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
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Categories

There are no results to display.


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. Also, why does the altitude decrease by decreasing velocity?
  2. So I know that the reason an orbit works is that while gravity is pulling on the spacecraft downwards, the ship's momentum pushes it out from the planet, so there's a constant tug-of-war. I also know that the equation for momentum is mass * velocity. Now, if you increase a ship's velocity, the momentum increases, and you can increase in altitude. But here's the problem: the vis-viva equation (V=√GM(2/r-1/a)) for orbital velocity doesn't take into account the spacecraft's mass. Say there's two spacecraft in circular orbit around Kerbin at 100 Km above the surface. One is 90 tons, and the other is 200 tons. Wouldn't the 200 ton spacecraft orbit at a lower velocity than the 90 ton one, because then their momentums are equal? Thank you in advance.
  3. Would a higher floating point benchmark, or a higher integer benchmark score be better for the Physics calculations in KSP?
  4. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/ This particular article uses string theory as an example of great chasm can grow between experimental and theoretical phyicist, calling in scienc philosophers to modulate. The problem with theorectical physics is observations set boundaries, that either have to be obeyed or observationally explained. Once niether of these can be done tolerances in application can result in a variety of possibilites, as has been suggested by multiverse opponents, there could be universe with laws different from our own. Occamic reasoning applies to limit unneccesary complexity in theories, and only observations can ultimately found a basis for more complexity.
  5. I've been imagining a fictional species(three, actually) for writing a story/game(whichever comes first), and a key point for them is that they reside in a world that is on risk of being destroyed by one of three risks - if a risk doesn't end up killing it, the other one(s) will - but are too stubborn to leave it behind. However, I want those to be as realistic as possible, and i'm not sure if I made them to work correctly - I was never that good in physics or chemistry - so, I'd like to discuss whether those disastrous outcomes would actually occur when in the right situation. • The main risk, and arguably the one who set everything moving foward, is when the planet's star, previously a red dwarf, suddently swelled into a red giant, consuming the inner worlds and causing the surviving ones to be burned into a crisp. The homeworld survived, but its temperature was far higher than normal, its plants have been withering away under the heat, the seas and lakes were drying up, and the ozone layer was being destroyed. In order to stop the chaos from happening, they created a force field to serve both as a makeshift ozone layer, and to hold up against the increased heat. This force field later ends up struggling a lot as the red giant continues to grow bigger. • Also in a bid to prevent the previous risk, they made artificial plant life to replace the previous one. Made to be far more resistant to the current climate *and* to filter hot air into cold air, they were spread across the entire planet to rebuild. Alas, even though it was a noble attempt, it did little to stop both the next risk and to calm down the population, which agreed that their homeworld was lost and that it'd be better off to just leave. This ends up being the risk that destroys the world, as one of the leaders - there being six in total, due to the government being a technocracy - grows rabid and too attached to his homeworld, and takes control of the plants to "assimilate" those who don't agree with him - at this point being everyone. • The final risk, while not exactly related to the star, was almost certainly caused by it. By mixing the tidal forces of the star with that of the homeworld's biggest moon, the result wound up being far, far more potent tidal forces storming against the homeworld, causing numerous cracks to open on its surface, releasing both molten lava and abominations which resided deep underground - and as they were primarily adapted to survive in such hostile conditions, the overground was easy prey for them, and became essentially an invasive species, taking over large swatches of land at alarming rates. The ravines also continued to crack open due to the relentless tidal forces, eventually taking down entire cities in the process. The planet was basically becomming swiss cheese. This all sounds pretty macabre, but my abilities to make characters suffer is not the key point in here - and most of the plot would not take in that world, anyway. Would those apocalyptic scenarios actually work in real life, presented in appropriate circumstances, or they ultimately end up being fantastic and unrealistic?
  6. I've posted once a while ago and am essentially quite new to the KSP modding community and process despite having had watched some video tutorials over the summer and trying to create some GUIs. I've also had experience in grade 11 and 12 computer science courses whereby my only 'crime' was over-complicating my 'program architecture' and being overly ambitious. From what I know, as generic add-ons concentrate on the addition of new parts with new behaviours, models and characteristics to the game alongside auxiliary GUIs, plugins more so concentrate on making changes to the internal game mechanics and as per my case, the plugin I wish to begin developing aims to find ways to bypass the standard vessel 'rail assignment and junk management' mechanics to allow for management of multiple flights which when unfocused undergo physical approximation. I basically have been wanting to develop a mod called "Kerbal Civilizations" which allows me to perform highly physics, administration, resources and logistics oriented simulation of a functioning Kerbal civilization. Questions: To start off, does there exist much information out there on how one would set up code to interact with the game API and in ways 'hijack' control over the physics of a flying vessel? For example I'd imagine that in the development of FAR, a lot of work would have had to be done to be able to robustly apply alternative forces on vessel parts using separate or auxiliary physics processing code. Furthermore, what pointers could one give me towards exploring API interactions that would allow me to stop the stock game mechanics from deleting a vessel as debris or transferring it to rails when out of focus and far away? As in I want to be able to have dynamic code that allows multiple programmed autopilots (individual agents within the entire civilization automaton; to me most of this code logic can be implemented independent of the more confusing API interactions which are what I am having trouble with) to act upon the control surfaces of a physical vessel approximation flying on rails but not undergoing internal stresses. As in if I wanted to set up within my mod the ability to organize multiple land, sea and air logistics flights, the plugin would be able to manage approximated forces and constraints acting on the craft as it traverses the world whereby at any time you can resume focus on any one logistic vehicle and dynamically introduce any other approximations that fly close within the vicinity of the focused craft. Managing the success rates of 'approximated' landings would be the next step in this project. So to conclude, this would in ways be the programming of the dynamic switching between vector point approximations of existing vessels and safe introduction into and suspension from 'focused' full physics game world processing. It would be as though I were implementing my own solution to switching between vessels while moving within the atmosphere. As per autopilots, I have yet to figure out how to program an agent to act upon vessel control surfaces unless this were as simple as scanning through and logging all parts in a vessel structure that I want to access, else I can look into using kOS to have ways to control crafts in focus with full physics simulation and out of focus on 'modded rails.' (As I'd imagine that normally, the game 'listens' to control inputs from the kOS program, my mod would probably transfer listening and try to best approximate the expected control feedback upon the vessel while on rails. Accurately approximated point masses with angle of attacks.) How this may interfere with 'Kraken's Bane' for dynamic focus assignment may also be an issue.
  7. This is real physics, no tricks. I managed to reproduce this at home using a broken roller-blind bead string, though it was too short to really show the effect.
  8. This article i found this morning http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2586 I have to say, i never believe anything that i read in Nature or Science in the general science topics. Nature broke me of that in 1986 with thier article about homeopathic behaviors of IgE and the followup test of the lab using the magician the Amazing Randy. Henceforth i consider the Journals to be coffee table science magazines. I read the editorials and i follow the collections, for example the NASA exposee on plutos new horizon, and some of the paleonstuff, always good to search the authors names in other journals though like JHE AJHG AJPA, etc and see if you can find an article that would have the best field specific peer review. Science claims they seek the most qualified referees for each paper, however thier very high rate of retractions suggests otherwise. They always can come up with an answer for you to explain thier failures, the best answer is caveot emtor.
  9. didnt find any answers on steam so here we go... I just have loaded (once again) my saves from 1.02 and I have instantly exploding ships which trying to enter Jool's atmosphere at 199 km which isn't possible because higher limit is 200 km and it is must be quite discharged there. Can it be related with new heat management system ? pls confirm also, ship was flying without heatshields/radiators.It has just crossed "edge" of atmosphere (with pressure < 0.006 atm ) and get overheated in 1-2 seconds !!! KSP Version 1.0.5 (1028) , 1.0.4 ( 00861) OS: WinXp 32 / Win 7 64 bit
  10. Just a thought, since the added thermal physics has increased the overhead on the cpu. It is known the physics tree for joints cannot be split into separate threads in Unity 5, but thermal physics does not effect joint strength in ksp, except when a part blows up. Therefore in theory it should be able to run thermal physics on a separate thread, increasing the use of multiple cores, post version 1.1. Discussion please.
  11. Souper

