top 200 commentsshow all 383

[–]UrsaDropsus 76 points77 points ago

KSP taught me that most space games I've played previously do a laughably poor job of representing how physics in space really works.

Related lesson: Space games are more fun for me when they're closer to the reality.

[–]centurijon 32 points33 points ago

Funny when you think about it: Asteroids was one of the most technically accurate space sims of all time.

[–]trevize1138[S] 7 points8 points ago

Great point!

[–]Tromboneofsteel 10 points11 points ago

Another lesson: Watching any movie with spaceships in it is now ruined because of KSP.

Edit: case in point, I'm so dissapointed that this could never happen.

[–]johnnytightlips2 4 points5 points ago

That's one of the things I've realised; an actual space battle would be so difficult to manouver as to essentially be impossible. All one ship would need to do is burn for a few seconds in any direction and BAM you're kilometres away

[–]aldenhg 5 points6 points ago

Inertial dampeners! Repulsorlifts! Elctro-stabilizers!

Yeah beats me.

[–]Alphaetus_Prime 5 points6 points ago

Actual space battles would take place over massive distances. People on one ship probably wouldn't be able to see the other ship at all.

[–]pigsnoutman 3 points4 points ago

It's possible but stupid. They're not in orbit, and just hovering.

[–]Lying_Dutchman 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, spaceships always seem to move just like planes in movies.... maybe they're just in pretty thin atmosphere?

Or, you know, just insert some random technobabble that explains it.

[–]reindeermeat 6 points7 points ago

Remember I-War taking a more realistic approach to physics. Don't know if the game was that popular though, remember my brother raving about it when it was released. I was 9 at the time and mostly sucked at it.

[–]Danny_the_Intern 5 points6 points ago

I freaking loved Independence War. Newtonian physics in a space combat video game? Hells to the yes.

It's on GOG now, by the way. Definitely worth the purchase.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points ago

[–]deckard58Master Kerbalnaut 4 points5 points ago

I don't even need to hover on that link to know what you're talking about :D

[–]Swordfish08 4 points5 points ago

"Serviceman Chung" is likely a reference to the man who wrote this site. If you read through it and compare it to the game's codec, it becomes quite obvious that the writers of Mass Effect referenced it heavily.

Oh, and, uh, clear your schedule before you try reading it.

[–]nyrath 2 points3 points ago

Yes, "Serviceman Chung" was a reference to me, and "Serviceman Burnside" was Ken Burnside of Ad Astra games. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside every time I watch that.

and yes, my website can be engrossing, even to me.

[–]kklusmeier 2 points3 points ago

...It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years! That is why, serviceman Chung, we do not just 'Eyeball it'! This is a weapon of mass destruction! You are not a GD cowboy shooting from the hip!

[–]LeiningensAnts 1 point2 points ago

And if you're a first-person-shooter fan, Shattered Horizon.

Crap, I've had that thing in my Steam Games list for more than a year, and it still intimidates me into not clicking.

(edit: Horizon, not plural)

[–]Danny_the_Intern 1 point2 points ago

Never heard of it. A quick Google search later, and that looks pretty nifty! I might have to give it a look.

[–]pokemech 1 point2 points ago

Damn that looks cool!

Guns like that wouldn't work like that in space, there'd be no muzzle flash, and my computer would probably die before it could render a single frame, but that is one damn cool looking game :)

[–]Bzerker01 1 point2 points ago

There has been a lot of talk of a similar model being put into Chris Roberts next game Star Citizen. I'd check it out if you are looking for a classic Space Combat video game.

[–]Danny_the_Intern 1 point2 points ago

I keep hearing about that game, and I'll admit that it does look pretty awesome. Still, I've been burned in the past and I don't want to get my hopes up. If the dogfighting module is as awesome as I want it to be, then I'll officially be excited.

[–]UrsaDropsus 1 point2 points ago

Another one more recently released is Evochron Mercenary. Has proper Newtonian physics which makes combat interesting. I think the most ridiculous thing about that game though is that a single dude made it all. WTF honestly.

[–]OrangeJuggler 2 points3 points ago

Most space games are fancy submarine games.

[–]laggerd 72 points73 points ago

I used to think that if a space ship was in orbit, because gravity appears to have no effect, then it can point and go somewhere if you get the timing right.

[–]trevize1138[S] 62 points63 points ago

I was entranced by the concept this game taught me that all of space is just a series of orbits. Nearly every maneuver you do is an orbital transfer of one type or another.

[–]graymatteron 13 points14 points ago

Yup, moving from one sphere of gravitational influence to another. Makes me wonder if there is a place where there is no gravitational influence?

[–][deleted] 55 points56 points ago

Technically, the effect of gravity has no limiting distance. It drops off according to the inverse square law until the effect is so small that it has no practical value, but to some tiny degree, you are currently being affected by the gravitational pull of every bit of mass in the universe.

Of course, dominating this to an absolutely enormous degree is the mass of the earth, moon and sun. It's almost impossible to notice the pull of other masses due to the size and proximity of these three bodies. A classic rebuttal of the astrology claim that the gravity of mars could somehow influence your birth goes that, with the distances involved, the doctor delivering the baby exerts more gravitational pull on you than mars does.

But if you were, say, out in the blackest intergalactic space, you would have to account for the pull of several galaxies to keep on the proper course. Even out there you would be in some incredibly, unbelievably slow orbit. Probably around the Great Attractor, whatever that is.

[–]nou_spiro 2 points3 points ago

well mars-3kg baby which are 0.5AU apart = 2.297e-8N

100kg person and 3kg 0.5m apart = 8e-8N

source: wolframaplha

[–]chocki305 22 points23 points ago

No place has "no gravitational influence". But places do exist where opposing gravitational forces cancel each other out. KSP taught, or rather lead me to read about Lagrange points, and how a ship can orbit that point, virtually keeping it in the same spot in comparison to its parent body.

[–]graymatteron 15 points16 points ago

I was reading about this the other day, wasn't it true though that the way KSP's physics are coded you can only be under one sphere of influence at a time meaning that lagrange points could not be utilized in KSP?

[–]chocki305 13 points14 points ago

Correct, Lagrange points only work with n-body physics, as they are points where earths (or other planet / mass) gravity is "canceled" out by another objects gravity. KSP only models single body physics. Meaning, when you are orbiting Kerbin, the gravity of Kerbol (the sun) has no effect on the craft.

[–]tgdrake10 3 points4 points ago

How much harder would the game be with n-body physics?

[–]AN_HONEST_ASSHOLE 5 points6 points ago

Keeping satellites in orbit for long periods of time would be a chore. Like if you put something in keosynchronous orbit, you'd have to deal with the other bodies' gravitational influence perturbing its orbit. Wikipedia has a page on how real-world satellites deal with this.

[–]daniel14vt 1 point2 points ago

Not too much until you got outside of the SOI. However the program would have to work a ton harder

[–]trevize1138[S] 9 points10 points ago

Correct. The physics are simplified for the purposes of simplifying the game to make it more fun plus I'm sure the computing power needed to truly factor in all the gravitational influences in the KSP "universe" at any given time would make it nearly un-playable.

Interestingly, from what I understand of Patched Conics they did calculations for the Moon flights in the '60s with a very similar approximation of the Earth having an SOI and the Moon having an SOI mostly because they didn't have the computing power at that time to do otherwise.

[–]LeiningensAnts 11 points12 points ago


I think even NASA supercomputers have problems with n-body physics, so, don't knock whatever PC you play this thing on, folks.

[–]exDM69 10 points11 points ago


Doing n-body simulations is not difficult or computationally expensive. You can do a very impressive simulation of thousands to millions of bodies on your home PC. You can try e.g. Universe Sandbox.

[–]angatar_ 1 point2 points ago

How complex would KSP's n-body simulations be compared to NASA's?

[–]exDM69 6 points7 points ago

KSP does not do any n-body simulation (KSP is strictly 2 body dynamics) but you certainly can do quite impressive n-body computations with your off the shelf PC. If you have a good GPU, you can get really impressive simulations running.

Universe Sandbox is an example of n-body dynamics simulation which runs on your PC.

Finally, for NASA simulations (when it comes to mission planning), the n body simulations do not do n-body for a particularly large N. They just simulate a handful of the most important gravity sources (the sun, the earth, the moon, jupiter, and the destination planet will get you quite far). But they do take things like non-spherical earth into account.

On the other hand NASA and other astronomy researchers do simulate things like the asteroid belt or motions of stars in a galaxy. There you have quite many bodies that interact.

Your home PC can easily simulate thousands to millions of bodies interacting with each other. The Millenium Run was a big ass n-body simulation with roughly ten billion bodies simulated.

[–]Tefal 1 point2 points ago

N-Body computations are not really hard. The Orbiter space flight sim has been doing it for over ten years without trouble, and it ran fine on the PCs of back then already.

The #1 reason for using patched conics and SoIs instead of N-Body computations in KSP is simplicity. Orbital mechanics become much easier like this; with "true" N-Body mechanics weird effects start to pop up. Lagrange points are one of those, and they're pretty nice, but you also get unstable regions where your orbits are essentially unpredictable without simulation, possibly even chaotic.

KSP is hard enough as it is and AFAIK Squad does not want us to have to cope with that on top of the rest. Not that some of us including the Great Scott would mind, I guess...

[–]exDM69 1 point2 points ago


To plan the moon missions, the engineers in the 1960's did compute the full trajectory using numerical integration, but because computer time was so expensive back then, they had to make a good initial guess using patched conics.

Patched conics is not useful for proper mission planning in the real world, but it can give useful back of the envelope guesstimates to get started. To get your trajectories right, you have to do a full numerical simulation which is a trial and error process.

Perturbations due to gravity of the sun, the moon and other bodies and the non-spherical gravity field of the earth are not negligible and have to be properly taken into account.

[–]OptimalCynic 4 points5 points ago

Yes, the barycenter of the universe. Good luck finding it though.

[–]The_Dirty_Carl 4 points5 points ago

Technically, no. Practically, yes.

All masses exert an influence in an infinite sphere, but the strength of that influence varies inversely with the square of the distance.

So, if you get far enough away from any significant mass, you no longer need to account for their effect. For example, if you're orbiting Earth, you need to account for the moon, but you don't care what Mars is doing.

[–]monkeedude1212 1 point2 points ago

If I understand it correctly, the Voyager probe has left the solar system with enough force that it probably won't reach an apoapsis before it encounters some other gravitational force that severely impacts it's trajectory.

It will end up so far from the sun's normal sphere of influence, further than Haley's comet, that even 70 years won't cause it to complete an orbit.

[–]wartornhero 2 points3 points ago

Kind of. Voyager is traveling either at or really close to the sun's escape velocity. Voyager will never orbit back around the sun and will end up orbiting the milky way with the sun Eventually Both of them pass other stars in about 40,000 years

[–]Crazyh 1 point2 points ago

Lets hope we as a species are still around at that point. I wonder if we will stop fighting over silly crap by then.

[–]sknnywhiteman 1 point2 points ago

well, based on how long civilization has been around, and how likely it looks like it will be stopping in the near future, it's safe to say we're doomed.

[–]f87 2 points3 points ago

I realized this through KSP as well and it has really made it hard to watch any sci-fi involving space travel.

[–]Danny_the_Intern 9 points10 points ago

I vaguely remember learning that orbit, at the most basic level, can be thought of a constant freefall around a gravitational body. You've essentially reached the point where your velocity is high enough that the ground will always curve away from you faster than gravity will bring you down.

It's been like 14 years since high school physics, though, so I could be full of shit.

edit: Aha! I was describing Newton's cannonball!

[–]LeiningensAnts 5 points6 points ago

Good ol' Newton, the bastard who invented Calculus on a dare.

And if it wasn't for atmospheric drag~~~!!! [SHAKEFIST]

[–]Alphaetus_Prime 2 points3 points ago

As someone taking AP Physics right now, atmospheric drag is my worst nightmare.

[–]Blly509 4 points5 points ago

After my first few docking attempts I realized it was less like walking over to your buddy and shaking his hand and more like the two of you driving down the freeway at several thousand km/s and trying to high five each other

[–]nquinn91 61 points62 points ago

How you have to make a gravity turn to make orbit. Makes so much sense and I can't believe I never realized it before KSP.

