Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'physics'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
    • KSP 2 Dev Diaries
    • KSP 2 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Show and Tell
  • Kerbal Space Program
    • KSP Discussion
    • KSP Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


About me


Location


Interests

  1. About This is a KSP mod based on a initial piece of code written by BahamutoD for BDArmory and improved by myself and test with the help on the entire BDAc team. Basically it extends game physics range and the terrain loading distance. This will allow you to switch between vessel that are far away or even to see an orbital station from a flying plane. REQUESTS AND IDEAS TO IMPROVE THE MOD ARE ENCOURAGED! Donations = Motivation Download https://github.com/jrodrigv/PhysicsRangeExtender/releases Issues https://github.com/jrodrigv/PhysicsRangeExtender/issues Changelog (*) You might experience some of the following effects when the range is extended > 100 km: vessel shaking, lights flickering, phantom forces, etc.
  2. Dear Forumites, I'm posting this question as I did not find any references to these topics. Basically: 1. Any idea if the Devs plan to allow multiple simultaneous vessels with active physics in different parts of the solar system? 2. What method would be used to simulate physics on ship parts? Will each be simulated independently (As in KSP1 which causes lag after a certain number is reached). Or after the ship is build, the physics will be rendered for just that ship, and all other attached parts will be graphically rendered but with different graphical destruction reactions and still be a part of just one unit. If these questions have not been asked/answered in the past or can't be answered yet, no stress, I understand! Thank you for any information.
  3. I'm having a weird bug with drag being produced by parts that are stowed inside a cargo bay. The weird thing about it is how inconsistent it is. I designed my plane in the SPH, when I launch it it takes off, accelerates, goes supersonic and to orbit, no problem. If I revert to launch and try again though, this time the parts inside the cargo bay are producing excessive drag and this time my plane won't even pass the speed of sound. I had the bug once during testing, I sort of dismissed it, put a short fairing on one of the things inside the cargo bay just in case, and proceeded to send that spaceplane to another planet where it is now. Problem is, now the aero engine is freaking out again and I'm kind of stuck there moving at very low speeds. I tried quicksaving and reloading, as well as opening and closing the cargo bay, hoping to force the game to recalculate what is shielded and what's not, but it didn't work. I also noticed after some time that the engines were maxing out at their stationary thrust (they're supposed to work like jet engines) instead of going past it as I gain some speed, which probably also contributes to my relatively slow speed. I did tons of test flights with that craft where everything went fine, but now it seems to be stuck with that weird aerodynamics behavior and I obviously can't revert to SPH now. I have a modded install but I don't think that any of the mods I have installed should affect aerodynamics (I might try installing FAR and seeing if it solves the problem though). I was wondering if anyone ever had the same bug and managed to find a way to beat some sense into that stubborn physics engine
  4. Hi, I'm new to the forums, I think my question could in this section since it deals with physics and experimentation. I'm trying to do some test on the Mun about conservation of energy, TLDR at the bottom So I'm applying a problem from a dynamics workbook, which is that supposing that a lunar module can safely land on the Moon if the magnitude of it's vertical velocity at impact is no greater than 5 m/s, at what height can the LM land if it has a vertical velocity of 2 m/s downward or vertical, I already have the answer for the workbook problem (6.4814 m )but when trying it out on KSP I'm having problem on the execution. For example I can't always get to the desired height or get the velocity of 2 m/s, I've installed Kerbal Engineer Redux to make this easier since the UI doesn't give an exact measurement of the height and vertical velocity, I have also tried to use MechJeb's ascent guidance to get the desired height but since it's for orbits it always flips the lander side ways. From seeing the mod section for command and control I guess I could install Time Control 2 and/or kOS to have greater control over the lander. Any help with solving my problem would be greatly appreciated TLDR: Is there a mod or a way in vanilla KSP to set a target altitude and vertical velocity?