    Algodoo

    So apparently there's this 2D physics sandbox game that claims you can make anything from games, spaceships, giant robots, and even a 2D version of KSP if you have enough programming skills. Personally, I've been playing Algodoo for a while now and i find it extremely fun. I'm thinking on learning Thyme so i can make my contraptions better and hopefully build a computer (if it's possible) in it, using Thyme. It's amazing, go check it out!
  12. Hi everyone, I’m trying to predict the maximum height of my rocket flying straight up in the kerbin atmosphere and am stuck. My ship is one flea booster with a Mk1 pod and a Mk16 chute flown by a kerbal. It weighs 2.44t full and 1.39t empty. The flea has an ISP of 140 asl - 165vac. Using the asl ISP I got 772.0166 delta v. From here I used some kinematics equations and figured that the speed at the end of the burn should be 685.16m/s and the maximum height of the flight would be 23926.72m When I tested it out in the sandbox with drag turned off I ended up going 29606m high and the speed at the end of the burn was 704m/s So I think the numbers were off because as the rocket flys up the ISP improves meaning I actually had more delta v than calculated. Another thing I thought might have affected it was the force of gravity changing the further away from kerbin I got (I used a constant 9.81). How do I improve my calculations to account for changing ISP and gravity? Or was I missing something else? If anyone is feeling ambitious I would also really appreciate an explanation of how to add drag in as well because the formulas on the atmosphere wiki are not making any sense to me.
×
×
  • Create New...