[–]trevize1138[S] 35 points36 points ago

I can't believe how dumb I was first playing this game. I pointed my rocket straight up and let 'er go until the fuel ran out. WTH? I'm falling right back down to where I launched? MIND BLOWN

[–]nquinn91 23 points24 points ago

I probably did this 3 times before I sought out youtube videos and facepalmed so hard.

[–]trevize1138[S] 42 points43 points ago

I also didn't use the map view or maneuver nodes at first at all. I just launched, pointed myself straight at the moon, warped time and ... WTH? I'm in orbit around the SUN??

[–]elad661 9 points10 points ago

I actually managed to land on the Mun in one of my first gameplays without much planning, gravity turning, maneuver nodes or anything like that. "Oh, I ran out of fuel? I'll add more fuel", then I just pointed at the mun and after a while... I intercepted it. Few flights later I managed to land the thing, but never had enough fuel to come back when I flew like that.

[–]kufan64 3 points4 points ago

That's actually pretty impressive. The ship must have been moving at ludicrous speed to be able to fly it directly to the Mun like you describe.

[–]sn33zie 10 points11 points ago

He's gone plaid

[–]elad661 3 points4 points ago

hm... come to think of it it does seem kinda too good to be true. Maybe I don't remember it right. I remember taking off pointing directly upwards, then I don't remember what I did, and then I just pointed to the Mun with full speed ahead. Maybe I got to orbit first, but if it was it was probably not very circular.

I still have the craft file tho, I might attempt to recreate that mission...

[–]Arknine 1 point2 points ago

Maybe he even went plaid.

[–]SgtExoMaster Kerbalnaut 12 points13 points ago

That is pretty funny.

[–]littlefrankMaster Kerbalnaut 10 points11 points ago

Basically, what Kerbal Space Program taught me is that what goes up doesn't necessarily come down... you just need a decent delta V and a certain trajectory, and Jeb.

[–]laggerd 2 points3 points ago

no, it is always coming down while orbiting

[–]Frizbiskit 1 point2 points ago

I new I had to speed up sideways at some point but I never knew how much speed it takes to get into orbit. And when I found out how fast real life things orbit I was absolutely astonished.

[–]LeiningensAnts 42 points43 points ago

I knew space was big,

I knew about the Apollo Program, and what a slide-ruler is,

I knew docking is more like a seven-kilometer-per-second kiss between two 50 ton fatties,

I knew why you can't just fly a Boeing 747 to the moon wasn't just running out of gas,

But if KSP has taught me anything, it's taught me that I greatly underestimate young people. I mean, I'm 31, 32 in January, and I've got fucking 13 year olds asking 17 year olds how Calculus works and the finer points of ... well, you get the idea.

[–]ericksj1 11 points12 points ago

I agree one hundred percent. Those who say kids are getting stupider have never met the KSP community! A bunch of magnificent people you all are!

[–]TheFlyingBastard 37 points38 points ago

I learned that an orbit is literally falling towards the ground but going so fast that you keep missing it.

[–]_ralph_ 20 points21 points ago

i never really understood the joke behind learning to fly in the HHGTTG.


[–]Alphaetus_Prime 2 points3 points ago

Holy shit I never thought about it that way.

[–]ICameISawILeft 2 points3 points ago

This is a fact that I "knew" before hand, but I didn't actually understand it. But apparently I only really remembered the words and didn't grok the concept. I had this moment when doing one of my first gravity turns where I was thinking "Why do I need SOO much horizontal momentum" and then it all clicked. It was a good moment.

[–]aaqucnaona 34 points35 points ago

How difficult it is to get enough deltaV to go to the outer planets. Without gravity assists, the Voyagers wouldn't have even crossed the asteroid belt.

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points ago

Not to mention how hard it would be, in real universe scales and orbital velocities, to come back from a Mars mission. Could you imagine the absolute leviathan that you would need to push a return vehicle out to Mars and achieve capture that would be able to land and then get back up to Mars orbit? It would probably be easier to just mine the resources and build it on Mars, which is probably what we'll end up doing.

[–]neph001 15 points16 points ago

You're on the right track, but with proven technology that exists right now it's doable without building the whole return vehicle, instead only producing liquid methane fuel in situ.

I highly, highly recommend reading The Case For Mars by Robert Zubrin if you're interested in this stuff.

[–]bbqroast 2 points3 points ago

On the flip side in real life no one will blink an eye if you use ions and plan to burn for a few hundred hours to get your transfer.

[–]RS14-2 2 points3 points ago

Even so, Deimos is closer than Luna, in terms of energy! (5.6km/s, vs. 5.7km/s for Luna, from LEO).

[–]Danny_the_Intern 9 points10 points ago

Seriously. Even a trip to somewhere as "close" as Mars requires something around 20,000 m/s of Δv, from takeoff to low Mars orbit. Let alone the costs to land there, return to orbit, and make it back to Earth.

[–]LeiningensAnts 12 points13 points ago

And yet, if you convinced the world that there was oil on that thar Mars...

[–]clinically_cynicalMaster Kerbalnaut 26 points27 points ago

Well I should hope so, oil on Mars would mean life on Mars.

[–]pigsnoutman 1 point2 points ago

The oil in Canada is only just worth getting.

[–]KooooojMaster Kerbalnaut 9 points10 points ago

Uh.... the Voyagers got their first gravity assist from Jupiter, outside of the asteroid belt. Your point is still quite valid, just a little off in the details.

[–]AbisCann 36 points37 points ago

More than anything, KSP taught me just how dangerous spaceflight is. One little miscalculation, one little mistake, and BOOM. You're dead, and millions of dollars plus countless man-hours have been wasted.

Granted, people do not generally spend months or years planning missions in KSP, and we (or at least most of us) aren't rocket scientists, but it definitely gave me a whole new appreciation for how big astronauts' balls are.

[–]redthursdays 26 points27 points ago

Rocket scientist (student) here. I play KSP. I absolutely agree with you.

THAT SAID: my recent .22 Minmus mission launched and partially exploded on Kerbin ascent. Still managed to land on Minmus and make it back. A minor problem doesn't necessarily completely damn the mission, if you can correct for it. Sort of like when Apollo 13 launched, one of the engines malfunctioned but they still pushed it to orbit (the other problems that came later were unrelated).

[–]LeiningensAnts 28 points29 points ago

Apollo 13:

Malfunctioning launch? Check

Exploding oxygen tank? Check

Need to fit square peg into round hole? Check

Typically 4 or so minutes of radio not-contact, extended to 6+? Check.


[–]redthursdays 13 points14 points ago

Have you read the book that the movie is based on (Lost Moon, by Jim Lovell)? It goes a lot more in detail into the technical aspects of what went wrong and what caused the explosion, as well as what they all went through surviving by the seat of their pants. It really is incredible that they were able to overcome the incident and make it home unscathed.

[–]Professor_Lavahot 9 points10 points ago

I believe I read somewhere, possibly even in that book (it's due for a reread, it's awesome) that the next time Swigert was supposed to have stirred the oxygen tanks was while he was in orbit, by himself, around the Moon. While Lovell and Haise were in the LM on the surface.

So in the time it would have took for them to abort the moonwalk, wait for the launch window, and get it back up to lunar orbit, would Swigert have exhausted the purge tank in the CM? Would they be able to dock? Would they still be there?

It's absolutely insane how close this would have come to space's yet-untold greatest tragedy: losing people that we can't get back.

[–]Silpion 8 points9 points ago

Not to damp your enthusiasm, but the spirit of this comment needs a little bit of a reality check.

Malfunctioning launch? Check

One engine did shut down late in the 2nd stage, but this was not a huge threat to crew safety. If it had left them unable to complete the mission, they had perfectly acceptable abort scenarios where the CM would just land immediately or use third stage and service module to boost into a safe orbit.

This also isn't a real unique situation. Apollo 6 (unmanned Saturn V test) had worse problems but still made a safe orbit. Challenger lost an engine on STS-51-F leading to a successful Abort to Orbit, and Columbia had decreased engine performance on STS-93 leading to a low but safe orbit.

Exploding oxygen tank? Check

The big one, yeah, that they were lucky to survive. The main consequence was a loss of electrical power generation in the CSM, so survival was a matter of making the LM keep them all alive until they could get back, without letting the CSM systems freeze solid.

Need to fit square peg into round hole? Check

Just one aspect of the above. It was a cool deal, but honestly one of the best things about having humans on your spacecraft is that they can improvise and effect creative fixes. This happens on lots of flights and EVAs, this one was just more critical than usual.


It was just because their navigation wasn't perfect and they hit the atmosphere more shallowly than usual, leading to a longer time spent in the plasma sheath. They were still within the nominal reentry window, it was just a cause for some suspense.


Not sure what that means, but Challenger and Columbia had catastrophic unrecoverable problems. Apollo 13 had a problem that could have been catastrophic, but because it was mainly a power issue on just one of their two spacecraft, there was room for error that those other missions didn't have.

Some other potentially disastrous incidents that have happened, with disaster being averted:

  • Gemini 8 had a RCS system malfunction after docking with a test vehicle, which caused the spacecraft to spin out of control so violently they crew almost passed out, while out of communication with Houston. They did an emergency undock, disabled the primary RCS system completely, and used 75% of the reentry RCS system fuel to null out their spin, and did an immediate emergency reentry.

  • Apollo 12 was hit by lightning on ascent, causing a failure of the readout electronics. Fixed by switching to the obscure backup system. Not fixing could have left them flying blind and forced an uncomfortable and dangerous early launch abort.

  • Apollo 14 had a glitch with the LM landing abort switch, which could have led to an uncommanded abort during lunar descent, which would have ruined the mission and led to an awkward lunar orbit rendezvous situation. Fixed by a software patch written during the flight and coded in by hand by the astronauts.

  • Five space shuttle missions executed RSLS aborts on the launch pad after main engine ignition but before liftoff. Failure to abort then could have led to a Return to Launch Site abort after liftoff or an engine explosion.

[–]dparish21 5 points6 points ago

You know your shit.

[–]LeiningensAnts 2 points3 points ago

I don't think I've ever been this happy to be schooled like a damn kid.



Not sure what that means

Imagine Challenger going up while Colombia was coming down and them hitting each other.


[–]Aqueries44 6 points7 points ago

Hell, Apollo 12 was struck by lightning during launch.

[–]redthursdays 11 points12 points ago

Now THAT'S what I want in the next update.

[–]jardeon 7 points8 points ago

"Flight, have him try SCE to Aux."

[–]drivec 6 points7 points ago

"Try FCE to Auxiliary. What the hell is that?"

[–]SgtBaxter 4 points5 points ago

Haha... I think most of us probably toss some parts together, think "hey that's cool" and click the launch button just to see what happens. I know I do!

[–]2close2see 25 points26 points ago

That I'm never going to get my fucking thesis finished.

[–]Silpion 2 points3 points ago

I'm so happy I didn't find this until after I graduated.

Just uninstall it man. You can come back to us later.

[–]yurkia 27 points28 points ago

KSP has taught me that I am no where near as intelligent as I once thought I was.....

[–]Mr_Magpie 24 points25 points ago

It taught me what I wish I had realised years ago. That my love of space could be a career if I had gone that route. Unfortunately saying I wanted to be involved with space was misunderstood by my teachers as "be an astronaut" and so they always talked me into a less grandiose role without realising I meant building satellites, or rockets, or propulsion systems. So I aimed much lower, not wanting to fail my teachers and family. I wasn't good enough, or smart enough to be an astronaut the teachers said. I picked up the drums, and art, something I was always good at regardless, as I found other subjects completely empty. I did a music degree, came out of University, and one day I was browsing reddit when I saw the CGI of curiosity landing, where somebody had photoshopped the three kerbals onto the bottom right screen.

So, I did research, found this game, cackled with glee at the expressions and explosions, and told myself I would not buy it until I had landed on the Mun.

After landing on the Mun, and discovering how orbits work it finally dawned on me after a long gaming session.

I've wanted to do this for real, and have done since I was small.

Sat in a dark room to accentuate the blackness of space in the game, I watched the little ship I had designed whizz around a replica planet and allowed my childhood to return to me.

I remembered being obsessed with spaceships and various sci fi, I remembered having a match box moon base toy set, with shuttles you could place together just like KSP. I remembered going with my step dad to a giant field where he'd set up a whole load of model rockets to launch without telling me what we were doing, and we spent hours in the cold launching them. I remembered wondering how and why rockets flew like they did, why they needed fins, how far up they could go, and what it would be like to be in the rocket when it launched. I remembered going to the Kennedy Space Centre on a trip to the US and looking at the Saturn V engines with my mouth wide open. I remembered seeing my biological dad, and helping him create a water pressure rocket, which after launch was never found again. To this day we still joke that it's in orbit somewhere, contributing to the space junk issue.

That night, as I sat motionless, memories flooding back and sweeping over me I'd realised how much time I had wasted avoiding confronting the people who told me I couldn't do it, spiralling into myself as I matured and as a result, hiding away what I truly wanted for fear of disappointing others. I realised I had been in a depression, I had anxiety issues, and this little game put it into perspective.

I always considered myself crap at math, never being able to do algebra or advanced calculations, mainly due to a lack of enthusiasm. But there I was, sat in that room, filled with emotion, regret, but also awe at myself. I had just done basic rocket science, very basic, but rocket science nonetheless.

So here I am, mid 20s, hating the choice I have made so far, and wishing I had given myself a better opportunity to do what I always wanted to do.

Life has not been very kind since leaving uni, I've been out of work since January, struggled with rents, keeping on top of depression and anxiety, dealing with deaths. And yet I feel calmer than I have since I was watching those little rockets whizz into the sky, because I know what I want to do with my life.

So, as soon as I can nail a job down, I'm saving up and going straight back to college, straight through uni, and into a career in aerospace engineering.

It's what I have always wanted to do, and it's what this game has taught me, I only hope I haven't left it too late.

Edit: Wow! Thank you for the reddit gold. It means a lot. Thank you for the encouragement also.

[–]trevize1138[S] 2 points3 points ago

Moving story, bro. Amazing this game brings out such emotion for you.

Good call going back to school for aerospace. Consider this: you're only in your 20s. You are not too late at all.

[–]Mr_Magpie 5 points6 points ago

Thanks for the encouragement. It means a lot.

The big hurdle is understand those garbled math formulas. Once I've got that solved the sky's no longer the limit.

[–]Danny_the_Intern 22 points23 points ago

Science fiction shows and movies are awful at portraying spaceflight. Let's take Return of the Jedi as an (admittedly bad) example.

Okay, so they've just managed to rescue Han from Jabba's clutches and made a bunch of things blow up with super-cool explosions, right? They leave Tatooine separately - Luke's got to head back to Dagobah by himself, while everybody else is heading over to hook up with the rest of the Alliance to prepare the assault on the second Death Star. We see Luke's X-wing and the Millenium Falcon taking off and heading in separate directions once they're in space.


I mean, seriously - how the hell does Tatooine's gravity not affect him? How does Luke magically make his ship go into the direction that he's pointing it? Do an X-wing's engines have infinite power and infinite fuel? Is it space magic and/or the Force? Did he use a cheat code?

[–]Monsterposter 20 points21 points ago

Don't most science fiction spaceships produce ludicrous amounts of energy? Couldn't an incredible amount of thrust produce those results?

[–]Danny_the_Intern 9 points10 points ago

They'd have to. I mean, to make that much of a change in your orbit, that close to the planet, and to have it be almost instantaneous? We're talking about obscene amounts of power here.

Same thing with the Death Star in A New Hope. What, this gigantic orbital body doesn't produce any gravitational forces, and they can just fly straight away from it with no problems? Oh please.

obviously, there's never been any attempt to portray the mechanics of spaceflight in Star Wars as realistic, but still

[–]Monsterposter 5 points6 points ago

Aren't they also capable of traveling at the speed of light?

[–]Danny_the_Intern 8 points9 points ago

I guess so. Which brings up another point - how the hell can they move between star systems so (relatively (pun not intended)) quickly? It takes light something like 8 minutes just to reach Earth from the Sun. It takes years from light from the nearest stars to reach Earth. And yet they can travel halfway across the galaxy in a few hours?

And what about relativity and time dialation? How can a probe droid on the surface of Hoth transmit images instantaneously to the Imperial fleet? Realistically speaking, the Rebels would've been long gone by the time the Empire even saw the transmission.

Damn you, Star Wars, and your love of the Rule of Cool.

[–]Monsterposter 11 points12 points ago

I just found this, it would seem that Star Wars has a simular transportation syestem to Star Trek.

I also this, apparently the ships are shielded from relativistic effects.

[–]Danny_the_Intern 17 points18 points ago

Magic. Got it.

[–]SimmeP 7 points8 points ago

This is a thing I've been thinking about since I watched any FTL drive in any media.

It seems like people/aliens/whatever either don't have the ability to travel superluminously (sp?), OR they have the ability to travel 100000000000000x c. We never see anyone able to go 1 or 2 times the speed of light. Either it's never mentioned/impossible or it's absolutely insane speeds.

[–]Danny_the_Intern 4 points5 points ago

The only thing I've ever seen that has treated FTL/relativity with at least some degree of realism was Ender's Game (the book, I haven't seen the movie). It actually brings up the concept of time dialation near the end (2 years pass for Ender and his sister on their ship, while 50+ pass for their brother back on Earth).

[–]PuddingInferno 4 points5 points ago

The Forever War is about interstellar war with relativistic effects. It's a good read.

[–]bsdude010 2 points3 points ago

No, no, no, no, no. Lightspeed is to slow. We're going to have to go right to.... Ludicrous speed!

[–]Tromboneofsteel 1 point2 points ago

Warning, that's a tvtropes link.

Also, i think I read somewhere that warp speed in star wars is some alteration of the ship's material, and that causes it to go to a kind of space between spaces, where time doesn't exist. As a result, no time dialation.

[–]trevize1138[S] 4 points5 points ago

See, I didn't study physics or math or any of that stuff that would have helped me with this game in college. I studied English. But, that means I know exactly why sci fi ships can defy the laws of physics: the power of Deus Ex Machina.

[–]kashmill 5 points6 points ago

He used the force

[–]LeiningensAnts 3 points4 points ago

I am so angry that this is the correct answer. >:I

[–]sn33zie 2 points3 points ago

If you play KSP, be prepared to never enjoy star wars again.

[–]dropname 2 points3 points ago

I just always imagined these ships have such hilariously ludicrous delta-V that they don't have to worry about transfers; spaceflight as a sheer point-to-point endeavor is easy, and for relativistic distances, warp drives work easily enough.

