Recommended Posts

I was wondering about radioactive, unless Laythe itself is chucking particles into it's atmosphere. It's obviously got an extremely strong magnetic field, and that interacting with Jool's must cause some spectacular stuff given it's a generator rotor, effectively :P. There's been a lot of discussion about what Laythe is made of over the years, might be nice to revisit that with an eye on enhancing it rather than changing it completely.

Radon gas is a bit of a problem in high granite areas, but yes nobody worries about sitting on solid granite. Coal-fired powerstation efflux is radioactive & we never really think of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the surface would be plenty shielded by the atmosphere I believe. How Laythe keeps hold of its atmosphere is another matter, but then that's an issue across the Kerbol system because of the low planetary escape speeds.

Otherwise, Nova's Laythe sounds awesome.

Edited by cantab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cantab said:

Yeah, the surface would be plenty shielded by the atmosphere I believe. How Laythe keeps hold of its atmosphere is another matter, but then that's an issue across the Kerbol system because of the low planetary escape speeds.

Otherwise, Nova's Laythe sounds awesome.

Generally, when building KSP planets, the method of getting around the problems generated by the 1/10 scale is to pretend you're making a full scale planet, then scale down as needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, keep Laythe, although a new moon would be cool. What if we had a moon for a moon? Maybe even a moon with its own asteroid ring? What about binary moons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude KSP ain't real life. Laythe is Laythe, Jool's moon, Not Io, Jupiter's moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with others have been saying in that Laythe should stay, it has become too iconic to change this late in the game, however should proper demand come for it, it IS possible they may add it since I think its a good idea.

Now some may note I just said in another Suggestions thread that the game is content complete as far as planets, but as I said here, if there's demand for it, it will be added. I just say having any new celestial bodies is unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Now some may note I just said in another Suggestions thread that the game is content complete as far as planets, but as I said here, if there's demand for it, it will be added. I just say having any new celestial bodies is unlikely.

If they don't add planets, this game will get stale for me and most people. For me, no new planets is just boring. Improving on what we have isn't going to help much, a geyser and rock formations are going to just become "what that planet has" after a while and get boring. I'm not going to go to Laythe another 20x so I can see those "cool rocks".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HoloYolo said:

If they don't add planets, this game will get stale for me and most people. For me, no new planets is just boring. Improving on what we have isn't going to help much, a geyser and rock formations are going to just become "what that planet has" after a while and get boring. I'm not going to go to Laythe another 20x so I can see those "cool rocks".

Then the same will happen with new planets, it will become "oh another <fill in the blank here>". What the game needs is activities for you to do.

Understanding KSP isn't real and is very far off from real life, however there are major elements missing from the game which make exploration so much more valuable that are missing from KSP. Such as assembling vehicles on a bodies surface (like the Apollo Lunar Rover which was folded up inside the LM), deploying and collecting science experiments (partially possible as of this time, but not near anything like the experiments carried onboard Apollo), performing repair missions (i.e, Hubble Space Telescope repair missions), and just plain exploring. Maybe you have been to that planet, but have you truly explored it? Sure, that's what a map says is over that next hill, but what you BEEN there? Thankfully the game does have a semi-satisfying sense of accomplishment for going and exploring even for no ingame reward (at least to me personally).

tl;dr: What you need is in game activities, to make visiting planets meaningful. Not just drop on it, science spam, hop around and leave. Make the planet mean something. The Apollo astronauts didn't just peak their heads out of the LM and flew back home, they had rigorous work schedules and TIGHT time restraints, whereas in KSP the longest you can "work" meaningfully is about 3-4 minutes. Most of which is sending science data and not actually working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2016 at 9:35 PM, NovaSilisko said:

Enveloped in clouds flashing with lightning, the air laden heavily with noxious volcanic gases. Only occasionally do the clouds break to reveal glimpses of the surface below - either the greenish, choppy ocean, or yellow and white and red landscapes of rock and sand peppered with everything from hot springs and geysers to active volcanoes, every square inch radioactive from the intense radiation belts of Jool.

That is Laythe.

yesyesyesyesyesyesyeyesyeysyeysyeysyeysyeysyeysyeysyeyeyeyeyeyeyeyey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Firemetal said:

Dude KSP ain't real life. Laythe is Laythe, Jool's moon, Not Io, Jupiter's moon.

I'm pretty sure that some of the planets are at least inspired by planets found in our own solar system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly I look at Laythe and wonder where the blue cat-people are.

Would much rather have Moho as the lava-planet though. That or maybe something like a Vin Diesel movie, where you'd better not think of EVA-ing during the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Then the same will happen with new planets, it will become "oh another <fill in the blank here>". What the game needs is activities for you to do.

... Such as assembling vehicles on a bodies surface ...

... and just plain exploring. Maybe you have been to that planet, but have you truly explored it? Sure, that's what a map says is over that next hill, but what you BEEN there?...

tl;dr: What you need is in game activities, to make visiting planets meaningful. Not just drop on it, science spam, hop around and leave...

So to your points. The first... yes... that is already a problem... Is Moho really different from Mun, or Dres, Val, or Eeloo? "Oh another small body with no atmosphere". Basically the only interesting attributes are the orbits. I just added Vesta and Pallas analogues to KSP... they are boring roughly spherical space rocks that vaguely keep Dres company... It maybe makes the map view more interesting to see Dres, "Vot" and "Pact" with nearly interesecting orbits... but then I realized I don't actually want to go there so much (luckily they are small enough that I could get away with lower resolution color and height maps)

Second point: this is something people already do to some extent, at least with surface bases... This isn't a vehicle per se... but I could make a Mun train:

CpZQ8JO.png

But maybe something like KAC would be good.

Third point (but have you truly explored it? Sure, that's what a map says is over that next hill, but what you BEEN there?), and referenced in the 4th point (hopping around): Biome hopping encourages exploration. I've visited far more of Mun and Minmus than I otherwise would have, because of the numerous biomes. Duna... high, low, midslands... poles... they could add seperate canyon biomes, some crater biomes, etc.

I made a planet based on Mars height and color maps... added 10 or so biomes too it. Biome hopping really feels like exploring there. On Mun one giant crater biome feels like another. Not on Mars... the great rift terrain (vallis marinaris) is quite different from the heavily cratered highlands... which are different from the tharsis plateau, or the northenr basin (an ocean for my planet), quite different from the massive volcanoes (olympus mons and 3 other massive volcanoes... I didn't make each volcano a different biome)... which are quite different from the old river valleys, or the coastline.... or the hellas basin.

On my modified Mars... each biome brings vastly different terrain. If only each planet in KSP were as diverse as mars. Biome hopping on my modified mars truly feels like exploring mars to me.

I think biome hopping is fine as an exploration mechanic (and once tech tree is completely unlocked, run the science-> funds thing so there is still an incentive to biome hop), provided the different biomes are actually diverse enough to be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, THX1138 said:

I'm pretty sure that some of the planets are at least inspired by planets found in our own solar system.

Maybe but I don't know why you'd want to replace Laythe. Maybe updating it and adding volcanos would be a cool but I doubt removing Laythe and adding another moon would be a good idea.

19 hours ago, JMBuilder said:

Nah, keep Laythe, although a new moon would be cool. What if we had a moon for a moon? Maybe even a moon with its own asteroid ring? What about binary moons?

That would be Dres. #Dresisreal!

Edit: Oooh you mean a ring...... Go get the outer planets mod mate.

Edited by Firemetal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

So to your points. The first... yes... that is already a problem... Is Moho really different from Mun, or Dres, Val, or Eeloo? "Oh another small body with no atmosphere". Basically the only interesting attributes are the orbits. I just added Vesta and Pallas analogues to KSP... they are boring roughly spherical space rocks that vaguely keep Dres company... It maybe makes the map view more interesting to see Dres, "Vot" and "Pact" with nearly interesecting orbits... but then I realized I don't actually want to go there so much (luckily they are small enough that I could get away with lower resolution color and height maps)

Second point: this is something people already do to some extent, at least with surface bases... This isn't a vehicle per se... but I could make a Mun train:

CpZQ8JO.png

But maybe something like KAC would be good.

Third point (but have you truly explored it? Sure, that's what a map says is over that next hill, but what you BEEN there?), and referenced in the 4th point (hopping around): Biome hopping encourages exploration. I've visited far more of Mun and Minmus than I otherwise would have, because of the numerous biomes. Duna... high, low, midslands... poles... they could add seperate canyon biomes, some crater biomes, etc.

I made a planet based on Mars height and color maps... added 10 or so biomes too it. Biome hopping really feels like exploring there. On Mun one giant crater biome feels like another. Not on Mars... the great rift terrain (vallis marinaris) is quite different from the heavily cratered highlands... which are different from the tharsis plateau, or the northenr basin (an ocean for my planet), quite different from the massive volcanoes (olympus mons and 3 other massive volcanoes... I didn't make each volcano a different biome)... which are quite different from the old river valleys, or the coastline.... or the hellas basin.

On my modified Mars... each biome brings vastly different terrain. If only each planet in KSP were as diverse as mars. Biome hopping on my modified mars truly feels like exploring mars to me.

I think biome hopping is fine as an exploration mechanic (and once tech tree is completely unlocked, run the science-> funds thing so there is still an incentive to biome hop), provided the different biomes are actually diverse enough to be interesting.

Ok, so you've added two more points of light for us to visit but what happens when you bore of them. To be honest the planets you are adding are no more interesting than any other space rock. Issue is, we don't need more, we need to improve what we can do as you mentioned in your 5th point- maybe we can IMPROVE them. You want to add a whole new planet to add specific terrain features, but I argue why add another when we can adjust what we currently have?

Well I'm referring to small one man rovers and the such, sort of things you can do with KIS/KAS (mods I highly suggest to be added in stock although I have not played with them). There are so many activities that we can add on both the surface of planets and just in space!

Something like Kerbal Alarm Clock?... I agree it's a great mod but for some odd reason I don't understand why you would suggest this mod, is this perhaps a typo?

Well typically if you biome hop your after science or resources, not enjoying the vistas around you- BUT if you DO enjoy the vistas surrounding you then it kind of beats my point and I have to refer you to my first paragraph.

Already answered the 5th and 6th paragraph.

That is IF people are looking and not busy sciencing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't understand why you would suggest this mod, is this perhaps a typo" I meant the mods you mentioned, KIS/KAS

"Ok, so you've added two more points of light for us to visit but what happens when you bore of them" - for the Vesta/Pallas analogues... yea, I agree, they are actually pretty boring... the map view of their orbit is the most interesting thing. Thats why I said: "Oh another small body with no atmosphere ... but then I realized I don't actually want to go there so much"

I do think that the Mars at pseudo L4 is more interesting than the others. Its got the O2 that you find on kerbin and laythe. Its got seas, its got river beds/deep canyons, craters, volcanoes, plaeteaus and basins... I even gave it custom science reports to make that part a bit more interesting. So I disagree "To be honest the planets you are adding are no more interesting than any other space rock." -it applies to the asteroid analogues for sure, but the thing is... the mars based planet is based on reality... to me it captures my imagination of what mars may have looked like ~3.5-4 billion years ago (ok, the greenery and O2 atmosphere seem unlikely, as Earth had life for about 2 billion years before the GOE)

"Issue is, we don't need more, we need to improve what we can do as you mentioned in your 5th point- maybe we can IMPROVE them.You want to add a whole new planet to add specific terrain features, but I argue why add another when we can adjust what we currently have? "

Yes, I think an overhaul of current bodies would do more good than adding more bodies. Mars demonstrated the extremely varied terrain that one planet can have. Having only 1 interesting bit of geography per world isn't such a good idea. Dres has 1 deep canyon... and some craters... ok... whatever... Mun has 2 canyons and a lot more craters. Give it some other features.... like lava flats (mares)... give the craters more variety (like radial lines on some[like tycho crater], central cones on others, etc).

Give it rift valleys/graben like our moon has... (also note the hiils/mountains which are jsut hills/mountains, not crater associated)

Rima_Ariadaeus-1.jpg

signs of old volcanism like this:

14284-Moon-Maskelyne-LRO-20141012.jpg

Prinz_crater_Apollo_15.jpg

Not to go too far from just ripping off real life... but how about a Munar dichotomy... with the kerbin facing side distinct from the anti-kerbin side.

As i recently posted in another thread:

"after playing with Mars data... the in game planets are just so... boring. Kerbin's OK, but duna... needs more finer detail. Look at those dry martian riverbeds... and then look at the canyons we get for Duna.... Even Kerbin isn't as interesting as its source material:

http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/examples/complexplanet/

We need to either rip off real world stuff (as I did above), or use more procedural generation.

...

I wouldn't mind if it disrupted the stuff I have on the surface of worlds already (I can save file edit as needed to get them to survive the transistion)"

However, some new worlds wouldn't be a bad idea. There are general worldwide properties that affect everything. Take Tekto from OPM. The thick atmosphere and low gravity combination is interesting. The really thin atmosphere of Thatmo is interesting. They gave Slate some decently interesting terrain, not *that* interesting, but more so than say... all of dres exceot one canyon. (I modify Slate to be 0.37g at the surface, and 1.1 kPa surface pressure, ie mars conditions. Duna is easy to land on in comparison with its atmosphere that is 6x thicker, and gravity that is less than 80% of Mars' my modified Slate).

Sometimes orbital parameters are interesting enough to warrant inclusion of a planet I think. the moons at lagrange points in OPM are interesting... they are tiny, one's smaller than Gilly,  so it doesn't feel like such a waste of space, as when you've got something bigger than real-world Ceres... and its just... empty.

Urlum from OPM, I wouldn't see an issue cutting it completely. Sarnus is nice with its rings, and Tekto is interesting enough that it should be included, so why not place it in orbit of a new gas giant. Gas giants are easy enough to add because you don't expect surface details, you don't visit the surface, so you don't worry about things to do on the surface. They are just scenery to be viewed from their moons. Thatmo is interesting enough for inclusion, and as stated... I don't see a problem with including more gas giants as long as they have one interesting moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/07/2016 at 6:20 PM, Firemetal said:

Dude KSP ain't real life. Laythe is Laythe, Jool's moon, Not Io, Jupiter's moon.

That same reasoning could be used to avoid ever altering the solar system. Kerbin didn't need a Mun because it's Kerbin, not Earth. The Kerbal system doesn't need Eve, Moho, Duna, or Jool because it's the Sun [kerbal], not the Sun [sol].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Holo said:

That same reasoning could be used to avoid ever altering the solar system. Kerbin didn't need a Mun because it's Kerbin, not Earth. The Kerbal system doesn't need Eve, Moho, Duna, or Jool because it's the Sun [kerbal], not the Sun [sol].

Ok then. You are right. But that doesn't mean that Laythe should become Io.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 11, 2016 at 11:43 AM, KerikBalm said:

"I don't understand why you would suggest this mod, is this perhaps a typo" I meant the mods you mentioned, KIS/KAS

"Ok, so you've added two more points of light for us to visit but what happens when you bore of them" - for the Vesta/Pallas analogues... yea, I agree, they are actually pretty boring... the map view of their orbit is the most interesting thing. Thats why I said: "Oh another small body with no atmosphere ... but then I realized I don't actually want to go there so much"

I do think that the Mars at pseudo L4 is more interesting than the others. Its got the O2 that you find on kerbin and laythe. Its got seas, its got river beds/deep canyons, craters, volcanoes, plaeteaus and basins... I even gave it custom science reports to make that part a bit more interesting. So I disagree "To be honest the planets you are adding are no more interesting than any other space rock." -it applies to the asteroid analogues for sure, but the thing is... the mars based planet is based on reality... to me it captures my imagination of what mars may have looked like ~3.5-4 billion years ago (ok, the greenery and O2 atmosphere seem unlikely, as Earth had life for about 2 billion years before the GOE)

"Issue is, we don't need more, we need to improve what we can do as you mentioned in your 5th point- maybe we can IMPROVE them.You want to add a whole new planet to add specific terrain features, but I argue why add another when we can adjust what we currently have? "

Yes, I think an overhaul of current bodies would do more good than adding more bodies. Mars demonstrated the extremely varied terrain that one planet can have. Having only 1 interesting bit of geography per world isn't such a good idea. Dres has 1 deep canyon... and some craters... ok... whatever... Mun has 2 canyons and a lot more craters. Give it some other features.... like lava flats (mares)... give the craters more variety (like radial lines on some[like tycho crater], central cones on others, etc).

Give it rift valleys/graben like our moon has... (also note the hiils/mountains which are jsut hills/mountains, not crater associated)

Rima_Ariadaeus-1.jpg

signs of old volcanism like this:

14284-Moon-Maskelyne-LRO-20141012.jpg

Prinz_crater_Apollo_15.jpg

Not to go too far from just ripping off real life... but how about a Munar dichotomy... with the kerbin facing side distinct from the anti-kerbin side.

As i recently posted in another thread:

"after playing with Mars data... the in game planets are just so... boring. Kerbin's OK, but duna... needs more finer detail. Look at those dry martian riverbeds... and then look at the canyons we get for Duna.... Even Kerbin isn't as interesting as its source material:

http://libnoise.sourceforge.net/examples/complexplanet/

We need to either rip off real world stuff (as I did above), or use more procedural generation.

...

I wouldn't mind if it disrupted the stuff I have on the surface of worlds already (I can save file edit as needed to get them to survive the transistion)"

However, some new worlds wouldn't be a bad idea. There are general worldwide properties that affect everything. Take Tekto from OPM. The thick atmosphere and low gravity combination is interesting. The really thin atmosphere of Thatmo is interesting. They gave Slate some decently interesting terrain, not *that* interesting, but more so than say... all of dres exceot one canyon. (I modify Slate to be 0.37g at the surface, and 1.1 kPa surface pressure, ie mars conditions. Duna is easy to land on in comparison with its atmosphere that is 6x thicker, and gravity that is less than 80% of Mars' my modified Slate).

Sometimes orbital parameters are interesting enough to warrant inclusion of a planet I think. the moons at lagrange points in OPM are interesting... they are tiny, one's smaller than Gilly,  so it doesn't feel like such a waste of space, as when you've got something bigger than real-world Ceres... and its just... empty.

Urlum from OPM, I wouldn't see an issue cutting it completely. Sarnus is nice with its rings, and Tekto is interesting enough that it should be included, so why not place it in orbit of a new gas giant. Gas giants are easy enough to add because you don't expect surface details, you don't visit the surface, so you don't worry about things to do on the surface. They are just scenery to be viewed from their moons. Thatmo is interesting enough for inclusion, and as stated... I don't see a problem with including more gas giants as long as they have one interesting moon

Oh ok. They're what's needed, not new planets or moons imho.

So the orbits the only thing interesting to see? That will still get old and stale as will everything else and to some, it'll be an eyesore. 

Why create another Mars analogue? Just fix the planets, that's simpler and more players will agree. As to a Martian analogue to what it was 2.5 billion years ago, again does it fit a Kerbal image? I feel it doesn't. 

The catch about KSP is it rips off KSP just enough to be fun, not everyone wants RO, even if it only spans to terrian. Some like it bland as it keeps the game simple enough to play. People don't want giant ripples and canyons beneath them as they attempt to land a vehicle that may have taken them hours to get there. Remember, the sights have to be worthy of the expedition, otherwise you might as well view it from the tracking station which is worthless. 

Probably your biggest issue in getting it stock is that it's going to drastically break games and Squad promised, and even made it a specifically highlighted aspect of 1.1, that they wouldn't release anymore updates that break the game (the 1.1 wheels update wasn't supposed to be as broken and therefore not a problem, and it had to happen sometime as the game needed to move up). No one wants their games broken (again) for any reason. 

But what do these planets add to the game other than them being there? Very little. Even though they have interesting design, the catch is many don't want to bother, in fact many people don't leave Kerbin's SOI making the need for more planets useless. Why make more when people don't even use what they have. 

As to the rest of the OPM planets it's again only down to preference and many will say to add it, and many will say not to (such as myself) but the biggest issue is that I feel it doesn't fit the Kerbal image, and mostly, its efforts only a few will care or bother to notice.

Always remember that it has to be worth going to for the average player so planets with extreme orbits are out as is extreme terrain, as no one wants to risk something that has taken many hours to create, assemble, fly and then attempt landing with just to visit. 

Lastly some would argue that the Kerbal system is busy enough with 17 bodies. However I come back to the same point I've mention before, I feel that the system is a perfect analogue of our system whilst being true to its own.

Again, this is just my opinion and any can differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Oh ok. They're what's needed, not new planets or moons imho.

Huh? what is what's needed? more detail on existing worlds?

 

Quote

So the orbits the only thing interesting to see? That will still get old and stale as will everything else and to some, it'll be an eyesore. 

Indeed, and you should have detected a definite lack of enthusiasm for the two added "asteroids" to keep Dres company.

 

Quote

Why create another Mars analogue? Just fix the planets, that's simpler and more players will agree. As to a Martian analogue to what it was 2.5 billion years ago, again does it fit a Kerbal image? I feel it doesn't. 

Well, I feel they are different enough. Its modeled on Mars' terrain, but its not like Mars today. Much thicker atmosphere, seas, another "kerbin like" world, since in the end Laythe isn't so kerbin like (laythe ias actually kind of boring, because its mostly featureless oceans, and shallow sand bars)

That world with O2, oceans, etc is quite different from Duna. In fact I had first intended to change duna.

http://i.imgur.com/3TmajFC.png

http://i.imgur.com/cVQ8ku2.png

http://i.imgur.com/Q2cWEOk.png

http://i.imgur.com/8NeGgo9.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/y0yNitv.jpg (or just look at some of the images from my post on the previous page)

But then I felt that there was a big difference between the two versions, and in fact I wanted planets like both. One that looks like a dead world with signs of ancient water and such... like stock duna or real mars. The other is a world that is still "living", but perhaps "dying". So I made two additional versions of Duna one with more water and atmosphere than the other, and with blues seas and skies (Folder names: DyingDuna and VibrantDuna - which I planned to add the green effect that I applied to Mars). So... wanting to do missions to both types of worlds, I made the seperate planets (rather than switching back and forth in between loading KSP). Since I didn't want one to be an obvious clone of the other... I looked for another suitable height+color map... and picked mars. Maybe I could try with Slate... I don't think I could make a good map on my own, de novo.

The point is that I started with modifying Duna, and IMO the results are planets that did not feel redundant to me, so I found a new heightmap to suit my purposes.

Quote

The catch about KSP is it rips off KSP just enough to be fun, not everyone wants RO, even if it only spans to terrian. Some like it bland as it keeps the game simple enough to play. People don't want giant ripples and canyons beneath them as they attempt to land a vehicle that may have taken them hours to get there. Remember, the sights have to be worthy of the expedition, otherwise you might as well view it from the tracking station which is worthless. 

Yes, I would like it if the planet wasn't so obviously recognizable as mars. the giant ripples and canyons that you see in mars actually don't make it so hard to land... its actually easier to land on that mars-inspired planet than duna. Its flatter almost everuywhere than you average duan terrain, unless you are going to land on one of hte easily identifiable and avoidable terrain features like vallis marinaris or olympus mons. Duna's terrain is not very flat at all, its sloped all over the place. I feel that the mars-inspired world is both more visually appealing, and easier to land on.

As for the moon like features: the lava basins would be easier to land on than the rest of Mun. The Procedural craters they added didn't make it easier to land on, did they? Graben would be nice and flat at the bottom to land on, just don't land on the edge... just like oyu shouldn't land near a crater rim. The canyons are worse to land on than anything I suggested. I don't think this is a valid point.

 

Quote

Probably your biggest issue in getting it stock is that it's going to drastically break games and Squad promised, and even made it a specifically highlighted aspect of 1.1, that they wouldn't release anymore updates that break the game

Well, that's one argument for adding new planets, but then if the new planets are highly detailed, and the old are bland, that doesn't look very nice either.

Also, game breaking is a bit of an exaggeration. #1) if you only change about 1% of the surface of a body (you can make it a lot more interesting by changing only 1%), most surface bases and landed landers will be fine. (#2) most players have very little on the surface of other worlds as manty don't even leave kerbin's SOI. (#3) AFAIK, the higher of a landed vessel with the state "landed" in the save file will automatically adjust to a new terrain height. Its only when there are significant changes in slope/flatness that a landed craft may have problems. This isn't so gamebreaking as simple text editing will fix this (or they could change it so that landed state will adjust height and orientation upon loading)

 

Quote

But what do these planets add to the game other than them being there? Very little. Even though they have interesting design, the catch is many don't want to bother, in fact many people don't leave Kerbin's SOI making the need for more planets useless. Why make more when people don't even use what they have. 

Well, gas giants are easy to create, and don't need to be very detailed... jsut a cloud pattern, and maybe a ring pattern: done. You now have a place to place a new moon if you decide that one more is warranted. (Ie  Tekto/a Titan analogue).

Gilly sized moons and smaller are also quick to makeand don't require much detail or resources.

Its actually a relatively small investment

 

Quote

As to the rest of the OPM planets it's again only down to preference and many will say to add it, and many will say not to (such as myself) but the biggest issue is that I feel it doesn't fit the Kerbal image, and mostly, its efforts only a few will care or bother to notice.

I feel that OPM does seem to fit in with the KSP setting... but maybe not my rip of mars terrain... But part of the issue here is that the KSP world artwork is actually pretty bland. You land in one place, and aren't really interested to go see what is over the next hill, or what its like somewhere else.

Quote

Always remember that it has to be worth going to for the average player so planets with extreme orbits are out as is extreme terrain, as no one wants to risk something that has taken many hours to create, assemble, fly and then attempt landing with just to visit.

Well, I didn't say extreme orbits, I said interesting. A lot of the fun is in the journey, the orbital mechanics.

Its fun to try and plot courses to these more unusual orbital configurations.

Transfering from a body to a body at L4/5? rendevousing with an eliptical inclined orbit (ie, like gilly), etc... its interesting and adds value, IMO.

Its not like people go to Gilly to see the terrain of Gilly, its a tiny space potato, and thats it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2016 at 6:56 AM, KerikBalm said:

laythe wouldn't be radioative from Jool radiation.

There is a big difference between radioactive, and radiation.

Bad wording on my part. "Bombarded by radiation" would be a better way to say it. I am not so sure about the surface radiation environment being classifiable as "benign" though? Maybe benign in comparison to, say, Io, but versus Kerbin or Earth it would be varying levels of deathtrap (to say nothing of the other deathtrappy features)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, due to the lower mass, the scale height should be higher (it is for a bit anyway, jets cut out at higher altitudes now, although not when you made it).

As you originally made it, it had 0.8 Atms. Assuming its composition is comparable (thats the way it is now based on the MW of the gas), then the mass of the aircolumn overhead is equivalent to 0.8* 761mm of Hg,

As far as shielding from radiation, its pretty much just mass that matters. Mercury is denser than lead.

Assuming an equal scale hieght and temperature, and even taking 0.6 Atms that it is now, that atmosphere is still equivalent to over half a meter of lead shielding.

I'm pretty sure that would be enough... but high altitude flight would be deadly. I'm not going to do the math here, but by10km, that shielding is basically gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 11:35 PM, NovaSilisko said:

Enveloped in clouds flashing with lightning, the air laden heavily with noxious volcanic gases. Only occasionally do the clouds break to reveal glimpses of the surface below - either the greenish, choppy ocean, or yellow and white and red landscapes of rock and sand peppered with everything from hot springs and geysers to active volcanoes, every square inch radioactive from the intense radiation belts of Jool.

That is Laythe.

I love this idea. Laythe could be like a primordial moon with enough tidal forces, volcanic activity, and greenhouse effects to sustain a relatively warm temperature. A planet-sized Yellowstone.

The clouds and ocean could be green from chlorine akin to Jool's atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2016 at 8:54 PM, KerikBalm said:

Assuming its composition is comparable (thats the way it is now based on the MW of the gas), then the mass of the aircolumn overhead is equivalent to 0.8* 761mm of Hg,

As far as shielding from radiation, its pretty much just mass that matters. Mercury is denser than lead.

Assuming an equal scale hieght and temperature, and even taking 0.6 Atms that it is now, that atmosphere is still equivalent to over half a meter of lead shielding.

Ok, my earlier post, discussing the scale height and mass blah blah wasn't accurate and was overcomplicating things.

The air pressure is proportional to the *weight* of the air colmun above it - not the mass. Its that weight that causes the pressure - ignore scale heigh and temperature, etc.

--- assuming other laws of physics are obeyed, there could of course be a layer of 1 atm air that decreases to 0.01 atm in X distance, with temperature, gravity, and MW values that are just not possible IRL, and would not produce an air column of enough mass to produce that 1 atmosphere of pressure ---

If laythe's atmosphere is 0.6 atms, that means the weight of the air above a given surface area it is 60% of what it would be on Kerbin. However, weight is a product of mass and gravity. So as it was originally made 0.8 Atms and 0.8 Gs would mean its atmosphere actually had the same mass per unit area as Kerbin. So assuming kerbin is equal to earth, thats as if you had radiation shielding equivalent to a layer of mercury 761mm thick ... or a 909mm thick lead shield since lead is less dense than mercury(761*13.56/11.34).

Now... I'm not an expert on the radiation in radiation belts... but that much lead shielding seems like a lot - especially considering that its more than adequate for all the particle radiation for earthly nuclear reactors - jool/jupiter don't concentrate gamma rays or neutron radiation in their belts... but maybe the charged particles are still more energetic than the energies of charged particles released by radioactive decay/nuclear fission.

As it is now... one would expect the air over a kerbal's head at sea level to equal 682 mm of lead shielding (0.6/0.8 * 909 = 682.48)

If 2/3 of a meter of lead shielding doesn't stop almost all of it, the kerbals have no hope for avoiding it by buying habs under the surface, or under shallow water, or making radiation protected crew quarters in their craft... and anywhere near Jool would just be hopelessly off limits to kerbaled exploration.

The surface of laythe should be just fine from a radiation standpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that it was the mass of the nuclei in the atoms of the shielding material that determined how effective it is at stopping radiation, rather than the collective mass of the whole shield (or air column, in your comparison)?

Edited by NovaSilisko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to radiation shielding, its mostly just mass. There are some other considerations, but by and large, you just want as much mass as possible between yourself and the radiation source. Larger nuclei are often desirable because its a lot more compact. To have a shield of 1 KG mass per unit area take a lot less space if you use lead instead of styrofoam.

Looking into it more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

What we're be concerned with is proton and electron radiation... according to wikipedia, alpha particles are much less prevalent.

Neutron radiation is not increased, cosmic rays are not increased. For neutron radiation, lead isn't desirable anyway - you want lower mass material with a higher neutron absorption cross section. For lead shielding - at least thin lead shielding for high energy beta particles, you don't want lead because of secondary radiation.. but once the lead is thick enough the secondary radiation is stopped too.

http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/custom-manufacturing-fabricating/radiation-shielding-materials

Quote

In some cases, lead is ineffective in stopping beta particles because they can produce secondary radiation when passing through elements with a high atomic number and density. Instead, plastic can be used to form an efficient barrier for dealing with high-energy beta radiation. When negatively charged beta particles hit a high-density material, such as tungsten, the electrons are blocked, but the target which the barrier is intended to protect can actually become irradiated.

...

Neutron Shielding

...

Materials composed of low atomic number elements are preferable for stopping this type of radiation because they have a higher probability of forming cross-sections that will interact with the neutrons. Hydrogen and hydrogen-based materials are well-suited for this task. Compounds with a high concentration of hydrogen atoms, such as water, form efficient neutron barriers in addition to being relatively inexpensive shielding substances. However, low density materials can emit gamma rays when blocking neutrons, meaning that neutron radiation shielding is most effective when it incorporates both high and low atomic number elements. The low-density material can disperse the neutrons through elastic scattering, while the high-density segments block the subsequent gamma rays with inelastic scattering.

I work with low level radioactive substances 32P and 35S which are beta and alpha emitters respectively. We're told to avoid lead with the 32P because of the secondary radiation... but its not such a big difference:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17228183

Quote

Radiation protection literature is ubiquitous in advising the placement of plastic first to absorb all the beta particles before any lead shielding is used. This advice is based on the well established theory that radiative losses (bremsstrahlung production) are more prevalent in higher atomic number (Z) materials than in low Z materials ... 2 mm of additional lead is sufficient to correct the "mistake" of placing the lead first; and for equal thicknesses or weights of lead and plastic, lead is a more efficient radiation shield than plastic.

^ while the lead was ultimately more efficient that plastic, its not a huge difference.

While my understanding is imperfect to be sure (I'm a biologist that uses 32P and 35S to label biomolecules... not a particle physicist), my understanding, at least for my purposes, is that while different materials have different shielding effectivenesses per unit mass, the differences aren't so huge, and putting more mass between yourself and the source is a good thing. Of course... distance is often even better, but that doesn't work for laythe :P

http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/sp-3.20.0b/ovidweb.cgi?QS2=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

 

Quote

Data gathered over many years revealed a very complicated radiation environment in space. Two trapped-radiation belts had been found to surround the earth, an inner proton belt and an outer electron belt. Energy spectra and spatial distributions in these belts are determined by the earth’s magnetic field and by the solar wind, a plasma of low-energy protons and electrons. The radiations pose a risk to astronauts and to sensitive electronic equipment. Uniform intensities of very high-energy galactic cosmic rays demand charged-particle shielding for protection of astronauts in long duration missions. The greatest radiation risk faced by Apollo astronauts was from solar flare protons and alpha particles with energies as great as 100 MeV for the former and 400 MeV for the latter.

^ probably a good approximation for the radiation belts of jupiter/jool. I guess laythe would be within the inner proton belt?

I'm not finding much about proton shielding though...its not a common radiation type here on earth (not produced by radioactive decay, nor nuclear reactors)

Edited by KerikBalm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.