Better orbits

[DiamondExcavater]

I Learnt that the gravity on earth depends where there are oceans and mountains, as there is more mass on one side than the other... like sticking a rock to a tennis ball, the centre of mass is where the force of gravity centres. This Means that there is more mass on one side, meaning centre of gravity is offset from the thought middle, this gravitational offset can cause an "elliptical orbit to decay a very small amount.

There is also a problem with satellites being offset themselves, they tend to fall on their heavy side, (spin and face their heavy side to the earth). this can help slow the spin of satellites in space, like the moon for example, it spins but only to face us with its face heavy side. the moon once used to spin, but the earth also caused tides like the moon does to us, but being bigger the tides on the moon were huge, causing massive amounts of rock to 'wave' making the moon loose its energy for it's spin. this never happens in Kerbal though. The sun also plays a part of decaying orbits, it may be small but it does effect.

In reality, satellites don't last for ever, and we don't want them flying around earth if they are useless, so we put an life expectancy on these satellites and make it orbit in a grave yard (dump) orbit, meaning its purposefully made to decay at a certain rate, so by the time it dies its already falling to earth and is out of sight, but you can't do this in Kerbal, unless you have some spare fuel. why not implement some kind of modification to cause this.

To have truly zero decay orbit you would have to several things

1. an orbital path and velocity to create a stable orbit.

2. no increase or decrease in mass over time

3. never be within the gravitational influence of another significant celestial body.

Satellites we place in orbit have their paths set up based on the function, projected work lifespan, and costs to operate. Often they would not work as well in different orbit, after all if you are using a satellite to broadcast tv stations to the USA, you don't want it drifting over the ocean. In a decade or so when the orbit decays enough to cause it to fall back to earth and burn up, then you will want to replace it with a better one anyway.

CHECK OUT THIS LINK FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay

[Superfluous J]

One of my favorite things about KSP is that once something's in orbit, it will stay in that exact same orbit forever.

This is a diversion from realism that I fully, totally, 100% support.

[tntristan12]

I'd like to add to 5th Horseman's sentiment by saying that the lack of realism in this aspect removes a lot of frustration from the game. One thing I like to do is create communication networks with Remote Tech, in which I edit the save file to put my satellites in a perfectly synchronized formation. I would hate to see my carefully planned networks fall apart because of this.

[DiamondExcavater]

I'd like to add to 5th Horseman's sentiment by saying that the lack of realism in this aspect removes a lot of frustration from the game. One thing I like to do is create communication networks with Remote Tech, in which I edit the save file to put my satellites in a perfectly synchronized formation. I would hate to see my carefully planned networks fall apart because of this.

This adds extra thought in a mode called realism, in which you need to plan more thoughtfully on how your orbits look like, your orbits for your satellites can remain if you place them correctly or use a different mode, in the realism mode there should also be a random chance after a few game years the satellites parts will malfunction and break, it makes it interesting and means that satellites have a reason to be visited for repairs, though its cheaper to send a new one out and put the earlier one in a decaying orbit...

[Sirrobert]

This adds extra thought in a mode called realism, in which you need to plan more thoughtfully on how your orbits look like, your orbits for your satellites can remain if you place them correctly or use a different mode, in the realism mode there should also be a random chance after a few game years the satellites parts will malfunction and break, it makes it interesting and means that satellites have a reason to be visited for repairs, though its cheaper to send a new one out and put the earlier one in a decaying orbit...

That only makes it tedious as you have to constantly maintain your ships. It doesn't add any challange, only work

[r4pt0r]

One of my favorite things about KSP is that once something's in orbit, it will stay in that exact same orbit forever.

This is a diversion from realism that I fully, totally, 100% support.

I agree.

It would be most unfun if orbital decay resulted in my station re-entering while I was time-warping another craft to Jool.

[DiamondExcavater]

Yes, though i like that stuff, 'work', makes me want to keep trying, plus it forces me to practice, who doesn't like rocket science?

- - - Updated - - -

I agree.

