Jump to content

Distance between star systems


qwery123
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/14/2021 at 7:32 PM, K^2 said:

0.5c*

* To within ±0.5c.

I cant remember exactly but I feel like in my reading about real-physics interstellar travel they were only accelerating to .15-.2c. I guess you're suggesting they might also want to buff that to get in-game time-warps down? 

One thing to consider in all this is that by the time you're sending interstellar vessels you've probably got an entire economy of other vessels tooling around the Kerbol system, and because all of these vessels require attention from time to time--launch windows, circularizations, dockings, minor course corrections, etc,  max-warping all the way to another star uninterrupted might not really be something that's likely to happen anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I cant remember exactly but I feel like in my reading about real-physics interstellar travel they were only accelerating to .15-.2c.

This was in reference to particles whose positions are recorded exactly. Their momentum is infinitely indeterminate, meaning their speed can be anywhere between 0 and c.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I don't know if this footage has been available elsewhere but one of ShadowZone's recent videos has actually shown example Daedalus craft XYZ departing its orbital shipyard in a recent video. At about 9:23:

That is a RIDICULOUS amount of acceleration if we're going to be burning for months or years.  That was like, somewhere between 0.1 G and 1G. Which is nuts. If you ask me, it implies that although the Kerbol system itself is at a miniature toy scale then it seems that the distances in the local stellar neighborhood won't be. If anything, it almost implies that the planets you'll find out there will be more like the real life solar system in size. Is this a crazy guess? Maybe! That's still crazy acceleration if you ask me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wubslin said:

That is a RIDICULOUS amount of acceleration if we're going to be burning for months or years.  That was like, somewhere between 0.1 G and 1G. Which is nuts. If you ask me, it implies that although the Kerbol system itself is at a miniature toy scale then it seems that the distances in the local stellar neighborhood won't be. If anything, it almost implies that the planets you'll find out there will be more like the real life solar system in size. Is this a crazy guess? Maybe! That's still crazy acceleration if you ask me. 

Either that was timewarped - or, morel likely, we won't be burning for a very long part of the journey. The entire point of these propulsion methods are to create a high amount of thrust at a high ISP, yknow. We probably won't be accelerating the entire way at full throttle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wubslin said:

That is a RIDICULOUS amount of acceleration if we're going to be burning for months or years.  That was like, somewhere between 0.1 G and 1G. Which is nuts. If you ask me, it implies that although the Kerbol system itself is at a miniature toy scale then it seems that the distances in the local stellar neighborhood won't be. If anything, it almost implies that the planets you'll find out there will be more like the real life solar system in size. Is this a crazy guess? Maybe! That's still crazy acceleration if you ask me. 

If you do the math, it takes about a year to get to 1c at 1g. (Which makes 1ly/yr a very convenient unit of acceleration!) If we ignore relativity, trip to Proxima Centauri takes just over 4 years at 1G. At 100k time warp, that would still be 21 minutes of real time. This is starting to get into territory of bad gameplay. This isn't a flight sim where you have to actually fly the plane and long voyages make sense. If you put a rocket into time warp and have to wait for 20 real life minutes, it's not a good experience. And i your acceleration drops to 0.1G, that goes up to over an hour of real time under maximum warp that was available in KSP. And this is the nearest star. This is just not practical.

Distances between stars will absolutely have to be at least an order of magnitude smaller than in the real world. That would bring it to KSP scale. As mentioned earlier, that's still a 7 minute trip to the nearest star under 100k time warp and constant 1G acceleration. This is getting into playable territory, similar to outer planets of KSP, but it's still not great. Distances might have to be shrunk even further. Especially, if time warp with thrust will have to be at a lower multipliler.

So yeah, 1G continuous seems like a lot when you're working on a scale of planets in the Solar System, but the moment you go into interstellar distances, it's still going to take a very long time to get anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, K^2 said:

If you do the math, it takes about a year to get to 1c at 1g. (Which makes 1ly/yr a very convenient unit of acceleration!) If we ignore relativity, trip to Proxima Centauri takes just over 4 years at 1G. At 100k time warp, that would still be 21 minutes of real time. This is starting to get into territory of bad gameplay. This isn't a flight sim where you have to actually fly the plane and long voyages make sense. If you put a rocket into time warp and have to wait for 20 real life minutes, it's not a good experience. And i your acceleration drops to 0.1G, that goes up to over an hour of real time under maximum warp that was available in KSP. And this is the nearest star. This is just not practical.

Distances between stars will absolutely have to be at least an order of magnitude smaller than in the real world. That would bring it to KSP scale. As mentioned earlier, that's still a 7 minute trip to the nearest star under 100k time warp and constant 1G acceleration. This is getting into playable territory, similar to outer planets of KSP, but it's still not great. Distances might have to be shrunk even further. Especially, if time warp with thrust will have to be at a lower multipliler.

So yeah, 1G continuous seems like a lot when you're working on a scale of planets in the Solar System, but the moment you go into interstellar distances, it's still going to take a very long time to get anywhere.

Its pretty sure that interstellar distances will be 1/10 of real life.  The dev has talked about month long burns. I have an filling distances will be 1/100 of real world. so closes star will be 500 the distance to Jool. 
And we will not do 1g burns to turnover, not with the starship we saw is its a bit realistic, it also had centrifuges :) 

<rant>
In my view accelerating until turnover only make sense with something like an solar sail, it does not if you use reaction mass. 
The problem is that the last part of your acceleration only has very little impact on your travel time as its used for an short time before you start braking. 
It better to use an heavier and more powerful engine and say accelerate for 1/8 to 1/4 of of the distance traveled and do an equal braking burn on the end, now you braking burn will have higher acceleration as you has less reaction mass. I'm pretty sure use the last 5% of reaction mass in an burn to turnover actually slow you down as you are heavier and accelerate slower before you finally use it and get a bit higher velocity for 5% of the trip :) 
</rant>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, K^2 said:

At 100k time warp, that would still be 21 minutes of real time. This is starting to get into territory of bad gameplay. This isn't a flight sim where you have to actually fly the plane and long voyages make sense. If you put a rocket into time warp and have to wait for 20 real life minutes, it's not a good experience. And i your acceleration drops to 0.1G, that goes up to over an hour of real time under maximum warp that was available in KSP. And this is the nearest star. This is just not practical.

Nobody knows the upper limit of timewarp in the second game. Also, you know you can do other things in the meantime? While the interstellar ship flies? Do some errands around the solar system (oh I don't know, prepare second ship? Expand local colonies?) and the years will pass without you noticing.

Plus I highly doubt there will be enough distance to accelerate to anything close to c, afaik the devs said the most efficient engines will accelerate to a large fraction of c (and then would have to start braking). But even then the travel time between stars should be significantly longer than usual Kerbin-Eeloo trip. Long enough to feel real, but short enough to not make players stare at the screen (why would they, there's a lot to do elsewhere). I believe there's a fine spot between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Nobody knows the upper limit of timewarp in the second game. Also, you know you can do other things in the meantime? While the interstellar ship flies? Do some errands around the solar system (oh I don't know, prepare second ship? Expand local colonies?) and the years will pass without you noticing.

Plus I highly doubt there will be enough distance to accelerate to anything close to c, afaik the devs said the most efficient engines will accelerate to a large fraction of c (and then would have to start braking). But even then the travel time between stars should be significantly longer than usual Kerbin-Eeloo trip. Long enough to feel real, but short enough to not make players stare at the screen (why would they, there's a lot to do elsewhere). I believe there's a fine spot between the two.

I think the number of notches on the flight UI we've been shown imply we get at least an order of magnitude better than KSP maximum, i.e. a million times normal speed. We may even get another on top of that - so 10 million times normal speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone seems to keep forgetting that there will be higher time warp levels than KSP1. Nate mentioned in one of the earlier interviews that they increased the time zoom for playability. We don't know what the levels will be beyond what is currently in KSP1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...