So I'm taking a day off for KSP ...

[elkar]

... and I was wondering if you think career will be fun enough to spend few days in it? I mean I always planned my "space program" by setting certain goals and was always into realistic mods like RemoteTech, life support.... So I'm wondering if stock career (maybe with visual mods) will be finally enough to fully enjoy the game.

PS: I have't been really playing since 0.23. And mr. Manley was doing only some silly KSP stuff lately, so I'm in the dark.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

Yes, probably. If you find it too easy, try better than starting manned as well.

[EtherDragon]

I think when 1.0 comes out you will find Career mode to be really fun. It's worth a try.

[AbacusWizard]

I'm not gonna take a day off of work; my students need me... but I might spend a little more time than usual discussing orbital mechanics in any physics class where it's even remotely relevant.

[Guest]

I don't think career will be any more fun unless they've added a passive way of making funds or changed the building upgrade costs. It's a massive grind at the moment.

Edited April 23, 2015 by regex

[Athlonic]

Personally I took all the next week off

Ok, I must admit it was just a nice coincidence but nice timing anyway Squad, thanks ^^

[elkar]

I'm not gonna take a day off of work; my students need me... but I might spend a little more time than usual discussing orbital mechanics in any physics class where it's even remotely relevant.

How do you explain that once you get rocket on the orbit it stays there and doest fall down? I had quite difficult time to properly explain it to some of my friends (all adults tho). Is there like a simple expample or something for that in schools?

[Norcalplanner]

Cannon firing a cannonball on flat ground vs. from the top of a hill. It stays up longer and goes further when fired from the top of a hill because the ground falls away. Then imagine the cannon on the surface of a large round ball (say 500 yards in diameter or so), with gravity pulling inwards going in towards the center of the ball. The cannonball, with progressively higher charges, will start going further and further around the large round ball before gravity drags it down to hit the ball's surface. When you finally add enough powder, the cannonball will fly all the way around the ball and hit the cannonier (sp?) in the back of the head. Voila, the cannonball has achieved orbit, so long as the cannonier ducks.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, just found a great video showing the exact thing I just described.

[NoMrBond]

As much as I am looking forward to it, I think I'll hold off on booking leave for a week or so for mods to be updated

[uglyduckling81]

Yeah wait for the mods. Remote tech, kerbal alarm clock, kerbal engineer, enahnced navball, better contracts window and so many more mods required to make career worthwhile.

I personally never play sandbox as I find a game without objectives boring but the career mode in KSP is a bit lacking.

[AbacusWizard]

Regarding teaching about orbit: I always start by using the example of a rock spun around on a string to introduce the notion of centripetal force. With no force at all acting on the rock, it would either stay still (if it wasn't already in motion) or move at constant speed in a straight line (if it was). In order to move in a curved path, it needs a force, and that force is provided by the tension in the string.

With a little bit of questioning the students quickly figure out that this force has to be proportional to the object's mass and velocity (massive object requires lots of force; fast object is changing more quickly so it needs more force) and inversely proportional to radius of the circular path (this one's trickier, but I point out that larger radius means more gently curving path, so the direction isn't changing as suddenly--if the students are old enough to drive, I make comparisons to sharp turns versus gradual turns and they get it right away).

So far that gives us F_cent = mv/r. But the units of measurement don't work out--we need an extra m/s. Easiest way to do that is to square the velocity, so

F_cent = m v^2 / r.

So far this should work for any object moving in a circular path at constant speed: there must be a (total) force of exactly mv^2/r, pointing towards the circle's center, or the trajectory won't be circular.

Now for gravity. Some students have already seen F_g = G M m / r^2 ; if not, it's pretty easy to work out the basic format by a similar line of questioning.

I then tell the students: consider an object, let's say a moon, in orbit around a planet. That's a (roughly) circular* path, so there must be a centripetal force. What's providing it? There's no string holding them together--instead it's gravity.

My favorite bit at this point is the equation

F_required = F_provided

In other words, the force that is required for something to happen can be set equal to the force that is provided to cause it to happen. In this case, that means we can say

F_cent = F_grav

or

m v^2 / r = G M m / r^2

With a little algebra, we can solve for v:

v = √(GM/r)

G and M are constant, so this tells us that for any given height, there is a certain speed that will allow a circular orbit. (Calculating that speed for Kerbin, by the way, was one of the first things I did after buying KSP.) Note also that mass of the orbiter cancels out and therefore doesn't matter; two objects at the same height and same velocity will orbit together even if they have different masses. The upshot of all this: getting into orbit ONLY requires reaching an altitude of your choice (above the atmosphere and any tall mountains should suffice) and achieving a certain sideways speed that depends on that altitude. Once that's accomplished, no further forces are required except gravity itself.

* at this point I have to tell a certain part of my brain "yes, I know it's elliptical, now shut up"

[boostme]

I've already taken the week off - even before the announcement. Here in South Africa the 27th is a public holiday. It was when Nelson Mandela was released. And then Friday is Workers' day (1 May) which is also a public holiday. I'm looking forward to a week long KSP holiday.

[elkar]

Rock on the string is actually pretty nice example.

Also 1st May is holiday in a lot of countries.

[Slam_Jones]

Career mode has been my preferred since I started playing, but lately I've been giving myself an "advanced start":

Usually start in what I call "Hardcore" mode (no reverts, no saves, etc.), then start with a decent amount of science, money, and rep so I can get some tech and upgrade some buildings.

That way, I'm not starting from dirt, and there's a few more contracts available sooner (after you get a Kerbal into orbit, of course)

[Wiseman]

I think with the updates to aero and heat, revamp of the tech tree, some additional science bits (such as science labs giving passive science now), a thorough look at rebalancing and adding contracts, rebalance of engines, delta-v calculations in-game, etc etc... It sounds like 1.0 is going to be the first time I don't really NEED mods. I'm looking forward to playing on Monday to find out.

[JedTech]

Career mode has been my preferred since I started playing, but lately I've been giving myself an "advanced start":

Usually start in what I call "Hardcore" mode (no reverts, no saves, etc.), then start with a decent amount of science, money, and rep so I can get some tech and upgrade some buildings.

That way, I'm not starting from dirt, and there's a few more contracts available sooner (after you get a Kerbal into orbit, of course)

I've been doing something like this for my recent saves as well. The first of career mode feels really grinding.

[Slam_Jones]

I've been doing something like this for my recent saves as well. The first of career mode feels really grinding.

Agreed.

Plus there's something kinda funny about the first Kerbal in orbit getting there in a spaceplane

[EtherDragon]

Regarding teaching about orbit: I always start by using the example of a rock spun around on a string to introduce the notion of centripetal force. With no force at all acting on the rock, it would either stay still (if it wasn't already in motion) or move at constant speed in a straight line (if it was). In order to move in a curved path, it needs a force, and that force is provided by the tension in the string.

With a little bit of questioning the students quickly figure out that this force has to be proportional to the object's mass and velocity (massive object requires lots of force; fast object is changing more quickly so it needs more force) and inversely proportional to radius of the circular path (this one's trickier, but I point out that larger radius means more gently curving path, so the direction isn't changing as suddenly--if the students are old enough to drive, I make comparisons to sharp turns versus gradual turns and they get it right away).

So far that gives us F_cent = mv/r. But the units of measurement don't work out--we need an extra m/s. Easiest way to do that is to square the velocity, so

F_cent = m v^2 / r.

So far this should work for any object moving in a circular path at constant speed: there must be a (total) force of exactly mv^2/r, pointing towards the circle's center, or the trajectory won't be circular.

Now for gravity. Some students have already seen F_g = G M m / r^2 ; if not, it's pretty easy to work out the basic format by a similar line of questioning.

I then tell the students: consider an object, let's say a moon, in orbit around a planet. That's a (roughly) circular* path, so there must be a centripetal force. What's providing it? There's no string holding them together--instead it's gravity.

My favorite bit at this point is the equation

F_required = F_provided

In other words, the force that is required for something to happen can be set equal to the force that is provided to cause it to happen. In this case, that means we can say

F_cent = F_grav

or

m v^2 / r = G M m / r^2

With a little algebra, we can solve for v:

v = √(GM/r)

G and M are constant, so this tells us that for any given height, there is a certain speed that will allow a circular orbit. (Calculating that speed for Kerbin, by the way, was one of the first things I did after buying KSP.) Note also that mass of the orbiter cancels out and therefore doesn't matter; two objects at the same height and same velocity will orbit together even if they have different masses. The upshot of all this: getting into orbit ONLY requires reaching an altitude of your choice (above the atmosphere and any tall mountains should suffice) and achieving a certain sideways speed that depends on that altitude. Once that's accomplished, no further forces are required except gravity itself.

* at this point I have to tell a certain part of my brain "yes, I know it's elliptical, now shut up"

A circle is perfectly fine for this kind of thing. After all a Circle IS an Elipse - it just happens the foci are in the same location.

[AbacusWizard]

Story:

I first bought Kerbal Space Program about a year ago. At that time I was also teaching, for the first time, a support workshop for a certain first-quarter physics class. It was going reasonably smoothly--the professor would introduce a new topic to the students; the students would struggle with it and not quite understand it; they would come in to my support workshop; I would explain the material in different ways and answer questions and walk them through example problems.

About 3/4 of the way through the quarter it seemed like they had covered all the material on the curriculum, so I wasn't really sure what to cover next. I was about to head in to the next workshop with no clue what topic I'd be covering, when suddenly I got an email from a student:

"In the next workshop, could you talk about escape velocity and orbits? Our professor's been talking about them and I don't understand it."

My brain jumped up and down and cheered "I HAVE SPENT ALL OF MY FREE TIME IN THE LAST SIX WEEKS PREPARING FOR THIS VERY MOMENT"

I gave an enthusiastic presentation about escape velocity and centripetal force and orbital velocity and geosynchronous orbit and transfer orbits. It went very well; several students stuck around after the end of the workshop to ask more questions about how it all works. Eventually I sent them off with links to download the KSP demo.

[Aragosnat]

Story:

I first bought Kerbal Space Program about a year ago. At that time I was also teaching, for the first time, a support workshop for a certain first-quarter physics class. It was going reasonably smoothly--the professor would introduce a new topic to the students; the students would struggle with it and not quite understand it; they would come in to my support workshop; I would explain the material in different ways and answer questions and walk them through example problems.

About 3/4 of the way through the quarter it seemed like they had covered all the material on the curriculum, so I wasn't really sure what to cover next. I was about to head in to the next workshop with no clue what topic I'd be covering, when suddenly I got an email from a student:

"In the next workshop, could you talk about escape velocity and orbits? Our professor's been talking about them and I don't understand it."

My brain jumped up and down and cheered "I HAVE SPENT ALL OF MY FREE TIME IN THE LAST SIX WEEKS PREPARING FOR THIS VERY MOMENT"

I gave an enthusiastic presentation about escape velocity and centripetal force and orbital velocity and geosynchronous orbit and transfer orbits. It went very well; several students stuck around after the end of the workshop to ask more questions about how it all works. Eventually I sent them off with links to download the KSP demo.

That was nice of you to give them the link. =^.^= Still way to much math I understand a bit of.

[AbacusWizard]

I figured if they were excited about orbital mechanics and wanted to learn more about it, a hands-on experience such as KSP would be the best way to do it. I did give them a warning that they should probably go to the website, bookmark it, and then not go back to download the demo until after they were done with their final exams for the quarter.