It would be most unfun if orbital decay resulted in my station re-entering while I was time-warping another craft to Jool.

Sadly it would mean everything is in part real time, but it means you need to send a few rockets at a time, not one every 1-5 game years, lol. Have you guys heard about the space craft messenger, its on its death orbit now and will crash into mercury

Edited May 2, 2015 by DiamondExcavater

[katateochi]

I have to agree with the non-realistic crowd; In some long running games I end up with so many satellites/stations, I'd spend my life just maintaining orbits! So I'm quite happy that things stay where you put them. It's tricky enough setting up a good communications network that ensures all the satellites remain well spaced and don't bunch up round one side of the planet, without them having decaying orbits too.

That said, I can also see that it could be an interesting game mechanic to have in a limited capacity. So what about a region of decay? Say between 70-100km (for Kerbin); anything in that region would gradually decay but things above 100km stay as they do now.

[Vectura]

I personally think something like this would be nothing but an irritation. It would not really be a game mechanic that you could design for, it would be an inescapable annoyance. You could park you satellite or stations under 70km if you want the orbit to decay. And also, if you vehicle decayed while you were in high time warp, then it would likely clip through the planet and be sent off at several times the speed of light.

[MKI]

I Learnt that the gravity on earth depends where there are oceans and mountains, as there is more mass on one side than the other... like sticking a rock to a tennis ball, the centre of mass is where the force of gravity centres. This Means that there is more mass on one side, meaning centre of gravity is offset from the thought middle, this gravitational offset can cause an "elliptical orbit to decay a very small amount.

There is also a problem with satellites being offset themselves, they tend to fall on their heavy side, (spin and face their heavy side to the earth). this can help slow the spin of satellites in space, like the moon for example, it spins but only to face us with its face heavy side. the moon once used to spin, but the earth also caused tides like the moon does to us, but being bigger the tides on the moon were huge, causing massive amounts of rock to 'wave' making the moon loose its energy for it's spin. this never happens in Kerbal though. The sun also plays a part of decaying orbits, it may be small but it does effect.

In reality, satellites don't last for ever, and we don't want them flying around earth if they are useless, so we put an life expectancy on these satellites and make it orbit in a grave yard (dump) orbit, meaning its purposefully made to decay at a certain rate, so by the time it dies its already falling to earth and is out of sight, but you can't do this in Kerbal, unless you have some spare fuel. why not implement some kind of modification to cause this.

To have truly zero decay orbit you would have to several things

1. an orbital path and velocity to create a stable orbit.

2. no increase or decrease in mass over time

3. never be within the gravitational influence of another significant celestial body.

Satellites we place in orbit have their paths set up based on the function, projected work lifespan, and costs to operate. Often they would not work as well in different orbit, after all if you are using a satellite to broadcast tv stations to the USA, you don't want it drifting over the ocean. In a decade or so when the orbit decays enough to cause it to fall back to earth and burn up, then you will want to replace it with a better one anyway.

CHECK OUT THIS LINK FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay

The orbital mechanics in the game are simplified, compared to what we would encounter in real life. This is done for simplicity, game play and more or less computing power limitations. Having more detailed N body physics would be more interesting but is pretty much not going to happen for KSP. Not only would a player have to keep track of different levels of gravitational pulls from a huge number of factors, but the computer would have to do such all the time.

Now orbital decay would be interesting, but its one of those things thrown in with Life Support. It can be done, but the game currently has little in the way of time management systems. How would you keep track of when your spacecraft will re-enter and die in relation to other crafts? At what Rate, will you have time to help it if you launch at this time ETC. Things will get complicated very fast and the game just isn't really outfitted for that sort of complex time management systems. Especially when it comes to time critical issues.

Say you have a station in orbit around Duna, will you have enough time to send a pick-up mission and return before the station, AND the pick-up ship fall back into Duna's atmosphere. Not only would you have to content with that, any time-warp would need to be checked with all other missions as they could need to be handled so you don't come out of time warp with your KSS in the ocean.

i like the current leave and forget system. It allows me to focus on more interesting tasks, rather than deal with handling very minor issues constantly.

