egg changed the topic of #principia to: Logs: https://esper.irclog.whitequark.org/principia | <scott_manley> anyone that doubts the wisdom of retrograde bop needs to get the hell out | https://xkcd.com/323/ | <egg> calculating the influence of lamont on Pluto is a bit silly…
paculino has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<queqiao-->
Reply to "ballisticfox: I'm aware the problem can be solved without principia and I'm not sure where exactly you'..."
<queqiao-->
<egg> At some point you need to change from a coordinate system where the equator of one body is horizontal to one where the equator of a different body is horizontal, and to update the orbits of everything in the solar system accordingly, and to update the orientation of every part in every vessel accordingly, etc.
<queqiao-->
<egg> The SoI boundary is the natural place to do that, since that means that things will behave normally as far as KSP is concerned when it comes to dealing with the primary body (which is involved in a lot more stuff than the other bodies).
<queqiao-->
Reply to "ezsnack: @egg funny bug i just found out lol"
<queqiao-->
<egg> Funny indeed. Please file an issue.
<queqiao-->
<Kaga> and then i delete the old TWP mod?
<queqiao-->
<ezsnack> you dont wanna circularize at venus
<queqiao-->
<Kaga> ik, just making sure if it is the circularizing thing
<queqiao-->
<Kaga> too bad my stage would be only good for flyby
<queqiao-->
<ezsnack> this arrival dv is what you need to capture to circular, you can use rocketreference to calculate how much less you need for an orbit that does the contract parameters
<queqiao-->
Reply to "ezsnack: this arrival dv is what you need to capture to circular, you can use rocketreference to c..."
<queqiao-->
<Kaga> when i turned off circularization, the dv of arrival is 400, that would only be capture dv for orbit?
<queqiao-->
<Kaga> do i have to run another plot when launching at that day like in the prefious TWP?
<queqiao-->
Reply to "ballisticfox: With the rise of another broken mod (Tilt'em) I believe the KSP community is in desperate..."
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> All of the above is not to mention that apparently (and I'm paraphrasing from some stuff people much smarter than me said on the Principia KSP forums thread so I consent to being shot me with a gun for improperly re-generalizing a generalization) there's not even math to be done when working with large axial tilts . Like our solutions are just local to the problem space that exists when we reframe the problem as "the
<queqiao-->
biggest/most important body has relative 0 axial tilt" and work within that reference frame: Neptune's axis of rotation being almost 90 degrees perpindicular to the solar plane of the ecliptic we just like, can't do. You essentially have to reframe the problem where your craft or other orbiting bodies come in at "weird angles" and the body in question is on 0 axial tilt. So this is to say that even if this whole "KSP Axial Tilt multi-mod interaction
<queqiao-->
problem" could just be solved easily by the Principia team by "changing things around a bit", like...what would the team even do? Invent new math? Might as well pick up a doctorate while you're at that then, rather than your only reward for dealing with us basement dwellers' opinions on a mod for a dying game you spent 10 years to make being "hey guys love principia amazing mod one question though when are you guys finally adding catgirls???????
<queqiao-->
please respond quickly thank"
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> Oh and also KSP (or Unity) surface/terrain rendering completely breaks if it's not fed a 0 axial tilt
<queqiao-->
Reply to "Butcher: You would normally use body centered inertial for referencing a rendezvous."
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> body centered inertial doesn't let you see your AN/DN nodes or closest approach markers. I have found a workaround for AN/DN nodes though lmao. Having Kerbal Alarm Clock installed conveniently shows in body centered inertial the correct location of your AN/DN nodes from the "warp to AN node..." arrow buttons lmao. Much more civilized than doing the caveman "eyeball telescope plane intersection" method. I have not
<queqiao-->
<Butcher> I have visible frame as target but manoeuvre in BCI is what I meant.
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> All of the above is not to mention that apparently (and I'm paraphrasing from some stuff people much smarter than me said on the Principia KSP forums thread so I consent to being shot me with a gun for improperly re-generalizing a generalization) there's not even math to be done when working with large axial tilts . Like our solutions are just local to the problem space that exists when we reframe the problem as "the
<queqiao-->
biggest/most important body has relative 0 axial tilt" and work within that reference frame: Neptune's axis of rotation being almost 90 degrees perpindicular to the solar plane of the ecliptic we just like, can't do. You essentially have to reframe the problem where your craft or other orbiting bodies come in at "weird angles" and the body in question is on 0 axial tilt. So this is to say that even if this whole "KSP Axial Tilt multi-mod interaction
<queqiao-->
problem" could just be solved easily by the Principia team by "changing things around a bit", like...what would the team even do? Invent new math? Might as well pick up a doctorate while you're at that then, rather than your only reward for dealing with us basement dwellers' opinions on a mod for a dying game you spent 10 years to make being "hey guys love principia amazing mod one question though when are you guys finally adding catgirls???????
<queqiao-->
please respond quickly thank"
<queqiao-->
Reply to "rudemario: All of the above is not to mention that apparently (and I'm paraphrasing from some stuff ..."
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> I'm sorry but I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.> there's not even math to be done when working with large axial tilts
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> There is 100% math between coordinate system transforms? I don't know where you're remotely getting that idea
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> KSP already undergoes a very similar transition to what I think you're attempt to talk about when switching between an inertial and rotating reference frame when hitting the inverse rotation threshold (also it's Uranus that has an obliquity of 98 degrees, not Neptune)Tilt'em hasn't solved this problem completely, it has gotten better than I remember it being back in 2019 but there's dozens of bugs and craft and
<queqiao-->
camera orientation aren't translated making passing through the threshold extremely jarring> Oh and also KSP (or Unity) surface/terrain's rendering completely breaks if it's not fed a 0 axial tilt
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> I am well aware, this is why Tiltem (and I'd presume principia) shift the entire planetarium when in BCBF and simply rotate the axis of the planet when in BCI> Principia team by "changing things around a bit", like...what would the team even do? Invent new math?
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> No.. my entire point is that a majority of the coordinate system math is already done in principia and has been rigorously tested.. that was my entire point of asking on the feasibility of it> Might as well pick up a doctorate while you're at that then, rather than your only reward for dealing with us basement dwellers' opinions on a mod for a dying game you spent 10 years to make being "hey guys love principia
<queqiao-->
amazing mod one question though when are you guys finally adding catgirls??????? please respond quickly thank"
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> I do hate to break it to you but I do actively contribute to the modding scene of this community and I am aware the amount of time that goes into a mod that integrates itself as deep as principia, I'm not sure where your hostility is coming from exactly. My question was merely on the feasibility and whether that would be a remotely useful approach to the problem, which the answer would most likely be no
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> Not because it's not possible, merely because what causes players to cause away from principia won't be eliminated in any meaningful capacity if something like that were to happen.
<queqiao-->
Reply to "sichelgaita: The optimizer supports optimizing individual burns and specifying the desired inclination..."
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> I did try to see if, given a Tylo encounter, if it could plot a maximal "solar retrograde" gravity assist by setting it to find either a Kerbin, or Sun given altitude at various amounts of "provided delta V" for the flight plan (since it seems to try to work only within basically what your node already seems set up to do, adding not much more or less) to "see" how "close this particular encounter with Tylo can get my
<queqiao-->
Solar periapsis to Kerbin's orbit", because that's a an example of a "fixed segment" in calculating that style of mission (Laythe>Tylo>Kerbin in less than 1 solar orbital period) and could save some time in determining if a new "approach angle relative to Jool solar prograde, launch window phase, and relative velocity" has to be tried again or not or if this one is "the one" much quicker. And it did look like it was at least roughly showing to you
<queqiao-->
the ballpark of the "relative max solar apoapsis reduction you're gonna get out of this one bud" . I found that really impressive that it was able to do that THROUGH a Tylo flyby into "another parent body system", because I've never found a tool that's ever helped me calculate things in that use case, ever, so that was really impressive. The tools I've seen, like KSPTOT, KMAT, and others similar help you when Jool is the parent body, or when
<queqiao-->
Sol/Kerbol is the parent body...but when you want to go across (Tylo assist out to a given solar perihelion) they go "nah buddy that's on you" and don't even have limited support for it. If anyone does know of anything that does this I'd love to hear it, however limited in scope
<queqiao-->
Reply to "Butcher: I have visible frame as target but manoeuvre in BCI is what I meant."
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> Yeah, the way I've found out how to do this in KSP is to simply ignore any attempt to translate or reconcile the visual feedback I get from the Target reference frame and mentally reason the problem in the body target reference. So for example, if I see that the parent craft has a closest approach of 40km 8 spirals into the target frame, I pin that guy, then because I know from stock KSP that +tangent and -tangent
<queqiao-->
usually have the biggest "preliminary" effect, I pick a tangent direction and add it to the flight plan node. Then, if the node gets closer or further, close my eyes or glance off to the left and imagine that information as relative motion in the body center fixed inertial frame and "solve" the rendezvous problem in my head myself. EZ clap sub 0.1km/100m rendezvous as easy as in stock KSP in Principia, presto
<queqiao-->
Reply to "rudemario: I did try to see if, given a Tylo encounter, if it could plot a maximal "solar retrograde..."
<queqiao-->
<Nazfib> KSPTOT can definitely be used to create flight plans for such advanced manœuvres, but you'll need to use the full LVD optimization toolkit; the 'simple' multi-flyby Maneuver Sequencer is not advanced enough.
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> I did try to see if, given a Tylo encounter, if it could plot a maximal "solar retrograde" gravity assist by setting it to find either a Kerbin, or Sun given altitude at various amounts of "provided delta V" for the flight plan (since it seems to try to work only within basically what your node already seems set up to do, adding not much more or less) to "see" how "close this particular encounter with Tylo can get my
<queqiao-->
Solar periapsis to Kerbin's orbit", because that's a an example of a "fixed segment" in calculating that style of mission (Laythe>Tylo>Kerbin in less than 1 solar orbital period) and could save some time in determining if a new "approach angle relative to Jool solar prograde, launch window phase, and relative velocity" has to be tried again or not or if this one is "the one" much quicker. And it did look like it was at least roughly showing to you
<queqiao-->
the ballpark of the "relative max solar apoapsis reduction you're gonna get out of this one bud" . I found that really impressive that it was able to do that THROUGH a Tylo flyby into "another parent body system", because I've never found a tool that's ever helped me calculate things in that use case, ever, so that was really impressive. The tools I've seen, like KSPTOT, KMAT, and others similar help you when Jool is the parent body, or when
<queqiao-->
Sol/Kerbol is the parent body...but when you want to go across (Tylo assist out to a given solar perihelion) they go "nah buddy that's on you" and don't even have limited support for it. If anyone does know of anything that does this I'd love to hear it, however limited in scope
<queqiao-->
Reply to "Nazfib: KSPTOT can definitely be used to create flight plans for such advanced manœuvres, but you..."
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> I had a feeling that it supported missions like that if constructed completely manually, but the problem I've always had is I've never been able to figure out what I need to do with the program (like literally, what I'm supposed to be doing) in order to even begin setting something like that up. It's such an uncommon usecase I've discovered that I haven't even been able to find examples in threads online on how you'd
<queqiao-->
even begin or how what mode they have the program in when plotting these
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> And then there's the factor that in the program seems sort of "tied" to you needing to have KSP to feed information into it: like in the full mission plan mode it seems like there's no real "equivalent" of the manuever node system, only providing basic parameter adjustment, which seems to suggest you're supposed to be using KSP to do all your drafting and use the data linking feature to visualize and optimize after
<queqiao-->
you've already added something in
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> tl;dr I'm so dumb I don't even know where to start learning where to start if my end-goal is simply to optimize Laythe>Tylo>Kerbin and Kerbin>Tylo>Laythe missions
<queqiao-->
Reply to "ballisticfox: I'm sorry but I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. > there's not even ma..."
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> I've dm'd you with more info
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> I'm sorry but I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.> there's not even math to be done when working with large axial tilts
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> There is 100% math being done between coordinate system transforms? I don't know where you're remotely getting that idea
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> KSP already undergoes a very similar transition to what I think you're attempt to talk about when switching between an inertial and rotating reference frame when hitting the inverse rotation threshold (also it's Uranus that has an obliquity of 98 degrees, not Neptune)Tilt'em hasn't solved this problem completely, it has gotten better than I remember it being back in 2019 but there's dozens of bugs related to craft
<queqiao-->
and camera orientation translations making passing through the threshold extremely jarring at best, completely unplayable at worst> Oh and also KSP (or Unity) surface/terrain's rendering completely breaks if it's not fed a 0 axial tilt
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> I am well aware, this is why Tiltem (and I'd presume principia) shift the entire planetarium when in BCBF and simply rotate the axis of the planet when in BCI> Principia team by "changing things around a bit", like...what would the team even do? Invent new math?
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> No.. my entire point is that a majority of the coordinate system math is already done in principia and has been rigorously tested.. that was my entire point of asking on the feasibility of it> Might as well pick up a doctorate while you're at that then, rather than your only reward for dealing with us basement dwellers' opinions on a mod for a dying game you spent 10 years to make being "hey guys love principia
<queqiao-->
amazing mod one question though when are you guys finally adding catgirls??????? please respond quickly thank"
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> I do hate to break it to you but I do actively contribute to the modding scene of this community and I am aware the amount of time that goes into a mod that integrates itself as deep as principia, I'm not sure where your hostility is coming from exactly. My question was merely on the feasibility and whether that would be a remotely useful approach to the problem, which the answer would most likely be no
<queqiao-->
<ballisticfox> Not because it's not possible, merely because what causes players to shy away from principia won't be eliminated in any meaningful capacity if something like that were to happen.
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> I don't see a "maths/sciences" channel here so I don't know where else to ask this other than here, but I'm trying to reconcile my existing intuitive understanding of astrophysics from my KSP 2-body problem patched conics/2 body Keplerian framework, and I've been trying to integrate an understanding of the base principles of tidal forces into my understanding. I'm triyng to understand this in a practical form so that I
<queqiao-->
can extrapolate/interpolate the answers to stuff I see in Principia/real life.After understanding Tidal Forces, I was then curious about "what" mechanism was deriving them. Why? So I can know/predict certain outcomes such as "when I will experience net asymmetric tidal forces on the near and far side of a given body" with certain planets and orbital parameters/masses etc.This particular video I decided to click on because it was showing asymmetric
<queqiao-->
tidal forces. However, it confused my pre-supposition halfway through because of the above diagram.The diagram proposes a thought experiment wherin you can visualize tidal forces by imagining a set of balls starting in a ring with no velocity relative to a given body and starting the simulation, then examine the path of the balls. The second diagram attempts to exaggerate to the user that the "inwards" motion of tidal forces at the sides occurs
<queqiao-->
because of the concept that there is a decreasing gradiant of "inwards force" being exerted, aka, a convergence on a center point, or that as the outer balls get closer to the middle ball, the rate of change in acceleration towards the center ball will decrease.This breaks my brain. This implies there's some sort of barycenter involvement going on, yeah? Sure, okay, lets pre-suppose there is.The part I'm having a hard time understanding is how the
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> Aren't the inner/side tidal forces just a representatoin of what you get when you don't simulate N body physics? Aka they're not "new" forces at all?
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> Aka: the only new force I have to concern myself with internalizing is the +-Y force right? the "inwards" force isn't a force it's literally just gravity, we're only concerned with to what degree Y is positive or negative
<queqiao-->
Reply to "rudemario: Aren't the inner/side tidal forces just a representation of what you get when you don't ..."
<queqiao-->
<Clayel> theres only 2 bodies at play here, so n-body physics doesnt really matter?
<queqiao-->
<Clayel> the inner/side tidal forces are a result of the far side of the moon being pulled less than the near side of the moon. of course, all sides of the moon are pulled by earth, but at different amounts. a similar thing happens on earth, and its why tides appear on the side closest to the moon and the side farthest away from the moon
<queqiao-->
<Clayel> im pretty sure principia doesnt model tidal forces anyway
<queqiao-->
Reply to "Clayel: im pretty sure principia doesnt model tidal forces anyway"
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> to clarify, not "tidal forces" as in "forces on the tides of an ocean", but "tidal forces" as in "the thing about a 3 body problem that describes what happens on earths oceans as it relates to orbital mechanics". The term might not be tidal forces but that's sort of colloquially what people refer to it as
<queqiao-->
Reply to "Clayel: theres only 2 bodies at play here, so n-body physics doesnt really matter? the inner/side..."
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> Aren't tidal forces essentially just what happens when you examine RELATIVE motion/Perceived motion, because the moon is being pulled towards the earth? So, when you're at the sides, you get pulled "the same amount, roughly". When you're at the near, you get pulled "more" towards Earth than the moon. when you're far, the moon "is being pulled more than you"
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> It's like the centrifugal/centripedal force thing
<queqiao-->
<Clayel> the sun doesnt significantly change tidal forces (also, tidal refers to differeing gravitational forces at different times of day, which considers all bodies pulling on the earth/moon)
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> Therefore, there is no "inwards pull" force because what happens at the "sides" is just a neutralizing of the Y positive or negative relative "force"
<queqiao-->
Reply to "Clayel: the sun doesnt change tidal forces THAT much (also, tidal refers to differing gravitation..."
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> I did not mean 3 body problem to mean the sun. I meant it to mean "Earth, Moon, plus your craft". Doesn't a 2 body problem only leave room for the Moon to rotate around the Earth?
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> To simulate tidal forces you need 3 at least, I though. (Water. Your craft. Etc)
<queqiao-->
<Clayel> there is an inward pull force, the side of the moon gets pulled towards the center of the earth, which isnt directly directly towards the earth
<queqiao-->
Reply to "rudemario: To simulate tidal forces you need 3 at least, I though. (Water. Your craft. Etc)"
<queqiao-->
<Clayel> i wouldnt call water a body, and the rocks on the moon move regardless if theres a vessel to measure them
<queqiao-->
Reply to "Clayel: there is an inward pull force, the side of the moon gets pulled towards the center of the..."
<queqiao-->
<rudemario> The "side" of the moon gets pulled towards the center of the earth? Do you mean near side by this?
<queqiao-->
<Clayel> the side of the moon gets pulled inward
<queqiao-->
<egg> Alright. This discussion is both incredibly confused and incredibly verbose, and as was pointed out, not actually about Principia. Maybe go to #offtopic💤 or something?
<queqiao-->
<ezsnack> i swear that it shouldnt be legal to send more than 2 messages in a row of 20+ lines of text :V