4 ms·

Oh, fond memories of it. It was the first time when I understood that when you fly to the Moon, not only you have to cross the Moon's orbit, but you have to do

Oh, fond memories of it. It was the first time when I understood that when you fly to the Moon, not only you have to cross the Moon's orbit, but you have to do it when Moon itself is nearby. If you are 1/4 orbital period ahead of it, you are screwed. It also ruined space movies like "Gravity" for me, because pointing the nose to the space station in 50 km and applying thrust towards it turns out to be a sure way to NOT get to that station! Edit: fixed the thrust direction

sabjut 5y ago
I first discovered this game back in school at around 2010-2011 and it quickly turned into one of the defining games of my childhood. I wish I had some numbers but I am certain that I played hundreds of hours playing this game, installing countless mods, learning orbital dynamics, spaceflight history, and so much more. I flew to mars and back, landed on the moon, programmed flight computers (sometime catastrophically wrong), docked so many different vehicles in orbit and generally had the time of my life in this game. Dan's Orbiterpage and his world class mods for the game (including the excellent sound mod) really made this game (or sim, whatever you call it) shine. I probably also spent days of my life browsing orbithangar for the coolest new vehicles. At some point I discovered Kerbal Space Program and eventually got older and had less time for Space Sims altogether, but Orbiter (especially the 2010P1 version) will remain closest to my heart. I am really happy to see this game become open source.
wedesoft 5y ago
I think you meant to say "pointing the nose to the space station in 50 km and applying thrust towards it turns out to be a sure way to NOT get to that station" Edited: made mistake as well ;)
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Yeah, my bad english. Used word 'thrust' to describe a burn in the opposite direction, totally forgetting that thrust is a reactionary force. :-/
  - wedesoft 5y ago
    Ah, I see. Not so sure myself now.
austinl 5y ago
I had a similar experience when playing Kerbal for the first time in high school. I thought that NASA got to the moon by simply thrusting in a straight line from Earth in a way that would intersect with the moon's orbit and boy was I wrong! But now I've found that most people I talk to about this — that also weren't alive during the space race where this was regularly explained on television — have the same naive idea that you can get to the moon by going straight up at it with the right timing. Instead, you learn that you need to enter orbit and burn prograde at your apoapsis, burn retrograde at the moon's periapsis, etc. — really fascinating and complex stuff! If the curriculum would've allowed it, I feel like I could've spent a whole semester playing and learning from KSP — these kind of games are truly the top of "games for learning" genre.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Yes, the key here is to understand that you are not exactly flying, but always falling towards something, and you need to change the trajectory of your fall to get anywhere. So space flight is much closer to sky diving than to air flight.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  That's actually the easiest way to get to the Mun in my opinion. No need to plan anything anything just shoot straight up. If you don't get an orbital encounter initially just keep shooting up until you do, it'll happen many times before you reach Kerbin Escape velocity. No need to time anything or plan certain maneuvers. Basically shoot upwards until you get an encounter, speed up until it auto slows you down near the Mun, then kill velocity to fall in and land. Grossly and hilariously inefficient but actually easier to perform than the "correct" way (and typically faster in player-time).
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    That is only possible if you have engines and fuel capable of sustaining a powered flight. We puny humans so far don't have it.
    - 5y ago
afterburner 5y ago
Even just knowing basic physics ruined Gravity for me, let alone orbital dynamics.
- coptun 5y ago
  The most unrealistic part of Gravity isn't the orbital mechanics, it's the part where she gets out of a spacesuit without assistance from others in 10 seconds flat.

sabjut 5y ago

I first discovered this game back in school at around 2010-2011 and it quickly turned into one of the defining games of my childhood. I wish I had some numbers but I am certain that I played hundreds of hours playing this game, installing countless mods, learning orbital dynamics, spaceflight history, and so much more. I flew to mars and back, landed on the moon, programmed flight computers (sometime catastrophically wrong), docked so many different vehicles in orbit and generally had the time of my life in this game. Dan's Orbiterpage and his world class mods for the game (including the excellent sound mod) really made this game (or sim, whatever you call it) shine. I probably also spent days of my life browsing orbithangar for the coolest new vehicles. At some point I discovered Kerbal Space Program and eventually got older and had less time for Space Sims altogether, but Orbiter (especially the 2010P1 version) will remain closest to my heart. I am really happy to see this game become open source.

wedesoft 5y ago

I think you meant to say "pointing the nose to the space station in 50 km and applying thrust towards it turns out to be a sure way to NOT get to that station" Edited: made mistake as well ;)

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Yeah, my bad english. Used word 'thrust' to describe a burn in the opposite direction, totally forgetting that thrust is a reactionary force. :-/
- wedesoft 5y ago
  Ah, I see. Not so sure myself now.

austinl 5y ago

I had a similar experience when playing Kerbal for the first time in high school. I thought that NASA got to the moon by simply thrusting in a straight line from Earth in a way that would intersect with the moon's orbit and boy was I wrong! But now I've found that most people I talk to about this — that also weren't alive during the space race where this was regularly explained on television — have the same naive idea that you can get to the moon by going straight up at it with the right timing. Instead, you learn that you need to enter orbit and burn prograde at your apoapsis, burn retrograde at the moon's periapsis, etc. — really fascinating and complex stuff! If the curriculum would've allowed it, I feel like I could've spent a whole semester playing and learning from KSP — these kind of games are truly the top of "games for learning" genre.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Yes, the key here is to understand that you are not exactly flying, but always falling towards something, and you need to change the trajectory of your fall to get anywhere. So space flight is much closer to sky diving than to air flight.
zamadatix 5y ago
That's actually the easiest way to get to the Mun in my opinion. No need to plan anything anything just shoot straight up. If you don't get an orbital encounter initially just keep shooting up until you do, it'll happen many times before you reach Kerbin Escape velocity. No need to time anything or plan certain maneuvers. Basically shoot upwards until you get an encounter, speed up until it auto slows you down near the Mun, then kill velocity to fall in and land. Grossly and hilariously inefficient but actually easier to perform than the "correct" way (and typically faster in player-time).
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  That is only possible if you have engines and fuel capable of sustaining a powered flight. We puny humans so far don't have it.
  - 5y ago

afterburner 5y ago

Even just knowing basic physics ruined Gravity for me, let alone orbital dynamics.

coptun 5y ago
The most unrealistic part of Gravity isn't the orbital mechanics, it's the part where she gets out of a spacesuit without assistance from others in 10 seconds flat.