Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'gravity'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • 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
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL





Found 24 results

  1. I've had this idea that I was sure would have been brought up already, but I have been unable to find any indication of this. We all know that asteroids in KSP have no gravity, that is to say that they are treated like any other ship part, and just float around inside the physics sphere. We also know it would be very difficult both to create a mod, and for that mod to run computationally, that would add some sort of S.O.I to them. However, in the modding community we like to take ideas that are difficult, and sufficiently abstract them so that we can make a reasonable mod for it. What if instead of giving them an SOI and everything, we just implement the already existing magnetic attraction mechanic used by docking ports? Just turn the force way down, and make it attract all ship parts. I don't know, as I am not a programmer, but it occurs to me that this may end up being very CPU intensive, so it could be perhaps just magnetic to a list of part types; such as anything that is a command pod, engine, landing leg, claw or other asteroid. This way you can "Land" on asteroids, and you can build large clumps of asteroids (space dust bunnies anyone?) if not actually orbit. And who knows, perhaps there are stable orbits that you could find with the right force level set (I'm thinking it would need to be very low). Thoughts? Ping: @linuxgurugamer @Snark, because I'm hoping if this is a bad idea, one of you guys could easily see why.
  2. What would happen if you were to edit the game and reduce the SOI of Kerbol so that it is not infinity, and then escape from that SOI, thus putting me in true zero gravity flight. Would a kraken strike? Would the game ignore it and keep me in Kerbols SOI? or would I fly in zero G?
  3. Okay, I wanted to try and find a way to apply circular motion and gravitational field calculations to elliptical orbits to prove why all orbits must have opposite periapsis and aopsis and only one of each (as oppose to for example two opposite aopsis and two opposite periapsis) but I couldn't do it. Anyone with more experience give me a hand, it would be handy if the derivation tried to use relatively simple mechanics because I'm second year A level in the UK. Cheers
  4. LunaTrick

    Disappointed with Eve

    It's been a while since I have played KSP. I finally got a rover down to Eve to find out Eve has changed so much, the fun is gone. Rovers slide all over the place. If you can't stop, you can't save the game. If you run out of power on the way up to a peak, you get to slide all the way down to the base. You can no longer make it to the top of the mountains. Gravity is supposed to be high, I suppose that is why rovers slide instead of coming to a stop? Then why is it I can click on a command chair 4' off the ground and gravity doesn't even affect that "jump" of 4'??? Kerbals hop up there regardless of the heavy gravity. Eve used to be the hardest planet to work on. Honestly, it seems so broken to me now, I put the game away.
  5. Reach orbit in high gravity environment! Basically, this challange is just about getting orbit efficiently on Kerbin. However, with gravity multiplier cheat, it won't be easy! In these harsh environment, haul fuel/payload to orbit as much as you can! Rules: 1. No cheats allowed, aside from the gravity multiplier cheat. - Entrants should keep the gravity cheat on throughout the entry, with the multiplier given by each level. 2. No kraken drives, no clipping of functional parts. 3. The orbiter can either be manned or unmanned, refuel it in any way if you can. (Docking is allowed as well) 4. Reach stable orbit out of the atmosphere, using any ways fitting in the rules. 5. Mods allowed: - Part mods with reasonable chemical tanks/engines only. (No OP tanks/engines or other propulsion concepts) - Visual mods like Scatter, SVE and such. - Piloting mods like Mechjeb, kOS and such. - Editor mods like Part Angle Display, Editor Extension Redux and such. (Finished product should be stock craft with it) Any other mods aside from these are not allowed. Entry Submission Rules: 1. An entry should contain screenshots or videos to prove the completion. Imgur or Mission Reports is recommenfed. 2. At least one of the screenshot should contain debug screen indicating that only gravity cheat with appropriate multiplier is on. More than once is recommended. For video submissions, show it once and capture continuous process to orbit in the video. 3. Screenshots should include craft in VAB(for total mass), on LaunchPad, liftoff, subsonic flight, gravity turn, supersonic flight, high atmosphere flight, reaching apoapsis, finishing orbit and craft on orbit and more if you want. Scoring Scheme: 1. Score is given by (Payload mass) / (Total mass) - 'Payload' means parts got to orbit which is neither fuel tank nor engine, and fuels left on the orbit. Crew cabins count as payload, but not any other multipurpose fuel tanks like wet wings. - 'Total' means every parts launched for this mission. This includes pre-launched refueling ships in orbit. Levels: I. Moderate gravity (1.7g): Reach orbit on Kerbin with gravity multiplier of 1.7. (Range of 1.68g~1.7g is allowed, due to the sensitivity of the scroll bar) I1. Spaceplanes (too) Powerful Reach orbit, using jet engines. Every bits you launched should reach stable orbit. I2. Heavy Rocketry Reach orbit without jet engines. Isp. Heavily Usable Rocketry Reach orbit without jet engines, with every bits you launched reaching stable orbit! (Yes, this one is specially aimed for conquering a *punishing* body) II. High gravity (3g): Reach orbit on Kerbin, with gravity of 3g! 2.88g~3.0g is allowed. III. Super gravity (5g): Reach orbit on Kerbin with gravity of 5g! 4.98~5g is allowed. V. Hyper gravity (10g): Use any possible way, to reach orbit with Hyper gravity of 10g! (Only 10g is allowed, since it's at the end of the scroll bar) (This should be impossible, though let's see if I'm wrong) Results: I. Moderate gravity (1.7g) I1. Spaceplanes Powerful I2. Heavy Rocketry Isp. Heavily Usable Rocketry II. High Gravity (3g) 1. MarvinKitFox - Asparagus-staged Mammoth Rockets to 11k X 14k orbit. (Score pending) III. Super Gravity (5g) V. Hyper Gravity (10g) + My entry will be up soon! (Though I doubt I need one)
  6. bjerrang

    Jool braking

    Interplanetary speed , think i saw 9000ms at jool burn Im 14 days out of jools periaps. (can warp back but since i have many ships its a lot of extra work) got 2000dV sience/relay sattelite with no heatshield. I manage to catch jools orbit via areobrake and burn. But i always end up with to little dV left to manuver. I see some talk about gravity assist to brake but i cant find the correct one. How do i brake in jools system without using up all dV ? Does not matter if i end up on any other planet.
  7. Hi everybody. So, one of my hobbies in addition to KSP is the creation of a fantasy world, and I was recently inspired to make my world a moon of a gas giant instead of its own planet. However, after reading this thread I realized that I might have daily 50 foot tidal waves if I do that. So my question is, can I position my moon in such a way that it avoids this? I had planned to have five other large moons in the sky, with this world being the fourth of the six, but I'm open to changing that. Would placing it farther out lessen the tidal effects of the other moons? Would placing it closer to the gas giant's gravity well have the same effect? I am planning to have this world tidally locked, by the way, so I believe that should eliminate tidal waves caused by the planet itself, even if it makes for some weird oceans. Any help on this would be appreciated, so thank you in advance!
  8. What would happen if I was past the event horizon of a black hole, but I could go faster then the speed of light? Would I be able to escape the gravitational force of the singularity, or is it 100% guaranteed that once you go past the event horizon of a black hole you cannot escape no matter what?
  9. Kerbalkind has always been ambitious. But now let us take it to the next level. I propose a craft that can take off from the KSC, Orbit once around Kerbol with a maximum altitude of 1000 Kilometers, refuel, and then land by the KSC to be recovered. One of each type of crewmember is required. Also, you are required to land every piece of your ship(except for the booster stages). You can refuel on an asteroid or a planet. It doesn't matter. But here comes the kicker. You have to do it in maximum gravity and show that you are not using any other cheats.
  10. Hi, I'm a newbie here. My question is this. Using the space shuttle as an example, how much fuel would be saved if gravity stopped at the moment of liftoff for 1 second, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 30 seconds and one full minute? I may be using this info in a SF story I am writing. Thanks!
  11. I’m currently designing a Tylo mission. Let's assume I have myself a Tylo intercept straight from Kerbin with a nice and low Pe. My logic indicates that if I try to land directly from my interplanetary trajectory, since I’m going so fast, it will be more expensive than if I use gravity assists to first capture around Jool and lower my Jool orbit as much as possible. Is my logic sound? Is there any gravity assist trickery that can make my Tylo landing cheaper?
  12. I heard some people think that gravity isn't some particle or secret bond between dark energy and other dark magic things (which in fact are most likely just ordinary matter) but something to the effect of gravity is the motion of matter through time and it generates space? I like the gravity in KSP compared to other space games I play. I recently looked at a picture of the Spheres of Influence. My only gripe is that we as humans understand little about gravity. I also heard some big-wigs and head-hanchos of many organizations are scrambling to get a better understanding of the measurement for G. Will their clocks fall, err I mean fail, as everything comes to a grinding halt, asymptotically approaching the center of their "dials"?! Remember we only accelerate when the ground comes up to meet our behinds! The link to gravitationlab can give you "an answer" about the, yet unproven, largely talked about interior workings of our friend G. 400 years after Galileo proposed it, we just like to pretend, but no one has ever proved that the object will even oscillate or not.
  13. Dills0n

    Gravity Experiment

    I have an acquaintance who is really pushing hard for a gravity experiment to get real evidence of the interior solution for gravity. I don't fully understand everything about the work though it's laid out plain enough in his papers. My intent is to create a mod that can simulate the experiment in KSP. I haven't modded KSP or any other game for that matter. How difficult would this be to learn and any good pointers on what utilities or software? I'm imagining right now a Kopernicus mod that added a planet with a hole in it and then drop... a ship through? Does anyone who can interpret physics tell me how gravity is calculated in KSP? Compared to what we may (or may not!) know about reality? Your insight is appreciated ...
  14. Hello, I am on 1.0.5 and the in the present safe game the gravity on the mun is too high when on EVA. The Kerbals walk real slow, can't jump as high as they should on the mun and the jetpack thrust is not enough to lift them off the ground. The gravity seems to be ok for everything but a Kerbal on EVA. A rover on the mun has the normal driving characteristics. However, there seems to be at least some effect on other landed spacecraft in that they are more flimsy. There is a supply ship that had landed a bit rough near my base. It lied on its side but was otherwise fine. When the bug hit, it caused it to fall into several pieces. I'm not sure whether this has anything to do with any mods I have installed. Has anyone encountered this before?
  15. Imagine if there was a planet with such high gravity and no atmosphere, it was begging to be used for gravity assists... But, there is a catch; it is nowhere near a flat planet, in fact, it's quite the opposite. 40 kilometer-high mountains, a ludicrously short day, combined with its low-orbiting moon (about the half the size, but twice the annoyingness as Ike) make exploiting its precious gravity a gamble. Yet, it's tantalizingly close orbit to Kerbin makes it such an irresistible option. Will you take this chance to reap the rewards? Requiring just a little more fuel to get to than Minmus, this planet can be a valuable resource to your missions. Just make sure not to crash... With a diameter close to that of Vall, but having a mass so high that it has a density roughly 1½ times that of Kerbin; its gravity will be much higher than that of Kerbin and potentially Eve.
  16. when i shoot the projectiles hit the ground bounce up and never touch the surface again ive seen in multiple vids where they do fall back down ._. what IM TRYING TO STAB A FLAG POLE IN A CUBE LIKE NEXTER DID
  17. One questions regards gravity, which bothers me already for a long time. For my question we assume that the whole universe, the whole space, absolutely everything is empty, there exists nothing, no matter, no particel, nothing, besides 2 objects, which i wont describe further, besides: The Object A has the mass of an Car and the object B has the mass of an pencil. Both objects are 999kLy away away from each ( so more distance than between earth and Sagittarius A ). Time is freezed and they have no speed and no rotation, they are standing still and now the time goes on, its the first second in my fantasy universe, what happens now ? I would think that both objects would start to pull each other, but the object with the mass of an car would pull the pencil mass object much harder. So Gravity or better saying "curved space" never ever ends ? Am I right ? I also think that if both objects wouldnt be perfect spheres, but look like a real car and pencil, they would start to rotate as they are pulling each other, because the central point of gravity from each object is not perfectly aligned with the mid, am I right ?
  18. Proof, if any were needed, that I'm ok with planes, even spaceplanes, but really don't know what I'm doing in a rocket. Early in a career game, I reckon I can get a good science boost by using a gravity assist to get out to the Jool system ahead of time. Unfortunately I don't quite have the skills of this guy - So, according to the wiki - I need to launch my probe and lower it's PE within the orbit of Eve to get an encounter. Then pass behind it to pick up a gravity assist, catch another one somehow from Kerbin on my way out to the newly raised AP, and then bounce between Kerbin and Eve till I raise my AP up to Jool territory. Profit. Now, when doing a "gain speed" assist the goal seems to be to pass behind the planet as close as possible. The closer behind , the bigger the assist. Except that if i get too close to Eve it bends my flight path too much, slinging me radially or anti radially with respect to the sun (Kerbol) and the extra energy is wasted. In fact I've had it throw me straight back on a reciprocal course, drastically lowering AP. Is this bad planning or just a limit on how much you can gain from a single pass? In that diagram from the wiki, the spacecraft is coming in at quite a steep trajectory WRT to the planet. This allows the flight path to be "bent" greatly, but actually have it work in your favour putting you on a prograde trajectory WRT to orbiting around the sun. The problem is, to get this steeper angle when passing Eve, I'd have to lower my PE well below Eve's orbit. Which is very expensive in Delta V terms, more so than just going Jool direct?
  19. KerbalKyle45kk


    Not alot of People Have been taling of Magnetars, I already know what Magnetars are, but, What are they?
  20. Hi! I just released my first bigger programming project. I coded it in C++ using the SFML graphics libraries. Video link: If you get any missing dll's you probably need the visual studio redistributable, link: If you have any questions, let me know!
  21. Wanna go around KSC fast? Or make your Kerbal looks like a king? Well I present this.....thing. The "anti-gravity" throne (which has nothing to do with anti gravity) using Juno basic jet engine, ~1000 m/s delta-V, inspired by the Hierarchs' gravity throne from Halo Link to the craft: NOTE: This was built in 1.1-pre, it's uncertain if this craft would work in 1.0.5
  22. Seeker89

    Thrust Gravity

    So I have been reading the through the book series The Expanse, which the tv show is based on. Within the books they talk about different types of gravity, like the gravity of a planet(or moon), null gravity, spin gravity and thrust gravity. I have seen videos(My wife says that I love Scott Manly) about spin gravity, but can we have thrust gravity in KSP? In the book, they talk about having tower like ships where floors start going away from the engine. so how would we test this in KSP?
  23. Is it hypothetically possible to thicken the atmosphere of a low-gravity world like Mars to the point that it feels like 1g on the surface? Just curious.
  24. If you're going to build an actual spaceship -- a craft you can take to another planet as easily as a pirate could sail across the Mediterranean -- there are a few things to keep in mind. Gravity. You're going to need artificial gravity if you want to be able to manage long trips, so you'll need to either have a spinning hab, or you'll need to spin the whole ship. Power. You need high-thrust engines to get on and off of planets, high-impulse engines to make your transfer burns propellant-efficient, and energy to run your ship in transit. Trimodal nuclear thermal engines are your only real choice (a trimodal NTR has three modes: high-impulse, where low-density propellant is heated and ejected by the nuclear core, high-thrust, where LOX is injected into the propellant stream to increase thrust at the expense of impulse, and thermal-electric, where the circulation of coolant generates electricity). Shielding. Your hab needs to be shielded from both solar radiation and the nuclear radiation of your engine(s). Volume. You need a large internal volume to carry an enormous amount of fuel if you're going to be able to make a transfer, land, take off again, and head back. Granted, you'd use in-orbit refueling wherever possible, but you need the flexibility to make a round-trip to unvisited worlds. Surface area. Although you need a large volume, you also need a form factor with a blunt-body surface area, allowing re-entry heating to be as minimal as possible. Further, large surface area will help with radiating heat away in space. Finally, a lifting-body shape will make launch and re-entry a bit nicer. What, then, is the optimal shape and configuration? Here you go. Yep, it's a flying saucer. The hab is located in the center column and is a single floor, preventing any unpleasant gravity gradients. Because the center is open, it allows windows to be embedded in the ceiling, which will feel more natural. The hab is far more "open" overall than most designs, while still being well-protected from radiation and micrometeoroid strikes due to its location in the center of the ship. It will feel very natural to have the sky "up" and the ground "down". The hab is shielded by wrapping the ship's tankage completely around it. The triangular cross-section maximizes internal volume while also having the optimal shielding profile. Obviously, the entire ship rotates. The ship is powered by six small nuclear reactors, feeding three linear exhaust nozzles: Each of the three exhaust nozzles is capable of running on a single reactor, so you still have maneuverability even if you need to scram one or two of your reactors. The coolant cyclers and generators are also in this area. Only minimal shielding is necessary, due to the placement of the large internal tanks. For on-orbit burns, the three nozzles all fire together, providing moderate thrust even at the highest operating impulse: During any such burn, there will be a slight misalignment of the apparent gravitational field, but it will likely be no more disorienting than standing on a train while it starts to move. It is also likely that in most cases, the ship will only "spin up" after its transfer injection burns, relieving this issue entirely. Takeoff and landing use the same orientation as on-orbit burns, but with the injection of liquid hydrogen or another oxidizer to dramatically increase thrust at the expense of specific impulse: During takeoff, however, maintaining this thrust orientation would make drag losses altogether unmanageable. For this reason, the nozzles are able to change orientation in order to thrust backward during in-atmosphere climbs (for reaching orbit from Terra, Mars, etc.): Because the "flying saucer" shape is one of the only shapes which is capable of achieving reasonable lift in subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic flight, this allows for the higher-specific-impulse burn to be used (when applicable) to achieve orbital velocities. Obviously, on worlds without atmospheres, liftoff would be purely vertical without any intermediate horizontally-oriented burn stage. Re-entry uses the large blunt surface area underneath to dissipate heat passively (although active cooling could be used, in principle): Passengers are seated in the upper ring during takeoff and landing, both for gravitational orientation and for safety reasons. Launch abort escape would be achieved either through individual ejection seats or through the ejection of the entire upper ring using built-in thrusters. It is possible that the upper ring could also be configured to serve as an ejectable lifeboat in the case of an on-orbit accident. \ Attitude control could be achieved either by vectoring the thrusters, or by venting coolant. Placing the heavy engines at the outside isn't ideal, but given that this is going to be designed with enough structural integrity for powered landing, it shouldn't prove too problematic. The hab would have nearly 8500 square feet of floor space under artificial gravity, with more than 30 times the pressurized volume of the Space Shuttle crew cabin. I'm estimating a nominal dry weight of 1200 tonnes. The body encloses enough space for 9800 cubic meters of tankage; using a dense propellant like hydrazine, this corresponds to 9,900 metric tonnes of fuel. With pebble-bed reactors giving a specific impulse of around 520 seconds, you get a lovely 11 km/s of dV. Enough to reach orbit as SSTO (if you use LOX-injection augmentation). Also enough to fly to the moon, land, take off, and come back. Now to build the damn thing...