Thankfully for us, Kerbin-Mun L4/5 and Kerbol-Kerbin L4/5 satisfy this requirement. invisible spheres of influence (with masked singularities) at the most interesting Lagrange points, and put those on rails. Well done!Īlso, L4 and L5 will only be stable (in a real system) if the mass ratio of the co-orbiting bodies is sufficiently large. Kerbal Space Program 1 KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion Lagrange points without 3-body solvers Lagrange points without 3-body solvers. ![]() I was wondering whether it was possible to utilise any Lagrange points in Kerbal Space Program, seeing as. Earth-Sun), you have found a unique way of simulating this with KSP physics. Only recently I stumbled upon the concept of 'Lagrange Points', these points in space where the gravitational fields of two bodies make it possible to create 'magic' orbits with orbital radii which dont match their orbital period. Since Lagrange points are, in effect, locations where the rotating reference frame of a spacecraft or satellite will orbit with the same period as the much larger co-orbiting bodies (e.g. Specifically, burning to zero heliocentric velocity in this sense means you have no orbital period. It just occurred to me that this technique, although relatively clever, breaks the spirit of the original problem Lagrange, Euler, et al. subspace iterative method and a At the Lagrange points the gravitational. What I want to do is put communication satellites in the same orbit as the various planets, so that I can have reliable coverage of both sides of the planet from opposite sides of the sun. In Kerbal Space Program 2, these interstellar technologies pave the way to a. Set time compression to 10000x, and make sure that you don\'t accelerate toward the sun. First off: I know that KSP does not model Lagrange points. Im not saying they shouldnt improve the orbital model if it strikes their fancy.but realisticaly going full on 3body/nbody would be bad move for few reasons imo.I have found that, when outside of Kerbin or the Mun\'s SOI, you can burn your velocity to 0.0 m/s, and you\'ll stay where you are. Look.Im as much (if not more) of a space junkie as the next KSP addict.but do YOU really want to have to play KSP with slide ruler, compass, and TI calculator in hand?ĮVEN if a decent 3body sim with all of KSP mechanics worked in was possible at low enough hardware usage to still be used by many the amount of learning required to even consider playing woud turn all but the most hardcore space fans away. ![]() So, I wanted to start tossing some debris up into the L-points around Kerbin - only no amount of Wiki- and Forums-scrubbing revealed anything on the subject. ![]() Kerbal Space Program 1 KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas Lagrange Point Theme. That basic 3body sim is gonna get VERY complicated VERY fast once you start building and launching anning manuves, rendez, interplanetary encounters. Im not much of a rocket scientist, but just a bit of a space flight book geek so of course some of the 'iconic' objectives of space flight hold quite a bit of appeal for me. By toastar Februin KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas. Its been done already to an extent with Universe Sanbox.īut that is not at all what we are talking about here.we are talking about ALL of KSP ontop of that!!! Ok yes.you could make a basic sim that would have accurate enough n-body physucs to say, model our solar system or galaxy, and have it be fairly low impact. The idea is that at the edge of each SOI is 2 smaller SOIs that when a craft is in, its treated as though its in orbit of the parent SOI.LSOI (Lagrange Sphere of Influence) will act as part of both the SOI of the moon and planet, making the speed to retain an orbit faster or slower.If my understa. (for those who don't know: it is not impossible due to computation limitations, it is mathematically proven to be a problem that doesn't have a solution) Originally posted by Aldrigg:A true and general n-body problem (n>2) is impossible for a computer to predict the trajectory, that much i know.but i thought that a 3-body problem with one of the bodies being massless wasn't that expensive for a computer to evaluate, is that incorrect?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |