PLEASE stop the way space stations ROTATE

Space Fan

Banned
S
bossbrigand said:
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.
Click to expand...

But discussing, for example, a problem with your car, doesn't negate all problems in all other cars; or in the world. It simply means, some people are discussing a car.

It doesn't mean that someone can suddenly jump in and say 'What you are discussing is not sufficiently important.'

It simply means that there is something is being discussed.

I still don't understand your point.
 
Last edited:

bossbrigand

B
Space Fan said:
But discussing, for example, a problem with your car, doesn't negate all problems in all other cars; or in the world. It simply means, some people are discussing a car.

It doesn't mean that someone can suddenly jump in and say 'What you are discussing is not sufficiently important.'

It simply means that there is something is being discussed.

I still don't understand your point.
Click to expand...

What? I'm saying this is a non-issue. You might as well be complaining about gravity on ships in Star Wars. It's there because it's the way it is. Chasing logic like this leads to midichlorians. It doesn't need to be explained or questioned.
 
Last edited:

Parmo

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

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..).
Click to expand...
So you want a tradesman's entrance?
 

Zieman

Zieman
In original Elite the station entrance faced always directly towards the planet.

In E: D the station orientation is* randomly generated every time a new instance is created.

FDEV should let the physics do the work - as a station is a huge spinning mass, it acts like a giant, slow turning gyroscope 'willing' to maintain the orientation if the rotational axis. This would mean that the station entrance would point directly towards the planet at one point of the orbit and directly away at the opposite point of the orbit, and somewhere in-between most of the time. Having set the station orientation predictable for everyone at all times should make it trivial to have the orientation (relative to player craft) of the target hologram correct also in supercruise, removing the unnecessary randomness and possibility of being squashed by the station at supercruise exit.



*seems to be, but as "everyone" around these forums throw assumptions around as irrefutable facts, who am I to swim against the current... ;)
 
Last edited:

Space Fan

Banned
S
Zieman said:
- as a station is a huge spinning mass, it acts like a giant, slow turning gyroscope 'willing' to maintain the orientation if the rotational axis. This would mean that the station entrance would point directly towards the planet at one point of the orbit and directly away at the opposite point of the orbit, and somewhere in-between most of the time.
;)
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this physics. Angular momentum vector fixed in direction despite translation.

:)

:)
 
Last edited:

Jukelo

Jukelo
Zieman said:
In E: D the station orientation is* randomly generated every time a new instance is created.

*seems to be, but as "everyone" around these forums throw assumptions around as irrefutable facts, who am I to swim against the current... ;)
Click to expand...

That will be very easy to (dis)prove. Drop at a station, take a screenshot from the entrance, go back to supercruise, immediatly turn back and drop again. Take the same screenshot. I'm confident you'll find the station keeps a fixed orientation towards the planet (although obviously it is rotating along the axis going through the mailslot, that axis will keep pointing towards the same point of the planet).
 
Last edited:

Zieman

Zieman
Jukelo said:
That will be very easy to (dis)prove. Drop at a station, take a screenshot from the entrance, go back to supercruise, immediatly turn back and drop again. Take the same screenshot. I'm confident you'll find the station keeps a fixed orientation towards the planet (although obviously it is rotating along the axis going through the mailslot, that axis will keep pointing towards the same point of the planet).
Click to expand...
Might be so. :)

If I were to conduct such a test, I'd rather:
dock
launch
take a screenie
dock
log out and close game & launcher for 5 minutes
restart
launch
take a screenie
repeat a few times
 
Last edited:

PavelKCZ

PavelKCZ
Well, I think that peoples with PhD in physics should take the game mechanics as they are - GAME mechanics.

But it is nice that someone saw this problem. I was thinking about it, when I started playing ED. But I did not posted anything about it, because I just said to myself "Eh, it is just a nice game". :)
 

drhay53

D
If the rotation period of the station opening is exactly equal to the amount of time that it takes the station to orbit the planet, then the opening will always face directly at the planet.

Essentially you just have to come up with an orbit where the angular momentum vector that causes the artificial gravity precesses at exactly the right rate to always point at the planet.

Think of it this way: the earth has a rotation axis. The exact pointing of that rotation axis is not fixed; it has a period of 23,000 years. So in ~10,000 years, the north star will not point north! What this means is that the location that Earth's rotation axis 'points to' is changing. For our space stations analogy, this means that we just have to change that fast enough to always point at the planet.

Note also that the rotation axis of Uranus is actually tilted ~90 degrees with respect to it's orbital plane.

Anyway, the point is, there is no problem here. It is perfectly possible to design an orbit where the object rotates about one axis but that axis precesses in a way that keeps it pointing at the planet.
 

Space Fan

Banned
S
drhay53 said:
If the rotation period of the station opening is exactly equal to the amount of time that it takes the station to orbit the planet, then the opening will always face directly at the planet.

Essentially you just have to come up with an orbit where the angular momentum vector that causes the artificial gravity precesses at exactly the right rate to always point at the planet.

Think of it this way: the earth has a rotation axis. The exact pointing of that rotation axis is not fixed; it has a period of 23,000 years. So in ~10,000 years, the north star will not point north! What this means is that the location that Earth's rotation axis 'points to' is changing. For our space stations analogy, this means that we just have to change that fast enough to always point at the planet.

Note also that the rotation axis of Uranus is actually tilted ~90 degrees with respect to it's orbital plane.

Anyway, the point is, there is no problem here. It is perfectly possible to design an orbit where the object rotates about one axis but that axis precesses in a way that keeps it pointing at the planet.
Click to expand...

That's not precession though - precession is the natural rotation of an axis in a cone around that axis. What you need for a space station is an axis that deliberately isn't inertial, but always points towards the focus of an orbit. It is a different problem, and isn't solved by a natural motion, it would need to be forced in some way with adjusting torques.

Interesting discussion though.
 

Jukelo

Jukelo
Anyway, the point is, there is no problem here. It is perfectly possible to design an orbit where the object rotates about one axis but that axis precesses in a way that keeps it pointing at the planet.
Click to expand...

[video=youtube_share;acgS0FE5LNY]https://youtu.be/acgS0FE5LNY[/video]

I don't have a deep understanding of physics, but as far as I know, unless the vast majority of the station's mass is focused inside the docking area (which is mostly empty), the axis of rotation shouldn't be centered there, unless the station makes continuous use of some rather powerful (and invisible) thrusters to keep one end of the station stationary while the other end wobbles around. To what end I cannot tell, considering it should be simple get the station's rotational period to match its orbital period to keep it facing the planet using good old conservation of momentum rather than achieve it in a rather wasteful manner like that.
I also fail to see the gameplay advantage in it. Instead this is obviously down to the fact that the station's 3d model rotates around the object's logical center (from which your distance to the station is calculated for the purpose of asking for landing permission for example) rather than its true center of mass. Stations probably aren't affected by physics at all anyway, they're scenery on rail.
 
Last edited:

Space Fan

Banned
S
>>To what end I cannot tell, considering it should be simple get the station's rotational period to match its orbital period to keep it facing the planet using good old conservation of momentum rather than achieve it in a rather wasteful manner like that.

Can't be done tho. The main rotation is around its central axis - for artificial gravity - no problem. But that axis is inertial - it wants to point in the same direction in space constantly. As the station orbits, that axis wants to point in the same direction, not constantly re-point towards the locus of the orbit.

This is the problem. It can be done, but would require torque, and energy to make the adjustments.

No apparent energy shortages in Elite universe technology though - so why not?
 

Bacalao

Bacalao
Do the stations actually orbit though? I've been using George Lucas for a long time and haven't ever noticed that it orbited around Leesti once (it has always been on the star side of the planet, never around the back or to the side). I know the planets orbit but it looks to me like the station is stationary or it has an extremely long orbital period.
 

drhay53

D
Space Fan said:
That's not precession though - precession is the natural rotation of an axis in a cone around that axis. What you need for a space station is an axis that deliberately isn't inertial, but always points towards the focus of an orbit. It is a different problem, and isn't solved by a natural motion, it would need to be forced in some way with adjusting torques.

Interesting discussion though.
Click to expand...

Precession does not have to be 'natural'. Precession is simply the movement of the angular momentum vector of a rotating object. It does not have to be in response to an external force.

You are thinking only of "torque-induced" precession. But there is also torque-free precession. I think it is entirely possible to setup the internal mass of the station in such a way as to achieve this kind of orbit.

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

In practice, you may need some way to apply small torques to it, especially if it is close enough to the planet to experience drag.
 

Space Fan

Banned
S
drhay53 said:
Precession does not have to be 'natural'. Precession is simply the movement of the angular momentum vector of a rotating object. It does not have to be in response to an external force.

You are thinking only of "torque-induced" precession. But there is also torque-free precession. I think it is entirely possible to setup the internal mass of the station in such a way as to achieve this kind of orbit.

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

In practice, you may need some way to apply small torques to it, especially if it is close enough to the planet to experience drag.
Click to expand...

Please don't quote wikipedia at me - and all precession is due to external torques. Oh dear. I'll go and edit the article if you've misunderstood it sir, or if it is incorrect. Sigh.

N Stephenson-Allen MSc Astrophysics BA BEd FRAS - will that do? I hate to be pompous, but..there is a limit.

(oh, yes, and I know, the relativistic effects on Mercury etc. OK. Please don't quote that for me, I might have written it. Spare me.)
 
Last edited:

drhay53

D
Space Fan said:
Please don't quote wikipedia at me - and all precession is due to external torques. Oh dear. I'll go and edit the article if you've misunderstood it sir, or it is incorrect. Sigh.

N Stephenson-Allen MSc Astrophysics BA BEd FRAS - will that do? I hate to be pompous, but..there is a limit.
Click to expand...
Brian Hayden, PhD in Astrophysics from the University of Notre Dame.

I can play that game if you'd like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom