Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Now it worked. TJ you are right, thanks!
ps- Forgot the pic:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2846334635
No, it won't make any actual difference. See: Pendulum rocket fallacy.
I'll read something about this in the future. Any suggestions will be appreciated.
In space (atleast in KSP), pulling a massive object is more stable than pushing it. Whether that's true in real life or not I don't know.
Might just be a symptom of the wobbly rocket physics, but even so; I'd tend to stick with pullers for asteroid retrievals.
I think this 'fallacy' only applies when in non-controlled vehicles, when there's any kind of control/SAS, pulling(thruster above CoM) is more stable than pushing. Especially when doing asteroid hauling missions, you can hardly find the exactly CoM of the asteroid.
ps- If you ever haul a trailer by your car then you can easily understand this. Everyone who can drive can pull a trailer easily. But only professional trucker can 'push'(by reverse the trailer head) a trailer into designated position, but much slower and with great caution.
It's a fallacy because it doesn't actually work that way, a good rocket looks like an arrow not a pendulum.
Here's a decent explanation:
https://handwiki.org/wiki/Astronomy:Pendulum_rocket_fallacy
There is a lot of complicated math behind why, but as I said above, I believe gravity plays a large role in that so in space I wouldn't think the fallacy applies in the same way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYHCP3-mpxk
That's partially a question of how exactly the game's air simulation differs from real life.
That only works when you're traveling fast enough in a thick enough atmosphere for it to have a meaningful chance of flipping you over, though. That can apply both to ascent from Kerbin (or Eve!) and also to diving into a thick atmosphere. It's the reason why I commonly put inflatable heat shields on the back of a rocket that is trying to land on Eve: to mean that the heat shields in the front actually stay in front rather than flipping over.
So there shouldn't be any difference whether you're in free-fall or not; the situations should be the exact same, no? That is to say, there shouldn't be a real difference between pushing and pulling.
Of course, KSP isn't exactly 100% real; little phantom forces and flexing here and there might make pulling slightly more stable than pushing...but I doubt it'd actually matter that much. I don't really ♥♥♥♥ with asteroids anyways; too big, too annoying, not much reward besides "waow i did it!" Though I have experimented with push/pulling interplanetary ships, and I've never noticed a difference.
much heavier, thus much more inertia and/or friction;
can't easily connect with the center of mass;
more than one part and loose connected(no auto strut or other meaning of strut).
I think this is not exactly the same category with the pendulum rocket fallacy.
But still thanks for mentioning it, I have some good reading.