[–]BreakfastDeluxe 31 points32 points ago

KSP taught me that many space movies are full of shit. Was raging in my seat while watching gravity.

[–]erawrs 21 points22 points ago

Same here, Sandra must've been a god to use the fire extinguisher to reach the landing pod. It made me so mad.

[–]BreakfastDeluxe 22 points23 points ago

Not to mention all those plane changes. All that unaccounted delta v. Even the end reentry was a tad bit rushed. If you really want to feel the rage, try out the first space part of COD Ghosts. De-orbit via RCS and immediate atmospheric effects...

[–]fozzzyyy 17 points18 points ago

I watched that on YouTube, I was like WTF? If they were in a low enough orbit to immediately get reentry effects, there was something SERIOUSLY wrong with that space station. (Or blowing up that RCS had enough force in the exact right direction to kill almost all of their velocity)

[–]littlefrankMaster Kerbalnaut 10 points11 points ago

Brb, I'm gonna go watch the video and rage.
Here's the link and yes, millions of dollars of budget and they didn't even ask a rocket scientist if the sequence made any sense.

[–]Tromboneofsteel 11 points12 points ago

That guy's right, how do you get a shuttle up there without being detected?

Ugh, they don't even shoot the rod retrograde.

Oh WOW. slightly turning the satellite is enough to deorbit it.

Yep. Thanks KSP.

[–]darkenseyreth 10 points11 points ago

You assume they cared? Their production meeting probably went something like this:

"You know what would be bad ass? A space mission!"

"Space is cool and all, but it's been done. How do we make it more bad ass?"

"You know what would make it really bad ass? An orbital strike satellite that goes rogue!"

"That's bad ass! Only your guy has to push it out of orbit to save all of America!"

"Even more bad ass! But, you know, how do we make it plausible?"

"I dunno, what are those things that push the shuttle around called? Steve, you're into that sciencey stuff."

"Oh? You mean RCS thrusters? That could work, but i don't -"

"Yeah! Those thingys! But we have to make it bad ass. I know, they have to blow them up! And that will push it out of orbit!"

"Bad ass!"

"Uh guys that's not how it works."

"Shut up Steve."

[–]littlefrankMaster Kerbalnaut 5 points6 points ago

Ahahah, thanks for the good laugh, that made my day!
And I feel sorry for Steve, there's still space for him here, he just shouldn't expect to be payed as much.

[–]AluminiumSandworm 3 points4 points ago

Those missiles sure hit the surface fast.

[–]littlefrankMaster Kerbalnaut 6 points7 points ago

The reentry effects started in a matter of seconds, so I suppose they are in a very low Earth orbit, so let's say no less than 160km.
Missiles went from the spaceship to Earth in about 8 seconds... that's 72000 m/s on average.
I am not sure that is possible.

[–]AluminiumSandworm 2 points3 points ago

Especially considering the acceleration they must've been under, since they weren't going anywhere near that fast when they left ODIN.

[–]Ben347 2 points3 points ago

And the astronauts apparently had the exact same amount of drag as the huge space station.

[–]BreakfastDeluxe 2 points3 points ago

Not to mention blowing up the RCS actually thrusted it directly at the surface. Incredibly inefficient way of de-orbit

[–]centurijon 15 points16 points ago

Gravity was still a hell of a lot more accurate then most other space movies.

Spoiler tag not working: SPOILER:

The only part that I had difficulty overlooking was the third time the debris cloud intercepted them, when she's on the chinese station that's falling from orbit. The debris field wasn't at that altitude, or if it was it would have deorbited/burned up by then.

[–]gpouliot 1 point2 points ago

I still loved that movie though. Good movie even though it takes a lot of liberties with physics and reality.

[–]graymatteron 31 points32 points ago

I think what really blows my mind is how we have all these awesome tools, such as the maneuver nodes, to plan our burns and fine tune our orbits and encounters but real astronauts / engineers achieve this stuff without the help. Even more so, back in the 60's they could figure out TLI's and orbital capture burns... even more so, re-entry angles and get them right.

[–]trevize1138[S] 37 points38 points ago

Plus: they had to invent some of the formulas first before using them to calculate all this. Gods among men.

[–]RedDorf 11 points12 points ago

I was playing a few nights ago, watching a long burn on the map screen. My predicted burn wasn't enough, so I eyeballed an extra burn until my projected path was atop the maneuver node's path.

Doing so, I realized that it would've been impossible for those 60s engineers. They'd have to examine the original burn for hours to realize they'd screwed it up, and then come up with a delicate recovery plan.

[–]dropname 8 points9 points ago

Right? The instant trajectory plotting / maneuver nodes is an insanely efficient way to handle the problem of interplanetary travel.

[–]deckard58Master Kerbalnaut 5 points6 points ago

Well, no, by the time of Apollo they had some S/360s and similar big iron working for them in real time ;) The calculations would be a matter of tens of seconds, maybe a couple of minutes at worst. Implementing them, that's another matter... (And back at the time of Mercury they obviously had a lot less, sure, but the problems were also simpler)

[–]Cpt_squishy 5 points6 points ago

Not only the engineers, but the pilots. I can't remember which one if the mercury pilots it was, but he basically did his entire descent manually with a slide rule and his brain, while looking out through a tiny window.

[–]trevize1138[S] 2 points3 points ago



IMDB doesn't have the rest of this exchange in quotes, which is one of the other Mercury 7 saying "They wanna see Buck Rogers and that's us!"

[–]Katoru 33 points34 points ago

How hard docking is. Freaking hard!

[–]LeiningensAnts 20 points21 points ago

"I'm just trying to get my 50 ton $20B spacecraft to kiss that 50 ton $20B lander at 17 kilometers per second, how hard can it be?!"

[–]Jessica_T 10 points11 points ago

Docking gets a lot easier when you figure out the docking controls. And being able to use Mechjeb's Smart ASS to keep the ports pointed at eachother helps too

[–]TheBQE 26 points27 points ago

Docking is very easy without mods. And I'm not saying that to brag. I took one week and dedicated my missions to learning and perfecting docking. By the end, I felt totally confident in being able to dock two ships no matter how far apart and how askew their orbital trajectories were.

[–]gibson_ 2 points3 points ago

Make a tutorial, brah.

[–]SarcasticGuyMaster Kerbalnaut 13 points14 points ago

Scott Manley already has that covered.

Set your target. Kill orbit inclination. Set maneuver nodes so you get a close encounter. At closest point, kill relative velocity.

Repeat until you get ~1 km. Use RCS for remainder. Docking mode and chase view recommended. Make sure prograde target and prograde direction are on top of each other for best results.

The two hardest parts to docking are understanding what the little symbols mean, and making sure you built a balanced ship.

[–]trevize1138[S] 2 points3 points ago

and making sure you built a balanced ship.

That still gets me every time. I've gotten damn good at manual docking largely because I keep positioning my RCS thrusters so poorly. I've successfully docked an orange tank with two 1/2 sized grey tanks stacked on top of it with RCS thrusters only on the top 1/2 of the whole vehicle flexes muscles.

[–]hab136 4 points5 points ago

I keep positioning my RCS thrusters so poorly

You need RCS Build Aid.

[–]trevize1138[S] 2 points3 points ago

Don't be silly, I need MOAR THURSTERS! :D

[–]OptimalCynic 1 point2 points ago


It's a lot faster if you do it the other way...

[–]Jessica_T 2 points3 points ago

Also, Lazor's docking camera mod. IRL they have it, so why not use it in KSP? Basically gives you a larger version of the standard docking crosshairs, and a view that shows things.

[–]Jonny0Than 2 points3 points ago

  • Use Chase cam. This keeps the camera at a fixed orientation relative to your vehicle, so you can tell when you're drifting out of alignment.
  • Point your target vehicle towards north.
  • Point your docking vehicle south, and roll so that the horizon is horizontal. This makes the RCS translation controls actually make sense.
  • Switch your navball's velocity to "target" mode

[–]JMile69 12 points13 points ago

People learning physics? And they are actually enjoying it...

This pleases me greatly, I may cry.

[–]Grim187 10 points11 points ago

Orbital Mechanics.

the whole faster = lower so i should slow down thing is a bit strange.

how much delta-v aerobraking saves.

the effects of a change in all 6 directions (grade, radial and normal)...its more interesting to do things without maneuver nodes.

i'm currently learning sling shots; how to most efficiently make an interplanetary transfer...i think it would be best to get out to the mun then slingshot minimus to use kerbin, but i'm not sure that is possible without capture.

[–]Xeno87 9 points10 points ago

I'm currently studying physics, and even though we already had Kepler orbits discussed in Theoretical Physics I, i was kinda surprised to actually see the effects of velocity changing the orbit. This game absolutely amazed me by this simple thing - something i thought i already understood, since i passed my exam. But i only was capable of calculating it, but not to imagine it.

[–]JTPri123 10 points11 points ago

It taught me that I should never EVER step anywhere near NASA.

[–]elad661 10 points11 points ago

I don't have anything smart or interesting to say, so let me just remark that this is probably the best thread I ever saw in this subreddit.

[–]gogogadget_whiteguyMaster Kerbalnaut 9 points10 points ago

If you burn straight up, you fall straight down..

[–]Templar_zaelot 5 points6 points ago

I learned how facinating orbital mechanics are and I fell in love with math. It also reignited my love for physics and engeneering mechanics, my thirst for adventure and my recklesness. Jeb, SQUAD and the Manliest of Astronomers Scott Manley, the wizard himself - the greatest thanks to you all, honorable fellows, for all your service to me and to all of us! *bows

[–]runetrantor 4 points5 points ago

How oribits work, Hohmann Transfers, Oberth Effect...

Still trying phase angles and all that for interplanetary tranfer, but so far, I know way more than when I started.

[–]MrPieUK 2 points3 points ago

KSP didn't teach me how truly big the universe is because i watched this way back. I recommend EVERYONE watch it, it's really jaw dropping at how much we don't matter when looking at the grand scale of the workings of the universe.

KSP told me that less means more. Thank you Asparagus Staging!

KSP told me about making orbits around planets

KSP told me staging in atmo

KSP told me to use moar struts!

KSP told me that i would burn NASA and their funding to the ground if i was ever in charge.

[–]trail_carrot 6 points7 points ago

Docking is fucking nuts and orbiting is just falling gracefully.

it gave me a nicer vocabulary

when space stuff comes up in physics I dominate that discussion

[–]HausbootJoho 3 points4 points ago

I have played around 250h Of KSP, and I learned a whole lot while doing so: How orbital operations work, how to plan a rendezvous, what transfer windows and phase angles are. I put crafts on a lot of different planetary bodies, built a space station on the Mun (which my cat destroyed) and had a lot of fun while doing so.

And yet, I still learned a lot when reading this thread. E.g. I never thought about how a stable orbit works, it just does.....

[–]trevize1138[S] 2 points3 points ago


Everybody run! The monstrous Space Cat is coming to destroy us all!

[–]ioncloud9 9 points10 points ago

It taught me basic orbital mechanics, how to raise and lower orbits, how to transfer to moons or planets, how gravity assists work, how delta v budgets work, how to land without crashing, how to best position a polar orbit to map the ground.

[–]LeiningensAnts 5 points6 points ago

Figuring out why polar orbits are awesome for mapping for the first time: Keanu Matrix Whoa.

[–]ToddlersForSale 2 points3 points ago

How damn small we are in space. Flying through space, it is highly unlikely that you will encounter anything without a planned maneuver.

How difficult the concept of orbital rendezvous is. Returning to the small thing, it takes an incredible amount of precision to get anywhere near something your size when orbiting a body.

How transfers work. I used to think that once you "escaped" Earth's gravity, you could just "point and shoot" at a planet and you would eventually get there. Now I know you are pretty much always in orbit no matter where you are.

[–]LeiningensAnts 2 points3 points ago



Escape Earth orbit? Sun orbit! Escape sun orbit? Galactic orbit! XD SUCKA!!

[–]SilkyZ 4 points5 points ago

When in orbit, "That wasn't flying, it was falling with style". You are falling but you are also traveling so fast that you miss the source of the gravity.

