Decaying Orbits

[KSPFanatic102]

To Squad: A Kerbal Suggestion , Decaying Orbits

Decaying Orbits , (as seen on the title)

So You may ask what does "Decaying Orbits" mean? , Well if you're asking that , Then i will explain as briefly as i can below . -1 What is the meaning , 2- The Concept , 3- The Main Planets Different amount of pull , and 4- Why i think it should be added to KSP.

1- What is the Meaning of "Decaying Orbits"?

Decaying orbits or "Orbital Decay is a process that leads to gradual decrease of the distance between two orbiting bodies at their closest approach (the periapsis) over many orbital periods. These orbiting bodies can be a planet and its satellite, a star and any object orbiting it, or components of any binary system. The orbital decay can be caused by a multitude of mechanical, gravitational, and electromagnetic effects.

If left unchecked, the decay eventually results in termination of the orbit where the smaller object strikes the surface of the primary; or for objects where the primary has an atmosphere, the smaller object burns, explodes, or otherwise breaks up in the larger object's atmosphere; or for objects where the primary is a star, ends with incineration by the star's radiation (such as for comets), and so on.

2- The Concept (In game)

I Think Decaying Orbits or "Orbital Decay" should be adjustable based on the player's level of experience , For instance , When you make a new game and you choose "Easy Mode" the Orbital Decay won't have effect on the spacecrafts at all . At "Normal Mode" the "Orbital Decay" would have effect on the spacecraft at 50% Efficiency , and on Hard Mode it would have effect on the spacecraft at 100% Efficiency.

Each planetary body , depending on its mass and gravitational pull would have a different amount of decay . For example , Someone launched a satellite to 150 km on Kerbin's orbit , the "Orbital Decay" at Normal Mode for example would be 1/km per 60 Days , on Hard Mode it would be 2/km per 60 Days or 1/km per 30 Days . If the player wants a much more Decaying effect , He can adjust it in the settings , Or if he wants to lower the effect , He can also adjust it by using the settings.

Also If the player has a spacecraft in orbit he can prevent the "Decaying Effect" by Doing Pro grade Burns to boost the orbit , the higher the player's orbit is the weaker the Orbital Decay effect , would effect the spacecraft , For instance i have a Probe at 150 km of kerbin orbit , and another Probe at 1500 km of kerbin orbit , the probe at 1500 km would Decay 10x Slower , for clearance the 150 km orbit would decay (Fully) in 150x60 Days if the rate was 1/km per 60 days ,and it was normal mode .  and the probe at 1500 km would decay (Fully) in 1500x60 Days Of Course the player will be able to edit the rate , either using cheats where he would hack gravity which would slow down the orbital decay effect , or increase it . he can set both (Cheats or in the settings)

3-The Main Planets Different amount of pull (What i think) (all descriptions below are at 300 km which in that altitude would have the normal decay effect)

To make the game a little bit fun and with a little of science , i think it should be around 1-5 km / per 60 Days in Kerbin

Moho- Not yet settled

Eve- 1-3 km / per 60 Days

Duna- 0.5 - 3 km / per 60 days

Jool - 5 - 10 km / per 60 days

You Decide about moons and dwarf planets the sun , (Note: the description was written by me and my mind , not figuring out the masses and gravtitational pull and all of that stuff, i just put atmospheric height in my head)

4-Why I think it should be added to KSP

I think "Decaying Orbits or Orbital Decay would be an awesome additon to KSP and would make it more realistic and fun and in the same time , Challenging and this concept sounds easy to implement in the game , i would like to know if it is possible or not , but nonetheless i think this would be a great idea.

Thank you for reading (Look at Poll)

-Wilford Kerman

-Year 104 , Day 48

 

 

 

btw , write what you think about this idea in the comments section below

Edited April 29, 2017 by Space_taco

[TheEpicSquared]

No.

I'm not even going to go into the discussion of whether this is possible, but this would increase the grind of playing by SO MUCH. 

You'd have to re-establish your orbits every few days, which might be fine if you only have 2-3 satellites, but what about when you have hundreds, around every body? The whole thing would just turn into a horrible micro-management experience.

Also, I think SQUAD should have more important priorities *cough cough* delta-v meter *cough cough*

I'd rather see it as a mod. So, no. At least, not yet.

Edited May 2, 2017 by TheEpicSquared

[Cucco-Master]

The fact that I stopped playing during the time in 1.1.2, when a bug caused artificial orbital decay, should make my opinion on this topic clear. To be honest, the effect of this bug on orbits was quite a bit more extreme than any realistic orbital decay would be, but I would still say something like this has its place in the realm of hardcore realism mods.

[soulsource]

I also think this is not a good idea, at least not unless there is an option to automatically take care of it. One could imagine a button that enables "automatic decay correction burns", which will require your orbiting craft to be maneuverable (engines + fuel), and will then consume a tiny amount of fuel over time to keep the orbit stable.

Also, there's a mod for that:

 

[ZooNamedGames]

41 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said:

No.

I'm not even going to go into the discussion of whether this is possible, but this would increase the grind of playing by SO MUCH. 

You'd have to re-establish your orbits every few days, which might be fine if you only have 2-3 satellites, but what about when you have hundreds, around every body? The whole thing would just turn into a micro-management experience.

Also, I think. SQUAD should have mite important priorities *cough cough* delta-v meter *cough cough*

Id rather see it as a mod. So, no. At least, not yet.

Only have to manage them when they run out of RCS  . Station keeping. The post above explains it well.

[Numerlor]

This would require to somehow correct orbits with RCS onboard without vessel being active or it would be extremly grindy if you have many vessels. and that thing seems rather hard to make

[ZooNamedGames]

4 minutes ago, Numerlor said:

This would require to somehow correct orbits with RCS onboard without vessel being active or it would be extremly grindy if you have many vessels. and that thing seems rather hard to make

Simply x RCS used over time dependent on altitude and vessel mass. Lighter slows down faster than heavier crafts (due to momentum), and higher your orbit, the longer you remain. 

just an equation for how much RCS you use overtime and have that just apply to all crafts until they run out and then you run them through a decay equation and when they get their orbit low enough they just vanish like normal.

[Numerlor]

17 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Simply x RCS used over time dependent on altitude and vessel mass. Lighter slows down faster than heavier crafts (due to momentum), and higher your orbit, the longer you remain. 

just an equation for how much RCS you use overtime and have that just apply to all crafts until they run out and then you run them through a decay equation and when they get their orbit low enough they just vanish like normal.

It should also take how much of total RCS power you have for hard careers with not that many funds because like this you would need none or 1 thruster on 1000t vessel

Edited April 29, 2017 by Numerlor

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, Numerlor said:

It should also take how much of total RCS power you have for hard careers with not that many funds because like this wou would need none or 1 thrusters on 1000t vessel

Fair point. 

[tater]

I think it's a great idea. If orbit is defined as 70k, then maybe everything up 10 10% higher is considered a draggy orbit. I should do it out of focus so that debris gets deorbited. Anything above that 77,001m in this example is fine. Maybe 20%?

3 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said:

No.

I'm not even going to go into the discussion of whether this is possible, but this would increase the grind of playing by SO MUCH. 

You'd have to re-establish your orbits every few days, which might be fine if you only have 2-3 satellites, but what about when you have hundreds, around every body? The whole thing would just turn into a micro-management experience.

Also, I think. SQUAD should have mite important priorities *cough cough* delta-v meter *cough cough*

Id rather see it as a mod. So, no. At least, not yet.

The principle driver of decay is atmospheric drag. Given the cartoonish nature of KSP orbital physics in general, it can be set as a gradient that goes to zero decay at some altitude X% above the orbital altitude.  Ignore the effects above that altitude, because KSP doesn't have the fidelity to account for such small effects anyway. I'd use it as a parking orbit for garbage, and put things that matter higher.

Having to reboot would never be a thing in stock KSP, as it's practically impossible to be in a situation where you can barely make orbit. In a rescale with stock parts, where making orbit is often a near run thing, then you might need to periodically boost something until you unlock some better parts.

Edited April 29, 2017 by tater

[Martian Emigrant]

NO.

Absolutely not. This is a game.

It would become a micro management nightmare.

By the time Jeb goes from Kerbin to Jool all your low orbit satellites would have de-orbited.

Who would want to stop a warp to Eeloo every month to boost a dozen satellites.

T'would take a lot of the "Fun" right out of it.

 

Some of us already do several missions at the same time and stop what they are doing to use a launch window to some world.

Then go back and straighten their Geosynchronous network and go back to their flights already in progress.

I don't do any of that. One flights at a time is my style and I still do Stupid.

 

We do a lot of unreal thing already. Like Jeb doing a grand tour.

Gone for 40 years in a small box without any life support systems.

 

Make it a Mod. If it should become a "Feature" I want a Mod to get out of it.

Or make it a "Thing" for debris. That I don't care.

 

ME

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 

[snip]

Edited May 2, 2017 by Vanamonde
For the sake of others' scrolling, please don't get carried away.

[tater]

Ah, intelligent debate.

You are arguing straw men. Why, pray tell, would anyone in stock KSP not simply put things in slightly higher orbits? It's not like it's even mildly difficult to get even the most ridiculous contraption to orbit. Properly done, this would do nothing more than automatically scrub spent stages from extremely low orbits.

[swjr-swis]

Let's get KSP to first learn the trick of keeping what should be stable orbits actually rock solid stable, then we can consider if there's a point in (optionally!!) affecting them in a controlled/predictable manner.

As long as Ap/Pe keep fluctuating and decaying at random due to floating point inaccuracies in the code/engine or from phantom forces, the error is going to continuously mask whatever tiny effects 'actual' orbital decay may try to introduce. I can see this very quickly becoming the equivalent of the circus act with balacing plates on the poles...

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

40 minutes ago, tater said:

 Why, pray tell, would anyone in stock KSP not simply put things in slightly higher orbits?

 Because it's harder to rendevous in higher orbits. Also, Mr Tater, may I introduce Mr Oberth?

[tater]

1 minute ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

 Because it's harder to rendevous in higher orbits. Also, Mr Tater, may I introduce Mr Oberth?

Orbital decay would be small over short numbers of orbits. Also, so what? Making a burn at Earth with a perigee of 50km would be better than 100km, but the atmosphere gets in the way. Deal with it.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Yes, fair. But what about people who have orbital hubs from which spacecraft travel further out after refuelling at the station?

Like me...

Edited April 29, 2017 by OrbitalBuzzsaw

[tater]

Just now, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

Yes, fair. But what about people who have orbital hubs from which spacecraft travel further out after refuelling at the station?

Like me...

Place them in a reasonable orbit. ISS isn't right at the Karman line. If you care about old saves... I'm at a loss, I have no idea why anyone would care even a little about old saves. I start over with every single update, indeed many mod updates.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Just now, tater said:

Place them in a reasonable orbit. ISS isn't right at the Karman line. If you care about old saves... I'm at a loss, I have no idea why anyone would care even a little about old saves. I start over with every single update, indeed many mod updates.

Again, high-orbit rendevous.

[tater]

Again, so what? Put it in a higher orbit. Getting to any orbit in KSP is trivial. If it takes an extra couple of launches to fill a depot or whatever, that's just tough.

KSP lacks a few things that create interesting design challenges. Since apparently large numbers of players never leave Kerbin SoI, increasing the interest/fidelity at home (Kerbin) makes a lot of sense. I'd like to see multiple propellant choices instead of just 2 (LFO/Mono), with actual trade offs. Maybe LFO/cryo (with boiloff)/hypergolic with mono as RCS. Have some tiny % chance that the first 2 might not restart, hypergolic always works. LFO has a tiny failure chance and lower I_sp, cryo has boiloff (and a way to mitigate at cost in mass/power/funds), but higher  I_sp. Hypergolic props are reliable, but have a different I_sp. 

Bottom line is that complexity in design choices is a good thing. As long as the decay risk is limited to a certain range of orbits for simplicity. I'm always annoyed when I have junk that should decay and I have to clean it manually.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Just now, tater said:

Again, so what? Put it in a higher orbit. Getting to any orbit in KSP is trivial. If it takes an extra couple of launches to fill a depot or whatever, that's just tough.

KSP lacks a few things that create interesting design challenges. Since apparently large numbers of players never leave Kerbin SoI, increasing the interest/fidelity at home (Kerbin) makes a lot of sense. I'd like to see multiple propellant choices instead of just 2 (LFO/Mono), with actual trade offs. Maybe LFO/cryo (with boiloff)/hypergolic with mono as RCS. Have some tiny % chance that the first 2 might not restart, hypergolic always works. LFO has a tiny failure chance and lower I_sp, cryo has boiloff (and a way to mitigate at cost in mass/power/funds), but higher  I_sp. Hypergolic props are reliable, but have a different I_sp. 

Bottom line is that complexity in design choices is a good thing. As long as the decay risk is limited to a certain range of orbits for simplicity. I'm always annoyed when I have junk that should decay and I have to clean it manually.

Go to the RSS thread where you belong.

[tater]

RSS/RO is rather more complicated than what I proposed, above. I intentionally proposed a simple complication that people like you might actually be able to deal with.

Take the new DLC. A Space Race type of play (explicit in the DLC) requires some design trade offs, otherwise the "race" is just a normal mun landing, which in sandbox is trivial, and even with career/science parts barely unlocked is also trivial. Design trade offs are FUN, and what actually makes the game interesting.

[KSPFanatic102]

i was away for approximatley 9 hours after i posted this , and i came back

and ....

I didn't expect this to happen (Above)

 

[SilverWolf]

No.

Kerbal space program is a conceptual learning game.  It is not a high-fidelity simulator.  Players who want high-fidelity simulation are more than welcome to install RSS, RF, FAR, AJE, MJ, and any of the other ad nauseum reality enhancements.  The majority of KSP players are not represented here on the forums, and the average player should have a reasonable expectation that once they achieve orbit, and start parking things above the atmosphere; those objects will remain parked above the atmosphere until they uninstall the game.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Verran

[ZooNamedGames]

2 hours ago, Martian Emigrant said:

NO.

Absolutely not. This is a game.

It would become a micro management nightmare.

By the time Jeb goes from Kerbin to Jool all your low orbit satellites would have de-orbited.

Who would want to stop a warp to Eeloo every month to boost a dozen satellites.

T'would take a lot of the "Fun" right out of it.

 

Some of us already do several missions at the same time and stop what they are doing to use a launch window to some world.

Then go back and straighten their Geosynchronous network and go back to their flights already in progress.

I don't do any of that. One flights at a time is my style and I still do Stupid.

 

We do a lot of unreal thing already. Like Jeb doing a grand tour.

Gone for 40 years in a small box without any life support systems.

 

Make it a Mod. If it should become a "Feature" I want a Mod to get out of it.

Or make it a "Thing" for debris. That I don't care.

 

ME

My expectation is that station keeping would be automatic. Set set it to use LFO, Xenon or monoprop to reset orbit and it uses X based on an equation. Higher, the less you need to.

Basically you can't leave spacecraft at 70,001m anymore, but 250k craft will be almost completely unaffected. 

Doing my math- for 40 years of orbiting at let's say 500,000km (near ISS)- you'd only lose 400km of attitude. That's after 40 ingame years. Plenty of enough time to go to Eeloo and back and to Jool and back with time to spare! That's without station keeping either which could keep it up theoretically indefinitely with refueling missions!

2 hours ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

Yes

1 hour ago, tater said:

RSS/RO is rather more complicated than what I proposed, above. I intentionally proposed a simple complication that people like you might actually be able to deal with.

Take the new DLC. A Space Race type of play (explicit in the DLC) requires some design trade offs, otherwise the "race" is just a normal mun landing, which in sandbox is trivial, and even with career/science parts barely unlocked is also trivial. Design trade offs are FUN, and what actually makes the game interesting.

Believe Dangit, ISP changing mods and Cyrogenic engines are what your after.

5 minutes ago, Verran said:

No.

Kerbal space program is a conceptual learning game.  It is not a high-fidelity simulator.  Players who want high-fidelity simulation are more than welcome to install RSS, RF, FAR, AJE, MJ, and any of the other ad nauseum reality enhancements.  The majority of KSP players are not represented here on the forums, and the average player should have a reasonable expectation that once they achieve orbit, and start parking things above the atmosphere; those objects will remain parked above the atmosphere until they uninstall the game.

But things don't remain in orbit. It's teaching inaccurate science. Might as well just have a single rocket engine for everything if we're going to dull the reality to make it easier. 

The deorbitting process doesn't have to be harsh- just present. I did some math above and you'll see that what I would have in mind is much more mild and less punishing. 

21 minutes ago, Space_taco said:

i was away for approximatley 9 hours after i posted this , and i came back

and ....

I didn't expect this to happen (Above)

 

Welcome to the forums! Here we bicker, argue and have lots of fun- IN SPACE!