Add a planet in a retrograde orbit.

[Galane]

Up the difficult mission level with a retrograde orbiting planet. Players would love that.

[Sky_walker]

What? No.

I definietly would hate that. Because game is suppose to have educational value - it should be kept realistic. And while you might argue about intercepting rogue planets, etc. these are so extreme cases that shouldn't even be taken into account.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Sky_walker

[MartGonzo]

What? No.

I definietly would hate that. Because game is suppose to have educational value - it should be kept realistic. And while you might argue about intercepting rouge planets, etc. these are so extreme cases that shouldn't even be thaen into account.

it's not impossible

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17603-planet-found-orbiting-its-star-backwards-for-first-time.html

I like the idea, the game would benefit from some more difficult missions for more experienced players

perhaps a small body even more distant than Eeloo requring either massive vessels or a refueling stop.

[wasmic]

it's not impossible

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17603-planet-found-orbiting-its-star-backwards-for-first-time.html

I like the idea, the game would benefit from some more difficult missions for more experienced players

perhaps a small body even more distant than Eeloo requring either massive vessels or a refueling stop.

Going twice as far as Eeloo won't require much more fuel than going to Eeloo - it'll just take much longer time.

[MartGonzo]

Going twice as far as Eeloo won't require much more fuel than going to Eeloo - it'll just take much longer time.

true, now I think about it, if it was far out it wouldn't matter too much that it was retrograde either.

if it were close to the sun and retrograde it would require a lot more fuel

[Joonatan1998]

I think it should be just an Pol-size asteroid.

Would also be more realistic.

(retrograde planets are possible, just unlikely.)

[TKO]

I like the idea of a challenge planet that orbits in the other direction. KSP isn't necessarity supposed to be limited to being analogous to our solar system (or a 'typical' solar system.) It's a game, and games should be fun. Adding this planet would be a fun challenge.

Some of the real propellor-heads out there who can bulls-eye womp rats back home on their T-16 might be able to get it first time. But I bet many players out there (me included) will have to think hard about how to achieve a good interception trajectory with this one.

[SofusRud]

or how about a moon that orbits retrograde amongst other moons that don't? That's on my GP2 wishlist, along with at moon with its own smaller moon

[Pax Kerbana]

I really like this idea.

I am imagining a comet with an irregular shape like 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko with a highly eccentric orbit, fast rotation, significant axial tilt, and just enough gravity to make it interesting and landable.

Double bonus points if it passes between Kerbin's orbit of Kerbol and extends far past Eeloo. Double quadruple (8x!) bonus points if it develops a tail when approaching Kerbol!

That would be fun!

[Rath]

I really like this idea.

I am imagining a comet with an irregular shape like 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko with a highly eccentric orbit, fast rotation, significant axial tilt, and just enough gravity to make it interesting and landable.

Double bonus points if it passes between Kerbin's orbit of Kerbol and extends far past Eeloo. Double quadruple (8x!) bonus points if it develops a tail when approaching Kerbol!

That would be fun!

X16 points if the tail can damage you spacecraft!

[Sky_walker]

it's not impossible.

You didn't even read my post.

I specifically stated it's an extreme case that shouldn't be taken into account. Never said that it's impossible.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Sky_walker

[TKO]

@skywlker ..You're right, in that it's certainly a rare thing. So, from an educational perspective about what solar-systems look like, it could be argued that it shouldn't be included in KSP. (Though, having it there could educate people to the fact that counter-orbital planets do exist too, so it does have educational value ..until this thread I don't think I was aware such things existed.)

I would argue, from the perspective of a game that teaches people orbital mechanics .. and, as a game that's presumably adding planets that are interesting and challenging to get to, it should absolutely be in there. So it could be argued either way. Exactly how much restraint (for the sake of realism) is used in designing this game is down to Squad to decide, I guess.

[Redshift OTF]

Perhaps add Kuiper belt style bodies. Or maybe planets that have their axis on their side.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

or how about a moon that orbits retrograde amongst other moons that don't? That's on my GP2 wishlist, along with at moon with its own smaller moon

Moons of moons are pretty much impossible unless both the planet and the moon are VERY far from their parents. However, a retrograde moon is definitely possible; see Triton in real life. Not sure about it having be close to non-retrograde moons, though. Triton has probably destroyed Neptune's original moon system except for some small inner moons.