There is gravity in space, that is why you are falling. You are falling along with the craft you are in. Relative to the craft, you are "Weightless"

[–]mszegedyMaster Kerbalnaut 4 points5 points ago

It taught me exactly how much percent HW is worth of my grade. :\ (I already learned orbital mechanics from Osmos. :P )

[–]SenorMunkE 3 points4 points ago

I'm taking high school physics right now. Both this class and KSP have taught me that I have to ignore pretty much everything I thought I knew about physics and orbital mechanics and start from scratch to learn a bunch of very new concepts.

[–]payphone101 3 points4 points ago

Similar to how a small amount of ∆V can greatly change the direction of an object over a long period of time, I have learned that it is better to increase the speed of my car by about a few MPH (or KPH) when approaching a green light to avoid a red light, rather than drive normal speed and slam on the gas pedal when it turns yellow.

[–]trevize1138[S] 4 points5 points ago

Oh man, KSP thoughts invade my real life all the time. I have a gas stove and when I'm adjusting the burner to get just the right sear on a steak I now get the same rush as if I'm adjusting my throttle to touchdown on the Mun at just the right speed. :D

[–]Wulfrank 2 points3 points ago

That I'm in the wrong university program.

[–]betelgeux 6 points7 points ago

Most things can be solved with more engines and/or more struts.

[–]trevize1138[S] 13 points14 points ago

This applies to real life as well.

Unemployed? MOAR STRUTS!

Can't meet the right girl/guy? MOAR BOOSTERS!

Poverty and hunger? MOAR STRUTS!

[–]purplesmurf_1510_ 2 points3 points ago

It took me way more kerbanauts to get into space then it took astronauts

[–]MagnusTheGreat 2 points3 points ago

Turns out gravity is much, much more complex than I thought as a kid...However, I also learned that it can be used to slingshot things out of orbit.

[–]_ralph_ 2 points3 points ago


i heard it, i did somehow accept it, but i never understood it till i was falling sideways at 150km height.


[–]froop 2 points3 points ago

I wrote a 20-page essay about orbital mechanics based almost entirely off of stuff I learned in KSP. The essay was for an english class, so the bits I got wrong didn't matter.

[–]DisturbinglyFilthy 2 points3 points ago

KSP blew my idea of scales out the window.

Also a question. Why do planets orbit the sun around more or less a single plane, instead of a cloud like electrons over the nucleus of an atom? That's what I don't understand.

[–]exDM69 2 points3 points ago

Orbiting is hard and I've got a fancy, 3D computer simulation to help me fine-tune my trajectory. Engineers in the '60s had slide rules and graph paper and did it better than me.

The engineers in the 1960's also had pretty impressive computers available to them, built especially for the space program. Indeed, the space program was a significant factor in accelerating the development of computers in the 60's.

But because computer time was so expensive, slide rules and graph paper still played a major role.

[–]UtterlyDisposable 2 points3 points ago

That space travel is REALLY FUCKING DIFFICULT. I am thoroughly amazed that we've been able to accomplish with so few fatalities.

[–]WhatGravitas 2 points3 points ago

That everything goes in circles.

[–]shawnkenney 2 points3 points ago

the meaning of the words "apoapsis" and "periapsis"

[–]rokyfox 2 points3 points ago

A few really technical sounding words (apoapsis, delta-v, semi-synchronous etc.) that I can impress people with. EDIT: Also the incredible ratio between fuel used to reach orbit compared to that used to actually get somewhere.

[–]duckylam 2 points3 points ago

Lives do not matter, there is only the pursuit of science!

[–]TheNinjaTurkey 2 points3 points ago

I've learned how much better the metric system is, and how space travel actually works (like orbits and stuff)

[–]CcrLyaSrtIatLy 2 points3 points ago

KSP taught me that, even when you're comfortable with the science, flying a spaceship is a lot harder than it looks on paper. I came to understand that the Apollo landing wasn't really significant because we put men on the moon, it was such an incredible achievement because they made it back home. :)

[–]kogbob 2 points3 points ago

besides a bunch of cool space physics stuff, KSP taught me that the best games are about good and original ideas, not big budgets or big studios

[–]lolredditftw 2 points3 points ago

I thought that on the way to the moon you left the influence of earth's gravity. My mind was a bit blown that it was just a high elliptical orbit.

I also didn't realize how they determined which direction to orbit until I had to think about that in Ksp.

And I had no idea how fucking obnoxious docking was. I honestly had no clue how it was done until I tried to do it in Ksp.

[–]GoldSabre 1 point2 points ago

Landing multiple objects at a single landing zone without wasting copious amounts of fuel is difficult when eyeballing it.

[–]TheMrSolaris 1 point2 points ago

That I am not a rocket scientist!

[–]Malcolm_Sex 1 point2 points ago

I got an even better understanding of the true scope of space. It's fucking huge. It still takes my breath away.

I can better grasp the concept of velocity in relation to four dimensions.

[–]JohnnyBrav00 1 point2 points ago

Space travel is nothing like the movies portray it....

[–]Kingofawesome13 1 point2 points ago

I've learned that I would make a terrible astronaut/rocket scientist.

[–]exDM69 1 point2 points ago

Kerbal Space Program inspired me to read "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" and finally enroll to astronomy courses at the university.

[–]TychoSean 1 point2 points ago

Before KSP I had just some vague notion of orbital dynamics and gravity wells, etc. Now I watch sci fi or movies like "Gravity" and dissect the science without even realizing it. I understand to a much better degree the technical challenges of rocket design and space flight, and multi stage/launch missions. I better understand the concepts of eccentric orbits and launch windows, gravity and air braking, and so much more. Most educational video game I may have played in my life...

[–]Dinker31 1 point2 points ago

Practical-wise, Patience and perseverance. Space-wise, freaking everything I know. And what I didn't learn from KSP directly I learned on a search based on something I saw in KSP

[–]CountRumford 1 point2 points ago

Sometimes the best way to speed up is to slow down.

[–]Narwhal_Jesus 1 point2 points ago

Weirdly enough, I finally got how gyroscopes work. That whole "push one end of the gyroscope up and the bit 90° ahead of it goes up" completely mystified me. That is, until I made the connection with plane-change manoeuvres. When you burn in the normal/anti-normal directions you don't bring your craft to a screeching halt and turn immediately 90°. Rather, the bit further along your orbit either dips or goes up. Cool!