[nholzric]

I'd like to add to 5th Horseman's sentiment by saying that the lack of realism in this aspect removes a lot of frustration from the game. One thing I like to do is create communication networks with Remote Tech, in which I edit the save file to put my satellites in a perfectly synchronized formation. I would hate to see my carefully planned networks fall apart because of this.

WHaaaat, cheating?? When my Remote Tech constellations drift I know it's time for MOAR RELAAYS!

But seriously, this is a really great example of why a more realistic gravity field would be a pain. In real life we have days, weeks, months, years before a typical orbit is perturbed enough to need maintenance. We also have months and years to wait for interplanetary transfers. In KSP, thanks to timewarp, we potentially have seconds and minutes to wait between interplanetary transfers if we choose and we therefore have seconds before a typical orbit is perturbed into oblivion. Whether it's a Remote Tech constellation getting all bunched up or an LKO station reentering.

[tomf]

Plus if simulating N body physics at high warp would make most CPUs unhappy simulating it for uneven gravity distribution would simply melt them.

[DiamondExcavater]

Yeah I see that now, just that it adds junk to my system and its very tedious having to delete debris and other useless items out in space. i wish you can delete debris all at once, and making satellites actually do something!

[mattinoz]

Do people deal directly with this in real life or is it mostly handled by automated systems?

Either way I'm happy to believe that there is a Kerbal in the tracking station dealing with this for me and part of the mass of the craft is there as fuel.

[Superfluous J]

Yeah I see that now, just that it adds junk to my system and its very tedious having to delete debris and other useless items out in space. i wish you can delete debris all at once, and making satellites actually do something!

You can set persistent debris to 0, or a very low number like 10 or something.

You can also do what I do: Don't leave debris! NASA does it, so you should do it too I make sure to never drop something (barring any emergencies of course) unless it will impact a planet or moon, or will at least have an SOI change some time in the future that will toss it either out of the Kerbin SOI or into another encounter that will cause it to crash or be flung. Then, anything in such an orbit I can delete manually. It's not so bad deleting it manually, though, because just by being aware of the need to keep the space lanes clear, I end up mostly destroying stuff by crashing it into Kerbin or my target world.

- - - Updated - - -

Do people deal directly with this in real life or is it mostly handled by automated systems?

Either way I'm happy to believe that there is a Kerbal in the tracking station dealing with this for me and part of the mass of the craft is there as fuel.

I'm pretty sure that in real life, it's both. But that doesn't mean we should deal with it in game. I have to do laundry, feed the cat, and all that stuff but I don't want to have to do all that before every launch either!

[Papa_Joe]

Ah, the age old battle between realism and playability.

This conversation has been ongoing since the inception of KSP. I neither dislike realism nor do favor playability.

This does NOT mean I sit on the fence (that hurts ), but it means that this game can be so many things to so many people. Just like in my mod SM, I like to provide the community choices in their game play. The Realism purists would most certainly "require" N-body gravitational mechanics, along with mass based orbital permutatoins. going so far as to account for the smallest permutations caused by other galaxies.... ad infnitum...

The "gamers" would chafe at the burden placed on them to have to "be so precise" and not be able to simply "feel" their way thru the game...

I love it. There are times I really want the realism (it is a challange after all) and there are times when it is just so.... tedious. (don't hate me, I swear by MechJeb)

I guess that means I want it the way I want it... but not always

Edited May 2, 2015 by Papa_Joe

[CaLVin-K]

Yes, though i like that stuff, 'work', makes me want to keep trying, plus it forces me to practice, who doesn't like rocket science?

- - - Updated - - -

Sadly it would mean everything is in part real time, but it means you need to send a few rockets at a time, not one every 1-5 game years, lol. Have you guys heard about the space craft messenger, its on its death orbit now and will crash into mars i think it was...

Messenger crashed into Mercury.