Ateballgaming Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Is there any way to spawn debris next to a shuttle to mess it up like in gravity? theres a ksp video recreating gravity, and the debris pretty much appears out of no where to hit their ship, just wondering if something like that could be possible in ksp.And if anyone wondering the video is by Nassualt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thegamer211 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Build a debris bomb, and use hyperedit to send it near the space shuttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZooNamedGames Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Or use whack-a-kerbal found within the alt+f12 menu. It spawns random shapes... But they arnt persistance so they vanish once you leave the scene or they leave the physics range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxwellsDemon Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 The question is, how to recreate the moment where Clooney Kerman loses his grip on Sandra Kerman and flies off in defiance of physics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monsterlunch Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 This be wat you wanna build:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/72764-Request-Kessler-bombGood Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enorats Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 You really cant. That movie was epically fail in terms of physics and orbital mechanics. Almost every aspect of the entire film was outright lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 It'd be easier to recreate it in Space Engineers, I think. That way you don't have to worry about physics ruining your fun. Just like the movie did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alshain Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 You really cant. That movie was epically fail in terms of physics and orbital mechanics. Almost every aspect of the entire film was outright lunacy.I second this. That movie was just too much sci-fi to be recreated. The Nassault video you saw was also sci-fi and camera trickery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G'th Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 It can be recreated, though the only way to do it reliably is via Hyperedit. Put the debris bomb in a retrograde orbit, put your shuttle in a prograde orbit at the exact same height and inclination. Provided the debris is compacted together enough (I recommend making the decouple force as low as possible) it'll collide with your shuttle.Presumably. I'm just guessing that would do it because thats the only way such a debris field would actually work in the way it does in the movie. If the debris field was in a prograde orbit relative to the shuttle, ISS, etc then it could only have collided once with may be a couple bits flying by on the next orbit (as it would then be an elliptical orbit. It would never get to the shuttle if it was still circular as the movie portrays). And thats if the debris field gets created in such a way that closest approach hits zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brofessional Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Not my image, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ateballgaming Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 Not my image, but...http://i.imgur.com/7gZemsU.gifDamn!! thats really cool- - - Updated - - -You really cant. That movie was epically fail in terms of physics and orbital mechanics. Almost every aspect of the entire film was outright lunacy.I actually disagree, the movie got really boring after clooney left the scene but the absolute destruction of the shuttle and everything else in the beginning was pretty coolmy favourite part was when the first piece of debris (The big ass satellite) flies by them and they all realize that its all about to go south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovek Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Damn!! thats really cool- - - Updated - - -I actually disagree, the movie got really boring after clooney left the scene but the absolute destruction of the shuttle and everything else in the beginning was pretty coolmy favourite part was when the first piece of debris (The big ass satellite) flies by them and they all realize that its all about to go south.Ummm... how does a movie being exciting and "cool" make it any less fake and outright failure in terms of orbital mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ateballgaming Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share Posted October 30, 2015 Ummm... how does a movie being exciting and "cool" make it any less fake and outright failure in terms of orbital mechanics.I said the initial destructiion, not the orbital mechanics. I know that was crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalfunctionM1Ke Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) (Not mine) Kessler Bomb... enjoy Edited October 30, 2015 by MalfunctionM1Ke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brofessional Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (Not mine) Kessler Bomb... enjoy -snip-public_ksp_multiplayer_server.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ateballgaming Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share Posted October 30, 2015 (Not mine) Kessler Bomb... enjoy http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3699/9761813086_35f5cd566f_o.gifThe lag thats gonna cause XDYea, ill try that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarrisonChisholm Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I second this. That movie was just too much sci-fi to be recreated. The Nassault video you saw was also sci-fi and camera trickery.*..."note to self, scratch Gravity off Christmas Wish List"...* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voyager55 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 The question is, how to recreate the moment where Clooney Kerman loses his grip on Sandra Kerman and flies off in defiance of physics... The only way that scene could make sense, would be if they were in low orbit around a neutron star or something, and the tidal forces were that strong, but if you're orbiting a neutron star you've got a whole plethora of other problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargamel Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 ... but if you're orbiting a neutron star you've got a whole plethora of other problems.That.... that is sig worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxwellsDemon Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Note to self: re-read 'Neutron Star' by Larry Niven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocketeer Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Gravity suffers from the usual 'Hollywood doesn't understand physics' problem present in practically every movie ever, but the story of Gravity actually kinda works if u mentally redraw the Hollysics scenes in ways that would have been physically possible and produced the same plot results. Apart from the debris-cloud recurrence interval (really, wt...h Sony?), there's nothing else I can think of that couldn't be recreated in a 'that could have worked' way in KSP.Unlike Interstellar. That movie was a pile of dogdirts. A pile of fresh, warm, multi-coloured dogdirts, with a little US flag in it. Go America!The Martian had some major nonsense too. Intercept and dock with a supply pod that's not capable of Mars intercept, after/during your Earth flyby burn for a Mars return trajectory, without losing velocity? Ugh... Seriously, of all the recent near-future sci-fi movies, Gravity is probably the least offensive to the space-physics-enlightened. Edited October 31, 2015 by The_Rocketeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 The Martian had some major nonsense too. Intercept and dock with a supply pod that's not capable of Mars intercept, after/during your Earth flyby burn for a Mars return trajectory, without losing velocity? Ugh...Seriously, of all the recent near-future sci-fi movies, Gravity is probably the least offensive to the space-physics-enlightened.All the orbital mechanics stuff in The Martian (book. Still haven't seen the movie) was solid, including everything the mothership did to get back to Mars from its Earthbound trajectory. I don't remember the particulars of the supply pod but IIRC thought it was capable of getting up to the speed of the mothership, and the mothership then burned to get to Mars. And the mothership was not doing Oberth maneuvers, but burning for extended periods with efficient but very low thrust.Gravity had a lot more wrong with it than the recurring debris field. It treated all the things in space like they were stationary on a map, and you could just thrust toward them to get there. Anybody who's tried a rendezvous in KSP knows that ain't the case when you're more than just a few scant kilometers apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa3532 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Actually, the supply pod did have the capability of a Mars intercept (The booster for the Taiyang Shen from the Chinese) , the problem was they had less than a month to put the pod together and the only option was to crash land the pod on Mars at about 300 m/s in which the supplies had a low chance of surviving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocketeer Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) All the orbital mechanics stuff in The Martian (book. Still haven't seen the movie) was solid, including everything the mothership did to get back to Mars from its Earthbound trajectory.I've heard this elsewhere, and see no reason to doubt it, though I haven't read the book. I don't want to spoil the movie, but from the way the movie presented it, the sequence of events would have resulted in impossible velocities for a rendezvous and/or rendered the need for doing so completely redundant. Sounds like the book might not have had Hollywood physics - go literature!Gravity had a lot more wrong with it than the recurring debris field. It treated all the things in space like they were stationary on a map, and you could just thrust toward them to get there. Anybody who's tried a rendezvous in KSP knows that ain't the case when you're more than just a few scant kilometers apart.I know what you mean, but in principle there's no fundamental issue with making a rendezvous using EVA thrusters only as long as you thrust in the right direction. The movie got the direction wrong, but not the situational reasoning.Actually, the supply pod did have the capability of a Mars intercept (The booster for the Taiyang Shen from the Chinese) , the problem was they had less than a month to put the pod together and the only option was to crash land the pod on Mars at about 300 m/s in which the supplies had a low chance of surviving.*SPOILERS WARNING* The issue was one of time. To rendezvous with a ship on it's way to somewhere in a given time costs exactly the same (or more actually) as going there yourself in the same amount of time. The reasoning was that for the mothership to make the return to Mars they would need to make their acceleration burn (instead of a deceleration burn) BEFORE reaching Earth (described in dialog), so the rendezvous with the pod would require the pod to accelerate to Mars insertion velocity anyway! Edited October 31, 2015 by The_Rocketeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnok Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Wouldn't be more realistic and safer to just send small capsule with resources as independent mission to Mars? And then during flight change its orbit and dock slowly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts