What are some of your planetary, planetary features, solar system or solar system features ideas?

[Incarnation of Chaos]

13 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

BTW I've come around on one topic I've been negative about, largely through the thinking in this thread. N-body physics, at least in some simplified form. 

Reason being, I would really like to see close-orbiting eclipsing binaries and similar systems -- something close to their Roche limit. And you really can't do this without N-body physics. 

It would be worth the extra complications regarding orbits, but it would require proper support from the UI and other gameplay systems so orbits wouldn't decay unpredictably; at least we would need helpers to find and verify stable orbits.

You're going to hope that the "deeper access to systems modders didn't even have access to" means principia is ported/rebuilt for KSP2 quickly. The developers have said straight up they're not going to do n- body; which honestly worries me. If rask/rusk ends up having a singularity as a barycenter I'm going to end up using it for the first time.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

If rask/rusk ends up having a singularity as a barycenter I'm going to end up using it for the first time.

That would be so egregiously wrong I doubt they’d go that way.

[GoldForest]

8 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

You're going to hope that the "deeper access to systems modders didn't even have access to" means principia is ported/rebuilt for KSP2 quickly. The developers have said straight up they're not going to do n- body; which honestly worries me. If rask/rusk ends up having a singularity as a barycenter I'm going to end up using it for the first time.

 

16 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

That would be so egregiously wrong I doubt they’d go that way.

I think the fix is that Rask with be a Moon of Rusk, or vice versa. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

That would be so egregiously wrong I doubt they’d go that way.

I'm aware but iv'e read several threads on the subject and if they try to hack their way around binary systems it will end up displaying singularity-like behavior; it just comes down to how far they want to push down the edge cases where it would.

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

 

I think the fix is that Rask with be a Moon of Rusk, or vice versa. 

While i really think this is a good enough solution; the way the devs talk about it makes me think it's not this simple.

[GoldForest]

17 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

While i really think this is a good enough solution; the way the devs talk about it makes me think it's not this simple.

Another solution would be to have them in the same orbital path, just slightly offset from each other. 

The ISS actually uses this. It has a satellite that orbits it. How? The satellite actually orbits Earth, but in the same plane as the ISS, just slightly offset.

They could apply the same result to Rask and Rusk. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by GoldForest

[Incarnation of Chaos]

7 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Another solution would be to have them in the same orbital path, just slightly offset from each other. 

The ISS actually uses this. It has a satellite that orbits it. How? The satellite actually orbits Earth, but in the same plane as the ISS, just slightly offset.

They could apply the same result to Rask and Rusk. 

That still would require them to be orbiting something else; which would have to be even more massive than them combined (Which honestly sounds awesome AF tbh)

[GoldForest]

13 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

That still would require them to be orbiting something else; which would have to be even more massive than them combined (Which honestly sounds awesome AF tbh)

No, it wouldn't. 

They would be orbiting the star, their paths would simply be close together. They aren't orbiting something orbiting the star. 

For example sake let's say there's a star with a left and a right to it. 

Rask's orbit: 300km with an eceentricity pushed a little to the left.

Rusk's orbit: 300km with an eceentricity pushed a little to the right.

They orbit the same time period, but at some points they will change who's closet to the star. Like Pluto and Neptune. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

4 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

No, it wouldn't. 

They would be orbiting the star, their paths would simply be close together. They aren't orbiting something orbiting the star. 

For example sake let's say there's a star with a left and a right to it. 

Rask's orbit: 300km with an eceentricity pushed a little to the left.

Rusk's orbit: 300km with an eceentricity pushed a little to the right.

They orbit the same time period, but at some points they will change who's closet to the star. Like Pluto and Neptune. 

Wow; my brain apperently stopped working.

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Wow; my brain apperently stopped working.

Lol, it's very confusing, so I don't blame you. Took me some time to grasp the concept of that satellite orbiting the ISS. It does the same thing as the example posted above. It orbits alongside the ISS and simply switches orbital paths with it. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Just now, GoldForest said:

Lol, it's very confusing, so I don't blame you. Took me some time to grasp the concept of that satellite orbiting the ISS. It does the same thing as the example posted above. It orbits alongside the ISS and simply switches orbital paths with it. 

SpAcE iS hArD

[GoldForest]

6 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

SpAcE iS hArD

Can't seem to find info on the satellite, nor can I find what the orbit is called, but I do remember that they did have a satellite that pseudo orbited the ISS. 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

6 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Can't seem to find info on the satellite, nor can I find what the orbit is called, but I do remember that they did have a satellite that pseudo orbited the ISS. 

Pretty sure they have a CubeSat dispenser

[KerikBalm]

On 9/20/2019 at 10:12 AM, GoldForest said:

Took me some time to grasp the concept of that satellite orbiting the ISS. 

It doesn't really orbit the ISS, these sort of things are called quasi-satellites, and the quasi orbit between them has the same orbital period as thier orbit around the parent body. If they did this for Rask and Rusk, they would take one (rask/rusk) year to orbit each other. If they also face each other (tidaly locking, as it appears), this essentially means they have a day length equal to one of their years.

As they seem to be quite close, this implies a ridiculously long orbital period, and we will still have very funky behavior at the soi transition between the two

[GoldForest]

7 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

It doesn't really orbit the ISS, these sort of things are called quasi-satellites, and the quasi orbit between them has the same orbital period as thier orbit around the parent body. If they did this for Rask and Rusk, they would take one (rask/rusk) year to orbit each other. If they also face each other (tidaly locking, as it appears), this essentially means they have a day length equal to one of their years.

As they seem to be quite close, this implies a ridiculously long orbital period, and we will still have very funky behavior at the soi transition between the two

I know it doesn't really orbit the ISS, as I explained.  And Thank you for the term. Quasi-satellite. 

Yes, the SOI would be weird, but it would still work without N-body. And frankly, I would not be against them using Quasi orbit mechanics if it meant Rask and Rusk worked without some complex hack. 

[Gydra54]

The only solution while keeping patched conics throughout most of the game is to have N-Body physics take over inside the binary system's sphere of influence as a specific special case. I can't understand how else they would do it without janky behaviour near the planets.

[DunaManiac]

I believe that earth has several quasi satelites, the most stable of these with the long winded name of 469219 Kamoʻoalewa. Here is an animation from wikipedia:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Asteroid2016HO3-SunEarthOrbit.webm

[Superfluous J]

We're getting off topic but for Rask and Rusk, they better not do co-orbiting worlds. There are many downsides to it, including that their quasi-orbital quasi-period around each other must equal their orbital period around their mutual parent. Two worlds so closely intertwined would look ridiculous sitting still basically not orbiting (for all intents).

I'm holding hope, the interview with Das Valdez at least implied they were considering n-body for just R&R, and someone brought up a very doable (in my mind at least, I'm not a programmer) solution involving the fact that you will be able to accelerate while on rails means they could - while in the Rask/Rusk combined SOI, get a normal on-rails orbit for one world while also getting accelerated toward the other as if it had an engine running at just the right amount.

[Guest]

On 9/22/2019 at 1:08 AM, 5thHorseman said:

I'm holding hope, the interview with Das Valdez at least implied they were considering n-body for just R&R, and someone brought up a very doable (in my mind at least, I'm not a programmer) solution involving the fact that you will be able to accelerate while on rails means they could - while in the Rask/Rusk combined SOI, get a normal on-rails orbit for one world while also getting accelerated toward the other as if it had an engine running at just the right amount.

That was me, unless somebody else also came up with the idea which wouldn't be all that surprising because it's a fairly obvious one. They are doing acceleration in warp and brachistochrone trajectory planning, and gravitational acceleration is acceleration, so I can't see why they couldn't do Rask/Rusk this way. I think it would be a fairly close approximation of 3-body physics for the system too, while avoiding some of the possibly un-fun complications.

[K33N]

I want to see as many real types of planets as possible. Super Earths. Mini Neptunes. Hot Jupiters. Stray brown dwarfs in interstellar space. Ocean worlds bigger than Kerbin but with the same mass. I would also like trans-Eeloo stuff and Oort cloud objects.

[Ethan Kerman]

On 9/12/2019 at 8:47 PM, GoldForest said:

 

1) Colliding planets. - We have Rask and Rusk, and if KSP had real gravity and physics, those two may well collide with each other, so why not make a planet system that is colliding? Maybe not two full sized planets. Maybe a moon colliding with a planet that created a debris field in orbit. Of course, this is dependent on the "fix" they have in place for binary planets and/or bodies.

2) A super fast orbiting body - whether around a star or a moon that is just grazing the atmosphere of its parent planet, this would give a unique challenge for sure. Would also make orbiting the planetary parent interesting as you would have to either maintain a high orbit or get into a synchronous orbit with the moon. Not to mention the havoc it would cause for gravity when you land on the planet. Low gravity when the moon is over head, high gravity when it's on the opposite side if the planet. Though, you would get a helping hand if you launched in the low grav effect the moon caused.

3) Binary or Trinary star systems - Why not? Tatooine anyone? How about that planet from Riddick Pitch Black?

4) A water world with changing tides - I know this might be hard to do in game, but having to build a colony to withstand tidal forces would be a fun challenge I feel.

5) A planet with a thick gaseous/dusty atmosphere - Think Venus, or Mars during its planet wide dust storm. Low visibility, large rocks scattered around the landing site. Would be an interesting challenge. Not only landing, but taking off as well, thick atmosphere means lots of drag. 

6) A planet that has ravines everywhere - and I'm talking ravines ranging in all sizes, from a few dozen meters to Grand Canyon deep, but not necessarily as wide. A ravine a few miles deep with just enough clearance for a landing rocket... you're going to scratch the paint alright, but the rewards might be worth it. 

7) Seismically active planet - Rask and Rusk might have this, but it's to be expect. I mean a non lava world that is just earthquakes, or planet quakes if you prefer, every so often ranging from a simple shakey action, lander might move an inch or two, to massive quakes that will bounce or tip your lander over. Better bring some weights or grapple lines to tie down the lander.

8) A planet or dwarf planet that had its core ripped out, leaving a giant hole straight through the planet - basically... donut world. Oh come on, you want the challenge of having to fall into the hole and then have enough power to break out of the gravity well... you don't? Why not? It's and interesting challenge and it would be funny to get your vessel trapped in the center of a hollow world, and then have to rescue them... some how.

9) A world with a dormant composite volcano - basically I want a funnel that I can land in. Think Mohole, but with an area to land in at the bottom. Try not to scratch the paint on the way down... or up.

10) Dyson Sphere - gravity would be weird, yes, but that's the challenge. Having to deal with going from landing on the outside the planet surface to the inside of the planet's surface. Just, don't forget the barf bag.

1. PC might explode

2. good mod Idea

3. good idea

4. no

5.yes

6. Dres

7.yes

8.Not scientifically possible, but an interesting idea

9. Love it

10. Good mod idea