Jump to content

OhioBob

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,934

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by OhioBob

  1. OhioBob
    Indeed. You have a real talent for it.
  2. OhioBob
    @Galileo, it just occurred to me that I haven't seen any rings. Are you planning to have a ring system around any of your gas giants? Something else I haven't seen much of is ice caps. We don't yet know what the surface conditions of these planets will be, but if it's determined that they would likely have ice caps, is that something that can be added?
  3. OhioBob
    All the stock moons are tidally locked except Gilly and Minmus.
  4. OhioBob
    Is that the super-earth between Gael and Gratian? Definitely looks there are plenty of places for life to spring up there.
  5. OhioBob
    That's probably the smart decision. This is something I can also take a look at mathematically to confirm. One issue that I have with the stock solar system is that I don't think the Kerbin-Mun system could exist as is. With those bodies as big and as close together as they are, I think that Kerbin would be tidally locked as well. It looks like you're going to have the same issue with Gael-Iota. There are two possibilities: (1) move Iota (and consequently Ceti) farther away, or (2) ignore the problem and suspend disbelief. Either option works for me. I want things to be realistic, but I'm not going to be a dick about every issue. There are gameplay considerations that must sometimes trump realism. If we do move Iota and Ceti farther away, I think there's a chance that Ceti may not necessarily be tidally locked. I'd have to study it closer to see if that's a possibility. Furthermore, even if we moved the moons father away, I don't think the planet could possibly maintain a 6-hour rotation period. However, the 6-hour day is just one of those gameplay decisions that we must accept. Even if we wanted to change it, the 6-hour day, like the length of the year, is hardcoded into the calendar.
  6. OhioBob
    That's what I took away from the article as well. And, of course, be inside the Hill sphere. The problem is that almost all moons are tidally locked (I think there might be only a couple that aren't). However, even if Galileo's moons are tidally locked, I see no reason why that should stop him from giving one a sub-moon. This is fiction after all, not real life. We can suspend a little bit of disbelief.
  7. OhioBob
    I just happened to stumble across this article... http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/44-our-solar-system/the-moon/general-questions/104-can-moons-have-moons-intermediate
  8. OhioBob
    All these decisions are fluid at this point in time. Before I finalize anything on the atmospheres, I'll discuss with you what I have in mind and what type of climates/habitats these planets might have. If we don't like the results, we can always make the planets bigger or smaller and/or move them around.
  9. OhioBob
    I guess it depends on what kind of climate you want it to have. It will undoubtedly have a thick atmosphere and, coming next in line after Gael, I would expect it to have some warm habitats. If you move it out to the fifth position, there will certainly be a big drop in temperature.
  10. OhioBob
    Ortho is clearly the first of the three gas giants. Which planets are Gratian and Thalia in terms of order from the Sun? (I'm already starting to think about atmospheres for these.)
  11. OhioBob
    I just had the very same thought. (BTW, post #1000!)
  12. OhioBob
    More pics, please more!
  13. OhioBob
    I believe KER can give you argument of periapsis (looks like you'll have to add it to your Orbital display). Argument of periapsis is the angular distance between the ascending node and the point of periapsis. This will allow you to estimate the location of the ascending node. Once you've estimated the location of the AN, place a maneuver node there and execute the plane change. For example, if the argument of periapsis is 60 degrees, then the AN is 60 degrees before Pe. You just have to be able to estimate a 60 degree angle to find the AN. (edit) While I was writing this, @HvP posted his solution. I didn't realize that KER included time to nodes. I think his solution is easier than mine.
  14. OhioBob
    Even that little bit off the equator will add a new wrinkle to the game. We'll have to learn how to deal with the inclination that will produce.
  15. OhioBob
    From my understanding, yes, that's the plan. Gael obviously looks different, but I expect its physical characteristics will be the same as Kerbin. @Galileo, is KSC still on the equator?
  16. OhioBob
    @ProtoJeb21, I like both of those suggestions. But I'm going butt out and leave all the naming decisions to @Galileo. He's the artsy guy, I'm the science guy.
  17. OhioBob
    Although I'm the one who suggested Sunna, I'm now leaning toward Ciro.
  18. OhioBob
    I was going by this entry in the Wiki: "Kerbals speak backwards Spanish. Their speech can be heard in the Astronaut Complex as well as the end of the credits theme. However, the credits theme is cut-off at the end, so the music file has to be got out of the game files to hear it. In trailers as well, they speak reverse Spanish (aka "loñapsE"). However, Wernher von Kerman and Gene Kerman do emit sounds like "a-ha" and disappointed groans during in-game tutorials and at Mission Control. Curiously, They seem to write in modern english, not appearing as backwards Spanish."
  19. OhioBob
    I like Ciro as well. (But isn't the Kerbal language backwards Spanish? So shouldn't it be Oric? Just kidding.) I will happily go along with which ever name the larger community prefers.
  20. OhioBob
