAT is Randall Munroe, ladies and gentlemen! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.48\|108.162.212.48]] 00:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 : Maybe Randall should add a horizontal line well over the curve, labelled: ''Level of knowledge required for a successful mission in real life'' - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.185|108.162.254.185]] 10:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
-: Do you really think that a trained, qualified person at NASA, who ''had to go to school and study physics'' to plan missions, will be stupid enough to revert from his physics degree to Kerbal Space Program, thus reenacting [[1356:_Orbital_Mechanics]]? I think that unlikely. [[User:Jetman123|Jetman123]] ([[User talk:Jetman123|talk]]) 07:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
+: Do you really think that a trained, qualified person at NASA, who ''had to go to school and study physics'' to plan missions, will be stupid enough to revert from his physics degree to Kerbal Space Program, thus reenacting [[1244:_Six_Words]]? I think that unlikely. [[User:Jetman123|Jetman123]] ([[User talk:Jetman123|talk]]) 07:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 ''Once at that lower orbit, your velocity is faster'' ... really? I though that on lower orbit, your velocity is slower BUT your {{w|Angular_velocity|ANGULAR velocity}} is faster, which is the reason you start to overtake your target ... but I never played Kerbal, so I may be wrong. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 :According to the {{w|Kepler's equation|Kepler's Equation}} a lower orbit means faster speeds. The Kerbal program is much more sophisticated and I even still did not figure out how to use my German keyboard on that Demo. Nevertheless, orbital mechanics are simple in general and then look at {{w|Neil Armstrong}} at {{w|Gemini 8}} — moving around in weightlessness is not easy. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 25 April 2014
Line 19:		Line 19:

	''Once at that lower orbit, your velocity is faster'' ... really? I though that on lower orbit, your velocity is slower BUT your {{w\|Angular_velocity\|ANGULAR velocity}} is faster, which is the reason you start to overtake your target ... but I never played Kerbal, so I may be wrong. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)		''Once at that lower orbit, your velocity is faster'' ... really? I though that on lower orbit, your velocity is slower BUT your {{w\|Angular_velocity\|ANGULAR velocity}} is faster, which is the reason you start to overtake your target ... but I never played Kerbal, so I may be wrong. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	:According to the {{w\|Kepler's equation\|Kepler's Equation}} a lower orbit means faster speeds. The Kerbal program is much more sophisticated and I even still did not figure out how to use my German keyboard on that Demo. Nevertheless, orbital mechanics are simple in general and then look at {{w\|Neil Armstrong}} at {{w\|Gemini 8}} — moving around in weightlessness is not easy. --[[User:Dgbrt\|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt\|talk]]) 21:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:32, 25 April 2014
Line 16:		Line 16:
	So I predict some probability that, after reading this comic, some NASA person will make the mistake of designing real missions using notions or designs from it, which will fail in real life (or at least be ridiculed at mission design review time). And then Randall will have to write a really challenging comic about it..... [[User:Nealmcb\|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb\|talk]]) 13:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)		So I predict some probability that, after reading this comic, some NASA person will make the mistake of designing real missions using notions or designs from it, which will fail in real life (or at least be ridiculed at mission design review time). And then Randall will have to write a really challenging comic about it..... [[User:Nealmcb\|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb\|talk]]) 13:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

−	:''Once at that lower orbit, your velocity is faster'' ... really? I though that on lower orbit, your velocity is slower BUT your {{w\|Angular_velocity\|ANGULAR velocity}} is faster, which is the reason you start to overtake your target ... but I never played Kerbal, so I may be wrong. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)	+	: Maybe Randall should add a horizontal line well over the curve, labelled: ''Level of knowledge required for a successful mission in real life'' - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.185\|108.162.254.185]] 10:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	''Once at that lower orbit, your velocity is faster'' ... really? I though that on lower orbit, your velocity is slower BUT your {{w\|Angular_velocity\|ANGULAR velocity}} is faster, which is the reason you start to overtake your target ... but I never played Kerbal, so I may be wrong. -- [[User:Hkmaly\|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly\|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)