Lagrange points for KSP

[Astrofox]

So, as the title entails, could you make good lagrange points for ksp, using KopernicusTech.

Thanks for helping,

Astrofox

[Kibble]

I don't think it needs Lagrange points. It would be totally awesome to have n-body orbital mechanics, but that would require a complete overhaul of the code (like what the amazing eggrobin is doing). Plus the patched conics model works well for most things, and is easy to understand.

[jarmund]

I don't think it needs Lagrange points. It would be totally awesome to have n-body orbital mechanics, but that would require a complete overhaul of the code (like what the amazing eggrobin is doing). Plus the patched conics model works well for most things, and is easy to understand.

While i agree with you, it should be mentioned that having n-body gravity would allow for more specialized interplanatary transfers, at least one of which can save you a lot of fuel if done right: Ballistic Capture

Not that i NEED it, but it would be cool to have the ability. The current system is good enough, in my opinion.

[RainDreamer]

N body simulation is pretty problematic. Not impossible though, and there is a work in progress mod that tries to do it: Principia

And darn, looking at it is a huge headache. But I would love to see it complete. It would be a huge upgrade to KSP. Suspecting it might be a bit resource intensive though, as large scale physics simulation are prone to do.

Though, I think the OP is just asking for creation of lagrange points by creating "invisible planets" at certain points and allow us to use them to stabilize crafts at those points..

[plasmeus]

Trust me, once you have n-body physics it becomes a pain. You know all those nice interplanetary transfers you set up? Now they're transfers to nowhere, as the orbits have drifted away. the only solution to that is a complicated and very slow prediction system.

[TheGamingNoobster]

N body simulation is pretty problematic. Not impossible though, and there is a work in progress mod that tries to do it: Principia

And darn, looking at it is a huge headache. But I would love to see it complete. It would be a huge upgrade to KSP. Suspecting it might be a bit resource intensive though, as large scale physics simulation are prone to do.

Though, I think the OP is just asking for creation of lagrange points by creating "invisible planets" at certain points and allow us to use them to stabilize crafts at those points..

I remember Principia HAD a download link but not anymore. I played with it a bit. At the time it lacked patched conics. That meant that my orbits just changed ! On your final point with the 'invisible planets', it wouldn't work. Full stop. This is due to many reasons. The main problem is the way that KSP (and most/all games use gravity). In real life, everything with mass has its own gravity (Yes, you too! On a different topic i decided to calculate my escape velocity once. Spoiler alert, it is really small!). Due to this, if you reached the centre of the Earth, managed to hollow a large amount of space out and the heat didn't bother you at all, you would be effectively weightless due to the fact that all of Earth was pulling on you evenly. You would be floating! In games though there is a set spot of the centre of gravity. Since gravity decays at a rate like light (if you double your distance from something, the gravity affects you 1/2^2 as much as before. If you get three times further away it is only 1/3^2 of the strength. I think ), When you get closer and closer to this 'invisible planet Lagrangian point' the gravity gets stronger and stronger. Eventually, if you pass directly through is you would accelerate to ridiculous speeds. Additionally, Lagrangian points are just points where the gravity is in equilibrium. Additionally, on the Kerbal side of things, imagine the Lagrangian points of the Joolian System .

Now, I am definitely no expert on this! I am just a high school physics student who hasn't been taught this but had to find and self teach my understanding of astrophysics etc. and I therefore would be wrong in many parts. I would appreciate people telling me if I have anything wrong and telling me what is right instead ! Now, onto my Munar mission whilst listening to 80's music!

[edrobotguy]

... and they are possible without solving the n-body problem.

We just have to accept a few limitations. First, the physics of the Kerbal universe are slightly different than our universe, so we need to work within those rules. Second, we're going to have to change how L1, L2, L4, and L5 work a little bit, and forget about L3 altogether. So, they aren't exactly Lagrange orbits, but they're Lagrangey.

Since the orbits of the planets and moons are on rails and well-characterized, the L4 and L5 type orbits are easy. For an L4 or L5 orbit of Mun, just put your satellite in the same orbit as Mun (the same semi-major axis), just outside Mun's sphere of influence. From the point of view of the surface of Mun, the satellite would appear to orbit an invisible point just ahead of or behind Mun, once a month. The closer you can match the orbital parameters of the satellite with the orbital parameters of Mun, the closer it would appear from the surface of Mun to be hovering at a point in the sky.

If you wanted a little more realism in your L4 or L5 orbits, just put them 60 degrees ahead of or behind Mun in its orbit. Or, take advantage of this quirk of KSP and place a station just outside Kerbin's sphere of influence and match the semi-major axis of Kerbin; any subsequent ship making the same maneuvers would end up within a few hours of rendezvous with the station.

L1 and L2 type orbits are trickier, and require constant attention and frequent station-keeping. They again involve the edge of the sphere of influence, but this time in a direct line with the parent body. In this case, the satellite is constantly crossing back and forth between the sphere of influence of the primary and the secondary. The pain in the ass factor is large, but these orbits are possible.