Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Soulwynd]

Well, game physics are based on real physics.... Normally...

[Rex_Nex]

Well, look at that conversation I stirred up!

[Leyic]

Quoting myself for emphasis:

"Escape velocity" is a bit of a misnomer. You'll never fully escape the gravitational influence of the planet, but it's certainly possible to have enough velocity that you'll never return to it, regardless of what other massive objects there are in the system.

The work done by the planet on the spacecraft is the path integral of the force. The force field is constant with respect to the planet. Thus, the total energy loss due to gravity can be calculated for any given path. Assume an arbitrary path moving away from the planet, starting at the surface and ending at mathematical infinity. If the kinetic energy of the craft is greater than the energy lost following this path, then the craft will maintain positive kinetic energy, and thus positive velocity. It will never return to the planet. The point: No other massive bodies are required to "escape" (in the spatial sense) from a planet.

This is the two-body problem. It's all Newtonian physics. There's ~300 years of science backing it up. If KSP is using a non-Newtonian model, then that's another matter.

[breadbocks]

But Leytic, that quote is wrong. You need to have acceleration to counter the acceleration of gravity, hands down. As long as you aren't burning fuel, you will get brought back. End of story.

[monk12]

Escape velocity isn't about actually escaping the gravitational field of a planet- it is about going so fast that the rate at which gravity's strength is decreasing exceeds the rate at which gravity is pulling you towards a given body. For example, at one tick your speed will be reduced by .1, then by .01, then by .001, on into infinity. If you are already going 2001 m/s when this is happening, then effectively your speed will never fall below 2000.

Courtesy of the Kerbal Wiki.

[Burnt Pies]

Something I did while trying to get into Orbit seems to have removed the planet's atmosphere. I'm now landed and looking straight into space from 0 meters above sea level.

This is Awesome

[alway]

Something I did while trying to get into Orbit seems to have removed the planet's atmosphere. I'm now landed and looking straight into space from 0 meters above sea level.

This is Awesome

Awesome?!? You just exterminated an entire early space-faring level civilization. Awesome doesn't even begin to describe it.

As for escape velocity, it is best merely to leave the descriptions to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
Though monk's description is pretty accurate.

[Rex_Nex]

Is this any sort of acheivement? Just got this game, so I dont know if this is common to get this high.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Update: Started losing altitude at 1,200 km up. I'm actually quite disappointed; faulty physics at work there. The gravitational pull on something 1,200 km from the planet would be way too weak to pull me down this quick.

I think I am getting better at flinging myself from Kearth!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Do you think I let the parachute go a bit too early?

[MonkeyHead]

Thats pretty much the only downside with this game so far - ok so I can establish some impressive orbits, and land in a variety of fun methods, but theres not really anything else to do up there yet.

[Sean Mirrsen]

The next logical step in development (now that most of the kinks in regular rocket science have been worked out) would be adding a/the Moon(s). Maybe some dust/asteroid rings to go with it/them. This would give players something to do other than finding increasingly intricate ways of going around in circles.

[Talfryn]

The next logical step in development (now that most of the kinks in regular rocket science have been worked out) would be adding a/the Moon(s). Maybe some dust/asteroid rings to go with it/them. This would give players something to do other than finding increasingly intricate ways of going around in circles.

That's why I stopped playing till they add moons/a point. I orbited for 17 hours, and unless you want freaky orbits, game over at that point.

[sneakey pete]

I've got no idea what their physics model is like, however going from a single mass to two or more is a very large step in complexity. It might take a while though. (however... when i can fly to a moon space station... and back... well christ that'd be epic wouldn't it)

[Aqizzar]

The next logical step in development (now that most of the kinks in regular rocket science have been worked out) would be adding a/the Moon(s). Maybe some dust/asteroid rings to go with it/them. This would give players something to do other than finding increasingly intricate ways of going around in circles.

HarvesteR has said he's pretty set on giving planet Kerbal (he doesn't like the name "Kearth", pity) at least two moons, probably moonlet asteroids, and maybe even moonlets orbiting in the moon(s).  Just not clear when, since apparently there's a lot of engine work to do.  He's been pretty mum on whether the 0.9 update in August will include a moon to shoot for.

[DrPoo]

So are there any payload mods out there? I wanna put something in orbit and return, so i can look at it from the surface

[Sensei]

Well, you COULD try just dropping large fuel tanks, but I still doubt you'll see them.