    @Galileo and I have agreed that, because of the hard coded calendar, the solution with the least potential for problems is to move Gael to third planet from the Sun and give it an orbital period of 426 days (matching the length of the calendar year). This decision has allowed me to go ahead and compute some preliminary physical and orbital parameters. Main sequence stars follow well known mass-luminosity-radius relationships. I want to make sure our sun obeys these relationships to appear as realistic as possible. The formulas for these relationships are empirical, so they may differ from one source to another. For my calculations I use the formulas found here: http://faculty.buffalostate.edu/sabatojs/courses/GES639/S10/reading/mass_luminosity.pdf There two things we know about Gael, (1) its orbital period is 426 days, and (2) the solar constant is 1360 W/m². The value of the solar constant is defined in the game configs, and I see no reason to change it. What it means is that Gael receives the same amount of solar radiation as Earth and will have Earthlike temperatures. From these two pieces of information and the mass-luminosity-radius formulas, I’ve been able to compute the physical properties of the Sun and Gael’s distance from it. We have: Sun Luminosity = 3.3422112E+24 W Mass = 1.9106208E+28 kg Radius = 70,980,000 m Gravitational parameter = 1.2751483E+18 m³/s² Surface gravity = 25.8 g Effective temperature = 5524 K Gael Semimajor axis = 13,984,359,719 m Orbital period = 426 days (2556 hours) Solar constant = 1360 W/m² Scaling it up to life-size, the sun would have 100x the luminosity, 100x the mass, and 10x the radius of its scaled down proportions. In comparison to our own sun, this is a star with 0.87 solar luminosities, 0.96 solar masses, and 1.02 solar radii. This sun is a yellow G-type main-sequence star very similar to our own (probably about a G6). I don’t know if Galileo intends to give this star a name beyond “the Sun,” but if so, my entry is Sunna, the Norse goddess of the Sun.
  21. OhioBob
    @Galileo, I just remembered that the textures you are creating are completely independent of the sizes of the planets. We can always adjust the sizes after the fact if we need to force a particular result. For instance, if we want a particular moon to have an atmosphere but we initially made it too small, we can simply make it bigger. For some reason I was thinking the sizes were locked in, but obviously we have quite a bit of flexibility. Yes, it is definitely possible because it's been done before. One of the moons in OPM has a small moon of its own.
  22. OhioBob
    Looking forward to it.
  23. OhioBob
    I appreciate your input. If the bodies in Galileo's illustration are drawn to scale, and I assume they are, then I'm willing to bet that most of those are going to have some type of atmosphere. Icarus likely won't because of its high temperature and strong solar wind, but I'm reasonable confident that all the other planets will. The small inner moons will probably not have atmospheres either, but I suspect that many of the Gas Giant moons will be big and cool enough to have atmospheres. Also note that the calculations of which I spoke will determine the minimum molecular weight gas that a planet/moon can retain. So I may find that a body can't hold onto lighter gases like nitrogen and neon, but it might be able to hold onto heavier gases like carbon dioxide and argon. So this will help me decide not only if a body has an atmosphere, but what kind of composition it might have. If a body ends up being borderline, I can always give it a thin atmosphere. However, if the calculations show that there is just no how no way that a particular body could ever have an atmosphere, I would have a hard time deciding to give it one. (edit) I just noticed that Gael placed a "not to scale" note on his illustration. That could change some of what I wrote above. Yes, if you want to flip-flop the positions of a couple planets and place Gael third from the sun, that will solve the problem. I can figure out the exact number later, but for Gael to have the right combination of temperature and orbital period, it will need to have a semi-major axis of about 14,000,000,000 meters.
  24. OhioBob
    @Galileo, One of the things that I'd like to do is to make sure the sun has a realistic mass-luminosity relationship. Clearly Gael's orbital properties and temperature are closely linked to the sun's mass and luminosity. Also note that the calendar in KSP is hardwired to 426 days (not the orbital period of the home world). If we want to force Gael's orbital period to be 426 days to be in sync with the calendar, while also receiving the correct amount of solar radiation to have Earthlike temperatures, Gael must be about 14 million kilometers from the sun. That's doable, but with Gael being the fourth planet from the sun, the distances between those inner planets will have to be compressed. If we want to space those planets out and move Gael to a greater distance from the sun, that's also doable, but it will mean that Gael's orbital period is no longer 426 days. Having a longer orbital period is no big deal, but the calendar will still turn over to a new year after 426 days. Obviously having a calendar year that's different from the solar year is undesirable. Surely the calendar can be fixed with code, but I don't know how to do it. If you don't know how either, we may need to recruit a third party to help us out. Also note that if Gael is placed farther out, the sun will have to be slightly bigger and more luminous than the stock sun. This will increase the delta-v requirements for interplanetary travel, but unlikely enough to cause any real problems. It should still be easy enough to do with stock parts.
  25. OhioBob
    Oh yeah, that big moon will certainly have a thick atmosphere. We can make it Laythe-like, warmed by tidal heating. I can envision that planet having lots of volcanos. What have you done with its appearance?
×
×
  • Create New...