#KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM 2 LAGRANGE POINTS INSTALL#

Although I secretly love the idea of a mine-able asteroid a few km across in one of the Lagranges. Some people would put a base on it just because it's an object, others would use the 5m/s orbital velocity to park things comfortably. I believe Hale from OPM is about 0.002g, and it's still 'landable' if you can be bothered with the descent and use x4 timewarp for a few minutes until it settles But you can turn down the science multiplier to zero and remove all resources so that it becomes, at best, a curiosity. My wanting to learn about KOS and what not. Of course I have a bit much on my plate with the 'Real life'.

BTW being Planets means you can't 'Grab' them either. So I was thinking to use it and create a 'Trojan-Planetoid-Asteroid-Potato-whatever' or ' co-orbital asteroids' called 'Kerbin L4' and 'Kerbin L5' with minute mass so you can't land on it (Less than 0.01G on the surface) and an SOI smaller than Gilly. I was going to let this tread die but after rereading the first few comments I was thinking like you. asteroids, which do tend to 'gravitate' to Lagrange points), with a pointlessly small 0.001g to avoid the temptation to slingshot around it?Īssuming you can set the SoI independently of the mass, that's the sort of thing you could handle with Kopernicus - although it would add a lot of bodies and you'd probably end up with a million contracts to visit your Lagrange rocks. *don't even ask about the other 3 points, they're not stable Edited Octoby 5thHorsemanĬould you do it with an object a few km across (i.e. eventually you'll be warping to Eeloo and come back and find your Mun Lagrange station hit the SOI change too hard and is now ejecting from Sun.

#KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM 2 LAGRANGE POINTS INSTALL#

But if it did work I'd probably install it for the novelty if for nothing else.' I don't want it enough to go through all the work to try. I don't know if you can do this in Unity, or in KSP. There'd be no crazy high pull at the center because of the concentric nature of the two SOIs and the fact that the inner one had no gravity. Then anything within the center SOI would just slowly wander toward the outer SOI, and when it hit that SOI it would get gently nudged back. These two SOIs would orbit the planet in step with the moon, 60 degrees ahead and behind it*.

The smaller of the two SOIs would then have *0* gravity. One way to do this mathematically within the confines of the patched conic system is to have 2 concentric SOIs, the larger being about the size of about where stuff would tend to - if it wandered there on its own - stay in place. Given to how close to real orbital mechanics the whole rest of the game is, I believe it's better without them.Really what people want is a spot where stuff tends to stay there, relative to the planet and moon.

But the practical implementation would give people very distorted perception of how particularly these two lagrangian points work. if that'd be only limited to L1 and L2, I see it as technically possible. The only thing we can say KSP is short of are L1 and L2. 元, L4, and L5 can be simulated in KSP with high precision. L4, and L5 are stable in the sense that the gravity potential forms a local extreme there rather than a saddle, but objects which are not exactly in the center appear to be orbiting an invisible body in the center along very elongated orbits. L1, L2, and 元 are unstable and to keep anything in them it must be maintained on rather intricate lissajous-style orbit which prevents it from exiting along one of possible escape routes. Objects in Lagrangian points are kind of like orbiting a body which isn't there. In an Earth-Moon centric system the object at a Lagrange point appears to be stationary instead of constantly in motion around a body.

It's useful for the same reason geosynchronous orbits are useful. Aside from staying in a stable orbit, it's also staying in a constant position relative to the other bodies.

Kerbal space program 2 lagrange points