Change Kerbol's (Sun's) colour to white as it is realistically

[Spaps]

Yeah, what about that? The Sun is white in the Solar System, why is it yellow in KSP?

Or maybe there are mods for changing Kerbol white in the orbit?

[Brotoro]

You assume that Kerbol is the same type of star as our Sun? It's not the same mass. And you have to assume interesting things about it having a small, very high density core to even get it to fuse hydrogen at all.

[regex]

Based purely off of solar radii, Kerbol should actually be tinted to RGB(1.0, 0.74, 0.49) with an intensity on Kerbin roughly equal to that you would find at Mars, about 4/10 of what we experience.

[Spaps]

Oh really? Okay, that makes sense! Thanks for the answers, also, a mod can close the thread now.

Thanks!

[J.Random]

Based purely off of solar radii, Kerbol should actually be tinted to RGB(1.0, 0.74, 0.49) with an intensity on Kerbin roughly equal to that you would find at Mars, about 4/10 of what we experience.

And based on mass, "realistically", it shouldn't even glow.

[regex]

And based on mass, "realistically", it shouldn't even glow.

True, I was just being diplomatic about the whole thing since, as I understand it, you can kind of infer solar mass from radii.

[Whirligig Girl]

If we assume that the constant of gravitation in the Kerbal Universe is higher, in-scale, what would Kerbol's star class be? (I.e., make Kerbol 10 times bigger and keep the surface gravity it has in-game, what would it be?)

[regex]

If we assume that the constant of gravitation in the Kerbal Universe is higher, in-scale, what would Kerbol's star class be? (I.e., make Kerbol 10 times bigger and keep the surface gravity it has in-game, what would it be?)

:ugh:, now I have to maths... I'm pretty sure it would still be an impossible star because the density of Kerbol is already incredibly low (about 0.165 times the Sun) and the surface gravity is much lower (0.611 times the Sun). Kerbol multiplied by 10 would be about 3.75 times as large as the Sun as well.

Basically Kerbol is entirely impossible, which is why I only consider stellar radius.

[Hannu]

Even the most simple star model is quite complicated set of differential equations. It is impossible to say quantitative values what increasing of the gravity constant would effect without solving the equations. But 10 times bigger gravity would not compress known materials to densities of planets in KSP. We have to make other assumptions of elements and their properties to get consistent theory of everything in KSP universe.

[Brotoro]

If we assume that the constant of gravitation in the Kerbal Universe is higher, in-scale, what would Kerbol's star class be? (I.e., make Kerbol 10 times bigger and keep the surface gravity it has in-game, what would it be?)

I don't know if you can just change the gravitational constant without messing up the relationships of the fundamental constants of nature...

BUT, if you want a star that has 10 times the radius of Kerbol but has the same surface gravity of Kerbol, that would mean a star with 8.7% of the Sun's mass (a quite low mass red dwarf). And a star with that mass in our universe would NOT have 10 times the radius of Kerbol.

[Bill Phil]

I the units of distance are scaled, then the units of mass would be, too, right? If so, then maybe Kerbol is realistic in size, it's just using a unit calling itself kilometers, but isn't kilometers.

[Vanamonde]

Thread closed by OP's request.