Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
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.