A reason to dive into Jool

[nikokespprfan]

This is not my idea, it is @AbacusWizard's, @Laguna's and @Snark's. It was discussed somewhere in this thread, but it was not openly suggested. 

Currently there is (if I recall correctly) only the upper and lower atmosphere among the science situations. The suggestion is to devide Jool's atmosphere into the upper, middle, lower and deep atmosphere, and have science situations for them. This makes Jool a more interesting place to visit, (as going deeper can give you "moar science"). And that is, in my opinion, a big deal as it is the only gas giant in the game. Therefore saying: "yea it has no surface, but that doesn't mean Jool isn't an interesting planet" is a good thing.

If you also make the deep atmosphere difficult to get to, (like with a high temperature curve), and add a contract, you just added an interesting challenge to the game, and made an entire class of planets more interesting to players. Because with this layout, players have an incentive to design a ship that can withstand a journey to the deep atmosphere of Jool, and actually go there.

 

Here are the Posts in that thread concerning this topic:

AbacusWizard:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131120-biomes-for-jool/&page=2#comment-2396049

Snark:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131120-biomes-for-jool/&page=2#comment-2396640

Laguna:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131120-biomes-for-jool/&page=2#comment-2396724

Snark:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131120-biomes-for-jool/&page=2#comment-2397056

[cubinator]

Good idea. Another interesting thing would be to have balloon parts that would allow a probe to float around in Jool for a prolonged period of time, kind of like a lander can stay on a planet for a long time before breaking/becoming obsolete. Of course, a balloon probe probably wouldn't last nearly as long as a planetary lander, but it would be enough to get science from different altitudes.

[njmksr]

YES! I love this idea!

[AbacusWizard]

I especially recommend the works of Arthur C. Clarke (in particular 2001 and the short story "A Meeting with Medusa") for _{slightly outdated} speculation about what we might find beneath the clouds of a gas giant.

[Joonatan1998]

If they do this they should also make low altitudes on Jool less buggy.

[The Aziz]

I said that months ago, but maybe it's time to repeat myself.

I see Joolian atmosphere as a good source of fresh xenon. It's a gas after all, right? You fly something there, drop a pipe(?) with some sort of vacuum cleaner, and get some gas. Of course, the lower you get, the faster you collect.

[SSgt Baloo]

17 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I said that months ago, but maybe it's time to repeat myself.

I see Joolian atmosphere as a good source of fresh xenon. It's a gas after all, right? You fly something there, drop a pipe(?) with some sort of vacuum cleaner, and get some gas. Of course, the lower you get, the faster you collect.

It's been done.
 

 

[Snark]

On 2/28/2016 at 7:33 AM, cubinator said:

Good idea. Another interesting thing would be to have balloon parts that would allow a probe to float around in Jool for a prolonged period of time, kind of like a lander can stay on a planet for a long time before breaking/becoming obsolete. Of course, a balloon probe probably wouldn't last nearly as long as a planetary lander, but it would be enough to get science from different altitudes.

IRL, I wouldn't think that balloons would work well on gas giants.  The problem is an embarrassingly simple one:  they're mainly made of hydrogen.  So what do you fill the balloon with that's lighter than that?  I suppose you could make a hot-air balloon... but that raises the question of where you can get a power source that puts out lots of heat and isn't really heavy.

The place I'd really like to see balloon exploration would be on Venus-- the atmosphere's CO₂, which is dense, so you could get lots of buoyancy from a light gas.  Titan's another place where balloons could work well (its atmosphere is mainly nitrogen, like ours, so a helium or hydrogen balloon should work well).

...wrenching myself back on-topic:

Parachutes seem like more of an option (if not as long-lived).  And doable in KSP.  However, they bump up against an annoying in-game issue:  the lack of good delete options for ships.  Once you enter Jool's atmosphere, you're annoyingly stuck controlling that ship, with no way to escape (it won't let you exit, won't let you switch to another ship or to KSC.  So you basically have to sit there twiddling your thumbs and staring helplessly at the screen until your ship finally drifts low enough in the atmosphere to get destroyed.

 

[nikokespprfan]

5 hours ago, Snark said:

IRL, I wouldn't think that balloons would work well on gas giants.  The problem is an embarrassingly simple one:  they're mainly made of hydrogen.  So what do you fill the balloon with that's lighter than that?  I suppose you could make a hot-air balloon... but that raises the question of where you can get a power source that puts out lots of heat and isn't really heavy.

The place I'd really like to see balloon exploration would be on Venus-- the atmosphere's CO₂, which is dense, so you could get lots of buoyancy from a light gas.  Titan's another place where balloons could work well (its atmosphere is mainly nitrogen, like ours, so a helium or hydrogen balloon should work well).

...wrenching myself back on-topic:

Parachutes seem like more of an option (if not as long-lived).  And doable in KSP.  However, they bump up against an annoying in-game issue:  the lack of good delete options for ships.  Once you enter Jool's atmosphere, you're annoyingly stuck controlling that ship, with no way to escape (it won't let you exit, won't let you switch to another ship or to KSC.  So you basically have to sit there twiddling your thumbs and staring helplessly at the screen until your ship finally drifts low enough in the atmosphere to get destroyed.

 

well, you could put up "balloons" with vacuum inside. They would be crushed by the air pressure, so they have to be reinforced. I do not know though if the balance point between what pressure you can reinforce against and how deep you need to go for enough lift is in the realm of possibility. 

Edited March 6, 2016 by nikokespprfan

[Snark]

4 hours ago, nikokespprfan said:

well, you could put up "balloons" with vacuum inside. They would be crushed by the air pressure, so they have to be reinforced. I do not know though if the balance point between what pressure you can reinforce against and how deep you need to go for enough lift is in the realm of possibility. 

It's a fine idea for science fiction.    However, unless you're willing to posit ultra-strong materials, nanotech, or the like, it's simply not possible in reality (at least not with technology that we currently have, or are likely to in the near future).

Vacuum balloons are impractical because gas has a lot of pressure relative to how dense it is.  For example, at Earth sea level, a spherical vacuum balloon one meter in diameter would have enough buoyancy to support a mass of a bit over a kilogram, minus the weight of the balloon itself.  Whereas the force of air pressure trying to crush it would be over 300 kN, i.e. equal to the weight of over 32 metric tons.  And building a thing that weighs a fraction of a kilogram and is a full meter across in size while being able to withstand 32 tons of force is a bit ... ambitious.

And on a gas giant planet, the problem would be far worse than on Earth.  That's because it's made of a much lighter gas (about 14 times lighter)-- that is, the ratio of lift to pressure would be 14 times worse. So in a hydrogen atmosphere, getting that 1 kilogram of lift would require our one-meter vacuum balloon to withstand well over 400 tons of force.

So... not happening anytime soon, I'd wager. 

[Sophistry]

The main thing about Jool-diving I find annoying is the fact that once you've got the Low science, if you're planning on letting it go all the way down to crush depth, then you have to sit and watch it fall the whole time. I'd much rather leave the thing to it's fate once I have all my delicious science.

[Snark]

13 hours ago, Sophistry said:

The main thing about Jool-diving I find annoying is the fact that once you've got the Low science, if you're planning on letting it go all the way down to crush depth, then you have to sit and watch it fall the whole time. I'd much rather leave the thing to it's fate once I have all my delicious science.

Yah, there really needs to be a way to scuttle the craft... currently there's no way to leave a ship that's in atmosphere, you're trapped helplessly watching until it lands or is destroyed. 

[juanml82]

Mmm... I haven't tried it, but how about a small rocket that fires into the probe core as a self destruct device? the rocket exhaust will destroy the probe core and, as far as the game is concerned, that should destroy the ship. Everything else is debris. It should work

[AbacusWizard]

The explosive charges from KIS/KAS might also work, though I think those may need to be detonated by a kerbal, which would only apply to suicide missions. We really do need a way to just abandon a vessel on a collision course.

[Glaran K'erman]

Im tired, and TL'DR. Would love me some Jool biomes.

[Empress Neptune]

I think an interior to Jool and balloons are great ideas. I'm sure many have tried a Galileo type mission into Jool. It was interesting, but the view was a bit repetitive. I don't play science or career modes, so mostly I'd like to see regions that are visually different.

[AbacusWizard]

21 hours ago, Empress Neptune said:

I'm sure many have tried a Galileo type mission into Jool. It was interesting, but the view was a bit repetitive.

Whoa, just like the last hour of 2001: A Space Odyssey!

Edited March 11, 2016 by AbacusWizard

[rotisserie919]

On 3/6/2016 at 8:19 AM, Snark said:

It's a fine idea for science fiction.    However, unless you're willing to posit ultra-strong materials, nanotech, or the like, it's simply not possible in reality (at least not with technology that we currently have, or are likely to in the near future).

Vacuum balloons are impractical because gas has a lot of pressure relative to how dense it is.  For example, at Earth sea level, a spherical vacuum balloon one meter in diameter would have enough buoyancy to support a mass of a bit over a kilogram, minus the weight of the balloon itself.  Whereas the force of air pressure trying to crush it would be over 300 kN, i.e. equal to the weight of over 32 metric tons.  And building a thing that weighs a fraction of a kilogram and is a full meter across in size while being able to withstand 32 tons of force is a bit ... ambitious.

And on a gas giant planet, the problem would be far worse than on Earth.  That's because it's made of a much lighter gas (about 14 times lighter)-- that is, the ratio of lift to pressure would be 14 times worse. So in a hydrogen atmosphere, getting that 1 kilogram of lift would require our one-meter vacuum balloon to withstand well over 400 tons of force.

So... not happening anytime soon, I'd wager. 

One possible solution is to have a hydrogen filled envelope made of material with a low thermal conductivity. From there, parachute in, deploy envelope, heat the gaseous contents above the ambient external temperature and !voila!, controllable bouyancy. Scale to fit. :^) Of course, you'd need a power source to heat the contained gasses but leave that to the modders to figure out.

[Snark]

30 minutes ago, rotisserie919 said:

One possible solution is to have a hydrogen filled envelope made of material with a low thermal conductivity. From there, parachute in, deploy envelope, heat the gaseous contents above the ambient external temperature and !voila!, controllable bouyancy. Scale to fit. :^) Of course, you'd need a power source to heat the contained gasses but leave that to the modders to figure out.

Well, yes, as I mentioned above,

On 3/6/2016 at 7:51 PM, Snark said:

I suppose you could make a hot-air balloon... but that raises the question of where you can get a power source that puts out lots of heat and isn't really heavy.

Hydrogen being such a low density, you'll need a pretty big hot-air balloon to give you enough lift to support something interesting.  And "big" means "lots of surface area", which means losing heat rapidly to the environment.  The balloon has to be super-lightweight, which generally means very thin material, which in turn generally means you can't have much thermal insulation.

And since hydrogen has such a very low molar mass, it's a great heat conductor, meaning that your balloon is going to lose heat rapidly.

And the power source is gonna be a bear.  It has to generate a lot of heat over a long time, and be super-light.  I suppose you could do sort of the inverse of what hot-air balloons do on Earth.  They can stay aloft a long time for the same reasons jet airplanes can:  they don't have to carry their own oxidizer, they just carry fuel and burn it using atmospheric oxygen.  On a gas giant you can do the reverse:  just carry oxidizer, and burn it with atmospheric hydrogen.  So I suppose you could stay aloft a while that way... but you'll lose heat faster than on Earth (due to faster convection losses), which means using up your fuel more rapidly.

Could you stay aloft a few hours?  I suppose.  But not for days or weeks.  So if it's going to be that brief, seems like you might as well just use a lot of big fluffy parachutes to try to make your gradual descent to your doom as slow as possible.

[Andem]

This thread:

Was maybe the third thread I ever posted on? Anyway, the it spawned is related to this thread. A self destruct option for probe cores would be nice.

[DoctorDavinci]

So I am not totally convinced that a vacuum baloon deal would actually work. A hydrogen or helium balloon works because the gas inside is lighter and less dense than the atmosphere where as with a vacuum balloon there is no lighter gas and there is a lack of density instead of less density ... I mentioned this idea about a vacuum balloon to my girl and she summed it up nicely by saying if you multiply something by zero you end up with zero

I'm really skeptical about whether it would actually work. Suppose you could build a balloon which weighed 1 gram that could withstand the outside pressure while containing a vacuum, well it would not rise into the atmosphere due to there being nothing in the balloon that is lighter than the atmosphere ... a vacuum is not lighter than air, it doesn't weigh anything because it isn't anything but the lack of matter

Just a thought

 

 

Edited March 16, 2016 by DoctorDavinci

[Empress Neptune]

10 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

I'm really skeptical about whether it would actually work. Suppose you could build a balloon which weighed 1 gram that could withstand the outside pressure while containing a vacuum, well it would not rise into the atmosphere due to there being nothing in the balloon that is lighter than the atmosphere ... a vacuum is not lighter than air, it doesn't weigh anything because it isn't anything but the lack of matter

Just a thought

 

 

Buoyancy doesn't rely on the air in the balloon pushing up, but rather gravity pulling down. If the balloon is less dense than its surroundings, it will rise. Removing air from a balloon makes it even less dense and it will rise even faster.

 

Think of it in terms of gravitational potential energy, putting something heavy on top of something light is less preferable than the other way around (mass*gravity*height).

[FlyingPete]

I wonder if KSP would allow geographic biomes in different parts of the atmosphere. So combined with a slight recolouring of the planet, you could have "Jool's Upper Atmosphere" and below that "Equatorial cloud bands" "North Polar Storms" "Great Green Spot" etc. Each of these should be hard to actually get to, but be given a large multiplier so you get good science from transmitting data. If you can get the data back out and recover it, an even bigger bonus to reward the combined courage and stupidity needed.

An "EVA report while flying over Jool's Great Green Spot" would obviously give you enough science to unlock the secrets of the known universe

[DAL59]

On 3/17/2016 at 8:31 AM, FlyingPete said:

I wonder if KSP would allow geographic biomes in different parts of the atmosphere. So combined with a slight recolouring of the planet, you could have "Jool's Upper Atmosphere" and below that "Equatorial cloud bands" "North Polar Storms" "Great Green Spot" etc. Each of these should be hard to actually get to, but be given a large multiplier so you get good science from transmitting data. If you can get the data back out and recover it, an even bigger bonus to reward the combined courage and stupidity needed.

An "EVA report while flying over Jool's Great Green Spot" would obviously give you enough science to unlock the secrets of the known universe

Like in OPM.  I think the science multiplier should be lower on all planets but have more biomes.

[SnailsAttack]

Yeah, my jool suicide probe's results were... disappointing. Two rounds of science-gathering for a gas planet? There should be at least 3 layers to the atmosphere, plus different biomes for the stripes and spots.