Please don't put habitable planets(or stars) everywhere

[kspnerd122]

The universe is a harsh place, and one of my biggest gripes with mods such as GU is the fact that they put a habitable planet in each system.

This leads to a phenomenon called the "Blalo Effect" (Named for the largest culprit of this in GU) Players will always gravitate to the habitable planet as opposed to colonizing and visiting the much more interesting worlds within a system.

I think we should have tidally locked planets, but none should be habitable (this is due to the fact that red dwarfs flare constantly, the planet is very close, this tends to strip off atmospheres)

I think we should have interesting moons and planets, but a planet does not need to be habitable to be interesting or colonizable, what's cooler, a red dwarf with some crazy planets around it, or a red dwarf with a relatively boring system conducive to life, I would pick the more interesting system every time.

This also goes for star types as a whole, do not limit the stars in the game to "this could host a habitable planet" the big, bright, but short-lived stars are just as interesting, massive systems with extremely long orbits, imagine if the Spheres of influence of a kerbin sized world was half that of jool, what kinds of wacky moons could we see.

Larger stars also are far more likely to be in a binary system with another, smaller star, put them far enough apart and you could get 2 systems relatively close together, with the larger of the 2 stars perhaps serving as the main power source of the system, with energy beamed everywhere.

compare this to limiting yourself to habitable stars.

you look up from a planet and, oh, another yellow sun, and before anyone says "but if the star lives a short time it's not worth colonizing" keep in mind that humanity has not lasted long enough to see ANY of these "Short lived" stars be born and die, Just because the lifetime of a star is 500 million years as opposed to 5 Billion, doesn't mean that your civilization cannot flourish around that star for 250 times longer than the anatomically modern human has existed, the star will not go anywhere anytime soon, and its enormous energy output can supply untold quadrillions of people.

[NexustheNinja19]

I would much rather having planets extremely close to Habitability with one aspect missing.

e.g. Planet or moon is just like kerbin but without water, or is too cold or hot.

Or a Kerbin-like world thats too small or doesnt have a thick enough atmosphere

[The Aziz]

Define habitable. Because we only -sort of- know about hints on another planet that looks like it may have some signs of life, which is Lapat. (There's some editor footage) Other than that, I don't think there will be any.

[kspnerd122]

Habitable, as in, Has life, or has basically no hostile environment(looking at you laythe) So basically, if the environment is super forgiving and you could see life evolving there, or it has oxygen, or already has life, its habitable

So I don't think we should limit ourselves to even "close to habitable" just dont make anything close, thats my thoughts

[Kerbart]

That sounds very rational and well-thought out. However, KSP2 is a game, not a simulation, and realism for the sake of realism is known to not be the automatic game enhancing mechanism it's often thought to be.

Unless the game has a randomized procedural generated universe—it's confirmed it doesn't—players will know in advance what systems are colonizable and which ones aren't. Colonies seem to be a huge driving factor in exploration, from what we know (admittedly, not a lot) so far. Incentives to go to such a system, without FTL effectively a one-way trip, would be lacking. If you think Dres is unpopular, wait until there are going to be systems that are 1000× harder to reach with equal destination appeal. And Intercept certainly will not have appetite for pouring precious resources into a system that 95% of players is not going to visit, regardless of how thrilled The Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy is about them.

As not every star in the Skybox is an actual destination, one can only conclude that the Kerbal Institute for Science and Technology has surveyed the skies and hand picked only those systems that are suitable for colonization into its catalog.

I always fantasize on how the game would be if each system, and every planet, would be procedurally generated and randomized with each game. It would be an amazing incentive for exploratory research — you'd have to start with sounding rockets to find out how big Kerbin's atmosphere is — and provide a mechanism of purpose to scientific research far superior to the Career Clutch in KSP1. Counter would be that the research would become just as grindy, as a mandatory exercise before venturing out, and 95% of the planets  would be bland an uninteresting, and the remaining 5% too wild to land on. So it's probably better to have a hand made universe, with destinations pre-filtered for suitable gameplay.

[The Aziz]

Oxygen itself may not be the only thing required for lifeforms to appear. Laythe's seas may be too salty for anything to form, and potential unmeasured yet radiation from Jool may still be blocking that, despite oxygen in the atmo.

There's Gurdamma, protokerbin, with atmosphere and water, but no oxygen - still millions of years before any life could form as the system is very young.

Merbel is an ice world but with liquid on the surface and atmosphere, does it mean it's habitable?

There's a lot of "or"s in your idea. Existence of certain elements doesn't equal habitability, Laythe is dead, Eve is dead, Duna is dead, Gurdamma is dead, Ovin is dead, Merbel (by the looks of it) is also dead.

We know nothing about surfaces of exoplanets, so devs had to improvise based on science. Even if that means they may look like bodies with potential for life.

[kspnerd122]

8 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Oxygen itself may not be the only thing required for lifeforms to appear. Laythe's seas may be too salty for anything to form, and potential unmeasured yet radiation from Jool may still be blocking that, despite oxygen in the atmo.

There's Gurdamma, protokerbin, with atmosphere and water, but no oxygen - still millions of years before any life could form as the system is very young.

Merbel is an ice world but with liquid on the surface and atmosphere, does it mean it's habitable?

There's a lot of "or"s in your idea. Existence of certain elements doesn't equal habitability, Laythe is dead, Eve is dead, Duna is dead, Gurdamma is dead, Ovin is dead, Merbel (by the looks of it) is also dead.

We know nothing about surfaces of exoplanets, so devs had to improvise based on science. Even if that means they may look like bodies with potential for life.

Already said how a system without a habitable planet isnt at all uncolonizable, you just need to work harder, and with the giant pile of energy there around a big star, or a weird system with exotic planets and unique environments, heck, long orbits may be a good thing for colonization since it means less energy to get places(since your higher up the gravity well)

Gurdanama is exactly the type of stuff I don't want, since its heavily implied life will develop there eventually, I and even if a world isnt actually habitable, "close enough" is plenty start to initiating the blalo effect sequence of events

[SolarAdmiral]

I agree I don't want to see a kerbin in every system. But also don't underestimate how habitable the larger universe might be. Every solar system will have a habitable belt at the right distance from the sun. Our sun's extends from almost Venus' orbit to almost Mars' orbit. There's a good chance any main sequence or even red dwarf star with planets has one or two inside it's habitable belt. Also keep in mind that earth's atmosphere wasn't what it is now when life arose. Compositionally it was similar to Mars or Venus. Early life itself turned the CO2 into Oxygen. Life might be possible in conditions very very different than we are used to. Even on earth, life exists in almost every environmental condition. From tropical rainforest, frozen tundra, deep ocean vents, and dry deserts. So life could be possible on worlds much drier, much colder, much hotter, much wetter.

What I would be super interested in, is seeing different kinds of life. We still haven't ruled out bacteria living on Mars, we've detected traces of very early organic molecules in the atmosphere of Titan, we suspect life in the subsurface ocean of Europa might be possible. So that's four possible life bearing worlds in this solar system alone.

I'd love to see planets with simpler life than here. Maybe a Titan planet that has simple floating organisms in the atmosphere. Maybe a Mars like planet that has some simple lichens on sunny rocks. Maybe some little tiny colonies of organisms living next to deep ocean volcanic vents on an otherwise inhospitable frozen world (maybe Puff fingers crossed)

[Bej Kerman]

18 hours ago, kspnerd122 said:

The universe is a harsh place, and one of my biggest gripes with mods such as GU is the fact that they put a habitable planet in each system.

This leads to a phenomenon called the "Blalo Effect" (Named for the largest culprit of this in GU) Players will always gravitate to the habitable planet as opposed to colonizing and visiting the much more interesting worlds within a system.

I think we should have tidally locked planets, but none should be habitable (this is due to the fact that red dwarfs flare constantly, the planet is very close, this tends to strip off atmospheres)

I think we should have interesting moons and planets, but a planet does not need to be habitable to be interesting or colonizable, what's cooler, a red dwarf with some crazy planets around it, or a red dwarf with a relatively boring system conducive to life, I would pick the more interesting system every time.

This also goes for star types as a whole, do not limit the stars in the game to "this could host a habitable planet" the big, bright, but short-lived stars are just as interesting, massive systems with extremely long orbits, imagine if the Spheres of influence of a kerbin sized world was half that of jool, what kinds of wacky moons could we see.

Larger stars also are far more likely to be in a binary system with another, smaller star, put them far enough apart and you could get 2 systems relatively close together, with the larger of the 2 stars perhaps serving as the main power source of the system, with energy beamed everywhere.

compare this to limiting yourself to habitable stars.

you look up from a planet and, oh, another yellow sun, and before anyone says "but if the star lives a short time it's not worth colonizing" keep in mind that humanity has not lasted long enough to see ANY of these "Short lived" stars be born and die, Just because the lifetime of a star is 500 million years as opposed to 5 Billion, doesn't mean that your civilization cannot flourish around that star for 250 times longer than the anatomically modern human has existed, the star will not go anywhere anytime soon, and its enormous energy output can supply untold quadrillions of people.

You hate the idea of habitability so your mind fixates on the habitable planets, creating a bias. Think clearly for a moment, we've seen plenty of planets that aren't habitable. Look at Rask and Rusk.

[Space_Nerd123]

Let's compromise on this. A planet could be habitable but it's hard to get to/colonise. And just barely. Make it so kerbals can breathe on the surface, but its atmosphere is so thin that micrometeorites could hit. Or it's incredibly resource poor. This makes you go to the system and go to the planet, but to do things in it you need other systems. Better yet, a planet with a cooling core that's losing habitability so kerbals are exposed to radiation when on the surface. Habitable? Yes. Ideal? No

 

[kspnerd122]

6 hours ago, Space_Nerd123 said:

Let's compromise on this. A planet could be habitable but it's hard to get to/colonise. And just barely. Make it so kerbals can breathe on the surface, but its atmosphere is so thin that micrometeorites could hit. Or it's incredibly resource poor. This makes you go to the system and go to the planet, but to do things in it you need other systems. Better yet, a planet with a cooling core that's losing habitability so kerbals are exposed to radiation when on the surface. Habitable? Yes. Ideal? No

 

No, you can colonize anything and this is skirting the point here, a habitable planet, even if harsh, is still habitable

12 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

You hate the idea of habitability so your mind fixates on the habitable planets, creating a bias. Think clearly for a moment, we've seen plenty of planets that aren't habitable. Look at Rask and Rusk.

Im not saying that EVERY planet is habitable, im saying that habitable planets should NOT be in every system and we should not fixate the game on sun-like stars

[Space_Nerd123]

14 hours ago, kspnerd122 said:

No, you can colonize anything and this is skirting the point here, a habitable planet, even if harsh, is still habitable

Im not saying that EVERY planet is habitable, im saying that habitable planets should NOT be in every system and we should not fixate the game on sun-like stars

The planet will have obvious inhabitability. Europa has killer radiation within one earth day and we're flocking there. Give the kerbals ability to breathe but make other planets the better choice. Also, Laythe. People may go there for Jool because it's cool for being habitable, but they still go to other worlds! Tylo's a massive destination, as is Vall, Bop and Pol.  Have the option available for those who want it. But others can gravitate to the world's that have other good things about them, like being resource rich. A good 90 percent of new star systems get you a new habitable world to toy with. The Blalo issue is real, but one habitable planet (or moon, habitable moons are great) per system is reasonable. Just one though. 

(P.S. Planets can be tidally locked on other stars, or non-active red dwarfs.

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Space_Nerd123

[kspnerd122]

Just now, Space_Nerd123 said:

The planet will have obvious inhabitability. Europa has killer radiation within one earth day and we're flocking there. Give the kerbals ability to breathe but make other planets the better choice. Also, Laythe. People may go there for Jool because it's cool for being habitable, but they still go to other worlds! Tylo's a massive destination, as is Vall, Bop and Pol.  Have the option available for those who want it. But others can gravitate to the world's that have other good things about them, like being resource rich. A good 90 percent of new star systems get you a new habitable world to toy with. The Blalo issue is real, but one habitable planet (or moon, habitable moons are great) per system is reasonable. Just one though. 

(P.S. Planets can be tidally locked on other stars, or non-active red dwarfs.

 

 

 

Well, the blalo effect results from a singular planet in a system larger than kerbol, so I think there shouldnt be any just to ensure that large chunks of systems arent ignored or never colonized because "Why colonize that when theres a habitable planet" also, laythe in its current state shouldnt exist, the atmosphere would be ripped off near instantly on astronomical timescales from all the ionizing radiation.

[Space_Nerd123]

 

Just now, kspnerd122 said:

Well, the blalo effect results from a singular planet in a system larger than kerbol, so I think there shouldnt be any just to ensure that large chunks of systems arent ignored or never colonized because "Why colonize that when theres a habitable planet" also, laythe in its current state shouldnt exist, the atmosphere would be ripped off near instantly on astronomical timescales from all the ionizing radiation.

You have the effect of habitability bringing excitement to a system. You'll never go if you have 21 boring bodies. Also, Laythe could have an atmosphere that replenishes itself by a biological process/volcanism. Also, it's core is active due to tidal forces, creating a sustaining force until the microbial life replenishes it. That's why there's a whale on Laythe. Life.

[The Aziz]

2 minutes ago, kspnerd122 said:

there shouldnt be any just to ensure that large chunks of systems arent ignored or never colonized because "Why colonize that when theres a habitable planet"

Resources.

Also, we know nothing about Jool radiation or how it would affect Laythe.

[Space_Nerd123]

6 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Resources.

Also, we know nothing about Jool radiation or how it would affect Laythe.

Exactly! You choose the safer, more resource rich option that might kill kerbals if they go outside. Or you choose the riskier, resource poor world that allows kerbals to live on the surface. Habitability allows kerbals, for example, to walk outside. Build outside. And make a home outside. This allows infinite population (or loads) assuming LS has been met

[kspnerd122]

Just now, Space_Nerd123 said:

 

You have the effect of habitability bringing excitement to a system. You'll never go if you have 21 boring bodies. Also, Laythe could have an atmosphere that replenishes itself by a biological process/volcanism. Also, it's core is active due to tidal forces, creating a sustaining force until the microbial life replenishes it. That's why there's a whale on Laythe. Life.

1. Laythe can't have tidal heating, its orbit is perfectly circular(same goes for vall)

2. Non habitable doesnt mean boring, for more examples in GU, look at Kaith, Borr, Safar, and Mare, these worlds all are relatively popular or at least well known (Kaith is notorious for being a hard to colonize hellworld)

3. Atmospheres get torn off really quickly

4. Visiting non habitable worlds is good, also, habitable planets shouldnt be the easier and generally better places, realistically they are hostile hells

[Catto]

what if lapat is a post apocalypse earthlike planet with skyscrapers cradeled with vines and moss

it's like habitable but you always have the feeling that the same thing that happened to this planet's previous settlers will happen to you

[greenville]

2 hours ago, kspnerd122 said:

1. Laythe can't have tidal heating, its orbit is perfectly circular(same goes for vall)

2. Non habitable doesnt mean boring, for more examples in GU, look at Kaith, Borr, Safar, and Mare, these worlds all are relatively popular or at least well known (Kaith is notorious for being a hard to colonize hellworld)

3. Atmospheres get torn off really quickly

4. Visiting non habitable worlds is good, also, habitable planets shouldnt be the easier and generally better places, realistically they are hostile hells

1: Most orbits are circular

2: Tylo. Tylo gives it a lot of heat

3: A orbit can be circular. Its keeping oceans by being torn apart, cooking it.

4: Removing habitable planets gives no reason to go there

 

[kspnerd122]

2 hours ago, greenville said:

1: Most orbits are circular

2: Tylo. Tylo gives it a lot of heat

3: A orbit can be circular. Its keeping oceans by being torn apart, cooking it.

4: Removing habitable planets gives no reason to go there

 

tidal heating is miniscule as compared to a solar energy budget, orbits being close to circular is different from the orbit being perfectly circular

[LHACK4142]

10 hours ago, Space_Nerd123 said:

You have the effect of habitability bringing excitement to a system. You'll never go if you have 21 boring bodies. Also, Laythe could have an atmosphere that replenishes itself by a biological process/volcanism. Also, it's core is active due to tidal forces, creating a sustaining force until the microbial life replenishes it. That's why there's a whale on Laythe. Life.

I think the whale on Laythe is there because of the Infinite Improbability Drive...

[kerlon_kersk]

 We play in future with current and near future technologies.  BUT, i think its not easy because first u need to find enough of water, Not only resycling pee, and i hope we will not have just primitive ugly base on each planet. Like living in jail. I expected on planets which has differend angle of rotation and different points for living them. I would like to make a colony on small terminator area on planet with almost 90 degree angle of rotation))

[Bej Kerman]

11 hours ago, kerlon_kersk said:

I would like to make a colony on small terminator area on planet with almost 90 degree angle of rotation))

Only for that terminator to move within a matter of days as the planet progresses in its orbit?

[kspnerd122]

12 hours ago, kerlon_kersk said:

 We play in future with current and near future technologies.  BUT, i think its not easy because first u need to find enough of water, Not only resycling pee, and i hope we will not have just primitive ugly base on each planet. Like living in jail. I expected on planets which has differend angle of rotation and different points for living them. I would like to make a colony on small terminator area on planet with almost 90 degree angle of rotation))

Water and oxygen aren't rare whatsoever, especially oxygen.

guess what, by volume earth's crust is about 46% Oxygen, so you won't run out of that.

Water (and oxygen) aren't rare in the outer solar system, even on mercury ice exists, on venus the sulfuric acid contains the ingredients for water, Water and oxygen are not rare whatsoever.

In space you WILL need to recycle everything, you don't get to just process your pee and then dump it in a river, you process your pee enough to get it to the same standard as the water you drink and then drink it again.

You don't need a habitable planet to have a large base

this last point makes almost 0 sense, if you are talking about tidal locking, that's not how it works, the moon still rotates but its orbital period is the same as its rotation period, so 1 face always points at it, if a planet basically doesn't rotate, all parts of that see the sun and there is no static terminator, also, to get that type of planet you need a red dwarf, which are super nasty, flare constantly, and that flaring and dimming tends to very quickly strip an atmosphere off

[kerlon_kersk]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Only for that terminator to move within a matter of days as the planet progresses in its orbit?

Upper and bottom side will always in same conditions. But okay maybe not 90degree, 70-89 okay