Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Investigate if Davenport's q-method could be used in the pile-up #2966

Closed
pleroy opened this issue Apr 30, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Investigate if Davenport's q-method could be used in the pile-up #2966

pleroy opened this issue Apr 30, 2021 · 2 comments
Milestone

Comments

@pleroy
Copy link
Member

pleroy commented Apr 30, 2021

This would avoid the cheesy hacky selection of the "reference part".

See this post and the articles that it references for details.

@pleroy
Copy link
Member Author

pleroy commented Apr 21, 2022

TL;DR: Davenport's Q method is more principled and makes the code much simpler than the old heuristic. It doesn't, however, result in significantly different behaviours, except perhaps in situations involving high aerodynamic forces, which are anyway hard to analyze because they tend to be chaotic.

The curves below give the angular frequency of the pile-up over time. The blue curve is for Davenport's Q method, the yellow curve for the old heuristic.

First test case: the sounding rocket in #2519:

rocket
Clearly, there are no visible differences, other than Davenport keeping the rocket intact for a few more seconds. This vessel is very rigid, so that's not unexpected.

Second test case: the extreme spin-up reported by @scimas in #2519.

Before the rapid unscheduled disassembly:
scimas_stock
and after:
scimas_stock2
The time shift in the second graph is believed to be an effect of the chaotic nature of the RUD. Because the vessel is less rigid that in the previous test case, the curves differ somewhat, but they remain quite similar. In particular, the absurdly fast spin-up has no physical reality (it should amortize) but it is probably due to KSP being insane and not to the way we handle rotations.

Third test case: same as above, but with FAR.

The two graphs below show what happens after the RUD (the evolution before the RUD is not all that interesting) in two experiments:
scimas_far
scimas_far2
Note first that the chaotic nature of the system makes it really hard to obtain reproducible results. There are however significant differences in the angular frequency profiles, with Davenport exhibiting less oscillations and slower rotation overall. Interestingly, FAR results in a much slower spin-up than the stock game, and the oscillations do amortize. This supports our suspicion that the stock aerodynamic has serious problems.

@eggrobin eggrobin added this to the Hermite milestone May 1, 2022
@eggrobin eggrobin closed this as completed May 1, 2022
@JovietUnion
Copy link

JovietUnion commented May 1, 2022 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants