PLEASE stop the way space stations ROTATE

[Bacalao]

Besides the rather interesting discussions rg rotation(s)...

The reason for OP's high blood pressure seems to be the above quoted above - a perceived randomness of the SC-drop-out-point in relation to the station entrance. Personally, I approach the station in an arc, ultimately placing me in between the planet and the station, thus usually exiting SC on the 'right' side of the station. What's everyone else's way to drop out of SC infront of the station most times?

Pretty much this, I haven't come up on the back of a station in ages using this, sometimes I am right above it but always in front of the entrance somewhere, my favorite docking scenarios are actually coming straight down the along the face of the station dropping my back end around and timing my upward and forward thrust just right to cleanly slide through the mail slot.
I had one of those last night. Had some illegal goods in an Anaconda and I was coming down to start to bring my back end around and I started to get scanned, went from perpendicular just above the grating to inside the station in 5 seconds, if the flying hadn't been purely reflexive I'd have never made it, it was absolutely joyous.

 

[JonnyC0mbat]

I dunno, 2341st world problems.

 

[IronGremlin]

So like, multi axial rotation does exist, but it doesn't look like what our stations do.

When you start rotating along one axis, the "poles" of the other axes also spin, so the orientation of a given face of the spinning body would follow a weird spiralling path.

You can see this in game with asteroids all the time.

What the OP is saying is technically legitimate, you couldn't have a perpendicular face constantly facing a central point without constantly applying some kind of force - I guess if the gate of the station was somehow mire massive, gravity would do this for you, but I would point out that this is the end with a big hole in it, so it seems like maybe that's not the case.

Either way, any force that constantly reoriented that face to a central point would suck inertia from the rotation of the station, whether it was gravity or attitude thrusters, so, again, what the OP is essentially saying is valid, it's an inherently inefficient design.

Whether or not this is really sufficient to break suspension of disbelief is subjective, but personally I don't really think that in a game with FTL travel and magic force fields, that the orbit of the station is really going to do that for me.

However, I would absolutely love it if they implemented his suggested change, soley because it would make approaches waaaaaay easier - I hate having to go into superslowcruise in a planets grav well to line up my entry.

 

[Zplintz]

The docking entrance/exit is always on the face that rotates anti-clockwise. I do not understand why anyone knowing this would have any issues finding the correct face?

 

[specialsymbol]

Perhaps when they set the rotation they also gave the station a carefully calculated amount of "top spin" to make sure it did always face the planet...

You're joking, right?

 

[Space Fan]

So like, multi axial rotation does exist, but it doesn't look like what our stations do.

When you start rotating along one axis, the "poles" of the other axes also spin, so the orientation of a given face of the spinning body would follow a weird spiralling path.

Released by matron:

This really is an interesting problem. If you're not aligned with that axis, the rotation axis of the station will move relative to your own. But you can really only spin on one axis at a time (even though the axis itself may be rotating, in time, in a different plane.)

If it is any comfort, Einstein, and others, including Mach, had severe problems with rotation - and how it fits into a relativistic physics.

I think that's fair to say.

You can 'translate away' a velocity - but it's hard to do with a rotation. What I mean by this, is that if you have some velocity relative to me, I can approach you, perhaps, and match your velocity - and your velocity relative to me disappears. We will appear stationary relative to each other. I have removed your velocity by 'translation.' But this isn't possible with a rotation. Odd.

 

[specialsymbol]

The Moon does it. Why can't a space station?

The moon is in tidal lock. It rotates around an axis almost parallal to earth's rotational axis.

 

[Apos]

The moon is in tidal lock. It rotates around an axis almost parallal to earth's rotational axis.

Maybe every station has someone's mother tied to them and she is so fat that she gets tidal locked to the planet.

 

[Redfox]

The docking entrance/exit is always on the face that rotates anti-clockwise. I do not understand why anyone knowing this would have any issues finding the correct face?

This. My late-to-the-party friend tended to get angry when flying to the wrong face/side - until I mentioned this. No problem after that.

It's just not a 'rule' easily found out on one's own. Read it on the forums myself, back in the days ;-)

 

[specialsymbol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_satellite

Orbit and rotation can be set independent of one another. It is trivial to ensure that you have an rotation that always faces the same way relative to the surface below. You know, like all the sattelites we have where they msut remain pointed at Earth (telco, weather, military, GPS...etc)...

Also, I wouldn't want the entrance pointed at open space...who knows what might come flying in...at least with it generally pointed at the planet your are physically and gravitationally protecting the opening.

IIRC comm sats manage to point toward the same spot as they orbit around Earth.

Same as the moon. No rotation around axis perpendicular to orbital rotation.

Those rotate around another axis, taking 24h for one 360 degree turn.

Try spinning those up for gravity the way the ED space stations are, and have the axis always point towards earth.

Not going to happen.

This!

Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you implying that if an object is rotating around its X axis I can't apply force to it and create a rotation around the Z axis as well?

Because that's very much possible.

Yes, I am not implying that, it is that way.
You can but it will tumble. Like crazy. And you have to constantly apply force. Read up on angular momentum.
You definitely don't get a nice rotation around two axis, not even with a perfect sphere.

 

[bossbrigand]

My limited understanding of physics seems to indicate that Elite stations should have a slight wobble around their center of mass, like a destabilized spinning top. Is that correct? If so, then my next question is: who cares?

 

[Space Fan]

I think it's fair to say that some here are interested in the physics problems, and not the sci-fi solution.

I have no problem with either. I work in both.

But just to point out that, being interested in one, makes none of us unaware of the other.

 

[bossbrigand]

I think it's fair to say that some here are interested in the physics problems, and not the sci-fi solution.

I have no problem with either. I work in both.

But just to point out that, being interested in one, makes none of us unaware of the other.

It seems like a petty thing to pitch a fit about when our ships are limited to atmospheric speeds and have glass cockpits. Some stuff is the way it is because it looks cool and it makes gameplay more interesting.

 

[Space Fan]

My limited understanding of physics seems to indicate that Elite stations should have a slight wobble around their center of mass, like a destabilized spinning top. Is that correct? If so, then my next question is: who cares?

I care - not for the purposes of the game: I'm just interested. I presume that is permitted?

- - - Updated - - -

It seems like a petty thing to pitch a fit about when our ships are limited to atmospheric speeds and have glass cockpits. Some stuff is the way it is because it looks cool and it makes gameplay more interesting.

Is this a troll - no-one is pitching a fit about it. I, personally, was discussing the physics. Not permitted?

What's your contribution?

 

[bossbrigand]

I can't stand it anymore. It makes me cringe everytime I drop out of SC and see a station.
THIS DOESN'T WORK!!!

You can't have space stations rotate like they do AND have the entrance point in the general direction of the planet they're orbiting.

It will not work! The entrance will be, after half an orbit, opposite of the planet.
Which would, by the way, not change a thing as when you drop out of SC it's always a gamble where the entrance is - it definitely is NEVER where you expect it.



Solution is simple:
Have them rotate perpendicular to their orbit plane.
And please, for heaven's sake, add a second entrance. Lots of problems solved (except for occasional drafts of space winds with two doors open..).

This looks like a pitched fit to me. Not everything you read is directed at you.

What's your contribution?

A counter opinion to yours - that this is an unnecessary thing to get worked up over and argue about when it's such a niggling minor detail compared to other more glaring offenses against real world logic and science. The simple answer is that it's this way because it looks cooler in gameplay and screenshots. The complex answer is that it doesn't matter because it's not trying to simulate the real world as evidenced by other scientific oversights.

 

[Bruce Warren]

Sorry OP. I was wrong. I was also wrong to say you were wrong when you were right.

I shall just have assume the stations have got some giant motors on board and are making corrections.

 

[specialsymbol]

Have you ever held a wheel in your hands and spun in, or used a power tool that is rotating very fast? They try to move it without it spinning madly all over the place.. wonder if it's like that.

It's exactly like that.

Some interesting side note:
All those rotational effects are really important. And yes, they are counterintuitive. And no, the maths is not that simple (well, it's indeed only matrices, but tell me matrices are simple maths..).

For example think of the Coriolis force (do you recognize the name?) that makes pressure systems rotate in the atmosphere.

 

[Apos]

Yes, I am not implying that, it is that way.
You can but it will tumble. Like crazy. And you have to constantly apply force. Read up on angular momentum.
You definitely don't get a nice rotation around two axis, not even with a perfect sphere.

We have electronics equipment so sensitive that we would be able to react almost instantly to that tumble and repair the momentum today, have we had the fuel efficiency that the accomplished in-game achievement of hydrogen fusion provides.

So I'm pretty sure that in the 34th century, providing the mini-thrusts to nullify that tumbling is fairly a normal thing to expect.

 

[Space Fan]

To all:

We were mainly discussing the principles behind it. Genuinely interesting. If you're not interested, read another post. Anyone can jump in and say:

'it's just a game.'

or

'play snakes and ladders'

or

'I don't care'

If you don't care - don't read.

Genuinely puzzled.

 

[Oddball]

I can't stand it anymore. It makes me cringe everytime I drop out of SC and see a station.
THIS DOESN'T WORK!!!

You can't have space stations rotate like they do AND have the entrance point in the general direction of the planet they're orbiting.

It will not work! The entrance will be, after half an orbit, opposite of the planet.

I agree......

Just to throw a spanner in the works, what about Orbis space stations? They have a large wheel, the inside of which has grass, trees and food growing etc. For things to grow the correct amount of sun light and darkness is required. So how do you ensure that all of the vegetation gets the correct amount of sunlight/darkness?

Well for one, it makes sense to simulate the day/night cycle of the planet itself and this can be achieved by placing the station in a fixed orbit (above a specific point) preferably equatorial. However, it would be extremely difficult to grow things if the stations entrance always faced the planet because there would be many short periods of lightness/darkness in one day. One solution could be to always face the station perpendicular to its parent star, not the planet.

Anyway, a bit long-winded I know but I believe you are correct with your observation where Orbis stations are concerned and I agree with you on that. It would be beneficial for their entrances to NOT face the planet at all times. So the game simulation is actually wrong. But, its just a game.

[EDIT] Just to add. It would be possible to grow things on the outside of a coriolis station while the entrance always faces the planet because the mechanics are different. As long as the station is in a fixed orbit and the 'growing' is done on the rear of the station (opposite side to the entrance).


woof woof! - That's my other dog impression.