Devnote Tuesday: One One Three

[Jovus]

So what I'm taking away from this is that, if possible, I should put all my space stations >100km from the surface of a planet.

[0111narwhalz]

5 hours ago, Jovus said:

So what I'm taking away from this is that, if possible, I should put all my space stations >100km from the surface of a planet.

I mean, that's standard for many people, so not too far-fetched.

[Jovus]

13 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

I mean, that's standard for many people, so not too far-fetched.

Really? Your Munar and Minmal orbital stations orbit at higher than 100km?

[0111narwhalz]

Just now, Jovus said:

Really? Your Munar and Minmal orbital stations orbit at higher than 100km?

Oh, no. Those are usually under 10 klicks. As per usual, I forget that everywhere is the same.

[NathanKell]

Why would that be your takeaway?

[0111narwhalz]

Probably something regarding accuracy of orbit calculation? I don't think that's an issue now, though. Is that correct?

[Jovus]

9 hours ago, NathanKell said:

Why would that be your takeaway?

Major Premise: <100km is optimized for surface interactions. >100km is optimized for orbital interactions.

Minor Premise: Especially for things whose main purpose is orbital interactions (e.g. repeated dockings) like space stations, I want something optimized or orbital interactions.

Conclusion: I want things whose main purpose is orbital interactions, like space stations, in >100km orbits.

Is either the major or minor premise wrong? Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

 

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm genuinely trying to understand the difference from a gameplay perspective.

[NathanKell]

They both are, actually. Orbits don't care if your reference frame is rotating, it just makes things a bit harder to conceptualize. Besides, the orbit math (other than tracking your current parameters) doesn't come into play unless you're on rails anyway (warp of the non-physics sort); offrails the lines are predictions, not guarantees.

Ah, hmm, now that I think about it: what _does_ change, now, between those modes, is how Krakensbane and FloatingOrigin behave; for best precision in docking (at the cost of perhaps slightly greater orbital drift for the active vessel) you'd do better below the rot threshold. But I doubt it's perceptible.

[NoMrBond]

45 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

Ah, hmm, now that I think about it: what _does_ change, now, between those modes, is how Krakensbane and FloatingOrigin behave; for best precision in docking (at the cost of perhaps slightly greater orbital drift for the active vessel) you'd do better below the rot threshold. But I doubt it's perceptible.

Vessels inside a physics bubble don't share a common FloatingOrigin?

Is this why Kerbals drift up/down (and off) ladders because while on EVA they have their own origin and their orbit is diverging ever so slightly from the vessels (and therefore ladders)?

[NathanKell]

@NoMrBond no the problem is they _do_ share it. That means that precision is maximized for the active vessel. Consider another vessel a kilometer (1000 units) away--that's a fair bit less precision than a vessel centered around 0.

[NoMrBond]

8 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

@NoMrBond no the problem is they _do_ share it. That means that precision is maximized for the active vessel. Consider another vessel a kilometer (1000 units) away--that's a fair bit less precision than a vessel centered around 0.

Oh, I get it, for some reason I thought it would be a barycenter rather than unfocused vessels appended to the active vessels origin

On reflection, given how that kind of origin itself would itself be in constant motion (like a mini solar system of its own), I can see why it's not!

Any chance of increasing Kerbal grip strength then

[NathanKell]

No promises, but we are cleaning up the codebase, so it might get fixed Just Because. :]

[Jovus]

Thanks for your help, NathanKell!

Edited June 28, 2016 by Jovus

[Violent Jeb]

[redacted, done]

Edited August 16, 2016 by Violent Jeb

[brusura]

Landend things still drift over surface in 1.1.3 , anyone noticed it?

[Rath]

NASA article is nothing.  Remember when a KSP standard pre-3.75m heavy lifter was used on NASATV as a "Moderen Heavy Lift vehicle."

[0111narwhalz]

58 minutes ago, Rath said:

NASA article is nothing.  Remember when a KSP standard pre-3.75m heavy lifter was used on NASATV as a "Moderen Heavy Lift vehicle."

Source?

[HebaruSan]

11 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Source?

I think it was this Daily Mail article, not NASA.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3432512/Orion-Capsule-someday-humans-Mars-ready-begin-structural-testing-ahead-2018-lunar-flight.html

[richfiles]

33 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Source?

It ain't much, but the original forum post is here.

21 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

I think it was this Daily Mail article, not NASA.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3432512/Orion-Capsule-someday-humans-Mars-ready-begin-structural-testing-ahead-2018-lunar-flight.html

"Untitled Space Craft"  Too funny! XD