Jump to content

Black Holes and Neutron stars. Evidence found?


Black holes or Neutron Stars  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. Black Hole? Neutron Star?

    • Black Holes
      1
    • Neutron Stars
      3
    • Both! I love cool space destinations!
      28
    • Neither... Eeloo is the final destination...
      0


Recommended Posts

could we see Black Holes and/or neutron stars in KSP 2?

I was going to add this to suggestions in KSP 1 and 2 but I decided that KSP 2 is more of the interstellar type and that if Black Holes where going to be in KSP 2, the devs would have decided by now. 

But if the Devs have decided to, how hard is it to implement into a game?

Thoughts and theories are welcomed!

  Evidence:

9 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Also finally found my theorized Black Hole. I found this in the first developer trailer.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-2.png

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-3.png

Which I don't know but looks similar to some art of black holes I found

NASA stages 'Black Hole Friday' - CNN

 

 

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also note I have only found two mods with black holes. Both of which are very outdated. I can't find out what the physics of these two 'black hole' packs are. I think the biggest challenge to making a black hole ingame would be what happens when you cross the event horizon, does your craft just suddenly die like it does at -250? Also, using black holes can make you go SUPA FAST. Watch the first 5 minutes of this video to know how

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a n-body implementation any potential black hole would just act like a normal planet with impossible gravity as you approach the center and a kill sphere when you get too close. 

My personal vote is no, but it's not like I think it's geninuely impossible. We don't know if the solution for Rask and Rusk will actually be a decent substitute for n-body. There's also the question of what it would really offer, what would it do that nothing else could?

KSP2 needs to release and simmer for a while, and then black holes could perhaps come in a expansion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Without a n-body implementation any potential black hole would just act like a normal planet with impossible gravity as you approach the center and a kill sphere when you get too close. 

My personal vote is no, but it's not like I think it's geninuely impossible. We don't know if the solution for Rask and Rusk will actually be a decent substitute for n-body. There's also the question of what it would really offer, what would it do that nothing else could?

KSP2 needs to release and simmer for a while, and then black holes could perhaps come in a expansion.

I totally agree with this, even if it's possible, I don't think it will happen. I think it would be cool to go visit a black hole, but I don't think you would be able to get close, I think there should be a barrier where you could say the radiation amounts or heat destroys the ship and get away with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think why it would not be possible to do.  Given that KSP already 'bends the rules' a bit with planetary size, mass and gravity a relatively small high mass/gravity body with appropriate graphical treatment would probably be doable.  

It would be a nice feature if it can be made to 'fit in'. Maybe as a sort of 'galactic hub' to the other solar systems, if it's a big one, or a smaller one filling a 'gas giant' slot in another system (a 'dark Jool' type thing).

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Define "real black hole" 

I took it as "The closest you can achieve replicating their observed behavior within the constraints of consumer hardware" tbh

To get something really spectacular you'd need a fluid sim, potentially using particles and the like. And when they do sims of this stuff for academic purposes they generally have to let them cook for a while, so definitely not real-time.

But things like Time Dilation, Accretion disks, slingshotting, mergers or even Einstein-Rosen Bridges (Wormholes) could all be fair game, especially with clever use of optimizations and approximations (Which really, it all goes to $h!t past the event horizon anyway. So Approximation is good enough for us plebeians).

Which is why i voted no on all counts; the amount of work you'd need to do on the backend to make these things behave like people "Expect" is quite a bit. And that's before we even get into Issac Arthur territory, using them as Antimatter or heavy element factories and the like. So that to me seems more like "Expansion level" content than just "Eh, bolt this on while we're bored on a friday night" type of stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t really see the point of adding black/wormholes to KSP2, the neighbouring solar systems will be a few light years away, not light millennia. Conventional (if fusion drives and metallic hydrogen torchships can be considered ‘conventional’ that is) sub-light travel will be more than enough to get there without a wormhole, and black holes would either end up being reskinned suns to do it quick and dirty, or take a huge amount of effort to make them look and behave right for the few people dumb enough to fly into one; either way, the dev effort should be focussed on the core game instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Define "real black hole" 

Has the physics to crush your craft and killer radiation and heat like a real black hole. 

6 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

I took it as "The closest you can achieve replicating their observed behavior within the constraints of consumer hardware" tbh

To get something really spectacular you'd need a fluid sim, potentially using particles and the like. And when they do sims of this stuff for academic purposes they generally have to let them cook for a while, so definitely not real-time.

But things like Time Dilation, Accretion disks, slingshotting, mergers or even Einstein-Rosen Bridges (Wormholes) could all be fair game, especially with clever use of optimizations and approximations (Which really, it all goes to $h!t past the event horizon anyway. So Approximation is good enough for us plebeians).

Which is why i voted no on all counts; the amount of work you'd need to do on the backend to make these things behave like people "Expect" is quite a bit. And that's before we even get into Issac Arthur territory, using them as Antimatter or heavy element factories and the like. So that to me seems more like "Expansion level" content than just "Eh, bolt this on while we're bored on a friday night" type of stuff.

Someone was able to make a pretty darn accurate Black Hole in KSP

KpsNYXC.jpg

So I think Black Holes are possible in KSP 2. I don't think they would be that hard, just slap a black sun and add a boundary around it of how close you can get. Because if we go big black hole which I think would be cool, then you could add an area that automatically kills your spacecraft from heat.

3 hours ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

I don’t really see the point of adding black/wormholes to KSP2, the neighbouring solar systems will be a few light years away, not light millennia. Conventional (if fusion drives and metallic hydrogen torchships can be considered ‘conventional’ that is) sub-light travel will be more than enough to get there without a wormhole, and black holes would either end up being reskinned suns to do it quick and dirty, or take a huge amount of effort to make them look and behave right for the few people dumb enough to fly into one; either way, the dev effort should be focussed on the core game instead.

I think Black Holes shouldn't be in the released version, but I think it would be cool if they made a pretty good Black hole after the game has been released in some kind of expansion pack. Who knows how far some of the solar systems can be, we don't know some of them go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Like any main planetary system body. Your craft would turn to dust before you could get too close. It would just look cool (and possibly provide interesting science results)

plus the gravity assist would be off the charts :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to have a black hole in Kerbal, I'd want the space around it to be fully noneuclidean as in real life. I'd want to play with precessing, unstable orbits and time dilation, relativity of simultaneity as I approach the speed of light, Lorentz contractions and Doppler shifting, 3D space bent into 4D. A black sun with visual effects won't cut it.

And since most of the propulsion types in the works wouldn't realistically get close to the speed of light (not to say we won't try), I don't think relativistic mechanics are really being considered as a gameplay mechanic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

I don’t really see the point of adding black/wormholes to KSP2, the neighbouring solar systems will be a few light years away, not light millennia. Conventional (if fusion drives and metallic hydrogen torchships can be considered ‘conventional’ that is) sub-light travel will be more than enough to get there without a wormhole, and black holes would either end up being reskinned suns to do it quick and dirty, or take a huge amount of effort to make them look and behave right for the few people dumb enough to fly into one; either way, the dev effort should be focussed on the core game instead.

no one said anything about wormholes, black holes and wormholes are 2 different things. Honestly I wouldn't mind if a black hole was a reskinned sun with super heavy gravity, and maybe an accretion disk like what they are doing with Ovin. I'm usually on team "dont expect too much from the devs, they shouldn't have to cater to every individual" but this seems like a cool idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cubinator said:

I feel like a black hole without the physics that cause black holes to exist doesn't fit the educational theme of KSP. They'd only include it if it tricked players into learning relativity.

Relativity would require a whole lot of new programming into the game making the physics code in KSP 2 need to be made all over again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Has the physics to crush your craft and killer radiation and heat like a real black hole. 

As long as it doesn't require relativity, then yes i think it is possible and I am  all for including exotic stellar bodies. I hope we get black holes, white dwarfs, red/brown dwarfs, neutron stars, globular clusters, emission nebulae, reflection nebulae.... the whole shebang. I want to explore space and all what exists within it

23 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

I took it as "The closest you can achieve replicating their observed behavior within the constraints of consumer hardware" tbh

To get something really spectacular you'd need a fluid sim, potentially using particles and the like. And when they do sims of this stuff for academic purposes they generally have to let them cook for a while, so definitely not real-time.

But things like Time Dilation, Accretion disks, slingshotting, mergers or even Einstein-Rosen Bridges (Wormholes) could all be fair game, especially with clever use of optimizations and approximations (Which really, it all goes to $h!t past the event horizon anyway. So Approximation is good enough for us plebeians).

Which is why i voted no on all counts; the amount of work you'd need to do on the backend to make these things behave like people "Expect" is quite a bit. And that's before we even get into Issac Arthur territory, using them as Antimatter or heavy element factories and the like. So that to me seems more like "Expansion level" content than just "Eh, bolt this on while we're bored on a friday night" type of stuff.

This is why I asked

Edited by mcwaffles2003
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

As long as it doesn't require relativity, then yes i think it is possible and I am  all for including exotic stellar bodies. I hope we get black holes, white dwarfs, red/brown dwarfs, neutron stars, globular clusters, emission nebulae, reflection nebulae.... the whole shebang. I want to explore space and all what exists within it

This is why I asked

:O

But seriously, it seems me and the OP have a different definition. So i provided that reply for context more than anything else. 

10 hours ago, Vinhero100 said:

no one said anything about wormholes, black holes and wormholes are 2 different things. Honestly I wouldn't mind if a black hole was a reskinned sun with super heavy gravity, and maybe an accretion disk like what they are doing with Ovin. I'm usually on team "dont expect too much from the devs, they shouldn't have to cater to every individual" but this seems like a cool idea.

Then why not just make it a neutron star with a massive debris field created by a planet that wandered too close and got wrenched apart by tidal forces using whatever procedural system Intercept is using for creating rings around gas giants? Since that would avoid any connotations of it being actually how black holes work and be a heck of a lot easier.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A black hole would be possible, problem is how to do it well. one problem is no relativity and no tidal forces. 
And the issue with an 50 millisecond us the shortest time as in planch time :)

All bodies in KSP is an shell around an singularity. Its some mechanisms in place so you can not pierce the surface. However if landed its possible to clip trough . 
I did once and fell towards the center of the Mun, as you get closer and closer gravity and acceleration increases, in the final frame acceleration would be an high number of millions g, 50 ms later you probably be far from the core so gravity is much lower an you keep the extra speed, 
You would get the same effect but less around say an 10 km black hole, you would also not see much as the flyby will be so fast. 

An sort of neutron star would probably be more interesting. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

A black hole would be possible, problem is how to do it well. one problem is no relativity and no tidal forces. 
And the issue with an 50 millisecond us the shortest time as in planch time :)

All bodies in KSP is an shell around an singularity. Its some mechanisms in place so you can not pierce the surface. However if landed its possible to clip trough . 
I did once and fell towards the center of the Mun, as you get closer and closer gravity and acceleration increases, in the final frame acceleration would be an high number of millions g, 50 ms later you probably be far from the core so gravity is much lower an you keep the extra speed, 
You would get the same effect but less around say an 10 km black hole, you would also not see much as the flyby will be so fast. 

An sort of neutron star would probably be more interesting. 

 

 

You made a pretty good point. Never thought of that. the black hole would require it's own programming in order to work unlike pretty much every other craft.

neutron stars though come with their own problem. The pulsars would be hard to program

 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...