  5. prpretty self explanatory from the video, any idea what could be causing this and solutions to the issue? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/295199794102796288/794310947475947560/Kerbal_Space_Program_2020-12-30_14-05-57_Trim.mp4 (video of issue)
  6. I'm planning my first asteroid capture mission, and (without having played the tutorial mission) I got curious to learn how much fuel and thrust I would need to put on the capture vessel in order to bring the asteroid into a useful orbit around Kerbin. I spent a lot of time trying to learn something about it, and thought I would share. I would really love to hear your thoughts and feedback! The lovely little space rock I have in mind to make my own is one SDD-569, a class A asteroid. SDD-569 is approaching Kerbin for a leisurely flyby at a periapsis of ~2,079 km, well inside the orbit of the Mun. This puts SDD-569 into a sharply looping orbit around the planet, before it flies back out into parts unknown. I'd like to drag the asteroid into a circular orbit, and then bring it down to about 500 km for future research and exploitation. Can we calculate how fast is SDD-569 going with respect to Kerbin, based on what we already know? Since energy is always conserved, the total kinetic energy for a given object (from orbital speed) plus its potential energy (from gravity) never changes. The relationship of kinetic energy to velocity is a consequence of Newton's third law: In other words, for a constant mass, v2 is a measure of kinetic energy. The vis-viva equation describes the conservation of energy for a small body orbiting a much larger one: GM, also known sometimes as μ, as is Kerbin's gravitational parameter, which the KSP wiki reports is 3.5316 x 1012 m3/s2. This parameter is the product of the gravitational constant of the universe with Kerbin's mass, which is effectively constant. a is the semi-major axis of the orbit as measured from the center of the celestial body. Kerbin's radius is 600km, so we add that to the altitude of SDD-569 at periapsis to give a = 2,679km. r is the distance between the two objects at a given time. An object moving fast enough to escape Kerbin's gravity is in an orbit with a semi-major axis that is effectively infinite. At periapsis, this simplifies the vis-viva equation to describe the kinetic energy that an object must have in order to overcome Kerbin's gravity from a given distance r: In other words, escape speed from Kerbin orbit at the moment of periapsis (r = 2,679km) is ve = 1,623 m/s. But since SDD-569 is tracing a hyperbolic (i.e. open) trajectory through Kerbin's SoI, it must be traveling faster than this, or else it would be captured. How much faster? Consider the other extreme case of the vis-viva relation, where the asteroid has shot past Kerbin and the distance r between them trends towards an infinite apoapsis. Setting r =∞ in the vis-viva equation tells us how fast the object is still going at that point, which is called its hyperbolic excess velocity: (where μ = GM) So for the flyby of SDD-569, the hyperbolic excess velocity is v∞ = 1,148 m/s. This characteristic energy is over and above the energy needed to escape Kerbin's SoI from that distance, so the total energy possessed by SDD-569 relative to Kerbin at periapsis is: This gives a total velocity for SDD-569 relative to Kerbin at periapsis of 1,988 m/s! By how much do we need to reduce this so that it drops into a nice 2Mm circular orbit from periapsis? In a circular orbit, the distance between the two objects r and the orbital radius a are always the same. Thus the orbital velocity is: Not coincidentally, this is the same as its hyperbolic excess velocity, because r = a. So at r = 2,679km, an object in a circular orbit around Kerbin travels at 1,148 m/s. So, to get SDD-569 into a circular orbit from its flyby periapsis, we need to bleed off Δv = 840 m/s. To then bring SDD-569 down to a more convenient altitude of 500km, we would do a Hohmann transfer, which can be calculated with the standard formula, and works out to another 614m/s Δv to descend to a 500km circular orbit, for a total of 1,454 m/s. What’s more, the spacecraft sent to capture SDD-569 needs to match orbits with the asteroid in order rendezvous. That means that if the spacecraft starts from, say, 500km above Kerbin, it will need to expend that much to get to the asteroid in the first place. So, starting from a 500km orbit around Kerbin, the total Δv budget for this mission is 2,909 m/s. Next up: Asteroid capture planning, part 2: How much fuel do we need to bring? Mission to SDD-569: Where the rubber meets the regolith! Did I get this right? If you have feedback or ideas, I would love to hear them!
  7. I'm having a weird issue in v1.10.1 where my SSTO is constantly bouncing up and down on the runway upon loading, and refuses to stop for minutes, if ever. If I try to take off, even if the bouncing seems to have stopped, it starts to drift off the runway within seconds, and I inevitably over-correct resulting in a crash. You can see how the game registers a speed of 0.1 or 0.2m/s, which is entirely due to the bouncing. I've flown this design to orbit and back several times, so I know it isn't a design issue (although my other, smaller SSTO seems to be unaffected). No idea what the problem is, it just started happening last night and I haven't been able to launch one since.
  8. Hello, this is my inaugural post on the KSP forum. To learn some more physics and calculus, I'm trying to create an analytical equation for the path of a solid fuel model rocket fired vertically. I first made an equation assuming no atmosphere and no orbital mechanics, which I am satisfied with. I'm currently making an equation that accounts for drag, and assumes there is no change in atmospheric density and no wind. The equation I am using is from Wikipedia, specifically vertical motion upward and vertical motion downward. I am not sure how to adapt this equation to work while the thrusters are still active. If anybody can help me with this, I would be extremely grateful. The work I have done so far is here: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ncmd38rosu The Variables folder contains all variables, the No Drag folder contains a complete equation that I have made personally, and the drag folder contains what I have done so far to account for drag. I am more than happy to explain my thought process/reasoning on how I have come up with what is on there so far. Thanks, and I look forward to spending more time with the KSP community.
  9. PS4, Radial preset, in career mode. For context to give some idea where I am: n00b, maybe a month-2 months in (they're still reviewing my posts I'm so new, ha), having a blast - flags all over the Mun and Minmus, one unmanned rocket currently stuck around Duna (in accidentally polar orbit, probably enough fuel, and ferreting out how to get back). So I'm on a mission that requires a surface sample from 3 locations on the Munar surface (Alpha, Beta, Gamma), being quite new to this still I don't yet have a rover and not yet dialed in on landing at a desired spot, so on a mission like this I'm on foot (from various too-far distances like 7 km, 4 km, etc.). I have seen this every time, reproducible 100% for me. Upon returning to my lander each time so far (4 attempts), I find the lander has left the surface and is slowly tumbling and floating up and away (straight up) at .2 m/s. On 2 of the occasions I had enough MP left to get up to the lander, grab on, board, etc., however nothing affects it in any way, 100% thrust does nothing, it seems to be 'outside of physics' at that point, and I'm wondering if I've just gotten far enough away from my lander (or away too long? Maybe time is a factor?) that it maybe behaves the same way spent stages do when they get far enough away, which I've read means physics are no longer applied to an object beyond some x distance away. No screenshot handy but it's just a lander floating upside down 20 or so meters off the surface. No human is apt to attempt to reproduce this but am checking to see if anyone else has run into this - it's obviously a bug, and I'm at the point where I am not sure if I should keep trying to land closer to see if it's the distance or if I should skip it and move on. Overall I am enjoying this immensely (perfect quarantine filler!), some platform-specific idiosyncrasies aside I think they've done a beautiful job porting the controls over. Porting a keyboard to a PS4 controller can't be an easy thing to do.
  10. I am always wondering how aerodynamics is being calculated in KSP? For example, I want to know how does the game calculate the force produced by the wing(s) while flying in a specific speed. Any equations (as detailed as can be) will be appreciated.
  11. So, yeah. I want the know how to build a missile that includes target functionality. Like you double click on something and it pulls up a target sas mode. I need an atmospheric and space faring version. Can both take down a building. (Any.) I'm quite new only 130-ish hours on KSP and I want this for my Kethane Wars video. Don't care how big. Make some physic-bug ones if you want and make sure it can fit in a 1.25 meter hull or mk2 payload. (Full size.)
  12. Got a weird problem. I had a lander with a rover drone slung underneath landing on Minmus. After landing, I tried dropping the drone and then making it the target so I could send it on it's merry way. Instead of the drone the target jumps to the last fuel tank/engine combo I had discarded prior to landing. The combo had landed (apparently it was moving slow enough not to destruct on impact) 1.7km from my touchdown point. But now I'm stuck. trying to re-designate either the lander or the drone as the target from the discarded hardware results in the message given in the topic. Jumping to map and trying to select either the lander or the rover, same message. I'm trapped at the discarded hulk. Any ideas? EDIT: Ugh. Just realized I put this in the wrong category. Sorry.
  13. I'm going to try to be as careful as I can with my phrasing here, because I really don't want to be misconstrued. (I tried asking this on one of the KSP groups on Facebook and it spiraled out of control pretty fast.) KSP2 developers stated that there will be no FTL drives in the game. I'm perfectly happy with this, and to be honest, would have been let down if they did add warp drives, wormholes, or other handwavium. Also, implementing full Special Relativity is way impractical for a game, and besides, the math gets hairy enough that I can't imagine a developer spending time trying to add proper SR into a game. However, it does occur to me that a developer could easily add the speed of light as an upper speed limit for ships, and also model acceleration so that, as your velocity is a larger and larger fraction of the speed of light, it becomes harder to accelerate faster. For stock KSP1, the parts are nowhere near powerful enough to reach sizable fractions of the speed of light with a reasonable fuel supply. However, they can in theory exceed the speed of light with the infinite fuel cheat, and with enough patience. Also, glitches can and have sent craft well exceeding the speed of light, as Danny2462 and others can attest. For KSP2, presuming that the Project Orion/Project Daedalus parts are similar to their real-world counterparts, they'd be able to reach a top speed in the neighborhood of 0.1c, but I can't hold myself to that presumption. It's entirely possible that these parts will perform more powerfully than their real-world equivalents, to reduce the travel time between stars. So having said that: What is the likelihood that KSP2 will have an upper speed limit? Do we even want an upper speed limit, as a community? (There are arguments for and against. I'd favor the realism of it taking a long while to reach other stars, even with advanced sublight drives, but I know some will insist on a mod that permits FTL travel, or think the concern is irrelevant.) I welcome your well-considered and respectful thoughts. Thanks. NOTE: I've updated the title and the post below to reflect that I was saying "General Relativity", but as @chaos_forge pointed out, Special Relativity is where the cosmic speed limit was first set. As SR is a special case of GR, my statement wasn't entirely inaccurate, but it was imprecise.
  14. Hi there, I'm an aerodynamics student and am looking to do the same kind of medium-fidelity aero modelling that's done with Ferram Aerospace - the calculation of aerodynamic coefficients, stability derivatives, and the like for some arbitrary body, and as functions of Mach number, AoA, etc. Does anyone know if the developers compiled a bibliography/list of references/papers for the algorithms they implemented? If not, is there any information on how their algorithms work, or could anyone recommend some papers I can look at to get started? (I'm familiar with basic flight dynamics theory already, and am more interested in the actual computational component.) Thanks!
  15. so i'm only really making a return because i have an ion-powered craft with burn times ~1 hour, but i can't enable physics warp for some reason. everyone says to do alt + . but it doesn't work for me for some reason. maybe because i'm on linux? i really don't know. (sorry if this is in the wrong place, only ~85% sure it should go here but i'm kinda desperate so :/)
  16. I was reading an article (link below) on Reversing the thermodynamic arrow of time using quantum correlations. Bottom line of the paper from my understanding is the 2nd law of thermodynamics is reversed under certain conditions. It isn't a violation of the 2nd law as the particles have to be correlated and in the presence of a magnetic field. (2nd law does not cover this.) What do you guys think to the significance of the work and what future questions would like answering? I know this isn't spaceflight per say but very significant in this area of physics which of course makes spaceflight/travel possible for us mere humans(and kerbals:)) General article https://m.phys.org/news/2017-12-arrow-relative-concept-absolute.html Full paper can be found here https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.03323.pdf
  17. Ok I'll put it out here, I am mad for quantum physics. It is such a new(ish) interesting and useful branch of science that it has me hooked. I love working on new ideas that will change the world of science, and I'm wondering, who else likes this subject and is as mad as me to like it!
  18. This is a place to talk about anything from boringly tame to wildly enlightening theories you may have heard or thought of.
  19. Dr. Jamie Farnes, a physicist at Oxford, has released a paper attempting to explain both Dark Matter and Dark Energy with a single substance producing negative gravitational attraction. Simulations of his model successfully accounted for the galaxy rotation problem that Dark Matter was introduced to account for, as well as the accelerating expansion of the Universe attributed to Dark Energy. Are there any major flaws with this model at present, either from observations or mathematics alone? How could such a model be verified or disproved? What would the implications be for the Standard Model? And, on the far edge of possibility: could this make an Alcubierre-style FTL drive workable? Article by the author: http://theconversation.com/bizarre-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass-could-dominate-the-universe-what-my-research-suggests-107922 Download for the paper itself: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962
  20. After having the beginnings of my first space station wobble into my own personal Kessler Syndrome, I've decided to look at other options to keep my creations stable. I previously only used EAS-4 Strut connectors, and they did just fine for keeping rockets and landers together. But my space station, having been composed entirely of Sr. docking ports and pieces which are entirely stable on their own, did not have this option. My searches suggest that Autostrutting may be the answer to my problem, but I'm having trouble getting clear info on it; Does Autostrutting dynamically change what an object is "attached" too depending on circumstance (docking/undocking, decoupling, explosive spontaneous deconstruction, etc.)? If not, what happens when the object strutted to is disconnected or destroyed? What do the various options do, and when are they best used? "disabled" is obvious of course, but the rest confuse me, especially since I'm not sure about the above two questions... Should Autostrutting be used to replace EAS-4 Strut connectors or supplement them? How effective is it at keeping space stations and other large docked up structures from destabilizing and damaging or destroying themselves? I've heard people sing it's praises, and I'd like to know why, but I'm just not sure how to make use of the feature, or even where to get good info on it. Also, I'm trying to go vanilla for now, so I'm avoiding mods; I've only just started, so simple things like bringing one-way payloads to planets and moons are still a real struggle to me. I'd like to really get to know the game before I mod it...
  21. I was wondering, does the KSP physics engine utilize the GPU processing capability and computational power? Or is it all CPU?
  22. I would like this discussion to be a place to share personal interests related to KSP. Aerodynamics, rocket science, physics, chemistry, etc. People can ask questions about real life topics they're interested in and learn about things others are interested in.
  23. Hey. I'm having a massive FPS drop near space stations or planetary bases since KSP wants to calculate every single unit, making the game unplayable (docking at 10fps with only the first docking port unlocked was a nightmare!) I was thinking about some solutions, and 2 possible solutions came to mind, although the 1st is a more definitive one: Disable physics calculation for every single object. We simply don't need the game calculating everything in a base or station. So if I already have a base built or a station in orbit and stable for x seconds, the game should just stop calculating everything but the main parts (maybe this could be activated once we rename the ship and make it a station or a base, each having it's own parameters to disable physics calculation); Bring Max physics delta-time per frame back. Why is this not available in the console version of the game? We need more performance options in the game setting. For the ones that don't know what this is, it basically slows time down so the computer can better calculate the physics. For example, if the physics calculation is pretty heavy on the CPU and frames start to drop, the game will basically slow down time (so 1 second in game takes 10 seconds in real life). The problem with this is that it would take more time for things to happen, but the experience would be way smoother (no more trying to click on a tiny ship part at 10fps during emergencies with the cursor controlled by the analogue stick axis).
  24. Hey guys! So today I was playing some KSP and I built a rocket which is meant to orbit Kerbin at a low altitude first and then increase the Apoapsis up to 1 000 000 km (So I can get some sweet science from low and high Orbit). After having achieved the 1 mil km I did a stupid mistake and I had to revert to start.This time, I decided to go for a more lazy approach. I decided not to achieve Orbit and just fly straight up. Now something happened which doesnt make any sense in my current understanding of the world. I was only able to achieve about 400 000 km - less than half the amount I was able to reach when flying in orbit. I dont know how this can make any sense: In my first flight I was spending way more time in atmosphere, why I should have lost more speed than in my second attempt. Also I just dont understand how flying vertically results in much lower altitudes than flying horizontally "only". I would be very happy if someone could explain the mathematics behind that. TY very much in advance!
×
×
  • Create New...