Are there any moons or planets you hope to see portrayed in KSP 2? I would be so excited to see a more direct Titan analogue.

[t_v]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Could you maybe explain why rockets wouldn't work, or even jets? Personally, that sounds more like arbitrary rules to me than plausible limitations, not to mention other factors like pressure limits on parts.

If atmospheric pressure exceeds chamber pressure, then the engine won’t start, and air can force itself into the reaction chamber while the engine is running, shutting it off. This actually happens in KSP 1 - try bringing a terrier to Eve sea level, it won’t work. Think of it this way: if the ISP of an engine decreases from vacuum to sea level, it decreases even more as the atmosphere gets thicker. I think jets could work at high pressures (with compatible atmospheres) because the intake propellant is already at high pressure. The point is, high pressure atmospheres pose interesting engineering and flying challenges that could affect gameplay in a good way. 

[poopslayer78]

4 hours ago, Jack Joseph Kerman said:

Probably not more than two, though, as I feel that they'd all just end up feeling the same because of the slight problem of you not being able to see anything normally.

Building on "no more than two" it would be cool to have:

1. a rogue gas giant, possibly with a local system of moons
2. a terrestrial rogue planet completely alone with no moons or anything

[poopslayer78]

I'd love to see a system like TRAPPIST-1 which has a number of interesting properties:

1. The star is a tiny red dwarf with a radius only slightly larger than Jupiter
2. There are 7 planets in the solar system, all terrestrial and some similar to earth in mass and radius
3. The solar system is very compact where the planetary orbital periods are only 1.5 earth days for TRAPPIST-1b and 18 earth days for TRAPPIST-1h.
4. All planets are in orbital resonances with each other

Edited September 5, 2022 by poopslayer78
Fixed planet name

[Ryaja]

On 9/2/2022 at 1:24 PM, Ember12 said:

You would have no need for cooling tech in a cold place. 

My disintegrated space station due to not having radiators wants to have a word with you.

[Ember12]

9 hours ago, Ryaja said:

My disintegrated space station due to not having radiators wants to have a word with you.

You're right, that statement was an exaggeration.  It is true that you have much less need for cooling out there, though.

[Strawberry]

Space may be cold, but its also a vacuum. There is basically no conductive/convection cooling in space due to it being a vacuum. Machinery and humans generate a lot of waste heat, and if this heat isn't dissipated through radiative cooling this heat can easily cumulate. There's a reason why the ISS has such large radiators.

[Ember12]

37 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

Space may be cold, but its also a vacuum. There is basically no conductive/convection cooling in space due to it being a vacuum. Machinery and humans generate a lot of waste heat, and if this heat isn't dissipated through radiative cooling this heat can easily cumulate. There's a reason why the ISS has such large radiators.

I don't dispute this at all.  My only point is that you wouldn't learn an especially large amount about cooling tech in the outer solar system.